HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:12:43 GMT

<1992Oct10.052626.10433@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) :
><1992Oct9.214948.3348@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) :
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
...
>Abortion, legal or illegal, kills the unborn child within them as its main
>objective.  

Wrong.  We've been trhough this before.  The objective of an abortion is
to terminate a pregnancy.  The side-effect of this process *currently* is 
that the fetus almost always dies.

>            Women may die in the process, but this does happen when abortion
>is illegal OR legal.  Women can die as a result of legalized abortion too.

And 10 times as many die because of legal child-birth.

>Again, I ask, why make two losers when you can get two winners instead?

Ah, but the real winner is the OB who gets $2000+ for delivering a live
one.

>>When you start showing some caring for people instead of your ideas
>>then maybe I'll start to care what your opinions are.  Until then I
>>suggest a stroll through parts of Oakland might be appropriate as a
>>lesson in what people have to live with on a daily basis.  You can
>>tell the signle mothers there that they would be happier supporting 
>>ten kids on welfare instead of three.
>>
>Even if they had their ten kids, I'm sure they would still see to their
>protection with all their heart and soul.  Also remember that humans
>are resources too.  I'm not sure how familiar you are with big families
>but there is a lot of helping going on with each other.  Older siblings
>taking care of younger siblings.  Younger siblings making sure others are
>okay.  Older siblings taking care of their parents and doing their best
>to help out.  

And they perpetuate the state of poverty and illiteracy.

>The alternative, of course, is to have dead children instead sanctioned
>by the abortion laws.

What dead children?  No one here is advocating the killing of children.

...
>There is more than one way to serve your family, friends, country, and
>community.

Apparently only your ways are valid.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and 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.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
Date: 16 Oct 1992 13:33:14 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.719184600@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <5806@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In case you missed it, I consider this use of the word "honey" to
>be sexual harrassment when preceded by "Petey".  Got that, tanj@catnip?

Gee, Peter, I had no idea you worked for her.  Or were applying to work for
her.  Gee, Peter, guess you don't know what the range of sexual harrassment
proscription covers, huh?  But I'm sure you have an OPINION.....

Adrienne Regard

Really, it's just too damned *easy*.  Sigh.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42603 alt.activism.d:3876
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Child (was: Walking down to the student center last night)
Summary: The Supreme Court and the definition of child.
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:30:36 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

About the definition of child . . .

In article <1992Oct12.212026.69158@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
...
# From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
# Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 22:39:49 GMT
# Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
...
# So I lied, I am going to waste exam study time on it.  The Supreme Court
# explicitly rejected Wilson v Weaver and said that "dependent child"
# under the Social Security Act did not include "unborn children."  At
# 420 US 575, 580-581, the Court interpreted "child" to refer to an
# individual already born, with an existence separate from its mother.
# Interestingly, for those curious about "legal" and "common" definitions,
# they footnote Webster's Third New International Dictionary in support
# of this proposition.  The case is Burns v Alcala.

Ok, I'll buy that: the legal definition of "child" does not include the
unborn.  If I remember Merriam's correctly, the legal definition of child
is equivalent to "minor".   I believe they gave it as, any person between
the ages of birth and 21 years (it might have been 18 -- I don't remember).
Note, the legal definition differs from the common one on both ends, as we
would not normally call a 17-year-old a "child", unless he were acting like
one.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:15:04 GMT

In article <Bw20Cz.HI2@dcs.ed.ac.uk> 
tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

> Why do you deny that a foetus, being permitted by law to use a womans body
> *against her will* is not being treated in a special way?
>
> I can't think of many other situations (if any at all) where a woman is
> required by law to use her body for the benefit of someone else.
>
> An anti-abortion law would be unprecedented in that respect.  No?

Obviously, pregnancy is a very special case where one individual
resides within another's body.  But I don't see how bodily residence,  
_in itself_, is significant.  It's no more significant than the
fact that the fetus possesses human chromosomes.  Both are undeniable
facts which carry no _intrinsic_ moral significance. 

How many pregnant women want abortions simply by virtue of the fact
that a fetus resides within their body, or because the fetus is "using 
her body" against her will?  Probably not too many.

Many pregnant women want abortions because pregnancy would disrupt 
their life in some manner.  They have *reasons* for wanting an 
abortion which nothing to do with facts such as bodily residence. 
These reasons have moral significance.  Could these reasons be  
used as a sufficiently compelling justification for killing a born 
person? 


>tommy


Doug Holtsinger
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:42:07 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct15.183144.26165@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Good, now I am justified in battling ACT-UP as they continue to try
>and harass pro-lifers WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OPERATION RESCUE. I'll
>be happier now when I join up with the others and get all on ACT-UP's
>hides. 

Chaney offers to join some sort of crusade and fight for what he 
believes.  (From his past behavior, I understand that "fight" is the 
compelling word here.)  In other words, Chaney plans to act like 
a fanatic.

>Have you heard of us? There are tons of us who have nothing to do with
>those fanatics at the clinics. 

Oh, I see.  You're going to battle and being a fanatic separately from 
the traditional fanatics.  OK.

>I bet you've never heard of pro-lifers
>who aren't a part of OR because you listen to that ignorant Boob Tube
>and the Media, whose most often-used message is "all pro-lifers block
>clinics." 

I am aware of many pro-lifers who are not fanatical.  Judging by 
your words and demeanor, you are not one of them.

>But then again, you live in Steve Novak, Susan Garvin and Jay Stein's
>fantasy world that anything that works for the right to life cause,
>blocks clinics and does the stuff you said in this story. Well, maybe
>I overexaggerate their position. Slightly.

That's OK.  Fanatics usually overexaggerate.

>Isn't it wierd that you pro-choicers applaud the acts of ACT-UP but

I don't.

>yet you abhor it when Operation Rescue pulls a stunt? You pro-choice

I do.  There's no contradiction.  Only fanatics have problems 
with contradictions.

>vacuum-heads are known for your double-standards. And as Patrick

Not that I know of.

>Humphrey knows, I don't like ACT-UP - and I don't like Operation
>Rescue. (So no one can call me inconsistent on this.) 

Oh, you're consistent in saying you hate both groups.  But you are 
also inconsistent in showing behavioural attitudes similar to those 
exhibited in these groups.  You say you hate groups known for violence  
but your words in general indicate that you admire an attitude of hate
and a posture of violent intent.  Make no mistake -- you are the most 
anti-life pro-lifer I have ever known.  Consistency?  Hah!

>ANOTHER shining example of how the pro-choice Nazi movement is full of
>double-standards and hypocrisy. 

Well, that's a shining fanatical statement if I ever saw one.




-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:15:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>I agree.  But a fetus isn't part of a woman's body.  There are two
>bodies involved.

Then what exactly is it part of? Where did it come from? Is the egg
part of a woman's body? (I think it is, as it was created by it) So
the addition of a little bit of chemical strings all of a sudden make
it not part of her body?

Lets' do a quick analogy here. A hair cell is part of your body. With
the addition of chemicals, it produces a strand of hair. Is this part
of your body also? Once it is cut, is the cut part still part of your
body?
Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:14:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  
>>>
>>>Huh?   Let me get this straight.  Abortion will kill women?  I didn't
>>>know abortion killed women.  Oh, I take that back.  Abortion does kill
>>>unborn females directly.
>>
>>Read it again.  Carefully.
>>
>I did and the logic goes around in a circle before hitting the wall.

Sigh.  I wrote "making abortion illegal _will_ kill women".
You read "abortion will kill women".  Abortion doesn't kill women.
Making abortion _illegal_ will kill women.

>>>Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>>>does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>>>women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>>
>>Your level of compassion strikes me as being more than a little
>>hypocritical.
>
>I sure hope compassion != allowing the woman to kill her unborn children.

I sure hope compassion != allowing you to kill women.

>Exactly!  Guess who uses the self-defense arguments for getting rid
>of fellow humans?  Where have I heard something to the extent of being
>allowed to kill the parasite within the mother because the fetus
>is trespassing, causing pain, using someone else's body without their
>permission, etc.  And because of this, the mother should have the right
>to kill to defend herself.

So then, what's _your_ excuse?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41557 talk.politics.guns:21923 alt.conspiracy:11091 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5153
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 00:24:50 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

> 
> lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
> 
> >Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
> >they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.
> 
> Right.  Reagan and Bush have overseen one of the largest increases
> in the size of government in the history of the country, and
> 80% of the new jobs created by Bush have been in *government*.
> 
> For Christ's sake, think for yourself, man!
> 
> Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
> lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
> and *you* talk about big spender liberals?
> 
> Gimme a break.
> 
> Clinton/Gore in '92.
> -- 
>    Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>                          bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>              I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>                               DoD # 0698


Remember, on January 30th Bush offered his official Presidental Suggested 
Budget to the Congress and the World, a $1.52 trillion dollar budget.  
The almost immediately , Richard darman of OBM stated that this would 
give us an Official OMB estimated Deficit for fiscal 1993 of $399 billion 
dollars.  The biggest one year deficit in the history of civilization.
The biggest damned deficit in the whole world, of any country, at any 
time in history.  Bush came up with this budget without the help of the 
Congress at large, the liberals, or the democrats.  Can you say, "Spend, 
spend, spend, spend"?  The taxes come later.
   And don't forget, his budget of 1987 raised taxes and fees ~~%6 
billion dollars and his budget for 1990 raised taxes and fees ~~$20 
billion dollars.  His Capitol Gains Tax rRelief plan of Febuary, 1992 
actually contained some sneaky taxes on annuities.
  CAn you say, "Tax, tax"?
  Can you say stinking, lying hypocrite?
What would he do for an encore given 4 more years?

Pope Charles  Subgenius Pope Of Houston         Save America, Dump Bush!

--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42681 alt.rush-limbaugh:7421
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:32:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

a.r-l left in because Mike may be posting from there.

In talk.abortion, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>I wonder if there has ever been a study done where citizens who were
>abused as children were asked if, given the choice, it would have been
>better if they had not been born at all.

Just ask all those who committed suicide.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:58:48 GMT

In <1992Oct12.151022.1257@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.032116.24800@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep19.222609.21030@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <p!1nn2-.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>
>>>>So, if the fetus is removed intact and alive you would approve of an
>>>>abortion?  
>>>
>>>Legally speaking, that's NOT an "abortion", Gordon:
>>>
>>>	Abortion.  The knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child
>>>	or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the
>>>	womb other than for the principal purpose of producing a live birth
>>>	or removing a dead fetus. (Black's, 5th Ed.)
>>>
>>>Can we get this definition into the FAQ, please? I'm sick of typing it in...  >
It's also written into South Carolina state law.  Funny how pro-choicers
keep harping on a LEGAL meaning of "person" but will jump behind their
favorite dictionaries in defining "abortion."

>>
>>a-bor-tion
>>Noun
>>1. Induced termination of pregnancy before the embryo or fetus is capable
>>of survival.

>I.e. the fetus dies. Early caesarean does NOT count as "abortion" under this
>definition.

>>2. A fatally premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus.

>"Fatally premature", i.e. the fetus dies. Early caesarean does NOT count as
>"abortion" under this definition.

And how are third trimester abortions defined by Mr. Knapp's favorite
dictionary?  They are no longer fatally premature.

>>In the many dictionaries I've looked up the term 'abortion' in, I've not
>>once see them redefine a fetus or embryo as an 'unborn child.'  This isn't
>>even concise English.

You will see "unborn child" used in 19th century legal documents, such
as a 1872 COLORADO [try your law library, Mr. Knapp!] 
State Supreme Court decision:

From Dougherty v. People, 1 Colo. 514, 522 (1872) concerning a
Colorado statute:
"intended specifically to protect the mother and her unborn child from
operations calculated and directed to the destruction of the one and the
inevitable injury of the other."

>I agree. Whoever wrote that definition in Black's used some suspiciously
>pro-life phrasing.

No, just some very traditional phrasing, which has gone down the
talk.abortion memory hole.

Peter Nyikos
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:32:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

First off, how about leaving in the attributions? Makes life a whole
lot easier for those of us looking for the response to our articles.
Second, there was a whole lot more in my post than the following. I
expect to see more of it in later posts. After all, I did offer direct
arguments and numbers counter to yours. (I know I also stated that I
wouldn't answer the entire thing in a single post, but you can address
two or three at a time. Just not all twenty and the 5 added posts.)

In talk.abortion, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>We've got a choice to do *anything*.  Deuteronomy 30:19 is a commandment
>from God to choose life, just like He commanded us not to kill or commit

I believe it said "choose life then, so that you and your descendents
may live". No where does it indicate that you "must choose life" or
"I command that you choose life" or "it is my desire that you choose
life". It is merely a rather common statement. "If you choose life, you
and you descendents may live." Nothing more.

>adultery or steal or lie.  Yeah, we've got a choice to all these things.

Actually, it says: "thou shalt not commit adultry" and "Thou shalt not
steal". (from memory, I don't have a bible handy, so I can't comment
on the lie one, although I think it is similar.) These are rather unambiguous,
wouldn't you agree? If he wanted to say the same for life, why not state
"Thou shalt choose life, for yourself and your descendents."?

>That doesn't mean I'm pro-choice.  I'm pro-life because I believe choosing
>abortion to be wrong.  Deuteronomy 30:19 commands us to choose life.

no.

>Understand the distinction, now?

I hope you do. Reading comprehension always seems to be a weak point
for bible thumpers(bashers). If they had good comprehension, I guess
the contradictions in the bible would drive them batty. :)

>           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.

At least we now know your name.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:47:33 GMT

From article <9nnzwbm@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> 
>> No one is asking the baby.
> 
> D'you suppose there might be a _reason_ for that?


Sure.  They're afraid they might not like the answer.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion