HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: anti-choice morality
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:18:24 GMT

just in the past few weeks, we've seen an anti-choicer,
admitedly a disturbed personality, post repeated sexual
and personal slurs about an adversary's spouse and
family.

we've seen another anti-choicer, a roman catholic, post
that she hoped one of her adversaries felt pain and
discomfort that his spouse was the parent of a child
fathered by another man.

i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
anti-choice perspective, of course.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:45:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.133403.23651@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
(dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <C0En7z.115@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
....
>"Headpieces stuffed with clay"
>
...

Dean - 

	This tit for tat is not very enlightening for either of us.  Let me summarize
my position, how I see your objection to my position, and "where I'm coming
from"

Regardless of what you have inferred from my initial objections to Heather's
question, it was rhetoric and not rights that I was adressing. I've noticed the
word, "lier" is used quite frequently on t.a. (though not from you).  If you
feel I am being deceitful, say so and forget it.  You are certainly entitled to
your opinion. 

I have been sensitized to the rhetoric on BOTH sides of the debate and react
when I feel language is used (consciously or not) in an ambiguous way. I will
be glad to be "educated" by you or anyone else on the ramifications of rights
of the unborn vs mother, but it just wasn't my intent.

You are apparently very well versed on the question of rights, it looms large
in your mind, so large in fact that you feel I must be "unresponsive" or
deliberately avoiding the issue if I don't breakdown and admit that indeed
rights are the central issue and my concerns are meaningless.

I have failed to convince you of the inappropriateness of Heather's question;
but the vigorous way in which you try to discredit everything I say surprises
me.  For instance, you have repeatedly claimed I avoid answering THE question,
as if that were some sign of uncertainty on my part.  Again, call me a liar if
you must, but that assertion is false.

As far as me being nasty (previous post of yours), I can tell you that despite
my sarcasm, I have never felt the urge to hurl imvectives at you or anyone.  If
I have, I apologize for sloppy language.  As for Muriel being "bitter", why
would anyone call a perfect stranger a woman hating "twit" unless they were
predisposed  by prior unpleasant interactions with others?  To me, this defines
"bitterness".  I feel deep sadness by some of the nastiness I've seen here. 
Frankly, it scares the hell out of me.  I have no use for any "pro-lifers" who
might come to my defense spewing some of the stuff I've heard from the
pro-abort side, and I would make that clear to them.  Thankfully this has not
occurred.

I would look forward to a discussion of rights, but the rhetoric I hear will
always be of major concern to me.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 15:03:25 GMT

In a previous article, patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) wrote:
>In article <1993Jan6.235607.3604@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>   From article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>   > 
>   > In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
>   > a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
>   > 
>   > #I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>   > 
>   > Nice trick, Heather.
>   > 
>   > Susan
> 
>   Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>   to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>   from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
> 
>Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>haven't seen any such activity -- and I don't disappear for a month at a
>time because of work, or "news server problems", or such.  Seems to me this
>claim's got at least the potential for being as funny as your backpedaling
>about the clinic exorcism.
> 
>   Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
> 
>How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
>fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  Or are you saying you
>really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she

>really did that.)

Actually, Suzanne and Edward aren't the only people who think I can do that.  
At the time my boyfriend of about three years, who was the only person I was 
sleeping with when I got pregnant, told me that it definately was not his.  So 
I guess I am capable of getting pregnant all by myself!


>--PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...


Well, I didn't think that's how my pregnancy happened until my ex-boyfriend 
cleared things up for me.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore?)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Wash. Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF), Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:19:04 GMT

What: <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>
Who:  markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)

>> = Tep

>>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>>the conception. 
>
>Which IS an important difference.

Not if the right-to-life is of paramount importance.  And if it isn't,
you'll have a much harder time demonstrating why *your* subjective
value of life is any better than anyone else's.

>>Why is it okay for the z/e/f conceived of rape to
>>be aborted, but not any other z/e/f?
>
>>Answer: In the case of rape, it is a woman's right to abort a baby she
>>does not want and cannot care for. Pro-choicers merely extend this right
>>to include _any_ baby she does not want and cannot care for. 
>
>Your faulty leap of logic might be slightly justifiable in a reality 
>where there was NO way for a woman to avoid pregnancy with complete 
>assurance. In this reality, there are various forms of non-genital/genital
>sex that fill the bill -- not to mention sexual abstinence.

This only reinforces what I said above.  You're invoking a subjective
standard for the value of life, one where that right depends upon the
circumstances of conception.  Why is your subjective view better than
mine?
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The usual back-and-forth
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 06:17:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.153510.1062@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

Hey Doge, I hope you don't mind, but I've selected this passage of
yours to test my new "drieux-izing" software.

>	For at least some members of that group, it seems to be almost as
>essential as the notion that all pro-choicers are either evil or simply
>misguided.  Or that all doctors who perform abortions are greedy, immoral
>swine.  The Enemy must remain a horde of demons in order to keep the troops
>in line.

After running it through the drieux-izer, we get:
	For at least some mebers of that group, it seems to be almost
as essential as the notion that all pro-choicers are either EVIL or
SIMPLY MISGUIDED. Or that all doctors who perform abortions are
GreedyImmoralSwine. The Enemy MUST remain a HordeofDemons in order to
keep the troops in line. Thus speaks the FetalIdolatorsFromHell!

What do you think? Is it working yet?


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: What makes me very sad (and I don't call anyone names!)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:59:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.165944.13907@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> So you won't be on pins and needles as to whether or not you should
> go to the library, suffice it to say that I won't accept as 
> evidence anything presented by one who claims to have no opinion
> about legislation wrt abortion.  

Fine.  Then it will be a waste of my time to present evidence 
to you which demonstrates that abortion laws will have an
effect.  

Are there any pro-choicers who would be willing to define
their standards for accepting this kind of evidence?  

>Galen Hekhuis  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Statistics
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:39:07 GMT

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:22:20 GMT, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) said:

>In article <1993Jan11.142445.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>,
>mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (whoever s/he is) writes:

>>A comment:  over 20 million unborn infants have been aborted since RvW
>>in 1972.  This is three times the number of Jews that were killed by
>>the Nazis in World War II.

>And 50 times the number of people who can fit in the Astrodome,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>half the number of people in the USA who like licorice jellybeans, and,
>oh, maybe seven times the speed of light. So what?

Just to be picky, I was by the Dome not an hour ago, and unless they've been
doing a *lot* of underground enlargements, I don't think you can stuff
400,000 people in there.  (Not without standing them about five deep,
anyway, which would be sort of painful for the ones on the bottom layer...)

:-)

>You'd be surprised how many Jews are pro-choice. Not all of us have
>to use religious arguments either...

Yeah, making the antis try and think is almost as much entertainment as
arguing with them...

--PLH, of course that doesn't apply to *all* antis, just the really
wacked-out subset of 'em...
--
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:03:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach), a self-proclaimed "compassionate Christian" treats us to a
display of a species of compassion with which I'm not at all familiar by
writing the following to Patrick Humphrey:
> 
> We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

and

> [Dale Ann's daughter] ain't yours.  She's another man's, a man who's been 
> with your wife.  I hope it drives you crazy.

Gee, Suzanne, is this actually how Christianity is supposed to work, loving
your neighbor, not judging lest you be judged, that sort of thing?  I guess
I don't understand this religion nearly as well as I thought I did.

Of course, I suppose the possibility exists that _you_ might be the one who
doesn't understand it.

By the bye, Suzanne, since you apparently feel that having a step-child
should "drive [the step-parent] crazy", how do you feel about adopted
children?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:33:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.203000.2255@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.172612.17505@news.unomaha.edu> 
>trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu  writes:
>
>>> It is said that Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the 9th month.
>
>> First of all, the Court last June (I believe) redefined Roe v.
>>      Wade.  Secondly, The Court who determined Roe v. Wade
>>      allowed the state to proscribe abortion in the last
>>      trimester (or last three months of pregnancy) unless
>>      the woman's health was threatened.  Please look up the
>>      decision if you are in doubt.
>
>But the definition of ``health'' given in Roe v. Wade
>and the companion case Doe v. Bolton is so broad that it
>encompasses emotional and psychological health.  In order
>to perform a constitutionally protected abortion, a physician
>need only determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve
>the woman's emotional or psychological health, which can be
>easily demonstrated for a woman who would otherwise remain
>pregnant against her desires. 
>
Which mean, DODie, that it puts the decision regarding what constitues
a valid reason for a late term abortion (which accounts ofr something
like 0.01% of all abortions) in the hands of those best able to make
that judgement. The pregnant woman and her physician.
Why do you persist, without any resoning whatsoever, that this is
either a Bad Thing (tm) or "unrestricted abortion on demand"?

>> Why not a side whereby we let 
>> people make up their own minds, and let God take care of 
>> them in the end?  
>
>Why not legalize homicide, rape, and robbery, and let God
>take care of them in the end?   Why must you allow your
>religious beliefs to dictate your attitudes towards secular 
>law in some areas, but not others?  If you are to be 
>consistent, you must oppose all secular laws.
>
DODie, you're really funny. You have *got* to be pretending. *Nobody*
could be as stupid as you seem and still tie their own shoes in the
morning.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: bats
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:37:12 GMT

Just so people will know, bats are not blind at all.  Someone else
mentioned flying to the moon.  Uh, that has been done, granted, not
recently, but it has been done.  While I tend to think colorful
speach is neat and certain expressions may well evoke well known 
feelings, it is well to remember that a significant portion of us
know that flying to the moon is hardly the epitome of "impossible"
that it once represented, and also many of us are quite aware that
bats are not blind.

Frogs, on the other hand...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54429 alt.abortion.inequity:6327 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1394
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:48:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1993Jan6.060819.22850@midway.uchicago.edu> 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>> This is the first I've heard of Equal 
>> Protection being applied to the abortion issue. 

> The EP argument is one of sex discrimination.  
>  [...]
> The argument is a standard restricting-abortion-results-in-the-subjugation-
> of-women-in-a-male-dominated-society-by-burdening-them-in-a-way-that-men-
> aren't-burdened one, which I trust you can fill in the outlines of.  

So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
in a way that women aren't?   Most people do accept the unequal
burden placed on men by child support laws, without any second
thoughts. 

If we accept the premise that the sexes should not be burdened
unequally, how does it follow that permissive abortion laws
are the *only* possible means for women to achieve equality?  

And how does it follow that every type of abortion restriction, 
including waiting periods, informed consent provisions, and
late-term restrictions, will result in the subjugation of
women?


>ted frank                     


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: retracted apologies
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:39:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.041956.22523@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>To Dennis^H^H^H^H^H^HSteve Hall^H^H^H^HChaney:
>
>I retract anything I might have attributed to you, including kudos.
>
That's what yo uget for thinking that was areal appology Galen. It
rated #2 only behind PHoney's "appology" to Adrienne for being mealy
mouthed and wishy washy. The guy spent about 37 times as much space
justifying his actions as he did on the appology itself. The summary
of Airplane Boys entire article is
"I don't really think I should appologise, because it's not my fault,
but Dr. Phoney Giggles is making me do this. So pretend I'm sorry,
huh?"

>To Peter Nyikos aka Dr. Phoney Giggles:
>
>If you are responsible for any of this, perhaps you should crawl in
>a hole an pull it in after you.
>
We should be so lucky. Just imagine how nice the signal to noise ratio
would be if PHoney had a permanent server failure...

>To Patrick Humphry:  
>
>I don't know how you can handle this stuff and remain a reasonable
>human being.  (I know, you're an Oilie Fan)  
>
Maybe the S in TSAKC stands for sane....

>(Kevin Darcy, you still suck dirty canal water.)
>
I'm suprised Kebbin isn't using his new word (Multiple Personality
Disorder) on ChaneyHall. This would be his first chance to actually
use the word accurately.
Of course, with ChaneyHall, the word schizophrenic may apply equally
as well. Even if Kebbin doesn't know the difference between those two
disorders.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An example of Mark Cochran's "reasoning" abilities
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:01:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.204849.23116@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>  "Lack of proof in favor of
>   existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance. This holds
>   true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of a god has lead
>   many peopel to conclude that no such being exists."
>
>       mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>       <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>
Oh lookie! DODie learned how to use archives to insert quotes!
Of course, one is forced to ask if he has a point to make. My
statement is accurate. I know many atheists who cite precisely this
resoning behind their atheism, myself included.
It's too bad that he felt compelled to remove the wonderful,
resonable, intelligent discourse that Steve M and I were having that
surrounded this little tidbit
[David Letterman voice ON]
For our next entry in "stuid net tricks", DODie will claim that RvW is
unrestricted abortion on demand.
[Mr. Lettermans voice returned to him in time for his taping session]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 03:14:02 GMT

In article <C0K7zy.M9C@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <C0FF9F.En8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
>writes:
>>>
>>>>>I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
>>>>>as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
>>>>>defined as such has been beat to death already.  
>>>>>
>>>>When? All I've ever seen is medical and scientific evidence that it is
>>>>*not* a person. As in, not sentient etc. Care to show otherwise?
>>>
>>>Is a newborn sentient?  Is a person in a coma sentient?   Is a sleeper
>>>sentient?  Is a mentally retarded person sentient?  
>>>
>>I'll address these one at a time.
>>"Is a newborn sentient?"
>>Yes. There is evidence that infants as early as a day or so are capable
>>of recognising their mothers.
>>
>>"Is a person in a coma sentient?"
>>Depends on the coma, and the amount of brain damage the person has
>>suffered.
>>
>>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>>
>>"Is a mentally retarded person sentient?"
>>Certainly. We have a gentleman working at the hospital in the kitchen
>>who is MR, and I don't think anybody disputes his sentience. 
>
>>--
>>                  Mark Cochran          
>
>I don't see the point of this reasoning, Mark.  Show that all these other
>people are "sentient" doesnt show the unborn isn't.  You said "sentient, etc."
>but then addressed only the former.
>
Of course you don't see it Paul, but that's merely a limitation of
your intelligence. 
If you would care to take a shot at showing that a fetus is sentient,
feel free.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion