HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Have you seen the Muffin Man?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 05:42:46 GMT

<1992Mar30.215118.12677@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com said:
>In  <92090.102418U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>  <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
...
>This reminds me - what happened to Davey Rashmuffin?  He was trying to
>tell me that there's no such thing as a "jihad", then the next day there
>was a suicide car bombing of an embassy, the responsibility for which was
>claimed by a group called "Islamic Jihad", and Davey silently disappeared.
>Now why do you suppose his friends would embarrass him like that?

Maybe he was driving?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 21:01:11 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sf>In article <1992Apr7.122452.14186@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
rf>In <1992Apr7.063408.4844@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:

rf>Including "judge not, lest ye be judged"?

sf>   I am not doing the judging. God has already done that. God has
sf>given us the message, and left us to deal with it.

I am not clear in who you are referring to when you say us.  I can
assure you God has left me no messages.  And I'm really not that
tough a person to get a hold of.  I have an answering machine, voice
mail, e-mail, snail mail and a pager.  I would think this God would
have the sense to use one of those methods to get me a message.  Hard
to deal with a message that I never received.

sf>                                                   Wel, I'm dealing
sf>with it. Perhaps I do fall into a judgemental state occassionally,
sf>but more often I just voice the beliefs of the Catholic church,
sf>and the message of God. They're pretty good people to have on your
sf>team... 8)

I was a Catholic and I can assure you that they were not good people
to have on my team.


sf>steve

Dan King
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:58:13 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr6.183500.26747@cs.yale.edu>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
> And I don't want to hear any crap about how if I weren't such an asshole
> I could get a girlfriend.

But what if it's intended as constructive criticism?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:18:12 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:


>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 

>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 


>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 

>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 


>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.

>Follows from premise A and B.


>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term. 


	Hmmm... I guess that leaves us at where we are at the moment when
it comes to abortion, nowhere... Both movements have valid points, everyone
is right, and everyone is wrong. Gee... this is confusing. Something for
us to think about before hitting the flamethrower next time. Anyone agree?

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

PS Can anyone tell me if the meaning of life is indeed a banana float? :)
   (I got into a big debate with a girl about this today after dinner)
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:20:30 GMT

conradv@snake.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes ...
>THE Inquisition and the crusades were not religous 
>incidents. They were events with political overtones.

Yes, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Geocentric universe,
all such Church events can be said to have political 
overtones.

Further, you can probably explain how apparent errors 
made by the Catholic Church are different from its current 
stance of abortion and contraception.

Fine.

So, back to the original question.

Why should I accept the word of the Pope/Church with
regards to abortion/contraception?  Especially given
that  ...
1) The Pope is human & fallible
2) The Catholic church represents only a minority
   of Christians.
3) Christians represent only a minority of all people.

Ray
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey Jean Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Thanks for replying to Adoption vs Abortion
Summary: thanks to everyone who responded
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:21:08 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Hi everyone!

	Just wanted to thank everyone for responding to my posting.
Some people gave me some new insights to both Abortion and Adoption.
Thanks again everyone, you've really helped someone here. She asked 
me to tell you all thanks for sharing your comments. You made it 
easier for her to make her decision. I'm appreciate your help.

*****************************************************************************
*			    *              +------------------------------+ *
*     Brought to You by     *   (lllllll)  |       Hello, my name is 	  | *
*			    *   ll ~ ~ ll  |        Inigo Montoya	  | *
*      Mikeey Jean Lin      *   (  0 0  )  |			          | *
*       Vice President      *    |  ^  |   |	You killed my father.	  | *
*      Gymnastics Club      *     \_-_/l   |      PREPARE TO DIE!!!       | * 
*  University of Rochester  *  	      ll   +------------------------------+ * 
*			    *          l		                    *
*****************************************************************************
* This Week's Quote : Sex is not the answer, sex is the question            *
*		      "Yes" is the answer.		          Swami X   *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: We Won't Go Back/April 5th/March for Abortion Rights
Distribution: usa
Date: 5 Apr 92 14:49:59 CDT

In article <1992Apr3.100338.17039@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
>In article <1992Mar27.183123.5459@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar27.085737.9207@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
[exchange regarding pregnancy and harm/benefit to the woman
 partially deleted for brevity]
>>
>>Tell it to all the women who have lived with gestational diabetes,
>>or died of toxemia. Tell it to all the women who have suffered 
>>permanent connective tissue damage, or nutritional deficiencies
>>due to poor diet during pregnancy. Osteoporosis is less likely 
>>for mothers only if they get adequate calcium during pregnancy.
>>Otherwise the fetus takes its supply from her bones and teeth.
>>Finally, she has a 22 times greater chance of dying from carrying
>>the fetus to term than she has from a first-tri abortion. BTW,
>>this is a very incomplete list of problems; I'm sure I could go
>>on if it weren't Friday afternoon...
>>
>  These are not all women, only some.  I never said no women were ever
>  harmed, just not all women are harmed, and that many (most) benifit
>  from it in the long term.  

This is the kind of statement that requires documentation. By
using the word 'most', you imply that 51% (or more) of women
wh carry pregnancies to term have long-term health benefits from
doing so. You must prove that this is so, retract the statement,
or lose credibility. Truth by Blatant Assertion won't make it.

>                              I'm sure you can go on and on etc... as
>  most people can do on this list, but it is pointless and irelivant
>  since the discussion is about do ALL women suffer harm from pregnancy
>  and the answere is simply no.
>

One of the major deficiencies in 'pro-life' thought is the refusal
to deal adequately with the possible impacts of proposed legislation
on the persons it will most affect, namely women. Even if long-term
positive health benefits do occur for some women after pregnancy,
such benefits would be predicated on a positive sum scenario in
which the benefits, such as being in a lower-risk group for cancer,
outweighed the physical damage to the body that a normal pregnancy
entails. To assert that the process of gestation and parturition
can take place at _no_ physical cost to the woman is also the sort
of blatant assertion that you must document if you wish to be believed.

muriel
standard disclaimer


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:21:17 GMT

keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>in a post devoid of reason, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>-> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) rants to muriel:
>-> >-> Standard Pro-Death tactics is to scream their opinion while
>-> >-> trying to shut others out.
>-> 
>-> >it's odd you'd say that. i don't believe i've ever heard a
>-> >single "Pro-Death" person scream. no doubt, this is because i
>-> >don't know any "Pro-Death" people, which is also odd. because
>-> >i've been around this newsgroup a long, long time while you
>-> >have just arrived.  still, you deserve the benefit of the
>-> >doubt i suppose.  so, please list the name of the people you
>-> >call "Pro-Death" along with some evidence that they are
>-> >"Pro-Death." then we can move on to this screaming business.
>-> >once you take care of this wee matter, i'm sure any questions
>-> >as to your integrity will be answered.
>-> 
>-> Glad to oblige.  
>-> 
>-> 1. The fetus (human or not) is a life.

>human or not? are you proposing some protection for mammals,
>plants, viruses, fish, insects, cancer......

I'm devoid of reason?  You have refuted nothing.  The issue, bonehead, is
abortion of human fetus'.  The parenthetical phrase was in deference to twits 
like yourself.     (human or not)
                      |       |
            Pro-Life belief   Pro-Death belief


>-> 2. When you terminate the life you bring death.

>-> 3. Hence people wanting the ability to bring death (ie. so-called Pro-Choicers)
>->    are Pro-Death.

>have you had your tonsils removed sonny?
>have you ever had a haircut, trimmed your fingernails?
>you'd better try again.
>and don't forget to include your list of names this time.

Well, seems your whole post is nonsense (since you couldn't even comprehend
the premise).

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:49:43 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>  Pro-life/religious are against day-care because we feel (supported by
>psychological studies) that it can have harsh retroactive effects on the
>child.

Child care generally has no adverse affects on children (supported by
psychological studies).

>   We are not against health care whatsoever. THis is preposterous. We are
>aginst our money goin to support the thousands of abortions which we are 
>so disgusted by.

I also object to MY money going to support the thousands of churches
in the country and the disgusting actions of so many militant "Pro-Lifers".

>   Welfare to single mothers we support wholly. We respect the single
>mother who had the COURAGE and PERSEVERANCE to have the child when
>women like yourself would be screaming in her ear of the conveniences of
>the abortion as a solution.

Even the welfare mother who has 7 children (each by a different father)
so that she can get more welfare money?  Don't most churches rather 
object to this sort of behavior?

>   We NEVER shou at the woman. We see the woman as a victim like the child.
>She is at the mercy of society and the political powers. The woman may
>be a willing participant, but the abortion clinics where people feed off of
>society's hate for children are where we truly direct our voices.

Ah, I see.  Women are victims who can't decide important issues for 
themselves.  Thus you take it upon yourself to tell all the women in
the country to shut up and stay in the kitchen where they belong.
Having babies is part of the job, eh?  Can't have women getting 
uppity and making decisions for themselves, eh?  Sounds like the
game is more about control over women than protecting fetuses.

As for the abortion clinics - do they get bombed so that they won't 
be roaming the streets, pouncing on women and giving them abortions 
against their wills?

>                                The charity and effort we put 
>into nourishing and supporting the impoverished outnumbers anything
>you could even dream of...

Which pales in comparison to the charity and effort put into
nourishing and supporting the (tax subsidised) church.

Ray
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chimps and all
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:20:42 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr3.114531.18056@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) said:
><1992Mar29.225603.33407@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>><1992Mar29.192340.28300@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> <1992Mar24.222251.11669@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>>> ><1992Mar24.004958.10646@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darc
>>> >So slavery is OK if you go before a judge and he says so?
>>>     ^^^^^^^
>>> In the same mundane sense that abortion isn't "murder" (because the legal
>>> definition only applies to the killing of BORN persons), the above wouldn't
>>> constitute "slavery" (since the legal definition could be changed to
>>> accommodate it).
>>
>>Analogy alert!  Just as slavery is wrong, regardless of whether or not a
>>judge approves, the man controlling the woman's body against her will is
>>wrong, whether it's unilateral or multilateral.  And this is a close
>>analogy, because when you say "enforced", how are you proposing to keep
>>a woman pregnant who doesn't want to be, other than by chaining her up
>>for the duration?
>
>Yet another analogy alert!  Just as it is wrong to to harm someone under
>your control or dependance (such as slaves or children) it is wrong
>to harm a fetus who is dependant on it's mother.  

First, I don't think we have any guidelines as to the proper treatment of
slaves.  Second, it's entirely okay to "harm" a child, just not to excess
(i.e. spanking or slapping a disbehaving child can be a constructive
method of reprimanding.  I can remember being slapped and I can say
unequivically that I felt "harmed", however, I'm none the worse for wear.)

For those of you who do not believe in spanking a child - that's your
choice, and I pity you the teenage years ahead.  I am not advocating
beating a child, if you choose to see that maybe _you_ need a spanking.
;-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Organization: Clark University
Date: 8 APR 92 16:32:52 GMT

>As for the overwhelming majority of abortions being for the sake of
>convience, I say so what. Who are you to judge? As has been stated before
>(by me) I have'nt met a woman who has had an abortion who didn't agonize
>over it first, and through strength of will and mind, made a difficult
>choice for herself. I never met a woman who just waltzed in, got rid
>of that fetus, then went out and got pregnant again to go through that
>sheer joy of abortion again. :)

Thats Odd.  I have met many women who have used abortion as a form of birth 
control.  I think it may be more common then you think.

				Loren Finkelstein
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Wrongful Life
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 02:37:52 GMT

In article <1992Mar8.211044.14448@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>"Wrongful Life" is an action brought when a tortfeasor's act or
>omission results in the birth of an unwanted child, ...
 ^^^^^^^^

Hmmm... EXTREMELY INTERESTING concept there, Ted. Yet another avenue for my
research.

								- Kevin
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:56:46 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18070@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>Adrienne, you must forgive Steve, he is but a virgin babe babbling
>in the woods, and knows not whereof he speaks.

Ron, you're so wRONg. You see, I am not a babe, I do not babble, and I
do know what I speak of. Clearly you are the idiot if you refute
my statistics. 100% for abstinence friend. I don't have to look THAT up
in the World Almanac either. I didnt' impose the practice on her...
 I just told her what works. Use it or leave it, but know that while I 
won't fight you on your sexual habits, I WILL defend the fetus. If you can't
have responsible sex, then you had better be responsible with the end
result...
   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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:42:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.072108.10596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr11.160950.8203@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr06.151018.19614@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
>> >
>> >The man *is* uninvolved in the physical aspects of pregnancy, Kevin, his
>> >best wishes and sympathy create no rights stream.
>>
>> You seem to conveniently forget that conception is ALSO a physical aspect of
>> pregnancy.
>
>My dictionary says "pregnant" means "having a fetus or fetuses growing in
>the uterus", so conception is a precursor to, not an aspect of, pregnancy.

Well, since you have it out (the dictionary, that is) why don't you look up
"physical" and "aspect" as well, Larry? Conception is a physical event, and,
in its capacity as a strict prerequisite for pregnancy, certainly qualifies 
as an "aspect" of pregnancy, does it not?

Besides, arguing that conception has nothing to do with pregnancy makes you
vulnerable to the Kellmeyer Trap of "the man doesn't create a child, so he's 
not responsible for child-support". You know, the sewage he labels "pro-abort 
logic" and keeps INSISTING we pro-choicers "actually" believe...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:56:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.222307.18355@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve  
Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr14.171626.15538@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia..  
("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
> >In article <1992Apr14.045125.3507@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin  
> >Brawley) writes:
> >> jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
> 
> >Yes, I am serious. Basically, all rights can be waived; if they 
> >couldn't, they would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the 
> >right to life because it can't waive it.
>    Okay. Jen 

Yes, Ste?

> - take Hellen Keller for example. She couldn't do a whole
> lot let alone express herself until her late teens (maybe early
> teens?) Do you propose that she should have been killed because 
> shecouldn't waive her right? 

Of course not! Helen Keller wasn't living inside another person's
body.  
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mommy! They Called Me Names! (Was: Implications of Abortion...)
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:24:46 GMT
 <1992Apr12.190057.24646@cs.dal.ca> <EJONES.92Apr13160022@umassmed.ummed.edu>
Organization: HAM--Hackers Against MUDs

In article <EJONES.92Apr13160022@umassmed.ummed.edu>, ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu
(Erik Jones) says:
>
>Steve sayeth:

>>   This already happens - There have been quite a few men and women who have
>>been placed in jail for obstruction, loitering, public nuisance, etc...
>>Then
>>again, lots of people were arresed in the South during King's regime, and
>>Gandhi spent a fair bit of time in Jail. Hell, Jesus Christ died at the
>>hands of the law because of his beliefs (perhaps at the mercy of people
>>like
>>you?) We understand the responsiblity every time we carry a picket sign,
>>but my friend - it is worth it.

>You equate your movement with those of great leaders like those?
>How dare you, when Operation Rescue fanatics firebomb clinics and
>spend their time shouting and cursing and damning women outside
>abortion clinics.

Sorry to intrude, but surely there are several sides to the pro-life
movement.  Using the same parallel, would it be valid to hold Martin
Luther King, Jr. accountable for the violent actions
of a violent civil right's group (e.g. the Black Panthers)?

Some prolifers protest peacefully or write letters or work in counselling.
Not everyone is bombing clinics.  Steve Taylor wrote a facetious song
about an ice-cream-man who blew up abortion clinics so he would have
more young customers...he was criticising the prolifers who bombed clinics,
and he is prolife himself.

Joy Haftel               "I blew up the clinic real good"
JKH107@PSUVM                            --Steve Taylor
Newsgroups: talk.abortion