HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: FAQ: talk.abortion
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 22:49:44 GMT

<7348@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au said:
>In <1992Mar27.004046.15616@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>    There are, however, some issues which have been flogged to death, and some
>>    issues which are so patently absurd that they shouldn't be discussed.  Some
>>    of these are:
>
>>    ABORTION IS MURDER, AND THAT'S THAT!
>
>	[pro-choice prejudice after prejudice]
>
>One feels bound to offer an alternate list:

Then try an accurate one.  The quote you left in from Keith is accurately
stated - we have seen it screamed at us here on the net at the rate of at
least once a month.

>     HUMAN BEINGS ARE CANCEROUS GROWTHS

Never seen this posted.  I've seen some *compare* the growth of a fetus to
a cancerous growth, but never state that a fetus is actually a cancerous
growth.

>     THE FETUS IS PART OF/INSIDE THE MOTHER
>       Scientifically unsupportable and basically offensive propoganda.

Are you claiming the fetus is *not* inside the woman?  I'm sure it's news
to every woman who has ever been pregnant.

>     PRO-LIFERS/MEN/CHRISTIANS ARE MINDLESS BEASTS

I don't recall seeing any pro-choice posters claim that MEN are mindless
beasts, only that *some* men can be, and some Christians can be too.

>     PRO-LIFERS ARE MINDLESS FUNDAMENTALISTS
>       It is very offensive to many pro-lifers to be tarred by
>       association with (especially US) fundamentalism.

Many are, but I understand your point.

>     PRO-LIFERS (CANNOT GO PAST/COMPLETELY IGNORE) THE BIBLE
>       There are those who argue both, sometimes in the same sentence.

Well those that claim abortion to be against their religion must prove
consistency within their moral theater.

>     CHRISTAINS ARE ALWAYS HYPOCRITS
>       In essence every Christain is guilty of every possible crime,
>       simultaneously. Christains are asked to answer for everything bad
>       in the world.

Nope, Christian volunteer for martyrdom.  Their entire religion is based
on martyrdom.  And I have yet to speak to a person in general who is not a
hypocrite in some way.  But most Christians I know make it so easy to
spot.

>     MURDER LAWS ARE AN INFRINGEMENT ON OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES

Really?  Please explain.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:39:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.214030.10716@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:

>So you're making the analogy that by comparing abortionist to Nazis
>that somehow degrades the term NAZI? Your OBVIOUSLY not looking at it 
>from the hard core pro-life perspective. To some pro-lifers, abortionist
>are people who methodically (sp?) KILL children. Because they see
>the life of the unborn child as being as important as your life or my
>life. TO you or ME this may not be the case...but the comparison is 
>QUITE valid to many. 

But it isn't valid, and it's known not to be valid, to the people the
pro-lifers are trying to convince. If they just use the analogy when
talking among themselves, it doesn't do any harm. But when they, and
the prp-choicers who are claiming that pro-lifers are nazis, and the
anti-fur people, and everyone else with a cause to further, start try-
ing to make their points to the unconvinced by using the analogy, the
inevitable reaction is that the people who *don't* see the cause in
question as that bad will start tuning out anyone who refers to the
Holocaust, as in, "Oh, no; not *this* again!!" And this will get very
dangerous, in exactly the same way that it was very dangerous that the
reaction of Americans, British, and the population of most of Europe,
when the Jews started to call for help, was, "That's ridiculous. Everyone
knows they're always yapping about something." The underground radio
station from the Warsaw Ghetto broadcast for thirty days, detailed re-
ports from inside Treblinka and Majdanek. Nobody listened. When I have
to prepare those reports and broadcast them from the Chicago concentration
camp, I want people to be so unused to hearing such things that they are
shocked into action.

	-Nora

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15548 soc.men:8528 soc.women:9048
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:03:22 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
|In a previous article, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:
|>It's obvious to all readers except Holtsinger that I find
|>him nauseating.  
|CJ......I think you should have figured it out by now.....but
|I'm playing the Devil's Advocate.  [...]
|So why should I alienate a large portion of the readers. 

But you already have... by your rhetorical techniques,
and not by your politics.  There are people on this group
who are respected by people holding differing opinions,
because they think & speak reasonably & without offending
people.  You've managed to offend everyone.  Can you choose
a more effective technique.

You have a good point here:

|The problem with this group is that so many people are entrenched
|in a groove to the point that they REFUSE to even consider what other
|people think in other grooves. 

but you're not going to have much of an audience if you
continue posting the way you have.  You'll get flamed.
Flames are fun, but they tend not to convince anyone
of anything.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the 
intellect." -- Oscar Wilde
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:14:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Note to the timid, press 'n' or 's' for an article that might be worth
reading, as this is a short flame. :)

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
->In <1992Apr14.111643.7793@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
->writes:
->> S.F.
->Coincidences always amaze me, especially between my two favorite fellow
->Catholic posters S.F. and S.F. - J.J.

>   You see, the initials JJ aren't so great either... HOw abou;t this:
>Jerk-off Jack-ass
 ^        ^
>   Hmmm, maybe you've got a point about similarities with initials...

OK, I can't resist

Stupid Fucker

Ron
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:51:09 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article by mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis):
> 
> exactly......the real problem with abortion is not the act itself....

Oh face it, some acts are just plain wrong.  Relativism is mistaken.


> but the reasons and motivations behind it. 

Reasons and motivations may well be wrong, but even given all the _best_
motivations, some actions are _still_ just plain wrong.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, MaThiEu.


> Humankind is a loser
> when it comes to, in the words of Spike Lee, doing the right thing.

Some human beings do very well at doing the right thing, though.   It
gets them into trouble with other human beings who have bad motivations.


> later
> MaThiEu a. LeWis

Gater,

Suzanne Forgach
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 17:33:46 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>  Pro-life/religious are against day-care because we feel (supported by
>psychological studies) that it can have harsh retroactive effects on the
>child. Confusing the child at an early age with contradiciting maternal
>and paternal influences can lead to a variety of problems. As well, it
>means that the parents are spending less time with their children, resulting
>in a lack of education between teh parent and child when we have so little
>in our present age already. We cannot leave education of important concepts
>up to strangers. It must begin at home.

Keith (Cochran), can I borrow your tutu?  It's time for another visit from
the clue fairy.  Dang, it doesn't fit!  Will the wand still work?  Let's
give it a try...

			*doink!*

Ok, it works...

Steve, clue #1 has to do with basic economics, a subject you're weak in.
Except for cases where one or the other spouse is in the top 10% wrt to
income,  it takes _two_ paychecks to maintain an acceptable standard of
living in the U.S.  I'm not talking about ski trips to Vail or a power
boat in a private slip, I'm talking about a non-leaky roof over one's head,
food in the fridge, clothes in the closet, and bills paid.

Clue #2.  Other studies indicate that children in daycare attain a higher
level of 'socialization,' or ability to interact with other people, AND
a higher level of academic achievement.  My two children have both put in
a lot of time at daycare centers.  My 10yo boy is breezing through his
classes and my 4yo knows the alphabet, can write many words and can count
to 40.  Neither of them is 'confused.'

Where do we put the clue fairy wand when we're done with it?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Who Framed Baby Herman?  (Was: All Caps Implications)
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:02:32 CDT

In article <1992Apr8.233322.18357@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>
>Let me go put on my tutu, Steve, and I'll play clue-fairy for you today.
>
Awwwwwwwww. What makes Steve so special? We hardly ever get to
see you in your tutu around here.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:08:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr17.060916.12561@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <18180@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <kum6mnINNspg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
>>> writes:

>>->Well, lets see. If the population size is already to big as Ron indicated,
>>->and the rate of population growth goes negative, then it would
>>->logically follow that this would be a good thing, right?

>>>   No Eric... YOu see, things as momentous as population growth
>>>are aexceptionally difficult to turn around. Once we hit negative population
>>>increase, things will start to hit us. We will buckle financially as
>>>we have insufficient manpower to handle our produce. It will also
>>>cut into our socio-economic structure which requires a specific
>>>population to sustain it. You see, maybe we are a billion over, but
>>>once we shrink enough, we DON"T STOP. We keep right on going. Numbers
>>>like these are only swayed by HUGE variables. The one that is causing
>>>the decrease is technology and  is never goin to go away.

>>Can you produce some evidence of this claim? 

>>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.

Just answer the questions, ma'am. 

Can you produce some evidence of this claim? 

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

Now once again; Stop these damn blatant assertions.

Eric


--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dentist Gall Writhes Again - was Re:Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:03:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <28925@brahms.udel.edu> roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> The most obvious way I can think of for making a woman feel bad about 
> having a child is to tell her she has no say in the matter.

I think the most obvious way is to tell her that Chane...Hall
is the father.

Dean Kaflowitz

 If I dare eat, or rink, or breathe, or live,
I dare meet Surrey in a wilderness,
And spit upon him, whilsst I say he lies,
And lies, and lies.
-Richard II, IV.i
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Ego that Ate the Net
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:59:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: rotag.1992Apr11.175935.9002
Distribution: na
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Apr05.215520.14020@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr4.034831.16700@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr02.193239.18317@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>> >In  <1992Apr2.054200.10383@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writ
>> >> In article <92091.165901ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647
>> >> >In article <1992Mar29.182951.28031@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Then why was my screen graced with a verbatim copy of Welch's obscenity?
>> >> >>What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve TO ME?
>> >> >>Answer me that.
>> >> >
>> >> >Idiot.  The net is not here to serve you, and you alone.
>> >>
>> >> Where did I imply that the Net existed to serve me ALONE??
>> >
>> >When you asked "Why was my screen graced...".
>>
>> Sounds like a simple question, not an implication at all.
>
>Can not a question imply something further?

Of course it can. But I said "SIMPLE question", Larry, not just "question".
The question under discussion did not imply everything you and Linda claim 
it did.

>> >The answer, of course, is
>> >that it went out to everyone reading talk.abortion, and it showed up
>> >on your screen because you're one member of this large set.  Although
>> >it might not have served any purpose to *you*, it did serve a purpose
>> >for all the rest of us that were curious as to exactly what Welch wrote.
>>
>> Is curiosity a virtue in itself?
>
>Did I claim it was a virtue?

If curiosity is not virtuous, or necessary, then what is the virtue of 
indulging it?

>> >> >Since when does anyone have to consider *YOU* when they post.
>> >>
>> >> Where did I imply that people had to consider me INDIVIDUALLY when they post?
>> >
>> >When you implied that everything posted must serve a constructive purpose
>> >to Kevin Darcy.
>>
>> I never implied such a thing. You and Linda are overreacting to what I wrote.
>
>As I said before, you can't deny that the implication is there, since
>Linda and I (and others) saw an implication.  

You closet subjectivist, you...

>What you can claim if you
>wish is that you didn't *mean* to imply that.  Which would then lead one
>to ask, then why did you ask what constructive purpose did it serve "TO ME"?
>(Emphasis yours.)

The question was partly rhetorical, setting myself up as a counter-example
to the implication that "everyone wanted to see it". Everyone did NOT want
to see it. SOME of us were completely content with a general description and
nothing more. And even if EVERYONE wanted to see it, I don't subscribe to any
lynch-mob mentality which condones the trampling of privacy rights for no 
better purpose than satisfying curiosity and/or prurient interest.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:46:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr9.192431.6010@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.114047.9918@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
> >
> > Next week: Umbilical macrame...

Ah, what a tangled web we weave...

> You have any good recipes for placenta?
> Something to stir the juices of my chefly pretensions.

Umm, are your chefly juices another ingredient?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 12:58:36 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: We Won't Go Back/April 5th/March for Abortion Rights

In article <1992Apr8.132919.27842@acd4.acd.com> Bill Overpeck says:

>In <92085.162154ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
>   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >
>In article <1992Mar24.201353.28977@acd4.acd.com>
>   Bill Overpeck says: >>
>In <dfs.700256572@pulaski> dfs@doe.carleton.ca
>   (David F. Skoll) writes: >>>

>>>>and the mother's life and health, including mental health,
>>>>should take precedence over the life of the fetus.

>>>Who should assess the potential mental health risks for such
>>>women?

>>The woman.

>I didn't realize that all women had instrinsic expertise in risk
>assessment for mental disorders.  As a man, I had to be trained.

I didn't realize that any trained therapist would ignore input
from their client in this day and age.  Tell me Mr. Overpeck,
do you belong to the school of therapy that believes that the
patient is incapable of understanding their lives without the
overriding direction of a "trained" therapist?

Or maybe you're right, maybe it is because you are a man
that you have to be trained to recognize your own weaknesses.
For many women, having been told that pursuing a degree,
or a career, or forgoing children, or having children,
getting married, or remaining single, etc. signs of insanity,
that it becomes easy to recognize what is healthy and what is not.



Linda
--
"On this point Mill is simply crazy" Sigmund Freud commenting on
John Stuart Mill's idea that women could be equal to men.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Time for a Brain Break...
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:58:09 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>Well, I've come to the realization that I can't keep up. Not with the
>flames, the posts, the ideas, or the concepts. I've got to take
>a break for a little while. But, I as hoping some of you would like
>to share ideas over e-mail?

I doubt you'd enjoy my questions over email anymore than you have
posting.  However, should you come up with any convincing reasons
first-trimester abortions should be made illegal (other than 
I/my church/my God says so) I sincerely would like to hear them.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE:  A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:52:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax.13APR92.16520524
Organization: Clark University

> mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)

>What is the consensus on the net for a national abortion law?

>I am pro-life but think this issue is tearing the country apart.
>I would like to have it settled. I don't think having 50 different
>state laws is right.  It just favors those people who have the 
>money to travel to a state with more liberal laws.

>My idea of a compromise:

>	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.

I can see a couple of problems with this proposal.  For one thing, there are 
some very young and very uneducated women out there who may not realize they 
are pregnant until well after the 14th week.  Also, for some poor women it may 
take longer than 14 weeks to pull together enough money for the procedure, 
arrange for time off from work, etc.  Again, the result is one set of options 
for the women who have money and education, and less choices for the poor and 
the young. 



                     .... Heather.
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 10:45:17 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
 <1992Apr11.233846.13880@csusac.csus.edu> <1992Apr14.153511.4684@crd.ge.com>
 <1992Apr14.203723.1899@csusac.csus.edu>

In article <1992Apr14.203723.1899@csusac.csus.edu>,
cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr14.153511.4684@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr
><keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>someone posting as
>>       cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>cut it out chaney.
>
>And now you, too, owe me a retraction.

>Once again, I am not Chaney,

Oh cut it out Chaney.  If you were a little more
creative you might have pulled it off.


Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: A few points
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:12:32 GMT

<17691@oasys.dt.navy.mil> (Ronald Bense) writes:
> Eventually,..., most people will wind up with children
> who are not a "lost priority or forgotten," as a matter of fact, they
> are generally loved and treated well, 

Agreed.  Most people eventually have kids.  Most parents love their
children and treat them well.

> primarily because the parents waited until they were ready to have them. 

This I would like to see supported.  It is my opinion that most
parents love their children and treat them well because it
is a good and decent and noble and right thing to do.  It is
my opinion that those parents who were surprised by the
arrival of Junior also love, support, and care for their
children.

[Large amount of deletion]

> What you haven't experienced, you can't really ever have a feel for. 

There's a certain trivial sense in which this is true.  You haven't
done X until you've done X.  But you're about to take it too far:

> You can be told what swimming feels like, but until you do, you have 
> no right to critique it. 

This is nonsense.  The whole point of being a human being within
a community is that we have intelligence and the ability to 
communicate through language.  This allows us to learn from the
experiences of others.  We don't have to try everything for ourselves.
We can examine that actions of others and the consequences of those
actions, and make recommendations and even "critiques" on that
basis.

I don't have to go swimming in a dangerous area to learn about the
undertow.  I can simply obey the "NO SWIMMING" sign placed there
after other people's experiences determined swimming there
was a dangerous endeavor.  

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion