HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:25:53 GMT

mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:

>>So, pro-"life"s, here's your chance to respond to the question that
>>I have asked countless times on t.a and that no one has EVER tried
>>to answer:
>>
>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?

>18 years of financial support.

Try again.  The mother also incurs 18 years of financial support, in
addition to the physical burden of pregnancy.  This fails the 
equivalency test.

>           Mark

                       -rocker
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:55:18 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>Have you considered the implications of what will happen if population
>>growth continues unhindered?

>Population growth in North America and the world as a whole, is NOT and
>never has been anywhere near critical stages.  Also, the larger pool
>of intellect available to draw from (ie. MORE people) has always meant
>better, faster and more efficient solutions to world problems.

More blatant assertions. Define critical stage of population growth. 
We have a large pool of people, ie homeless, that aren't doing anything 
but sitting on park benches. Use them to solve the world's problems. 
I think population growth outstripping economic growth is bad.

>>Stop these damn blatant assertions.

>Stop sending your brain out to lunch while posting.

How about collecting yours from the nursery? It has a more important
job to do than play ga-ga.


Ron.

PS I'll be back Tues to answer your post in a.a.i. So don't get your
hopes up that I ran away from it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ses3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Summary: Same story, different side
Reply-To: ses3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 07:58:34 GMT

   Mr. Kellmeyer, if you have a point to make, please do so.	
   Guilt by association is an utterly ludicrous means of debate.
   Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, asserting
   A is B therefore B is A is logically fallacious.
 
   In the future you may save yourself typing time by realizing 
that the entirety of the information you typed in was irrelevant
to the discussion.
   
						
-- 
Steven Schwartz  ses3@midway.uchicago.edu B5 f- w+ g- K+ m  r- p!
UCBU President:  No Power, No Authority, Lots of Scutwork.
"Never say never - especially in 'I'll never sleep with x'.  You're bound
to if you do that, unless, of course, you say it with that in mind." - D.P.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:00:47 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:

>> The K of C is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group that is closely
>> associated with the Church.  The K of C gets many tax breaks that go with
>> being classified as a charitable organization.

> The day society starts abusing and rejecting the good works of groups
> such as the Knights of Columbus, we'll feel it instantly. These groups
> do SO MUCH (at least up here where I come froM) for us that I couldn't
> begin to summarize. Yes, they are pro-life, but they have concerns that
> go beyond that. Obviously you judge them by their one belief, not
> by their wealth of goodness...

Steve, there's a BIG difference between, say, a canned-food collection drive
to stock food shelves and the siphoning of charitable contributions into
political lobbying efforts.  When the Sierra Club solicits funds, they take
great pains to indicate the purpose of the money collected.  If you contribute
money to support lobbying efforts, that money is NOT tax-deductible, and the
organization that gets the money has the duty to inform you of that fact.  If
the Knights of Columbus is using charitable contributions to fund lobbying
efforts, they are dead wrong, their contributors are being defrauded and the
IRS is leaving a lot of money on the table.

>> If on the other hand, you want to stop abortions by saying no one can have
>> them, hold it right there buster.  The right to control one's own body is
>> fundamental.  The right to make reproductive decisions is a private matter
>> and not in the domain of the state.  Period.

> Buster? No... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions.

It's good that you acknowledge that there is a NEED for abortion.  I'd like
to see the demand for abortion go down, but legislation will not do it.

> Not even through contraception, but through proper education . It can be
> that simple.  One's own body is not just one's own body when you share it
> with another sentient being...

you mean, like me sharing mine with my wife? :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:40:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr2.224755.14728@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
> Matthew, pro-choice and nazi fit together much better.

Using the term "Nazi" to refer to your pet political cause is trivializing
the horrors of the Holocaust.  This helps make it easier for another set of
Nazis to come to power, because the general population will have been dulled
to the sense of danger by all the hyperbole.

People working to enable the return of the Nazis to power:
   Pete Faust
   George Martin
   Ralph Winston
   Steven Kellmeyer

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: Adoption vs Abortion
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 15:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.055321.19702@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  
mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
> 
> 	The following two statements seem to be fairly common on t.a. :
>    
>                    "Abortion is a cop-out"
> 
>               "Well, Adoption is also a cop-out".
> 
> I'm curious to how people feel about the benefits and consequences of 
> both alternatives. So let's hear some responses folks, and please keep 
> your hands off the flamethrowers. It would be nice to see some 
> constructive criticisms,  NOT new ways of putting down the other side. 
> Here's two questions to get the ball rolling. Thanks in advance to 
> everyone that responds.
> 
> Pro-Choicers : Would an adoption be a resonable alternative for an 
> abortion to you? 

Well, if I were pregnant (which I have not been and plan to not be), 
I would put the child up for adoption if at all possible. However,
there are three problems with forcing this for all unplanned children.  
First, it doesn't help those women who, for health or other reasons,
simply can't or don't want to be pregnant the whole time. Second, it
contributes nothing to the cause of _preventing_ unplanned pregnancies.

> Pro-Lifers : How would adoptions actually help the situation? Wouldn't
> 	     it just create more "unwanted" babies?

That brings me to the next problem. The majority of adoptive parents
seem to want "perfect," healthy, usually white children. For other
babies, I'm afraid, the right to life will entail the "right" to be  
bounced around foster homes and orphanages. 
So yes, adoption is a responsible option, but making it the ONLY 
option may just lead to another Romania.... 
 
> * Today's Question : Why does Donald Duck have a top and no bottom and    
> *		     Mickey Mouse have a bottom and no top?      	   

Well, Mikeey, it was back in the old days of Disney when the costume
shop wasn't as well-stocked as it is now. :) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:13:58 GMT
 <1992Apr7.163310.26115@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: State Penn

In article <1992Apr7.163310.26115@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, amy young
<alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> says:
>Suzanne said:
>>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.

>No, they aren't Suz.  Children are those whom are outside of the
>mother's supporting body.  Killing a child is murder.  Removing a
>fetus from a womb is called an abortion.  The two are not related.

But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.



Joy Haftel               "`I happy am,
JKH107@PSUVM              Joy is my name.'
                          Sweet joy befall thee!"--Blake
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: hampe@bones.nas.nasa.gov (Andrew F. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly continues Being AntiChristian
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 04:54:56 GMT
Reply-To: hampe@bones.nas.nasa.gov (Andrew F. Hampe)

In article <19821@castle.ed.ac.uk>, tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr3.145801.19006@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
|> >My aunt had a miss carage about 2 years ago, they had a funeral in the
|> >Methodist (United Methodist I think).  Now what?  This line of reasoning
|> >might just as well die.
|> 
|> This line of reasoning was about the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH - not the Methodist
|> church.
|> 
|> tk

who stipulated that it was a thread about the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

ciao
drieux

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Posting Fraud on t.a. (Please Read)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 16:38:15 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)

Thanks to Scott W. Roby for going through all the trouble to
investigate the fraud of Dennis Hall.  I never believed this Dennis
Hall persona.  From the beginning I believed it was our own little
inturdgent pretenting to be pro-choice.  The arguments were all
feeble enough to come from the little guy.  They all had his warped
sense of logic to them.  Its really not all that surprising that
inturdgent would try such actions.  He tried logic and failed
miserably.  He attempted to flame, but his flames were so juvenile,
most of us spent a lot of time laughing at him.  He tried science and
only Welch could manage to look stupider.  He tried running to people
he opposed employers and was moderately successful at that, but was
seen in this forum for the lying little hypocrite he is.  Now it would
seem he has resorted to fraud.  Boy what a shock.

Careful reading of the post where he posts Suzanne's e-mail will show
that it is fairly likely that inturdgent is the culprit.  He even got
around to trying to convince us yet again that he really does have a
girlfriend.  Yea, like sure we'd believe you inturdgent.

Dan King
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dances with Moralists
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:58:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr12.225857.21574
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr10.172711.20921@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
>>"I seee you're taking my daughter out
>>sinning again," the inevitable answeer was, "No, Sir. We're going dancing
>>this week. We're going sinning next week."
>>
>>Then he pulled out of the driveway. Fast.
>
>I LOVED it, Nora!  Thanks a bunch.  I laughed at this for a long time.
>Thanks for the comic relief!

<blush> You're welcome. Hey, we usually need a bit of comic relief
around here...

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:11:35 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr10.213503.11130@odin.corp.sgi.com>  cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> In article <1992Apr07.063103.7375@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
>
> |CJ has just made himself a candidate for the
> |first experimental post-partum abortion.
>
> I find it telling that my request not to forget the
> women involved in abortion produced a response
> which advocates murder of an adult human being.
> Is thinking about the woman so painful that you
> find violent outbursts preferable?

Based on what he's posted to date, I'd say that he finds thinking at all
to be extremely painful.  He certainly seems to avoid it whenever possible.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:58:36 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr14.151547.28644@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr14.122104.24950@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.ka
>
> >Now, document this claim of "thousands and thousands."  I know
> >of no text that supports such a claim.  Furthermore, you seem,
> >from your statements, to be extremely ignorant of the Spanish
> >conquest of Native Americans.
>    How silly of you. The deaths of the missionaries is well known
> and factual.

If it's so well known, then you shouldn't have any problem documenting it,
right?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:26:42 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes ...
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>And what are those consequences?  Come on, list them.  And they better be
>>actually linked, not just coincidental.  the only consequence I can think
>>of is nosy people like you are upset that others are doing things that you
>>find distasteful.
>
>Increased rates of child abuse.  

I'm confused.  Is this supposed to be pro or anti-abortion?  Wouldn't
an increase in unwanted children lead to increased rates of child abuse?

>Increased violence towards women.  

And isn't the attitude that women aren't capable of deciding for
themselves going to foster an attitude that women are second-class 
citizens?

>Increased rates of men abandoning women and the children they helped create.

More men abandoning children because more unwanted children?

>Increasing acceptance of misogyny in the work place.

Well, if women are second-class citizens, it's OK to treat them
like second-class citizens, eh?

>IN short, abortion is not only misogyny in action, it breeds more as it goes.

>Given the reasons listed above, it is obvious that abortion is wrong.

Nope, you'll have to do better than this.  Such outlandish claims
are clearly your personal prejudices are are not supported by any
facts.  Unless you back up the claims with SOME evidence, people
are likely to think you're arguing pro-choice.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:24:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.114047.9918@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> Dean, it's OK to be curious about these things. Let this
> be a learning experience for you. I would have probably given you
> a serious answer, even if you'd used a smiley. Moral to this
> story: there is NO question that is TOO disgusting for someone
> to answer it for you in t.a.
> 
> Next week: Umbilical macrame...

Okay then.  To hell with the macrame.  You have any good
recipes for placenta?  How about jellied placenta, like they
do with eels.  I imagine one could use it in a stir-fry, but
then practically anything can be stir-fried.  What I am
interested in is something more creative, a little more
difficult.  Something to stir the juices of my chefly pre-
tensions.  Placenta Scarpariello?  Placenta sausage with
First Urine sauce?

Dean Kaflowitz, pushing the disgusting button
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 23:57:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.182855.3079@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.090323.20505@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr5.070049.2778@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@quads.uchicago.edu
>> (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>>
>>>>In article <1992Apr3.160149.10119@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
>>  mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>>
>>>>Suppose I make an analogy that Pro-Choice folks are indeed NAZIS because 
>>>>aborting fetuses is the same as the extermination of the Jews. Would I be
>>>>right in making such a statement? NO! Of course I would be wrong! However,
>>>>my reasoning behind this is just the same as yours. Please understand dude.
>>
>>>I understand your point, Mikeey, and it's fine as far as it goes, but please
>>>try to avoid making this kind of argument even in a jesting analogy. There
>>>are some of us it hurts needlessly, and a lot more who it endangers even
>>>beyond their current danger level. Try to find some other way.
>
>Why does this analogy hurt some needlessly? And why does it endanger some
>beyond current danger levels? 

Because some people have had major portions of their family tree obliterated
by the Nazis.  Because some people got the chance to walk on ground that had
so many bodies bured in graves that the very ground wept blood.  Because some
people got to celebrate their sixth birthday getting gang raped by
stormtroopers.  Would you appreciate it if I kept bringing up the impending
parole of Charles Manson if he had killed your family?

As for why it endagers people, what if I came into your house every day, lit
a match, and yelled "Fire!".  Pretty soon, you'd tune me out.  Until the day
I decided to advance into the big leagues, and just poured gas around your
house and threw the match into it.
>
>If people who are pro-life truly and passionately believe that the 
>FETUS is a human being fully deserving of life, than the analogy
>to pro-choices being at least "Nazi-like" may or may not have a grain
>of truth to it. I could see it as being somewhat correct. Not totally
>correct but somewhat.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 19:39:44 GMT

In article <ku26jsINN71f@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>In article <1992Apr06.151018.19614@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>	But more to the point.  You *say* a man is physically uninvolved in
>the preganancy.  This is a physical fact.
>	However, you then say that a man is involved in responsibility for
>child support because of society.  This is a societal 'fact'.
>	You are mixing physical facts with societal whims.

Are you dense or what?  Does it come with the name?

I am SEPARATING the physical facts from the social whims.  That's the POINT.


>	You can't have it both ways.  Either lets go with the physical
>facts, or lets go with societal whims.
   
This is *sad*, Kevin.  SAD.  Society can have whims but society cannot con-
trol physical facts.  That's kind of why we have TWO DIFFERENT realms that
gain consideration in some questions (like *this* one, hint hint) and that
have DIFFERING BASES of consideration.

I suppose I should be glad that you have 'discovered' this particular 
aspect of the argument 'all by yourself'.  Except you can't seem to 
apply it yet.


>!  Doesn't that just send shivers down your spine?  A man actually
>having a right to a child when the woman wanted to give it away.  Now
>the question I would wonder in this recent case, is: will the woman be
>liable for child support payments to the father?

Actually it does, because it seems to me to be a step in the right 
direction.  And it kinda depends on which state you are in, too, because
I believe men have received custody of children in some states of this
union before last month.  And some have child support awards, too.  And
some actually get the MONEY, too.


Where ya been, lad?

Adrienne Regard
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Where do they Get their Theology?
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:51:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr14.135108.10231
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr13.215712.21654@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|> In <18085@oasys.dt.navy.mil> spring@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sue Glantz) writes:
|> 
|> >In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|> 
|> >>2) judge not lest ye be judged
|> >>3) He who has not sinned may cast the first stone
|> >Think about these two statements; then think about what you have been
|> >doing.  Do you honestly mean to say that you have not been judging other
|> >people by implying that those of us who are pro choice are not Christian?
|>    I haven't done the judging Sue. I left that up to God and the 
|> New Testament. I only abide by God's word.

Isn't the processing of judging, the process of evaluating other's
actions, words & opinions and deciding if those actions are right
or wrong? When you form an opinion, you judge the worth of both
sides of an argument and decide which is correct.

Now, unless you remain neutral to both sides of an argument, you
are performing an act of judgement. By deciding, that action A
is OK in God's eyes and action B is not, not only are you making
a judgement, but you are making a judgement for God. Doesn't
this become an act of hubris?

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion