HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:17:18 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Distribution: usa
 <1993Jan21.021421.24486@Princeton.EDU> <14017@optilink.COM>

In article <14017@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) says:
>
>In article <1993Jan21.021421.24486@Princeton.EDU>,
>datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>> In article <Jan.19.21.13.09.1993.7286@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
>> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> >I changed the one key word in the passage above to more accurately
>> >reflect the nature of this supposed "choice".  So how does it look in
>> >all of its naked and inhuman brutality?
>>
>> Pretty damn good. At least you won't have to spend your conservative
>> money on health and human services, government bureaucracies, possible
>> jail time, etc., etc., etc.
>>
>> Better we should abort a z/e/f than to have an innocent child beaten,
>> starved, maimed, or killed. But then, that's just my thinking.
>>
>> Tep
>
>So, when are we going to see the dramatic decline in physical
>abuse and neglect of children, now that abortion is legal?
>
>Now, I realize that a lot of things have changed in this country
>since the 1950s.  Racial discrimination is housing, employment,
>and public accomodations is now illegal.  There has been a dramatic
>expansion of governmental assistance to the poor, and child protective
>services is much more quick to intervene on behalf of abused
>children.  Yet, physical abuse and neglect are MUCH more common
>today than in the 1950s.

(1) You have reliable statistics on that?

(2) You forgot the rise in poverty among families with children and
drug-abuse.





>Maybe abortion doesn't do much for this problem?
>--
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
>Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:57:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.050539.6745@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <llm1glINN8r8@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>
>[Deletions. Just 'cause I wanna]
>
>>If she mainly doesn't want the physical difficulty of the pregnancy
>>process, how about an incubator that could support the fetus until
>>its original projected birthdate?  Anyone happen know what state
>>research is in concerning this?
>>
>No state at all, really. Look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Are
>*you* going to pay for this incubator? Please keep in mind that
>current technology can easily run over $5000 a day for an NICU stay.
>What you are describing would be vastly more complex, and
>correspondingly more expensive.
>It's a nice idea, but it just doesn't fit the realities of life. We
>can't even save all the ones people *do* want, let alone the ones they
>don't want.

Yeah, and the world is flat, too, Mark. If you don't believe it, just keep
sailing East until you fall off the edge...

Since the dawn of time, visionaries have had to endure the constant whines 
and doubts and putdowns of non-visionaries. The wheel? It'll never work! 
Fire? Just a fad! Organ transplants? You're nuts! Even as a medical layperson,
I can imagine an inexpensive "auto-momma", Mark. Maybe not in my lifetime, but 
sometime. Why can't you? 

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Back to you, Larry
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.
Keywords: shown, proven, connotations
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:48:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.728156821@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Deletia of Idiocy]

>Also, Mark Cochran has accused me of being condescending towards people,
>in that I used words to the effect, "Now, come on, Son."  

Now PHoney, you're lying again. I've accused you of being a liar, a
woman hater, an idiot, a twit, and numerous other nasty (but
appropriate) things. Never do I recall accusing you of being
condescending. Anal retentive, maybe, but not condescending. Care to
produce the article in which I am alledged to have referred to you in
that manner? Or would you prefer to retract the statement?

[More idiocy deleted. Too bad I deleted Larry's bit too]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:40:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.033340.21571@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Without a law, there is nothing to enforce. In order to get (would-be) 
>criminals concerned about enforcement, you first have to pass laws; those same 
>laws you keep insisting are useless.

Oh come on, Kevin, lots of tyrants have had their will enforced without
benefit of law.  Or are we playing some semantic game of yours, where
you declare "enforcement" an abstract idea, and then you get to define it
and other things...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Left Wing Anti-Abortionists
Originator: jjprice@c00090-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:31:11 GMT


In article <1993Jan22.184336.18885@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

|>In <1993Jan21.201350.14499@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>
|>>In article <1993Jan20.034530.15925@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
|>>|>On what do you base your belief that it is always wrong to take another
|>>|>life, other than on religious beliefs?
|>>
|>>Maybe legal. Murder is illegal. I don't feel that taking a life is always
|>>wrong such as in self-defense but that it is something that should be
|>>avoided whenever necessary.The law does allow murder in self-defense
|>
|>Try again.  As you pointed out, murder is illegal.  By definition, the
|>law does not allow murder.  What it does allow is, I believe, called
|>"justifiable homicide".

So sue me.....You just like everyone else that read that knows exactly
what I mean. Why don't you stop nit-picking everything you read because
it wasn't written by an english major and no one is perfect.

SO THERE.

-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:55:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.223128.7139@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>According to the Washington post, Scalia stated that since the OR
>people would also be blocking any men who were seeking abortions, the
>attacks were not aimed at women.

Is it legally permissable for men to have abortions?  If not, men don't have
"equal rights."

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:02:18 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C186G7.1Kr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>Has anyone considered the following hypothesis:
>
>Could it be possible that the availability of abortion may influence
>partners to be less careful with contraception?

It doesn't seem likely, since contraceptives are both cheaper and a lot
easier than abortion.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58382 alt.birthright:594
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:52:29 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

the chaneyhall thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>Rocker, just shut up. Just shut up 

how are you feeling today, stevedennis?
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Errors are legit!!!
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:01:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


The problems with my site I mentioned are for real.  I have trouble
sometimes no matter what group I'm in.  I'm making up glitched to cover
up flaming someone.

I never meant to post that article.

The terminal I was one DID lock up, and when I said I slipped and hit 'send',
I didn't realize I had sent it until I saw it on the net that evening.

I left the lab thinking I had junked it.  And now the system has lock up
twice while I was making an attempt to find and cancel the article.

I've posted outrageous things on the net, but I swear I would never have
deliberately posted something like that.  The worst I've posted lately have
been jokes about Clinton.

From the moment I started posting the article, I fully intended on junking
it when I was done.

This is not an 'I was only kidding' after the fact message.  I thought by
expaining what happened it would be better than to simply ignore it.

Let me clarify something from the beggining of the post: I logged off
Monday morning honestly thinking I had hit abort.

Think about it:who would post something like that with their name all over
it?

Simon
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:35:05 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

In article <1993Jan25.053225.28717@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.220813.12535@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

[Deletions]

>>I predict you'll try to weasle out ofthe question, probably by
>>deleting this portion of the article.
>
>_What_ question? :-) 
>
1 point to you for consistency, 2 points to me for sucessfully
predicting your actions. Maybe I'll open a fortune telling shop. ;-)

>Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between choosing one's words
>carefully when accusing someone of a criminal act, on the one hand, and making 
>fine linguistic distinctions between various forms of psychological personality
>disorders in the midst of Yet Another Abstract Net.debate, on the other, I 
>think you have some seriously screwed-up priorities there, Mark...
>
So you consider falsely accusing someone of a criminal act in aforum
with no legal standing to eb a lesser offense then falsely accusing
someone of having a serious psychiatric problem? Especially when
you're (by your own admission) completly unqualified to be making such
a medical diagnosis?
I think you have some seriously screwed-up priorities there, Kevin...

You accused Larry of suffering from schizophrenia (although the
context made it obvious that you should have used multiple personality
disorder or MPD) and you have accused me of being paranoid.
You are either engaging in 'wasteful ad hominem' attacks (you know,
the ones you complaign about others engaging in), which makes you a
hypocrite, or you are making medical diagnosis without being in any
way qualified (which makes you a silly nit).
Which is it?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: NRL 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:44:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.221421.23863@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu
(Brian Kauffman) writes:
>> = dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
>>the pro-life position.  [...] If it were possible to transfer the child
>>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
>>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".
>
>An interesting hypothetical, but since this is *not* possible, the reality
>is that pro-lifer's *are* opposed to the choice to 'terminate a pregnancy'.
>
>>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
>>pro-choice position.  Pro-choicers not only want the right to
>>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
>>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
>>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 
>
>I don't suppose there's any point in mentioning it, but your credibility
>really suffers when you make statements like this.
>
>-Brian
>
This is encouraging - so abortion for sex selection doesn't fall within the set
of 'acceptable' choices. I hope the pack doesn't get wind of this.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: graveyard visit?
Organization: Patrick and Dale's 1/18th of the farm, New Effington, S.D.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:25:38 GMT

On Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:50:12 GMT, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:

>From article by patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>> 
>> --PLH, glad I've *got* a life

>Yeah, you've got yours.  All the unborn babies can go down the toilet.

Gee, such Christian sentiments from a self-described pro-lifer...

--PLH, it figures...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:02:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.164351.24570@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <C19Gyv.5tx.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
### +##The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the 
### +##ruling in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this 
### +##vast time is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
##
### +#Actually, it has something to do with it.  Unlike you, Blackmun researched
### +#the issue before stating his opinion.  You might try learning something
### +#about the issue.
###
###       <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu#
###        garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
###
### And now we see Ms. Garvin furiously back-pedaling from that suggestion.
#
## No, I've yet to backpedal from the suggestion that Justice
## Blackmun did research into the abortion issue.  
#
#That's not the suggestion I'm referring to, Garvin.  You made
#the suggestion that the *incidence* of illegal abortion in 1860 
#has "something to do with" the ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
#Just what is the exact relationship, Garvin?   

I stated it above.  You even managed to preserve the context this
time.  Maybe you can now manage to read the text that you quoted.

#Remember, we're 
#not talking about the dangers of illegal abortion, as Kaflowitz
#has suggested, but rather the *incidence* of illegal abortion. 
#Look at the subject line if you forget.

I guess reading the net is really confusing for you, huh, DODie?
I mean, if you still think that the contents of a particular
article are always limited to the topic given in a subject line,
then you must believe that most people, including yourself,
are insane.  Perhaps this explains why you so frequently
assume that other people share your particular fantasies
and logical lapses.

I quoted estimates of death rates in the original article.
You deleted them from your reply, as is your habit, so
perhaps you have forgotten that they were there.  Thanks
for giving me another laugh - I love it when your selective
editing makes you look like a fool.

Susan
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What do Muriel, CJ, and rocker believe about adoption?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:57:26 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan15.003904.8960@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.726609453@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>Muriel and I had a long discussion on this matter a while ago, and I never
>>saw her reply to my last post, which was over 200 lines long.  Did I miss
>
>PHoney, _most_ of your posts are over 200 lines long.

This statement is not correct. Assuming that his last 197 posts are 
representative, _most_ of Nyikos' posts are under 75 lines long, including 
headers. On average, in fact, they are well under 100 lines long. Only 14 of
those 197 posts, or a little over 7%, were over 200 lines long.

						Statistically Yours,

						      - Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:32:07 GMT

In article <root.727741517@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan16.163714.17827@mtu.edu>, pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
>>> In article <90302@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>>> It is NOT government's place to go around defining moral and ethical
>>> issues.
>>
>>But it is certainly one of the functions of government to define
>>what immoral and unethical actions will be prohibited.  
>
>No.  It is up to the PEOPLE to define what things we will allow the
>government to do.  We define those things that we wish enforced.

Agreed. But when the government accurately reflects the opinions of the
PEOPLE, then it's just arbitrary semantics whether we say "the people 
prohibit..." or "the government prohibits...".

>>We prohibit murder.  We prohibit kidnapping.  We prohibit fraud.  Every 
>>one of these is defining a punishment for an action that most people
>>consider to be immoral and unethical.  
>
>Each of these is a violation of a persons rights.  You are punishing for
>a violation of the right to life, liberty, etc, etc.

And those rights to life, liberty, etc., etc., have been established 
because people considered it MORAL to establish those rights.

Law is a subset of morality, in that morality is the sum total of all
attitudes about how people ought to behave, and law is an attitude about
how _certain_ behaviors ought to be dealt with.

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58447 talk.philosophy.misc:3476 misc.test:15972
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.test
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:48:54 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

I have added talk.philosophy.misc to the newsgroups, and also misc.test
because of apprehension about my posts all making it out there today.

In <1993Jan27.074149.2571@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) says:
>>>Just what is an "individual life" supposed to be?
>>
>>I kind of thought it was self-evident.  For example, every person on this
>>planet lives his own individual life.  The term seems to be necessary, now,
>>to mark the difference from human life as a whole (or as a continuum).

>Self-evident like, say, the flatness of the earth?  What does it mean,
>to live an individual life?  Barring very few hermits I don't don't of
>any true individuals.  Perhaps you have a different notion of
>independence?

Of course, Ray.  You should get your nose out of whatever pocket dictionary
you use and confront these concepts on a deeper level.

>>When talking about 'life' in the sense of a continuum, it's possible to say
>>that life has no beginning and no end.  An individual's life does, and
>>the pro-life crowd feels that this beginning and this ending are coming
>>way, way too close together sometimes...

>What is an "individual"?  Even at the death of most of the cells in a
>particular body, life continues even in that body.  Sure, you might
>argue that the "person" has "died", but then that begs the question of
>just what _is_ a person.

I take it, Ray, that you do not believe there is a life after death in the
sense of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.  But do
you also claim the very CONCEPT is meaningless?

>All of which leads into a philosophical rats-nest, and explains why
>philosophers don't enjoy more popularity.

What you see as a rat's nest, I see as a glimpse into the ultimate
mysteries of our existence. 

BTW I have started making a distinction between "philosopher" and
"sophist", and I think there are relatively few true philosophers in
our modern world, and even fewer who get the recognition they deserve.

Peter J. Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:26:14 GMT

In <1993Jan20.201852.25441@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student) writes:

>[--fire and brimstone sermon deleted--]

>May I ask a question, as one God-fearing Christian to another?

>Is God playing some kind of "gotcha"-type game?  I mean, if
>getting or administering an abortion merited eternal damnation,
>don't you think God would have explicitly warned us?

>Seriously,

Does this mean you are not a God-fearing Christian?

A yes answer requires no further explanation.

A no answer, i.e. that you ARE a God-fearing Christian, does.  

For instance, isn't Christianity an anal-retentive religion in your
eyes?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion