HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:52:55 GMT

kevin at liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) shows his true colors:
-
| keegan at kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-
| >i don't know
| >any Pro-Death people
-
Jim Keegan, meet Kevin Brawley ... first self-declared Pro-Death member
of talk.abortion.
-
As he so wisely expounds ...
-
| 1. The fetus (human or not) is a life.
-               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah.  So the deer fetus is a life ... and the squirrel fetus is a
life ... and the moose fetus is a life ... and so on, right?
-
| 2. When you terminate the life you bring death.
-
...]
| are Pro-Death.
-
Okay.  And now for K. Brawley's .sig:
-
...]
...]
                ^^^^^^^^^^
...]
...]
-
Sure hope he gives 'em pregnancy tests out there in the woods ...
-
| Commence Screaming.
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Help, Mommy, help!  It's a Pro-Deather, and he's got a gun!
-
prospacingandpunctuationinsigs ---
-
Suzanne Lucia.
-
p.s.  I have nothing against hunting, and the hunters I know are horrified if
they accidentally kill a pregnant animal.  I have a fair bit against sloppy
reasoning, though.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 23:42:52 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  <1992Apr6.170613.18155@hemlock.cray.com>  mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
> You guys shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the pleasantries
> of acquiring ex-girlfriends here either. We don't make a lot of
> demands, and we give _great_ recommendations.

Well, the following made me decide that I'd be proud to be on your list:

In  <1992Apr5.152506.12915@hemlock.cray.com>  mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
> If you wish to assert that you are my equal in terms of relevant life
> experiences, you should live a few years, get pregnant while you're
> dirt poor, give birth three times, go back in time before RvW and
> watch your best friend almost die from a self-induced abortion, raise
> three kids to their teens, go back to school while holding down two
> jobs and raising three kids, and get yourself a _whole bunch_ of
> ex-boyfriends.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:41:34 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.133433.23364@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.124354.22380@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>> In <1992Apr14.030728.21623@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Apr14.022904.1885@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> >>From article by kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):


>"so many"?  You mean if there were 1/10 the number of abortions
>you would quit trying to make it illegal?
   Point taken. One life wasted is too many. however, the progress we seek
in the near future is to lessen the incedences of abortion. Less
wasted lives is an improvement and I'm not sure we can hope for more.
Just like we will never eradicate homicide, I imagine we will never
absolve society of abortion. But, we can certainly try, and 1/10
of the abortions would certainly be a step in the right direction...

     steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cplma@groper.jcu.edu.au (Lynn Alford)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 03:18:12 GMT

In <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:


>A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>sleep around and/or are sluts. You're in college. Look around you.
>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.

Lovely, and what do you call the men that are sleeping around?  Are they
sluts too?  Or is that just natural for a man to sleep around but not a
woman?

Lynn (Still sad because she has no wonderful ex-boyfriends in the
marvelous pro-choice contingent in t.a.)
-- 
The screen of my Mac doesn't really resemble my desktop despite being designed 
to support the desktop metaphor (1), and the windows on my terminal bear only 
the slightest relation to the contraptions that lets drafts into my office.  
Stroustrup.  1) I wouldn't be able to tolerate such a mess on my screen anyway.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: net sabotage sux
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 05:47:41 GMT




my remark was a joke. If you fear such actions against yourself, then
I don't know what to say. I wouldn't personally do it. 
Funny how people misinterpret the smiley face  to mean something
sinister.

I put automailing on the same level as people contacting a site
admin because they don't like what someone said. It's simply
censorship.   

And we're all against censorship.....right??

Later
 
"Everything you assume is wrong."



-- 
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: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- too baudy for my modem)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: _W_A_C_D_T_F, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:01:59 GMT

Where it was written: <1992Apr12.171710.20635@cs.dal.ca>
Who wrote it:         franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)

>Many of us see pregnancy as a pain in the uterus,
>and not as a gift or an inevitable stage of life. 

But sometimes that is in fact the case.  Pregancy is not always the wonderful
gift that you say.

An example would be a good friend of mine who is diabetic.  In order for her
to safely produce a child, she must start planning and preparing for her
pregnancy at least a month *BEFORE* conception.  Should she fail to do this,
the fetus would be at risk of death, as would my friend.

An unplanned pregnancy would not be a gift of any kind in her case.  

>Women must realize that
>one of their great gifts is their ability to CREATE. We must thank women
>for this, and heighten our support and admiration of the mother. It is
>society's fault and it is now society's resonsibility to help all women
>through their pregnancies and beyond. 

These are laudable goals, Steve - but I have my doubts as to whether we'll
be able to accomplish them.  If and when we do, *then* we can talk about
outlawing abortion.

>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru

Funny... I had been planning to flame Steve but I suddenly have this strange
feeling that I shouldn't... :)
--
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: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 02:20:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.050938.12490@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>Well, religion and law are a hell of a lot closer than you think. You take
>the ten commandments in on hand, and the charter of rights in another,
>and you tell me they're so different. 

They're so different. The Bill of Rights in my right hand specifies some of my 
rights as a citizen of the United States. These big heavy stone tablets in my 
left hand specify how some Middle Eastern tribe decided to live their lives 
some milennia ago. If the provisions of the BOR are violated, I drive down to 
my nearest Federal Courthouse, and start the process of correcting and/or
remedying the violation. If the provisions of the stone tablets are violated, 
I pray to some possibly-existent spiritual entity, in the hopes that he/she/it 
MIGHT hear me, and MIGHT choose to intervene (even though he/she/it hasn't 
made any major historical interventions for a few millenia).

But wait! With these stone tablets, you also get to feel guilty all the time
because of the Original Sin with which you're supposedly born and, if you 
should happen to give into temptation and "sin", you get to suffer not only 
the prospect of eternal damnation, but the intractably-judgmental attitudes of 
your "fellow" churchgoers. Now, how much would you pay?

I'll take the BOR any day of the week, thank you very much...

					Cynically and atheistically yours,

						    - Kevin
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Time for a Brain Break...
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:09:07 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

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?
   The posts become exceptionally redundant and reciprocal in their
arguments as new members come in and out and you get larry and Keith
shouting in your ear (it's a lump of cells !) every day... If you
were interested in posing some questions to a pro-lifer or sharing
any of your ideas I'd be open to any mail you have.
   I'm sure I"ll come back after a little while, but I'm just too
damn busy, and the number of posts has soared. I also made the
mistake of following all of the threads instead of choosing just
one. In any case, if you had any flames, threats, ideas, or 
suggestions, feel free to mail to

             franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca
I'd be interested in hearing from you...
   steve
p.s. - I"m sure I'll be dropping back once these threads wear
out... It's kind of annoying to see 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>THE IMPLICATIONS OF <>D

   From all of the various follow-ups...
later
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Response to "Bible and Abortion"
Summary: Use of oral contraceptives
Keywords: contraceptive, abortion
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:14:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

Good questions, Muriel.  The oral contraceptives were just recently
approved for use by non-smokers up to the age of 50.  The tri-phasic
form of ocs is much less likely to cause side effects, and
acceptability by the women has really increased over what it used to
be with the old high dose pills.

When you talk about extremely young girls, I assume you are talking
about adolescents who have established a menstrual cycle.  In this
case their own endogenous hormones are far stronger than the OCs and
there is little if any concern about hormonal effects.  Remember that
we always have to talk about relative risks.  It is obviously better
that the young woman not have intercourse until she is ready to have a
baby.  But often that is not the choice with which we are presented.
When selecting between use of OCs and pregnancy at age 14, the use of
OCs is by far the safer.

Shalom,                          Len Howard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads [zero-content bait]
Summary: "irresponsible loudmouths", the pot and the kettle
Keywords: forced childbirth
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:27:28 GMT

In article <Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
	 kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>... Now if all these irresponsible loudmouths would take it upon
>themselves to behave like mature human beings, exercise some proper
>self-discipline, and truly keep men out of their uteruses, there
>wouldn't even be any controversy regarding abortion.

	What contribution can "There wouldn't be abortions if
	nobody were unwillingly pregnant" make for this discussion?
	That is the essence of the above ... a zero-content argument.
	Non-pregnant women aren't faced with the choice of abortion.

>[Now some other airhead pro-abortionists here are going to ignore the
>undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions which are
>performed in the U.S. are quite simply for the sake of convenience and
>disingenuously raise objections concering rape.]

	I didn't see any "other airhead" above, just the original poster.
	The rest of this seems like the usual fare: bait from the Master
	Baiter.  Still waiting for that "Revisionist Historian" tract that
	was promised by Kaldis (reneged), still happy that Rutgers is not
	in Orange County,
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 16:23:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>YOu guys are realy immature you know that? When the tough gets going,
>the pro-choice get offensive. How many Christian jokes have been brought
>into an otherwise serious forum for discussing abortion?

You know something Steve?  I don't think you are in a very good position
from which to make this observation.

Just as a mental exercise, consider for a moment that you are sitting at
a dinner table with someone who decides to ask forgivness of the chicken
they are eating from the chicken god, and they throw salt over their shoulder
when they spill it and they knock on wood.  YOU happen to think this person
is superstitious, but being a tolerant, fairminded soul you decide it's
really THEIR OWN BUSINESS.

Over dinner, you get into a discussion of politics, and you discover this'
person and his buddies have decided to pass LAWS that would require you to
worship chickens and throw salt.  Regularly, at your own cost for the 
chickens and the salt.  And teach YOUR CHILDREN that the chicken god is 
supreme and salt is a sacrament.

Suppose you also discover that this fellow ACTUALLY has the numbers with
which to make a pretty fair claim to being able to pass a majority vote
locally.

Are you happy about this?

Steve, I happen to think that your religion is a sack of shit.  I happen to
think it's pure drivel and foolish, and backward, and idiotic.  And I'm
entitled to that opinion.  But being a tolerant, fairminded soul, I decide
it's really YOUR OWN BUSINESS what you believe.

But I'm going to be really pissed, and not terribly polite if you figure
you are going to impose this shit upon me.  I don't like shit, and I won't
put up with shit.

I'm not terribly surprised that there are others in the world who figure
likewise.

You will notice, if you ARE an observant fellow, that you will not have to
deal with insult or jokes about your religion if you keep your silly foolish-
minded religion to YOURSELF.  Put it out here in the public domain and 
it's fair game for anything folks care to throw at it.

Self righteousness just twists my knickers the wrong way.  Maybe it's a
character flaw others share -- know it, learn it, live it, Steve.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 06:05:36 GMT

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:03:35 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.201437.2232@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.203855.28178@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr12.190500.918@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr12.165452.17782@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:


>And don't forget that their status on this earth was lower than cattle BECAUSE
>19th century Christians believed they were "unGodly". 
   Hmmm. i don't seem to remember that. I remember the thousands
and thousands of priests who were killed because the Indians were frightened
of them and didn't understand what they were trying to bring. The Indians
saw the priests as white men who had already terrorized them. However,
the priests continued to come to share the message. That is all we want.
For everyone to have the message, and then they can accept or deny
the God we reveal to them through the bible.

>>You answer that one for me...
   Just did dear...

>>   NO smilies can make up for you erred logic friend...
>Erred LOGIC. Hardly. 
heh... pompous aren't you?   
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:46:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr14.134654.10126
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr13.214226.21160@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|>    Go read you grade 10 biology book. [Hu]man[ity] has lost his gestation
|> cycle because he has mastered his environment. It is nothing to do 
|> with God's will. He has overcome his environment, so there is nothing to
|> curb and direct his gestation cycle. God made sex fun so that we would hav
|> damn good incentive to do it. However, now that there are no periodic variables
|> to direct our cycle of sex, Trojan Condoms makes millions while our Population
|> growth is on the decline BIG time.
|>

I believe you wish to refer to an estrus cycle here, not a gestation
cycle. Gestation is the process of going from fertilized ova,
blastula, zygote, embryo, fetus to infant. The estrus cycle is the
cyclic "heat" that indicates periods of fetility & breeding
receptivness in the female. Man has not lost either, unlike Athena,
we do not spring fully formed from either parent, we develop
during a period of gestation, and (even if there are no outward
signs), women do go through an estrus cycle; however, that cycle
is not as "evident" to the male. The human estrus cycle controls
when the woman is fertile, as the human animal is in a continuous
state of receptiveness.

As for a negative population growth, I believe that you will find
that the world has not even reached ZPG much less NPG should you
be bothered to look at some form of population figures. The UN &
WHO could provide you technical details, an almanac could give you
the condensed version.

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 13:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.202101.10777@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>I've always felt that a man who gets a woman pregnant should be 
>responsible for alimony (for the child, AND the mother if she was
>employed and is unable to work for any period of her pregnancy...)
>   Basically, whether you are married or not, sex should be a 
>legal AND moral responsibility for us all. If you are going to have
>sex, it can't be a one sided ride. Men must be responsible for the
>child, just as much as the woman. It should not be right that a
>woman is FORCED to have an abortion because the man is not there to
>support her financially through the problem (or emotionally...)

In what sense is anyone being "FORCED" [sic] to abort, Steve? Certainly 
we're not talking about guns and chains and incarceration here, so in what
way shape or form is she being "FORCED"???

>>>And people wonder why I have little respect for pro-"life" males.
>   Dude, go get a life...
>
>>	Hmmm... sorry to hear this. Hope someone'll change your view
>>of Pro-Life males cause I know not all are bad. Abortion is a touchy issue
>>and everyone thinks they're right. The problem is, it's hard to say who's
>>right or wrong. Everyone's got a point. Everyone usually try to do what they
>>think is best, they mean well. Don't you agree? Well, got to go. I wish you
>>the best of luck in finding a "respectable" answer to your questions.
>
>  By the way, I figure, whether I am right or not, why take the chance.
>Just like capitol punishment, once you abort the fetus, there's no
>turning back. 

Similarly, when you force (and I really DO mean "force" now) a woman to 
carry a fetus to term, there is no "turning back" in physiological and/or
emotional terms. The damage & effects are irreversible. Why take the chance?

>If you choose to have the pregnancy, then at any time
>after that, if you feel that the kid just isn't for you, then place him/her
>up for adoption. Abortion is too serious of an option to be treated lightly.

So is forced birth. The Supreme Court treated it "heavily", and decided that
it was unconstitutional. And that reasoning is as true today as it was in 1973.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion