HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:45:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>I like debating you Ron.  You're easy.  "Anti-Abortion" is as much a
>misnomer as "Pro-Death".  Choicers like it because of the negative
>connotation of being "Anti".  "Pro-Death" is a sarcastic reply to
>people who insist on labeling themselves "Pro" while refusing to
>recognize the other side's labels.

It is? Are you not against abortion if you're pro-life? Well, actually,
you have a point. I know people who are Anti-abortion, are rational,
and don't seek to stop anyone from having an abortion. They just don't
see it as an option for themselves. I guess I'm insulting them when
I compare them with a pro-lifer like you. Sorry folks, I'll try not
to insult you again.

As for having negative connotations, I ask again what is negative about
it? I'm anti-murder, nothing negative about that.

Pro-death, however, means that I'd be for your death as well as everyone
else's death, the sooner the better. This is completely inaccurrate.
As for me being easy, you'll never know. Even were you of the correct
gender, you have an incompatible personality, and I'd tell you to take
a hike.

If you didn't follow the logic in the above, please go study boolean
algebra before responding. It might help.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:37:36 GMT

In article <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>
>	Medically, life begins at conception.



You need to be more precise. Both cells were *alive* before conception, hence,
in general, 'life' had begun *before* conception.

If you are saying that at conception 'pop', you have a human being or person,
this is also incorrect. There is no structure to *support* a person, ie,
no brain. Here is the subject of the current debate.



> Once conceived, a human
>fetus will be a human, not a frog, fish, or anything else.  Murder is the
>premeditated taking of a human life.

You have *clearly* not been following this group long.  It seems we have 
all concluded that blatant assertion does not imply fact.

Feel free to participate in the *debate*.




-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Please, tell me more about myself. (formerly: THE RATIONALIZATION...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:29:46 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to
>>start reading your Bible.  There are wonderful insights as to God's Pro-Life
>>stance.

>Where, oh where is that passage relating to the flood and Noah's ark?

>What a wonderful pro-life stance your god has...

Did you say anthing here?

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: wasting money on propaganda (was Hello?)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:25:27 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr5.165603.14049@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) said:
>>Excuse me, I am not aware of any pro-abortion political group.  As far as
>>I know I am the only pro-abortion person on the net.  At least, I'm the
>>only one who will admit it.  All I want is for abortion to remain legal,
>>there are enough people who value choice enough to donate money to help
>>out those who can't afford one.
>>
>I'm sorry you feel that way, Gordon.  I think there are lots of other 
>pro-choice people on the net, many of whom post to this board regularly.  

What's your point?

>                                                                          It 
>may get lost in the arcane shuffle of squabbles and counter-squabbles, but 
>others (including myself) have staked out a pro-choice position, or claimed 
>one.

That's fine.  What's your point?  None of the pro-choice people I know
claim to be pro-abortion.  I do.  The person I was responding to
specifically referred to a "pro-abortion political movement", not a
"pro-choice political movement".  Therefore I want to know about it.
That's all.

>Committed to faith in God

Good luck.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
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.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:26:40 GMT


In a previous article, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) says:

>>                    I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
>Watch less television.  Read more.  Start with the COnstitution.
>I also recommend Locke's Second Treatise and De Toqueville
>(the latter for some insight into the American character).

Get a life. Go out some time. Get your fat ass off the couch. Get your
face surgically removed from your monitor. Read the Bible or the
Koran. Get a clue.

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Organization: Encore Computer
	<ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> <1992Apr14.191943.2161@aus.intel.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:14:59

In article <1992Apr14.191943.2161@aus.intel.com> johne@tule.intel.com (john elliott) writes:

>Do we really have any proof that life does not begin at conception?  So
>far the most premature
>babies that have lived have all turned out to be humans.  Not one ever
>became anything else.
>Can any study or method of proof be cited that even might indicate otherwise?  

	I don't know of anyone who argues that the z/e/f is not alive.
It is clearly alive, in the same fashion that your liver is alive. The
question in my mind is "Is it a human being, and if so, what rights does
it have?"

>If I can't proove that the fetus is not alive, then on the chance that
>it might be alive,
>I am much more comfortable with the assumption that the fetus is alive. 

	The question "Is the fetus alive?" is a strawman that pro-lifers
set up. Likewise "Is the fetus human?"

>It then follows that 
>termination of the fetus for any reason other than protection of the
>mother is ............(fill in the blank).

	No, it does not follow. Do you call an appendectomy ...........
(fill in the blank)?  No?  But the appendix is alive, and human. What
makes the fetus different from your appendix? 

