HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a little slavery is "harmless" (was Re: "Harmless Slavery")
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:13:58 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
>This is getting about as clear as mud.

James Keegan appeared to understand it quite clearly.

>Do you or do you not agree with the following statement?

>Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her wishes is
>a form of slavery.

Yes

If she never had an option to get out. I don't advocate late term abortions,
but I'd be willing to conceed free access to them (since there is no
real free access anyway) to guarantee them for the first 4-6 months.

Note that the rest of the post included phrasing that would allow anyone
ignorant of their condition or options, or held by threat in some kind
of abusive relationship, access to free abortions at any time, effectively
circumventing any real restrictions. Also note that they would be allowed
for medical reasons at anytime.

>Yes or no?  If you agree with this statement, then note that you are
>advocating restricting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.
>For women past this point in pregnancy, you want to use the force
>of law to make them continue their pregnancies.  If you agree
>with the statement, then you must concede that you are advocating
>enslaving these women.

Misinterpretation. Read above.

>If you do not agree with the statement, then kindly do not refer
>to pro-lifers as "enslavers of women."  I don't recall that you
>ever have, so please don't take that as an accusation.  Simply
>drop the "slavery" angle altogether in the pro-choice argument, and
>defend abortion liberty directly.

Read above. And I have used that as an argument against pro-lifers,
since it is, in effect, what they are doing.

Some people............

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Bush Supports Welfare Cuts for Children (Was: Re: The March in D.C.
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:17:42 GMT

In article <92101.125312ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:

 [ deletions ]

>Besides the obvious flaws in the above paragraph, prochoicers
>have already found a solution - allow the woman the right to
>determine her own destiny.  The majority of prochoicers in
>this group, and indeed in organizations around the world, are
>active in a variety of areas that improve the ability of women
>to not only care for themselves, but care for their children as
>well.  Shall I list the number of prominent prolifers,
>Mr. Franklin, who have publicly stated that they are opposed
>to day care, equal pay, welfare to single mothers, access to
>health care, etc. etc. etc.

 [ deletions ]

>The day I see a prominent, politically powerful, prolifer
>stand up and say they are constructively working to end poverty,
>hunger, homelessness, improve education, provide access to birth
>control, day care, etc. etc. etc., I'll believe you Mr. Franklin,
>but somehow I think that day is a long way away.
>
>
>Linda
>--
>"National day care is dead in Canada and I had the pleasure
> of killing it" Benoit Bouchard, Minister of Health, 1992

 Linda's point is well made in light of developments in Michigan(?).
 I have not found anything written in the paper, yet, but I have heard
 several reports on the radio about a Michigan proposal which will DROP
 WOMEN from WELFARE if the have MORE CHILDREN while on welfare.  The
 radio reported that Pres. Pro-Lifer Bush has publicly voiced his
 support for this type of legislation.  Anyone have more information?

 Tell me, if this is true, how many of these women will feel pressured to 
 get an ABORTION, so they can take care of the children they already have,
 if they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy?!  

 Adoption you say?  If they're not white, the adoption option is not.
 And even if white, many feel adoption is mental torture for the rest
 of your life.

 Abstinence you say?  They are human beings, and making love with a man
 they care about may be adding greatly to their quality of life, while
 they struggle with their poverty and society's disdain and blame.

 And, the unplanned pregnancy may be due to ignorance (withdrawal is
 not a form of birth control) or failed contraception (did you know
 that with weight change the fit of the diaphragm changes? - losing
 weight will make the fit too loose).
   
 Janice Kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:49:10 GMT
Distribution: dal
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr15.022324.21365@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.004650.5332@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:

>>
>>Gee....I've never met an illogical pro-choicer who was a hypocrite :)

>True.  Spoken like the true asshole, MaThiEu a. LeWis.  Hyporitical...



   I guess I"m the only who's tired of you you net.fart (tm). In any case,
I have read the last 150 posts, and out of your posts keith,
you have referred 9 times to someone as clueless, asshole, and another
variety of posts. My, you DO have a wonderful logistics platform don't you?
(btw, I didn't even bother to read all of your posts... was it MORE than 9 
times?)
-- 
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: AntiAbortion as AntiChristian(crap)
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:25:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr9.132538.5430
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr8.172018.27693@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

|>    The bible tells us:
|> 1) life in all forms is sacred
|> 2) thou shalt not kill but to defend your life or your neighbours from
|>    certain death

Thus, how can you justify the termination of life that is necessary
for you to eat? Or is it you just eat what falls naturally from 
the plant (no, you can't do that 'cause that would be destroying
a seed [potential life]) or the animal?

|> 3) Judge not lest ye be judged

This principle if followed religiously, denies the existence
and purpose of a court of law. It also would prevent the 
creation of a set of civil laws, since the very nature of
a law is to judge that certian actions are wrong and others
are right.

|> 4) man must be innocent until proven guilty

This should prevent your version of Christian from participating
in demonstrations against abortion clinics, unless you can prove
that the persons involved are guilty of a crime. Then again, if you
were to do that you would be in violation of your self-proclaimed
principle number 3.

|> 1) Christians believe the fetus is life. Will be, has been, and IS.
|> 2) No Woman or Man cannot kill a fetus because it jeopardizes his
|> financial, social or moral standing in society. Only to defend
|> his/her own LIFE.

In most states, the laws that cover assult define assult as physical
violence, the threat of physical violence or a percieved threat
of physical violence. That is, if the victim percieves that their
life and/or well being has been threatened then a case of assult
may proceed.

Also, any change in the homeostasis of an individual is a potential
risk to that individual's life. Preganacy is a change in the
homeostasis of a woman and does carry with it a risk to the woman's
life.

It would seem then, that then known risks of pregnancy coupled 
with a percieved sense of danger should be enough justification
for a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Remember, to keep from
violating principles #3 & #4, you must assume that the woman's
actions are correct & the woman is innocent of any wrong doing.


-- 
--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
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Defense without an Attack (????)
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:32:30 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> For those who may be susceptible to Jimmy Keegan's lies about
-> my allegedly "defending Kellmeyer's email confidence-breach",
-> I suggest

oh kevin, stop whining about things people can decide for
themselves. your post is appended to the end of this article.
readers will, i suspect, understand what you said.

btw, who are you quoting when you write "defending Kellmeyer's
email confidence-breach?" are you quoting yourself, perhaps?
you're not, perchance, making up a quote, are you? i guess
readers will see that for themselves too when they read your
response. heh.

=======begin included post========
From kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy) Thu Mar  5 08:16:38 1992
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kellmeyer posts private email! (Re: To T.S.A.K.C. (or whatever the hell it is))
Date: 5 Mar 92 02:33:56 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <28049@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>cornered, and unable to support one of his false allegations,
>steven kellmeyer posts an annotated copy of an email message i
>sent to him in response to an email message from him.
>
> [same old, same old]

Jimmy, don't you ever tire of playing such a repetitive, officious, nit-picking 
little weasel?

I mean, if we all spent great gobs of time trying to prove/support/
substantiate/corroborate/regurgitate every event since the Big Bang to 
*YOUR* (seemingly insatiable) satisfaction, that wouldn't leave much 
opportunity to actually discuss -issues-, now would it?

====end included post


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM! (Was: What pro-lifers don't tell you)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 08:10:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.132558.2748@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr3.012204.6777@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>And, just to make sure that everybody understands my position on this, GET THE
>>FUCKING HITLER/NAZI/HOLOCAUST "ANALOGIES" OUT OF TALK.ABORTION.  NOW!
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sheeez dude, there's no need to start swearing or anything. You didn't even
>say please. Man, this mental violence has got to stop if any sort of
>media for compromise is going to occur. 

I do not compromise with people who are making my death more likely; I
do not compromise with those who mock the torture and murder of my ancestors;
I do not have the right to compromise with those who commit further attacks
on the few survivors of the Holocaust, by trivializing their pain before
their faces. None of this has anything to do with the abortion issue; Keith's
swearing was correctly directed at those on both sides who try to use geno-
cide as a tool for their own political ends. As are my fervent prayers that
such people will be given a short object lesson in what sort of game they are
playing with, and soon.

>   steve

	-Nora

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Steve "does" flames just like he "does" rational thought.  Not at all.
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:38:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.041721.11765@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr10.115735.25522@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>Newbie alert. What makes you think rocker _started_ anything here?
>silly - he was referring to the initiation of her independent article.
>Not a thread, concept or argument. Read post again and do not pass GO.

Steve, do not pass go, do not collect anything in intelligence.  Are you going
to start doing a Kevin Welch?  "...to the initiation of..." sounds to me like
"starting".

>
>>You are not going to win any points with the folk around here
>>by launching your t.a career with a personal attack on rocker.
>>Rocker is an awesomely fine and wonderful individual. She's
>   No... we don't agree...

Who's this "we" bud?  Did somebody take a vote while I wasn't looking?  Would
you care to post the names of the people who have stated "we don't believe
Rocker is an awesomely fine and wonderful individual"?

Maybe pro-lifers suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder, and that's why
they keep referring to themselves in the plural?

>>a mother. Whatsamatta wich you, no respect for motherhood?
>^^^^^^^^^so? 

HUMOR IMPARIMENT ALERT!  Kevin got his humor surgically removed several years
ago. Do not, I repeat do NOT attempt to post a joke, and expect him to
understand the humor behind it.  END ALERT.

(Although for that matter, I think both Steve and Kevin Brawley both got their

[Deletions]
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:11:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.122856.4632@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>>
>>>Child care generally has no adverse affects on children (supported by
>>>psychological studies).
>>  Can you quote cases? I guess I'll have dig out the books to prove you
>>wrong which is annoying, but there have been many studies supporting
>>the mental and emotional disadvantages of the "latch-key child"...
>>
>Steve, I'm going to borrow Kieth's tutu and play Clue Fairy for you
>here.
>
>If a child is in daycare, it's not exactly the same thing as being a
>"latch-key child".

That's very true Muriel.  (Might I say that you look exquisite in that Tutu?)
But since he doesn't have any "proof" that a child is harmed/disadvanted by
being in Day Care, but he may have "proof" that latch-key kids are
disadvantged, he's going to to post that, and claim it applies to day care
also.

According to some pro-lifers, this is known as "Telling The Truth".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:10:33 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article <Udu8nWW00WBM42mKEj@andrew.cmu.edu>, by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>> Joy Haftel writes:
> 
>>I think it is better to be alive.
> 
> How do you know?

Because the fact that we're ALL going to die someday is just that - A FACT.

Therefore, if you die or are killed _young_, you definitely DO LOSE something -
namely the rest of your natural life that would otherwise have been yours.


> Alison C.

Suzanne F.
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:10:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.202101.10777@cs.dal.ca>
franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   I don't get this 99.99 % stuff... Wont' even bother responding

Kevin Welch has said that women should not be allowed to abort unless
there is a 100% chance that they'll die without one, and the entirety
of the pro-choicers and a significant fraction of the pro-lifers are
*ticked* because of that.

>  By the way, I figure, whether I am right or not, why take the chance.

Because there's a real live breathing FemalePerson who doesn't want to
be pregnant.  Don't forget her.

>Just like capitol punishment, once you abort the fetus, there's no
>turning back. 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 adoption, you idiot.

--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."   - Robert A. Heinlein

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr13.200014.9275@noao.edu> <1992Apr12.053925.19066@wam.umd.edu>
	<1992Ap <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:34:45

In article <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.

You know, I think that this could form the basis for a whole new approach
to the abortion issue. Look, we don't want to be letting these sluts
get abortions, right? I mean, it's obvious that we all agree on that, or
should. The main question seems to be, how do we define slut?

Let me introduce a new measurement, which I call the SSR ("Sweaty 
Snugglebunnies Ratio"). Put simply, it is the ratio of the number of
relationships in which Sweaty Snugglebunnies occurred to the total number
of relationships. Next, we set the ST ("Slut Threshold"). At the point
at which the SSR exceeds the ST, the woman is now labeled a slut, and
cannot have an abortion. Obviously, she was just asking for it.

Incidentally, there is a male equivalent of the Slut Threshold, known
as the Studliness Threshold.

John
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution-- misquoted
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:34:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr16.213415.1556
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr16.181458.5752@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <sk9k2INN5gh@agate.berkeley.edu> 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>> Also, if Constitution extended its protection from "life" to 
>> "potential life", then why not from "liberyt" to "potential liberty" and 
>> from "hapiness" to potential hapiness"?  Things get pretty messy, eh?
>
>The Constitution does protect the right to pursue "potential happiness"
>and to pursue "potential liberty". For example, if the state did not 
>protect my right to join a particular church, then anyone could deny 
>me the "potential happiness" which may result from my participation 
>in the church. 
And if the state did not protect my own right to take a particular
drug, then anyone could deny me the "potential happiness" which
may result from my taking that drug. Hey, wait....

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: kevin and the "Moral High Ground" (was Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 18:17:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.131517.10045@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> >(this about susan garvin):
>-> >
>-> >        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
>-> >        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
>-> >		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>
>-> >
>-> >did kevin ever support his comment about susan garvin? no!
>-> 
>-> Of *COURSE* I supported my statement, Jimmy! I always do, when
>-> support is necessary. Specifically, I supported the statement
>-> in article <1992Mar17.064101.22838@rotag.mi.org>. You want
>-> more detail? Fine. Sue's original lie was made in article
>-> <201230@unix.cis.pitt.edu>. The subsequent
>-> apology/admission-of-lying was made in article
>-> <1992Jan22.113421.209522@cs.cmu.edu>.
>-> 
>-> Why do you keep saying that my statement is "unsupported" when
>-> you *KNOW* that isn't true at all? Look up the articles in
>-> your archives. Read 'em and weep....
>
>if anyone is interested, neither the articles referenced by
>kevin, nor other, related articles support his lie about susan
>garvin. 

Blatant assertion.

Remember what you said, Jimmy:

"btw, i did not support my statement [...] in this post. why don't you 
 ask that i do so. i'll be pleased to comply with that request. anyone 
 who wouldn't is a liar, or coward, or both."
						<9crrdha@rpi.edu>

Please support your statement above. Failure to do so will qualify you 
as "a liar, a coward, or both" [sic].

							- Kevin