HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:51:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.032640.13995@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> 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.

I've read the bible.  Also a good bit of the Sutras and the Manual
of Zen Buddhism by DT Suzuki.  Among other things.

Friday I was at the track and Saturday I attended a play written
by Joan Ackerman (Zara Spook and Other Lures) with a delightful
young woman whom I intend to see again as soon as I can.

I don't spend much time on the couch, and while I could stand to
lose a few pounds, I expect when the weather warms and I start
my nightly fifteen mile bike rides I'll lose them.  I have to train
for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Bikathon in June.  40 miles seems
too little, but I'm not sure I'll be up for 80.  Not on a hybrid
bike.

No, Matthew, I have a very full life.  My reading recommendations
were sincere.  You appeared to lack an understanding of the
Constitution, and clearly didn't have a handle on the text of
the document.  I was hoping you'd take my recommendations
seriously.  You would find it mentally enriching.  Since your
postings are accompanied by a recommendation to watch more
television, I thought I'd offer you a better alternative.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Re: as a matter of good fatih
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:08:30 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>] Committed to faith in God

>Does anyone else remember the line:

>"praise God and pass the ammunition!"
Or the old admonition "Gott hilfen und wir leiben"

	Lord willing and the Creek don't rise.

Or my all time favorite: Put your Trust in God boys, 
but mind you keep your powder dry."  (The Lord Protector
back when he was merely a New Model Army commander.)

Of course there is the admonition for those without a sword
to go and buy one, that he came not to bring peace but 
division and so forth.

>Or is that solely the sort of thing that those of us who
>have either:

>1. been around the military chapliancy,

>2. worked on Ford Island near the USS Arizona,

>tend to remember.
c) those wonderful folks who watched all that Dailing
for Dollars rebroadcasts of the fab forty musicals.


>ciao
>drieux

>EOT 
chus
pyotr
the bigger the sig, the smaller the equipment

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:649 talk.abortion:14608 talk.religion.misc:6751 talk.bizarre:10892
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Excuse Please While we have Small Family Argument
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:27:15 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

peterd@polari.com writes:

] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >] Committed to faith in God
] 
] >Does anyone else remember the line:
] 
] >"praise God and pass the ammunition!"
] Or the old admonition "Gott hilfen und wir leiben"
] 
] 	Lord willing and the Creek don't rise.
] 
] Or my all time favorite: Put your Trust in God boys, 
] but mind you keep your powder dry."  (The Lord Protector
] back when he was merely a New Model Army commander.)
] 
] Of course there is the admonition for those without a sword
] to go and buy one, that he came not to bring peace but 
] division and so forth.

Greetings Oh revisioninst Capitalist Raoder Pig,

But you fail to stipulate which 'division' it is that
God came to bring forth....

Pray tell, the 34th? {dear old Dad would Love to KNOW that
he was in god's OWN Division. }

the 25th {before or after it became a light division, or
	do they call the 'lite' divisions, More MegaDeath
	but Fewer Calories, for the Warmonger on a diet?}

the 101st, Mort the Tort's old home town team????

Or are you still a victim of the Feeling that the Army is
in some way Divine???? In Lieu of the OneTrueKorrectFamilyUnderstanding!!!!
Please Kindly remember that The OneGreatHerrHampe who first brought
forth on this continent the Great and Glorious Family GenePool was a
Sailor and NOT, as the revisionist ideological deviationalist
Propogandizers have sought to imply, a ground pounder and a bullet biter!!!!! 

REPENT You ScallyWagOfMorallyKorruptedNess!!!!

ciao
drieux

ps: we return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of obviously
degenerate NON_Family Issues.....



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: next
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:26:52 GMT

patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.000215.13002@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Apr12.184042.15620@liebe.uucp>, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>|> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question...an answer) writes:
>>>|> 
>>>|> >I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
>>>|> >people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
>>>|> >it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.
>>>|> 
>>>|> Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
>>>|> she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
>>>|> question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?
>>
>>>...and ultimately, the answer should be:  that's between her and her 
>>>conscience.  It sure as hell ain't YOUR concern.
>>
>>Interesting, if inane, response.  It would then also follow that it
>>would be nobodies business what Jeffrey Dahmer decided to do with his
>>spare time.

>In case you didn't notice, Dahmer was killing *born persons* -- that's a
>crime under our legal system.  I guess little details like that don't matter
>to a truly dedicated pro-forced-birther, though...

Guess what Patty?  "Legal" does NOT equate to "Right" much as your silly
position hinges upon it.  I guess a little logic like that don't matter to
a truly dedicated Pro-Elitist-Nazi-like-Death-merchants-Whom-Only-Murder-
Innocent-Unborn-Children, though...

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: A (Tentative) Position for Debate
Organization: Encore Computer
Distribution: usa
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:15:23

In article <1992Apr7.141249.6463@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:


>Present Position:
>- Abortion should be remain legal in all cases where the life or health of the
>mother is at stake, or where the fetus/unborn child's viability is in serious 
>question.  (No, I don't have medical specifics on this, though I'm willing to 
>take suggestions).  Abortion should also remain legal for cases of rape 
>(including incestuous rape); this could be construed as insuring the mental 
>and psychological health of the mother.  I know of no conditions at this time 
>that would cause me to reverse this position.  Keep in mind that this is a 
>pro-choice, no pro-abortion, stance; I am arguing for the availability of 
>abortion under these conditions.

>-Abortion should remain legal in all other situations where the procedure does
>not seriously threaten or jeapordize the health of the woman involved.  This
>position could be altered if the following conditions are met:

[much deleted]

	Does this mean that you believe that abortion should be illegal
if the life of the woman is threatened by the abortion? If so, are you
willing to take the next step: birthing should be illegal if the life of
the woman is threatened by the birth? And remember, carrying a pregnancy to
term is about ten times more dangerous than a first trimester abortion...

	Why don't you just let the woman decide what is best for her, and
keep the laws out of it. Abortion is a difficult enough decision as it is,
without some approval process mucking it up more.

>For the record, I state again that this is a TENTATIVE position, and can be 
>changed or altered if I am convinced otherwise.  My baseline position is that 
>abortion is probably not such a wonderful thing, that it's utilization as a 
>means of birth control is stupid and should be unnecessary, but that under the 
	Why not? What make abortion "not such a wonderful thing", other than
the fact that any surgery is not good? What makes it any worse than any
other surgery?

>present conditions of our society, where the practical effects of a ban on
>abortion could be potentially devestating, particularly to the poor, pro-choice
>is the necessary position.  If the conditions of society can be changed such
>that abortions are no longer needed (except in extreme cases listed above), 
>than abortion will no longer be necessary.

	Wonderful and lalala. If the conditions of society could be changed
so that there was plenty of food everywhere, no one would be hungry. Sorry
to sound a little snotty, but but you seem to be making a moral judgement
that any sort of abortion is a bad thing, and you don't provide any basis
for that argument. Why is a first trimester abortion bad?

>--Bill
>Committed to faith in God
>Searching for answers to difficult questions

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:24:43 GMT

In article <92100.132608IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42) writes:
>It is my belief that the only way the pro-abortion advocates can rationalize
>the killings of millions of babies a year is looking upon the fetus as a
>lifeless lump of tissue.


And you "rationalize" *your*  beliefs by looking upon the fetus as an adorable
beautiful human baby. 

Whos is better?


> By doing that, it is easier to say, "legalize
>abortion" for, by your logic, how can one kill what is already dead?

Ease of speach is not the issue here.

>Unfortunately, you are lying to yourselves.  The fetus is a life.


You have clearly not been following the discussion here.  I had thought 
we came to the conclusion that blatant assertions are not a proof.
Couldn't we (pro-choicers) say 'you are lyling to *yourselves*, the fetus
is scrap tissue.?


>  When the
>medical profession can stop swaying with public opinion and declare this
>fact to be true, then perhaps the pro-abortionists will pay attention to
>the consciences that have been bothering them for so long.


"Declare a fact to be true".  I would like to see this.

We should also get down on the medical profession for 'swaying' me. I 
certainly am incapable of forming my own opinions,huh.

My conscience doesn't bother me.

As far as I can tell, there has been only one "pro-abortion" stance taken
on this group. I believe the rest of those should be termed "pro-choice".
There is a big difference.

Please read back a little (or read up a little) so you know what ground 
has already been covered. Then, join in the debate.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 06:26:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <73876@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes:
> Ron
> >Kevin W.
> >>No, at about 10 days it's pretty much a blob.  At 8 weeks, it looks pretty
> >>human...maybe that's...because it IS human.  I dunno, Judi.  What do you
> >>think?  Is the fetus human?
>
> >OK, it has a tail, an extremely oversized head, and is generally similar
> >in appearance to a melted wax figure, a sort of blob. It is human (so
> >is your blood) and is parasitic, does that make it a person? Not to
> >me.
>
> Gee, did I say it was a person?  IIIIdon'tthinksooooo.

No, you said "it looks pretty human".

> What's your point?

His point is that you're wrong; it looks like any other foetal mammal, and
nothing at all like a human being.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:51:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.175138.12828
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Look, Kevin, almost everything you've posted for the past couple of days
>> indicates that you're more in the mood for a flame war than a discussion.
>> Would you care to prove me wrong at least once?

> I have proven you wrong a number of times in the last two weeks alone.

No, you haven't, Kevin.  You've run away from every exchange we've had.
You still haven't answered my question as to what the appropriate penalty
should be for abortion, you haven't denied that you deem abortion to be
a capital crime, you haven't supported your assertion that abortion is
murder, and you haven't refuted my assertion that either "The Silent Scream"
is snuff porn or that pro-lifers don't take seriously their assertion that
abortion is murder.

> As for your taking my posts out of context, if that's what you have to do
> to make yourself feel good ...

You did the same thing to Ron Bense.  Notice how the deletion of his last
sentence completely changed his meaning:

>> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>>> 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.

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

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: next
Summary: Brawley == old hat. 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:41:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.000215.13002@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr12.184042.15620@liebe.uucp>, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>|> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question...an answer) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> >I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
>>|> >people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
>>|> >it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.
>>|> 
>>|> Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
>>|> she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
>>|> question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?
>
>>...and ultimately, the answer should be:  that's between her and her 
>>conscience.  It sure as hell ain't YOUR concern.
>
>Interesting, if inane, response.  It would then also follow that it
>would be nobodies business what Jeffrey Dahmer decided to do with his
>spare time.

In case you didn't notice, Dahmer was killing *born persons* -- that's a
crime under our legal system.  I guess little details like that don't matter
to a truly dedicated pro-forced-birther, though...

-- 
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.

            * Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit. *
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: No it ain't
Summary: For the historically challanged
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:57:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <ku79ckINN4eb@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu writes:
>
>	It is not right for a man to force a woman to do anything.  It is
>also not right for a woman to force a man to do anything.  It is also wrong
>for people to force their beliefs, no matter how true or liberal, upon the
>population as a whole.  So, what is this group for anyway.
>
	Bear in mind, son, that when most of us use the phrase "forcing you
beliefs on others" we specifically mean "using the power of the State to
enforce your beliefs on others".  No one on the pro-choice side is proposing
legislation to force women to have abortions, are they?
[the rest of this is largely off-topic, so feel free to ignore it if you wish]

>	For those of you who think that "Christians" or "conservatives" do
>force their beliefs on people, remember this.  Christ never forced His
>truths onto mankind, but He did clear the temple.
	Yep, and with physical violence, as I recall.  A certain subset of
his followers have been emulating that behavior for centuries.  Ever heard
of the Spanish Inquisition?  The Salem witchcraft trials?  Read history much?

>His truths have stood
>the test of time, but where will the truths of the "liberals" and
>"humanists" be in 2000 years?
>
	Exactly where they were long before anybody even heard of your
theology.  Go back and read some Aristotle or Plato if you want to know some
of the antecedents of humanist thought.  And most of the ideas that form the
basis for our notions of democracy and representative government, along with
the idea that governments derive their power from the just consent of the
governed, have their roots in pre-Christian Greece and Rome.
	I'm setting followups to talk.religion.misc since it seems more
appropriate.  And this nicely points out one of the more exasperating traits
shown by some members of the more right-wing phalanx of Christianity:  the
apparent belief that human history started with the birth of Christ and that
everything that preceeded the founding of their religion is irrelevant and/or
evil.  Frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of this form of historical myopia.

>	Racism knows no color.
>
	And intolerance knows no particular belief system.

>bsl
>
>-- 
Chuck
No .sig, no fat, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:53:15 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

Kevin "Biojerk" Welch writes:
|CJ
|>Matthew
|>|Don't ever forget that. I cannot feel sorry for someone who 
|>|did not consider the possible outcomes of his/her actions and is
|>|responsible for an "unwanted pregnancy." Use your brain.
|>You know, Matthew, when you get into a car & drive,
|>you're risking possible accident & injury.  I cannot feel
|>sorry for you if you don't consider the possible outcomes
|>of your actions and you're responsible for an "unwanted
|>car accident."

|There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
|involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
|you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.

I see that Kevin has never heard of brake failure.

|When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
|faulted in decision making.

I see that Kevin has never heard of birth control failure.

Why don't you come back when you know what you're
talking about, Kevin?  If you ever will, that is.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and 
what it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that 
often it is painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of 
sorts." --Kevin Welch
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:27:45 GMT

> = (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>"Sonny, we got a report that she was about to let a potential human
>> life be menstruated away.  Now, go home, and be sure not to
>> masturbate, or we'll nab you for genocide."

>*knock* *knock* *knock* HELLLLOOOO. Are you for real? Life doesn't occur
>until AFTER conception fool...

According to whom, Mr. Godhead?  Are you implying that the sperm cell
and ovum were _dead at conception_?  Idiot.

>   *sigh* don't they ever learn?

Learn what?  Your version of religious fairy tales?  Pathetic, your
inability to live life as it is.





-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: proposal and request for comment.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 23:58:08 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Apr.8.19.05.28.1992.10926@romulus.rutgers.edu>  morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
> >The term 'parasite'
> >fits a fetus amazingly well, since its presence is not symbiotic.
>
> Actually, the fetus DOES do something for the woman but not immediatly.
> It carries her genes into another generation so they will, theoretically,
> survive her demise.

I see no way that that could benefit the woman.  Once she's dead, she's dead.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Subject: Degradation
Reply-To: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:56:57 GMT

It's a shame there's so much degradation in this newsgroup.  Some individuals
can't make a point without knocking someone else down.  I usually don't, but
I'll start trying.  If you think you want to accomplish something, or at
least earn the respect of the person you're conversing with, then don't nail
'em to the cross.  Excuse me, I just wanted to use that expression because
religion plays such a fun role here.

--

thebians

The truth hurts; doesn't it?  Life's a bitch, and then you die!!!
[Any information presented herein is the product of the author's imagination and  
should not be used, construed, or interpreted as anyone's beliefs.]
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity