HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:53:22 GMT

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.215934.29539@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>Look, this really is simple.  See if you can follow.  The woman is being
>>"Inconvenienced", "Traumatized", etc. (Pro-Choice words).  The child is
>>being "Murdered", "Killed", etc. (Pro-Life words).  So your arguement
>>could easily be used to say:  You are *forcing* death upon babies.
>>and the Pro-Lifers only want the mother to take responsibility for her actions.

>If you would support your assertion that a 8 week fetus is a baby, you might
>have a point. This has not been done.
>You assert, without any support at all, that a 'fetus' (no age given) is a baby
>Do you believe that after fertilization, in the early stages of mitosis, that
>this clump of say 16 cells is a person: a baby?

Of course I'm assuming this.  Isn't that what the issue is all about?

>>>Selfish? Yes. It is the woman's self who is carrying this non-thinking
>>>piece of fetal tissue. If she doesn't want to be carrying it in her*self*,
>>>she has the right (under law:status quo) to have it remove from her*self*.
>>
>>More simpleness for you:  Legal does NOT equal Right.

>Of course not. I didn't say legal DID equal right. I said "she has the right
>under law, which is currently the status quo to have an abortion." If you
>are trying to change the status quo, you need to do more for your argument
>then just reassert your point over and over without support.

Proving something to YOU won't change any status quo.  Fortunately our
Supreme Court now more closely reflects the nation's beliefs.  That will
hopefully be the catalyst for change. 
 
>>>You are saying she is selfish because she doesn't want someone around to 
>>>decide what she should do with herself?
>>
>>No.  Listen please.  It is selfish to murder someone because they are
>>inconveniencing you.

>You have oversimplified all abortions to occur because of inconvenience. 
>Not only is this another cheap shot, but it is incorrect.

More slop arguement.  I NEVER said ALL abortions were a matter of
inconvenience.  It's the only way you have to fight.

>And if you would support your reasserted assertion that an 8 week fetus is 
>a "someone", and that it is murder, we will gladly listen.

Support the idea that it's NOT.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: Regarding Jennifer's suggestion
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:16:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.074128.23979@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
s:
>In  <q7NaJB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>  orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes
:
>>
>> My point is, make people understand that sex is for marriage and
>> reproduction. Is is not for pleasure, pasttime, warm fuzzies, or
>> anything else.
>
>Umm, is this an attempt at satire, or are you simply insane?
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Perhaps there is another, more charitable interpretation?

--Bill
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:34:14 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <74656@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes:
> Gordon
>
> >The rapist may not have intended to kill her and may have even
> >told her so, but her right to not have her body used against her will
> >takes precedent over the rapists life.
>
> Hmmmm.  Well, if he intended not to kill, why shoudl the woman kill him?

As Gordon said, because of her *right* to not have her body used against
her will.  She has the *right* to stop him in any way possible, including
by killing him, even if her life was not in danger.  This is the law.

> However, the fetus takes no action at all with the mother.  It doesn't rape
> her, threaten her with a knife

It threatens her, just not with a knife.

> >Try hiring a prostitute in CA (something I haven't done, OK) and see if
> >you don't get slapped in jail.  Why?  It's illegal because it's "immoral".
>
> It's also illegal because it is unethical.

So then it's ethical in Nevada, where it's legal?

> Ethics are everlasting, until humans mutate into better or worse forms.

But how can it be ethical in one place and not in the other?  Are you
saying that Nevada is populated by mutants?  (Actually, I realize that
what's really disproved is your assertion that prostitution is illegal
because it's unethical, not that ethics are everlasting, but you can
argue against either statement.  But not against both.)

> What about the man who wants to keep the fetus that his wife carries?

I think that he has the right to do so.  However, if she wants it out
of her body, she has the right to have it out.  He can then do with it
what he wants.

> Why should he not have a say, much less be notified of an abortion?

He should (in general) have input into her decision process, but the
final decision is hers, because it's her body.  There are valid reasons
why she might *not* want to notify him, and I think that legislation
*requiring* notification would cause more problems than it would solve.
(If they have a good relationship, she'll tell him even if the law
doesn't mandate it.)

> >So?  It isn't emminent in a rape either.  Does that mean you wouldn't
> >allow her to use deadly force to stop being raped?
>
> I would question deadly force as I did above.  Definitely I would allow force.

Question it all you like; the law permits it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: A Small Dose of The Real
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:50:22 GMT


True to a previous promise I made (via email), I have done some preliminary 
research on American attitudes on abortion.  Both Pro-choice and Pro-life 
advocates have argued that "America is on their side".  In fact, they are both 
right and both wrong.  The following data are taken from the General Social 
Survey; data were selected from 1982, 1987 ad 1988 because they were the 
easiest to disagregate, and they show a good time spread.

Q: Should abortion be legal if?
a) There is a chance of serious baby defect?
     1982      1987      1988
Yes  236       263       744
No   92        94        200

b) The woman's health is in danger?
     1982      1987      1988
Yes  281       283       836
No   53        45        106

c) The woman is pregnant by rape?
     1982      1987      1988
Yes  234       246       749
No   97        84        175

d) The woman wants it for any reason?
     1982      1987      1988
Yes  87        129       338
No   237       207       598

e) The woman is married and wants no more children?
     1982      1987      1988
Yes  111       125       379
No   216       206       570

f) The family has a low income and can't afford more children?
     1982      1987      1988
Yes  120       142       395
No   212       195       546

g) The woman is not married and does not want to marry the man?
     1982      1987      1988
Yes  100       109       367
No   232       226       565


Note that there is a clear majority FOR abortion on the first three,and a clear
majority AGAINST on the last four.  Make of this what you will.

Methodological point:  PLEASE do not convert these numbers into percentages.  I
have left out Don't Know and N/A answers for ease of presentation (they were 
below 25 in all cases anyway, so they don't skew the basic directions).  Since 
you don't know total N, you can't do %'s.

These are presented in the hopes that they may contribute (in whatever way) to 
the discussion, and for the clarification of all who had held unsubstantiated 
beliefs on the state of public opinion.

--Bill
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: rape,incest and nastys
Organization: Encore Computer
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:03:44

In article <1992Apr17.193353.24713@news.iastate.edu> xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:

>Yes I beleve thet the prepervation of mentale stability is a part of 
>servival. A liform that is insine is incapable of maintaning themselves.
>Ie: a craze lifeform is less apt to defend tnd thehere life whin confronted
>with danger: someone who is upset cares less about there life.

	What about someone whose life will be ruined by a pregnancy, like
the other examples that I mentioned? Does quality of life (not social
life, but life in general) bear sufficient weight for you to consider 
abortion justified?

>That was a beter asumtion then the previuse. Do not make asumptions
>about anotheres standige there are more then just pro-life and pro-choce
>standes in this.

	There are middle grounds to every extreme argument. I'd just like
to know where precisely in the middle you fall.

>personal servival is befor that of the species as a species cant servive
>with out indeviduals. 

	But are you in favor of allowing a woman to decide what is threatening
her personal survival?

>ELF-KIN	yes i do fall under all those nasty isms-
>  envirmentalism;natralism;ecologism;SERVIVALISM

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:33:08 GMT

In article <72804@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
>An infant does not have full capcity, just like a fetus. 



Kevin, (Jack), an 8 week fetus has *no* capability. It basically has no
brain. The most value its "brain" would be is as a protein suppliment or
tissue for research. Because it has *no* capability, and a late term fetus
or infant *does* have *some* ability (there *is* capacity for some thought,
understanding, reasoning, recognition, insert any human quality you wish)
albeit it small. Here is a distinction; small versus none. This is a very
large 'ratio' if you will. I would have to say that a strong distinction
exists between an 8week fetus and an infant or a sleeping person or a 
comatose victim (provided their brain is not dead).


> Invalids
>do not have full capcity, just like a fetus.  Severly retarded people don't
>have full capcity, just like fetuses.

What are you calling severely retarder? Cannot blink? Cannot do calculus?
Let's not use retardation as a reference as there are *hundreds* different 
types as well as a continuum of degree of severity.



  (third tri-fetus).  Larry, the
>fetus has plenty of axons and dentrites and synapses.


PLEASE qulify the amount of development of the fetus. An 8 week fetus is
*extremely* different than a 6 month fetus in every respect.


A young enough fetus has no neural functionality whatsoever while a late
term fetus has a wonderfully complex and functional neural network in working
order.

>  But it isn't these
>which allow the transmission for thought.  It is myelination that
>allows for this wonder...something a fetus has around 24 weeks.


Precisely why we make a distinction between 8 week fetus and 32 week fetus.

One has the beginnings of genuine human qualities (at least in regard to 
synaptic functions) one has none at all.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:22:08 GMT

In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:

>The fetus is not her property.  Her body is not her property.  She cannot
>do anything she wishes with her body.


That was the final blow to your credibility.


-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: MORALITY
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:53:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsu.1992Apr12.155324.23350
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr11.170740.2821@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>There are a *lot* of infants up for adoption, sir. (please also post your 
>>name) They are just not white, healthy ones. The market is bad for those
>>who are not white and healthy.
>
>Tell that to the "liberal" judges who often won't allow white couples to  
>adopt black children due to the possible "problems".

Tell *us* where this happens? It didn't happen to my brother who just adopted
a non-wasp child.

Where did you come up with this 'liberal judge' examples.

I have never heard of this. In fact, I am thinking of some others I know who
*have* adopted black children and while they were lauded for being so brave
to have a black child by one group in our city, they were chastised by another
racist group.

The judge was not the problem.

Please support your above statment.

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:55:47 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <74131@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (suck my penis) writes:
> Larry
> >Kevin
> >> Ron
>
> >> >OK, it has a tail, an extremely oversized head, and is generally similar
> >> >in appearance to a melted wax figure, a sort of blob. It is human (so
> >> >is your blood) and is parasitic, does that make it a person? Not to
> >> >me.
>
> >> Gee, did I say it was a person?  IIIIdon'tthinksooooo.
>
> >No, you said "it looks pretty human".
>
> Right.  "Human" in that sense is used as the adjective to describe a
> relationship that the fetus shares with it's mother.

I think you're weaseling again; I think you meant it looks like a person
and you realize that you blew it.  But that's OK; your weaseling won't help:

> >> What's your point?
>
> >His point is that you're wrong; it looks like any other foetal mammal, and
> >nothing at all like a human being.
>
> Ah, we look like animals too.  But we're human, and that makes the difference.

But if you agree that at that stage of development all mammals look the
same, then *how can you say it looks human* ???

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- applying member, tsakc)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: W A C D T F ... W a s h i n g t o n ,   D . C .
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:09:31 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr15.011947.13996@liebe.uucp>
According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>   = Jay T Stein

>>I stand by my assumptions.  Slaughter does indeed refer to killing en masse,
>>and in addition, connotes a hatred for those slaughtered, particularly
>>when it is used (as it often is) with he word "innocent," as in
>>innocent slaughtered babies.  You're blind if you don't see the
>>implication of hatred being made here.
>
>This really is fun.  You're almost as easy as Ron.  You "stand by your
>assumptions."?  Well, since you were referring to MY quote let me make
>it clear:  YOU'RE WRONG.  Simple enough for you?  Bet you'll even find
>it hard to find a dictionary to prop up your stupid arguement.

Speaking of dictionaries, you should find one and look up "connotation."
It means, among other things, an implied meaning *apart* *from* the
exact dictionary definition.  It deals with how words and phrases are
*interpreted* by other people.  Since my original claim is that your
use of "slaughtered" connotes a hatred of children, I was saying only
that the phrase would likely be interpreted that way.  You cannot
simply write that off by saying, "YOU'RE WRONG."  If you didn't
mean to suggest that I hate babies, then you did not communicate clearly,
because the tone of your article certainly suggested it.

>I'm not blind.  I see YOU making a hatred insinuating statement.

Explain yourself please.  Exactly how is calling you to task for invoking
emotionalism "making a hatred insinuating statement?"

(Your quote doesn't exactly parse, but I think I know what you meant)
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:42:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Larry
>In  <74131@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (suck my penis) writes:

Larry likes to play name games, but I won't sink to his level.  Larry:
call me that if you wish.  It does not phase me.

I won't mess with your name.

>> Larry
>> >Kevin
>> >> Ron

>> >> >OK, it has a tail, an extremely oversized head, and is generally similar
>> >> >in appearance to a melted wax figure, a sort of blob. It is human (so
>> >> >is your blood) and is parasitic, does that make it a person? Not to
>> >> >me.

>> >> Gee, did I say it was a person?  IIIIdon'tthinksooooo.

>> >No, you said "it looks pretty human".

>> Right.  "Human" in that sense is used as the adjective to describe a
>> relationship that the fetus shares with it's mother.

>I think you're weaseling again; I think you meant it looks like a person
>and you realize that you blew it.  But that's OK; your weaseling won't help:

NO, Larry.  You think I wanted to say it looks like a person.  Well you are
dead wrong.  I would be contradicting my whole beliefs in that a fetus
is NOT a person.  It doesn't meet any personhood requirements.  I never said
it did.  I never said the fetus was a person.  I never said it looked like
a person. 

What I did say, Larry, is that it is human, it looks human.  It is a human
being.

>> >> What's your point?

>> >His point is that you're wrong; it looks like any other foetal mammal, and
>> >nothing at all like a human being.

>> Ah, we look like animals too.  But we're human, and that makes the difference.

>But if you agree that at that stage of development all mammals look the
>same, then *how can you say it looks human* ???

The point of discussion was around 8 weeks.  At that stage, no animals
other than humans look like humans.

Duh....

Ever see a picture of an eight week fetus?  Pick one up and see its human
likeness.  If not, give me an address and I'll send you one.

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

kcw

--
See that you are sainted			   /* Mr. Kevin Welch to you */
Remain true and pure				   kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Do that you never get lost
So matter what you may endure				- Harry Connick, Jr.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: next
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:02:15 GMT

patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.184042.15620@liebe.uucp>, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>|> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question...an answer) writes:
>|> 
>|> >I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
>|> >people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
>|> >it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.
>|> 
>|> Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
>|> she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
>|> question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?

>...and ultimately, the answer should be:  that's between her and her 
>conscience.  It sure as hell ain't YOUR concern.

Interesting, if inane, response.  It would then also follow that it
would be nobodies business what Jeffrey Dahmer decided to do with his
spare time.


profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: next
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:40:42 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question...an answer) writes:

>I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
>people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
>it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.

Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?

Kevin Brawley
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:907 talk.abortion:15603