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:12:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET) writes:
>In article <18219@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>>In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>In article <1992Apr15.165737.9990@ncsu.edu>
>>>        kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET) writes:

>>>Your reasoning is flawed. Your argument is basically:

>>>(1)  Born Person => Person has rights
>>>     A => B


>        I didn't write this.  I wrote the article that the author of
>this was responding to.  It's not that big of a deal, but it does
>make me look sort of strange arguing with myself on the net...


Nope, Doug did. Got to add one '>' to the ones in the message ID.

FYI

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Group by definition....
Summary: Better than Lape, by definition.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:42:55 GMT

In article <kubtobINN3vj@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>From The Random House College Dictionary, 1980, Random House, Inc.
>
>	inequity - 1. lack of equity; unfairness.  2. an unfair
>		   circumstance or proceeding.
>
>	So what IS this GROUP for?  It seems to me most of the traffic is
>tuff discussed on talk.abortion.

That doesn't bode well for you, then, does it?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Please, tell me more about myself. (formerly: THE RATIONALIZATION...)
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:59:21 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <18072@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>
>>I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to
>>start reading your Bible.  There are wonderful insights as to God's Pro-Life
>>stance.
>
>Where, oh where is that passage relating to the flood and Noah's ark?
>
>What a wonderful pro-life stance your god has...

Well He *did* promise never to do it again...

>Ron

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:41:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Kevin B.
>Ron


>>Pro-death, however, means that I'd be for your death as well as everyone
>>else's death, the sooner the better. This is completely inaccurrate.
>>As for me being easy, you'll never know. Even were you of the correct
>>gender, you have an incompatible personality, and I'd tell you to take
>>a hike.

>>If you didn't follow the logic in the above, please go study boolean
>>algebra before responding. It might help.

>Okay then, litmus test time.  Pro-death = "I'd be for your death as well as
>everyone else's death, the sooner the better."

>Did we forget something here?  Did we forget the issue was ABORTION.

No, just Ron forgot.

>Once again we can use this "Disregard the issue" mentality and say...
>Pro-Choice = You are for MY choice to make abortion illegal except in the
>case of the mother's life being endangered.  
>Of course I could have used some far-fetched baloney to illustrate my point
>but I think you did that well enough.

Try not to be so hard on Ron--he's human too.  I don't think that you, I or
anyone else needs to use semantics or cheap shots or far-fetched
arguments with Ron either.  Words coming from him just seem to stagnate in
this newsgroup, doing nothing.

>>Ron

>animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
>prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome

kcw



--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:13:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Kevin
>>David

>>>Person, human, person, human, human *being*, person being, human person.
>>>I have a hard time rembering which is bad to kill. I assumed all so I find
>>>them to be synonymous.

>>They are NOT.


>I said "I find them to be", not "they are".

And I said that they are not.  I didn't say you are wrong.  What I say is
my opinion.


>It is wrong to kill/murder a human being. It is wrong to kill/murder a person.

Yes it is wrong to kill a human being and to kill a person.  I agree.
That's why abortion is wrong.


>>>to kill it. Pick one, and stick it in the above paragraph, then answer the 
>>>question.

>>It is the fact that it is a human being in the genetic sense.  That it is
>>human.  That, to me, it is a Constitutional person, not a phil person.


>So it is wrong to kill a fetus because it is genetically human?  How about
>someone who is brain dead? Are you against euthanasia? Death penalty?

It is wrong to kill a human because it is genetically human.
How can you kill someone who is brain dead?  If they are brain dead, they
are DEAD.  This is the accepted medical and religious definition of DEAD.

I am against active euthanasia.  When the brain is alive, that patient is
alive.  When it is not, the patient is dead.

Death penalty is acceptable.
Under extreme conditions.


>>>>I have ALWAYS said that it is a human being in all genetic form, it IS human
>>>>and that it HAS rights!!!!!!!!

>>>Human? Or human *being*. I never saw the list from you that described the 
>>>exact terms we were going to use.

>>It is human.  Human is the adjective to associate beings of the same genetic
>>order.  Human being in it's genetic form...as I have said over and over
>>and over and over...


>Got it now.


>I will use 'genetically human quality' to be that feature a fetus has that
>makes it wrong to kill it in the future.

okay, as I have said, Human Being in the genetic sense.

>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

kcw

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:32:14 GMT


In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:

>I don't agree with the extreme view of the above person from NARAL,
>although I do think that contraceptive removal will be next if abortion is
>outlawed.  

Bull shit....not in this country. You will agree that a large portion
of pre-lifers are religious groups. Among these are Catholics
and almost all Protestant groups. "Keep your rosaries off my
rosaries" applies only to Catholics. The idea that contraception
will be outlawed comes from a naive fear of certain people who happen
to have a concrete religious background, much like Hitler's paranoia
of the Jews. In the US, Catholics are way out numbered by Protestants
and to my knowledge, all Protestant groups support the use of 
birth control, with in a family of course. Only Catholics and their
8 kids are against it.

>"Human likeness"?  

the way some of you people think around here makes me wonder if
you're human. people on both sides.

>And chimp DNA closely resembles the human species (99% DNA
>match). 

stupid point. there are people with genetic disorders such as
Downs syndrome who, by DNA comparison, are way less than 99% human.
So you're saying that they aren't human?


later

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Regarding Jennifer's suggestion
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 18:55:13 EDT

First of all, Jennifer, your suggestion is too long for most users to
followup on. Many users probably gave up when that message came and
did not (as I have) post a separate response.

It seems to me that what you propose is a lengthy, paperwork burdened
process. It seems basically fair, but I think in actual practice,
someone will find exception after exception that will not work.

Here is a counter proposal:

1) Make conjugal relations outside of marriage illegal. Men who engage
in sex outside or before marriage can be found guilty of rape, even
if the act was mutually agreed upon.

2) Abortions would be allowed only in the cases of rape (as defined)
above) and the woman is willing to press charges, physiological
endagerment of the permanent health of the woman, or extreme genetic
defect of the fetus.

3) Those who enter into marriage, enter into it with the understanding
that they (both partners) will be responsible to raise any offspring
that result from their activity.  No abortions would be allowed (except
as defined in #2), and the husband cannot be charged with raping his
wife. Assault/Battery, yes, but rape, no.

My point is, make people understand that sex is for marriage and
reproduction. Is is not for pleasure, pasttime, warm fuzzies, or
anything else.

Now . . . rebuttals?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Craig E. Smith      "Life is a fulltime occupation" -- Gene Kallman ::
:: Columbus, Ohio                                                      ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>bonehead?

An apt description of yourself. Nothing goes in. Therefore, nothing
more need be said.


Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: MORALITY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:06:02 GMT

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

>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.

Well, gee.  Since it didn't happen to your brother guess it just doesn't
happen anywhere, duuuhhhh.

>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.

I can't believe you actually read anything on the subject.  I will not waste
time "suppoting" something that is common knowledge.  Would you be stupid
enough to waste your time "supporting" that a WASP family actually was
allowed to adopt a non-WASP child?

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- not the mamma!  not the mamma!)
Subject: More words being stuffed in my mouth (formerly: tell me more...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: _W_A_C_D_T_F, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:03:57 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr12.183508.15448@liebe.uucp>
According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>  = me (Jay), replying to:  IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)

>>My position needs no rationalization, thank you.  It is the only conclusion
>>consistent with my belief system.  And before you flame my belief system, 
>>I would remind you that there are pro-chocie Christians, and they might
>>take exception to your comments.
>
>I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to 
>start reading your Bible.  There are wonderful insights as to God's Pro-Life
>stance.

Don't call it *my* Bible, please.  I'm not a Christian.  If you want to
argue over what the Bible says, do it with someone who agrees that
said Bible has any authority over them.

>>As for the rest of your statement, I am fully aware of what is killed during
>>an abortion.  Are you aware of the woman whom you would force to be a host?
>
>Why are women given ZERO responsibility for their actions?  Since a woman's
>body is your issue then why not tell women to quit letting men exploit them?
>I get tired of the "everybody's a victim" attitude of society.  Sometimes it
>appears that all minorities assume that ALL their problems are someones elses
>fault (ie. generally males, usually white males).  

Excuse me, Kevin, but I did not use the word victim, nor did I imply
that I think "everybody's a victim," nor did I say anything about blaming
problems on everybody else.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

Incidentally, having an abortion is a way to deal responsibly with a
pregnancy.  I know you disagree with that, but I say it only so you
won't think that I *really* believe women are "given zero responsibility
for their actions."

As for your advice, about advising women not to let men exploit them, I DO -
in that I advise my female aquaintances not to get involved with a man who
would force them to stay pregnant against their will.  Not a victim
attitude, just plain preventive maintenance.
--
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
                                               \
"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    -- Doug Holtsinger
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity