HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr13.200014.9275@noao.edu> <1992Apr12.053925.19066@wam.umd.edu>
	<1992Ap <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
	<JBATES.92Apr14123445@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com>
	<1992Apr14.173456.11931@ncsu.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:56:42

In article <1992Apr14.173456.11931@ncsu.edu> 
dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <JBATES.92Apr14123445@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com> 
>jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>>mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>
>>>   A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>>>   sleep around and/or are sluts. 

>> You know, I think that this could form the basis for a whole new approach
>> to the abortion issue. Look, we don't want to be letting these sluts
>> get abortions, right? I mean, it's obvious that we all agree on that, or
>> should. 

>Mr. Lewis is pro-choice. And so are you. I'm not surprised you agree with him.

From what I've seen posted here, Mr. Lewis is as much a pro-choicer as
DJR is an atheist.

If I might just quote the eminent Ms. Garvin, who said:

	I haven't seen anything to indicate that "Matthew A. Lewis"
	is pro-choice on abortion.  I've seen a lot that indicates
	that he is anti-women, and pro-violence, and pro-idiocy.

	Personally, I think he's about as pro-choice as "Dennis
	Hall."  (And possibly as real.)

	Try again, Davey, Jr.

As for you, Mr. Holtsinger, it's obvious that:

a) You're quite humor impaired. Especially if you didn't like my Sweaty
   Snugglebunnies Ratio.

b) You need an argument better than "He says he's pro-choice, you say you're
   pro-choice, so you must agree!" Or do you agree entirely with the
   tactics and arguments of a certain poster, who shall remain nameless,
   but who sometimes thinks he's an airplane?

c) In short, Mr. Holtsinger, you need to get a puppy. 

John

P.S. In c) above, my original wording was a little bit different. Upon
consideration, though, I decided that Doug did not really deserve even
a mild insult. However, I couldn't just delete c), since a list of a), b)
and c) looks more impressive than just a) and b). 

P.P.S. Yes, I'm even more incoherent than usual today. Weeks without sleep
does that to me.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu (Erik Jones)
Subject: Re: NEWS: That NYC Doctor
Organization: Umassmed Medical Center; Worcester, MA 01655
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 21:18:30 GMT

In article <olson.703518021@acf9> olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson) writes:

   >Regular readers may recall the case of the NYC doctor who severed
   >the right arm of a fetus who was later born alive.  The woman thought
   >she was only a few months pregnant, and Dr. Abu Hayat did not follow
   >standard procedure (he failed to perform a sonogram, among other things).

Scary to think that if abortions become illegal, doctors as incompetent
as this one will become more and more the norm in this society, and
that every woman who goes off and gets an abortion will be taken their
own lives into their hands.  Most will probably just opt for the coat
hanger.

Erik Jones
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:32:26 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr14.014223.377@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>In a previous article, compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) says:
>>If it is not a "sentient being", how do you justify preventing someone from
>>doing as they will with their own body?
>
>well.....what if I wanted to cut my wrist? Or mutilate my leg in
>a fist of rage after a serious break-up????
>
>Would that be wise?

People who chose abortion do not do it in "a fit of rage".  Many, if not
most, agonize over their decision for weeks.  This analogy does not fit the
current topic.  Take it to alt.suicide.pro.life.obey.obey.obey!

>the point is that a man or woman is often NOT in the right frame of
>mind to make a decision. 

/* HEAVY SARCASM MODE ON */
It's so nice of you to volunteer to step in and make that decision for the
rest of us!  Jeesh, thinking for yourself really sucks!  Thanks for lifting
that burden.  I've been so misled all this time!
/* HEAVY SARCASM MODE OFF */

>Watch more Zoo TV

I beg your pardon?


-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:37:54 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
->In article <1992Apr13.003632.4809@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve
->Franklin) writes:
->   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
->ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's,
->abortions, or any concerns about that missed period.

>Wow, what a great Idea.  I'm just going to scurry on home and tell my partner
>of 9 years that from now on, it's abstinence for us!  I'm sure he'll
>thank you for the wonderful tip.

Adrienne, you must forgive Steve, he is but a virgin babe babbling
in the woods, and knows not whereof he speaks.

Ron
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:25:49 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
>right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
>to freedom. Without existence, freedom is not possible. All humans
>should have an equal right to exist, and since the right to exist
>is supreme, no human can deny another human the right to exist,
>unless their own existence is threatened.
>
>The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others,
>and the right to receive support from others, but it does not
>necessarily include the right to expect support from others.
>
>The fetus either has rights, or it does not. If the fetus has any
>rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is
>equal to that of any other human being.
>
>Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
>support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right
>of the fetus to exist.

    Establish a) that the right to exist is _indeed_ supreme above all
other rights, b) that it conveys the other rights listed above, that
c) rights are binary in nature with no mitigating circumstances, d) that
the fetus has the right to exist in a fashion identical to and level with
anyone else, and e) that fetuses possess the right to exist.

    Support these points which you have not addressed except by assertion,
and you might have an interesting philosophical argument.

                                                   kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: do unborn have rights????
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 20:13:57 GMT


   Can anything be called a 'right' if it violates someone else's
rights?  Do you have the right to impose your definition of a fetus
growing inside a woman, if your definition violates some woman's
rights?  Besides, do you call an acorn an 'ungrown oak'?  Do you call
a steel ingot an 'unmanufactured Buick'?  Have you adopted an HIV-
positive infant?  Have you adopted a crack-addicted infant?  Have you
adoptede an infant with Down Syndrome?  Have you done ANYTHING besides
oppose abortion to establish 'personhood' for the fetus(such as calling
for tax deductions for the fetus, habeas corpus for the fetus growing
inside a woman who is in prison, citizenship for any child of a woman
who conceived the child on American soil, etc.)?  If the answer to these
questions is 'no'(which it probably is!) then shut your stupid mouth
and humiliate your family somewhere else!  And if you don't like being
called the bonehead that you are, that is too fucking bad!  I can call
you any damn thing I want.  I am an American.  It is my BIRTHRIGHT!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: the meaning of child care
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:44:49 GMT

look!  Steve left in a few attributions - he can do it, it is possible.
(One wonders why he deletes questions from other people.. - this is an
aside and has nothing to do with the rest of this article.)  Maybe he'll 
learn to delete all the attributes for the writing he has deleted 
(I've provided this service in this article).

In article <1992Apr13.192542.16639@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.171055.8243@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>
>>I thought "latch-key" children are those children who go home alone,
>>i.e. not in any "child care" situation.  Be sure you get the studies
>>showing the mental and emotional disadvantages of "child care", Steve.
>
>   Although latch-key is metaphorically tied to the child who has 
>her/his own key to let him/herself into their home because no parents 
>are there to do it for them, it basically includes all children who 
>don't have sufficient support and education because of a lack of
>parental communication and presence.

It looks to me that you are redefining the meaning of the phrase
"latch-key child" to suit yourself.  In your search for documentation
of the negative aspects of "child care" perhaps you should stick to
the common usage that the original poster used (whose writing you have
deleted).  Barring that, perhaps you could include the definitions
or classifications the reasearchers used when showing the negative
aspects of "child care".  I think that the term "child care" refers
to children placed in a situation in which they are cared for, usually
this is distinguished from child care given by the parent (oftentimes
in the home).  

I'm sure you'll be able to find negative aspects of children who
have been raised in the definition you use for a "latch-key child".
I think you need to find studies showing negative effects of
"child care" on children to disprove the point of the original 
poster (whoever that was).


>>I think this is the first time I've seen Steve say he will dig out
>>studies.  
>   yeah, yeah yeah... And last time too. Diggind through old text books
>and journals is a real fun way to prove a point... 8)

Well, Steve, it would be nice to see you actually back up something you
assert.  

ps - I thought you were leaving, Steve.  Did you decide to face all the
responsibilities you've taken on and actually answer all the questions
people have tried to ask you.  Or did you just pull a Phil?

Amy Lenox 
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 07:25:55 GMT

ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman) writes:

>Hi everybody,

>I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.

>Cheers,
>Big Al  

"...never seen so many folks in one place..."

You obviously missed last years Pro-Life march on D.C. where they out-
numbered the Pro-Death 2:1.  I don't have this years figures (yet).

Kevin Brawley

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist 
Organization: .
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.155502.12298@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the

Funny that the "right to exist" is not among those important enough to
be mentioned in the U.S. Bill of Rights if in fact it is supreme above
all other rights.

>right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right

Oh, I doubt this. Please explain why the "right to exist" is required to
have the "right not to exist".

>to freedom. Without existence, freedom is not possible. All humans

On the contrary, it would seem that the dead are the most free of all.
Case in point:  Kill as many people as you like and then die.  I'm
almost 100% certain no one will imprison you or put you on trial for
murder.  And look at those individuals who have prefered death to
living in slavery.  It would see that nonexistence IS freedom.

>should have an equal right to exist, and since the right to exist
>is supreme, no human can deny another human the right to exist,
>unless their own existence is threatened. 

This statement is clearly at variance with the observed behavior of
human beings.

>The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others, 
>and the right to receive support from others, but it does not 
>necessarily include the right to expect support from others. 

So its OK to let people starve to death?  I guess the "right to exist"
doesn't extend to the poor, or anyone who has the presumption to ask
you to lend a helping hand.  

>The fetus either has rights, or it does not. If the fetus has any 
>rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
>equal to that of any other human being.

This is merely prejudice.  Why stop at the fetus?  There are other, more
numerous forms of humanity who are being slaughtered by the billions
every minute.  You do them a grave injustice by failing to extend your
"right to exist" to them, for they are as human as you or I. Ergo:

The haploid human either has rights, or it does not. If the haploid
human has any rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
equal to that of any other human being.

>Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
>support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
>of the fetus to exist.

Masturbation and menstruation kill haploid humans, and prevent them from
receiving the support of others.  Therefore, masturbation and menstruation
violate the right of haploid humans to exist.  Do you think it is mere
coincidence that masturbation, menstruation, and murder all begin with
the letter "m"?

What you should ask yourself is whether you are truely compassionate, or
is your compassion limited by prejudice to that subset of humans who
share your socio-economic background and chromosone count.

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
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: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:03:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.064453.7670@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:
>
>>I'm sorry, but even though I'm female, I don't see my purpose for
>>being on this earth is to simply pump out kids.  I do not want
>>children, ever.  I enjoy sex quite a bit.  I don't want to sprain my
>>ankle but I jog too, sometimes.  Why?  Because the benefits outweight
>>the risks.  The enjoyment I obtain from sex, and the bonding it allows
>>with the participants greatly outweight the risk of me becoming
>>pregnant.  I use the highest level of protection one can to avoid
>>pregnancy.  
>
>If you "do not want children, ever." then make a responsible, adult decision
>and seek a surgical procedure to keep yourself from thinking you have to
>murder children.
>
>"The benefits outweight the risks"???  The benefit for you is a fleeting bit
>of pleasure.  The risk is YOUR MURDERED child's and NOT yours.
>
>"Highest level of protection"?  You've had your ovaries removed!  How
>commendable.  And just when I thought all pro-death people were hypocrites.

Hmmm...Actually, I suppose that I enjoy the "highest level of protection" with
regards to sex and getting pregnant (or getting somebody pregnant).

Hello, Kevin.  It seems that you're new here.  You are currently acting like
Holy Fetus Worshipper #12,444.  Might I suggest that you examine your beliefs
before posting such things?  Might I suggest that you get a basic understanding
of biology?

And, I'll give you a warning.  If you decide that "pro-death" is an appropriate
term, then I think "pro-forced-female-slavery" is also accurate...
--
=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, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Numerical Superiority (formerly: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:51:22 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty) writes:

>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr12.020819.7670@liebe.uucp>
>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>> = gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>>Kinda makes you wonder why the pro-life side keeps claiming numerical
>>>superiority, doesn't it.  The abortion rallys tend to be 5 to 1 in favor
>>>of pro-choice (at least, from what has been posted here), and the postings
>>>here at at least 2 to 1 if not more.
>>
>>Pro-Lifers claim majority because it is exactly correct.  

>No, it's not correct.

>["that which is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied." 
>    -- G. Gordon Liddy ]

Nice try.  But the prior post (and yours as a matter of fact) are all
gratuitous since no one has shown actual statistics yet.

>>The abortion
>>rally statement is outright fraud.  Last years march in DC had the Pro-
>>Death faction outnumbered almost 2 to 1 (and the pro-death clowns still
>>claimed a majority because they were relying on their own guesstimates
>>instead of the park service's official count).  

>Please elaborate on this.  There was no pro-choice march last year.  
>(I assume you mean the January 1991 march?)  The anti-abortion rally
>drew 20,000 by Park Service estimates.  Where did this 2:1 thing come
>from?

You're wrong.  I'll look it up and give you the facts shortly.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:49:43 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.052741.23560@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.015607.28531@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr13.195424.16434@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	I think a personal religion is one that one has that one has
>constructed oneself. It is NOT necessarily self-worship.
   No. I dont' agreee... Society is full of self-worshippers and if 
I knew how to spell Narcissist I would use it in this post. 

>disagree; I believe in voluntary motherhood.
   Voluntary? Did anyone FORCE you to have sex? Don't have sex if you
can't finish what you started. Or is taht what you believe in. You
truly want to FINISH what you started... interesting...

>affect the vast majority of abortions performed. I can see why
>anti-abortionists are fond of citing the 3rd trimester; then, the
>fetus definitely looks like a baby. The same cannot be said of an
>embryo that is only a couple of weeks old, and which has gill bars and
>a tail.
   WHere the hell do you draw the Line then? You're going to give
a date to the 3rd decimal place and after this time no abortions, but
before this time, you will permit abortions? That may have worked
for SOlomon, but it just doesn't cut it in the 90's.

>	"Don't have anything better to do"??? Like you, Steve??? :-):-)
hee hee... ya got me. 
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.073507.15550@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
}<1992Apr10.195329.15573@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) said:
}><1992Apr7.172645.797@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
}>
}...
}
}>say what you want.  Oh, I almost forgot, I speak for the rocks and
}>vegetables now too...

That's rocks and vegetables, NOT assholes.

}That's good because DJR isn't around to speak for himself these days.

I hope you're not implying that DJR is as highly evolved as a vegetable
or a rock...

}Gordon


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
    Don't put all your spilt milk in one basket, you might cry over it.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:43:23 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Distribution: na
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr15.182302.2499@adobe.com>  kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>  What about all those slutty men they're sleeping with?  What punishment
>  should we cook up for them? :-o

Don't be silly, Janice.  Girls are sluts.  Boys will be boys.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)