HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:34:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.035416.13397@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
   [I had to reinsert the attributes that the Rink left out in his reply]
>> =>  Roby
>>> => Rink
>>>The following is an article that refutes all arguments that justify abortion.
>>                                          ^^^
>>You failed to address at least one that is important in my book
>>(I'm sure others can point out additional arguments you missed.):
>
>My sincere apologies.  Honestly.  I had meant to say "all major arguments".

My take on your list would be "the most common arguments", but at any rate, 
your reply removes the problem with the word "all" that I had.   Thanks!

>And #20, which you list below, is one I hadn't considered.
>
>>        20.  Equal opportunity for women to "walk away" from unwanted 
>>             pregnancy as some men choose to do.
>>
>>Equality between the sexes is one of the strongest arguments for the abortion 
>>option, IMHO.
>
>Just a thought to throw out.  If science made it possible, would you support
>the idea that men should carry half the unborn babies in the world...?

It wouldn't phase me -- I've always been a curious sort and it seems sort 
of unfair that one gender is deprived of the experience (good and/or bad) 
of pregnancy altogether.  On the other hand, I wouldn't force men to stay 
pregnant against their will anymore than I would women.

However, I think it is more likely that science will eventually make it 
possible to avoid pregnancy altogether (test-tube fetuses from conception or 
shortly after).  What do you think of the idea of 1.5 million fetuses
a year being raised in government labs with public funds as an alternative 
to abortion or unwanted pregnancy?

>//================================================================\\
||  Jesus gave the "Lord's Prayer" as an example of how to 
     pray uniquely and individually, and not by rote as the 
     hypocritical do.  I wonder what Jesus thinks of the sad fact 
     that his example has become perhaps the most repeated prayer 
     in history, thus undermining the intent of original thought 
     when praying that he proposed.

     Hey, you brought up Jesus, not me.
>\\================================================================//


-- 
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: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Beth Yields to the Enemy In Cultural Warfare
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:06:26 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:
]
] Principles of action may be based on religion.  The laws of
] this country are subject to the separation of Church and State.
] Furthermore, we cannot base laws on Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim,
] principles, because we are then violating the beliefs of those American
] citizens who happen to be Buddhists, pagans (gasp!!! horrors!
] SHOCK!!!!!!), or animists (huh??????? Mommy, what's an animist?  Shut up
] and finish your rosary) or atheists (who despite what George Bush was
] quoted as saying about them, are just as much citizens as anyone else).
] No matter how strongly you may believe in your Christian principles, if
] you truly consider yourself an American, you will honor this tenet of our 
] governmental system, and not try to argue law on the basis of quotes
] from the Bible.  (And they say liberals are not patriotic?  Humph!)


Beth,

You might wish to reconsider your position, as
these are posted around the world, and clearly it
appears that you are protesting against your government
on foreign shores while we are in the Midst of a Cultural
War against these Very EnemiesOfTheState whom you would
wish to allow as citizens.


Now please consider your delicate position VERY VERY VERY Carefully!

We understand that at times 'youthful enthusiasm' can get in the
way of Clear Thinking.....

But we are At WAR with these DangerousElements, and you are
Clearing Aiding and Abetting Those Enemies!!!!!


ciao
drieux


ps: Would George Bush LIE to US?

NEVER!

He would have had to been in the loop to know what the truth was!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41070 talk.politics.misc:49965 alt.rush-limbaugh:6726
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:44:46 GMT
 <9441@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <1992Oct6.061730.13587@netcom.com> 
 <9478@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> <adams.718394813@spssig> <9483@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <adams.718394813@spssigSA: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>SA:Bingo!  Remember that the Constitution specifically lays out what
>SA:government MAY do, and what rights or freedoms the people have ceded to it
>SA:so that it may carry out its duties.
>
>SA:All rights of the people are NOT listed in the document.  Heck, the
>SA:founders were a bit afraid of a 'bill of rights' because they feared those
>SA:would be the only rights protected.
>
>I also didn't see anything in the constitution about rape and pillage
>either.  I guess if the states felt the strange urge to ban or regulate
>either of those things, you would claim that that would also be
>unconstitutional.

Not at all.  Raping and pillaging are invasions of other persons (we're
talking legal definition here) rights.  Society has deemed that such acts
are to be punished as they deprive another person (again, legal definition)
of their right to life or privacy.

The states and the people are allowed to regultate in these areas. The
Constitution was a contract between the people of the states and a federal
government that was to have limited powers.  In actuallity, the constitution 
makes no provision for federal murder laws, etc.  These types of laws are 
meant to be left to the states.  Same with driver's licenses, marriage
licenses, etc.

Since the courts have found that the people desired to retain privacy (look
at the ammendments relating to this : search & seizure, quatering of
troops, self-incrimination, freedom of religion, etc), they have enforced
this right.  The majority is not supposed to always win in our system...the
constitution is concerned about tyrrany, and does its level best to prevent
a tyranny of the majority.

If you don't think this is the case, look at the concept of the fillibuster
in the Senate.  It takes 60% of Senators to close off debate.  Now look at
the concept of the veto. It takes 2/3 of each of the House and the Senate 
to override a veto.  Simple majorities are not enough.  Now look at
treaties.  It takes 2/3 of the Senate to agree to them.

And, the courts have the power to review the actions of the legislative and
executive branch to make sure that the rights of the minority are not
infringed.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:03:46 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct15.215356.25446@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <Bw5A2s.HxF.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>    (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
>In article <1992Oct13.205332.9526@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>
>>>Again, if your opponents are the "bad guys" it's ever so much
>>>easier to assume the high moral ground, isn't it?
>>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
>>When abortion is illegal, women die.
>When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.
>Shall we legalize them, Susan?  

>Bill

I'm not Susan, but my answer is 'yes.'


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:07:18 GMT

<7109@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
><1992Oct8.223039.2638@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>#From article <6739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>## 
>## Can you document any of those things that you said about
>## Adrienne, Suzanne?  I seem to recall you getting rather
>## indignant about some comments that Gordon made about *you*,
>## and that you demanded documentation.  (Of course, I
>## also remember that Gordon documented each one, and you
>## were strangely silent after that.)  

...

>I didn't think you could document your claims.  I trust
>you'll think twice before demanding evidence from Gordon
>or anyone else in the future.

I'm still waiting for her to bow and scrape and apologize.  Has she yet
posted a retraction for lying about her claim about gays hating women?

>who wonders if Suzanne has found Matthew 6:5-6 yet

I wonder if she greases her head when fasting.  - Matthew 6:17


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:09:57 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct4.193120.1797@newshost.unh.edu>, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>>If she really didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it.
>>
>>If you really didn't want to get hit by that car, you shouldn't
>>have risked crossing the street.
> 
> Sarcasm intended, truth emitted.  Anybody who doesn't want to risk getting
> hit by a car when crossing the street shouldn't cross the street.
> 
> But can you really equate the odds of getting hit by a car crossing the street
> with the odds of getting pregnant by having sex?

Depends on how careful you tend to be in both situations, doesn't it?
I'm sure there are circumstances under which these odds are relatively
close and comparable.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41369 talk.politics.guns:21892 alt.conspiracy:11074 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5109 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6483 talk.bizarre:33317
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:16:29 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <BvtHx4.KvB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>	I agree that "devaluation of language is evidential of a small,
>inflexible intellect".  If everyone used only their own words, that they made
>up, and ignored anything resembling a sentence structure, there would be no
>communication.  Nobody would be able to understand anyone else, and language
>would be valueless.

Yeah... that's why that Willie the Shake's stuff never got off the
ground... the turkey went around coining his own words right and left.

Get thee to a dictionary.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Twit twit twit/Jug jug jug jug jug jug/So rudely forc'd./Tereu"
                - T. S. Eliot, "The Waste Land," III. The Fire Sermon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:20:14 GMT

In article <YerRb4W00iUx85DJk_@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
# >>>>>> so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
# >>>>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# >>>>>> to get up off the operating table to pay more money. 
# >>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# 
# [deleted most of argument]
# 
# >Wrongo boopsie.  That line was both funny _and_ dumb.  And we're not
# >laughing at this alleged women's alleged misfortunes, either.
# 
# Question. What is funny about the above line?

It's my turn everybody...

``Ms. Gansley-Ortiz?  Ms. Gansley-Ortiz, can you hear me?''

``Doctor, she's under sedation.  She can't hear you.''

``Ms. Gansley-Ortiz, I'm afraid I have to inconvenience you a little
further.  This procedure is taking a little longer than I expected,
and at my hourly fee, your initial deposit is insufficient to cover
any further work here.''

``Doctor, can't you see she's out like a light?  She's *sedated*. She
can't hear you.''

``So, Ms. Gansley-Ortiz, I have to ask you to get off the operating
table.''

``Doctor, she's *sedated*, don't you *SEE*?''

``Unless you can put a couple more President Jacksons into the college
fund, I'm afraid you'll have to find another surgeon, Ms.
Gansley-Ortiz.''

``Doctor!''



No.  None of us are laughing at the alleged woman's alleged
misfortunes.  We're laughing at the allegation.

	...and it's a pretty amusing allegation, too.  I *really* find
it hard to believe that a dialogue similar to the one I fabricated
above has actually taken place in all seriousness in a women's health
clinic.  Call me naive.  But I just don't think there's a shred of
truth to this fantasy.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:20:17 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  <1992Oct9.020248.1916@news.yale.edu>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
> I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.

Does this have anything to do with DickSizeWars?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:34:10 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote (in article <Bvt8rp.2AE.2@cs.cmu.edu>):
>I don't know of any group of clinic escorts who "squash"
>O.R. members.  Every group that I am familiar with is
>committed to non-violence at the clinics.  In fact, it's
>not unusual for escorts to block blows (from patients,
>or people accompanying patients) intended for pro-forcers.

On a related note, a woman talked about the abortion issue two
mornings ago on one of the morning television shows (Good Morning
America, maybe it was).  She says she had just gotten an abortion a
few weeks earlier, and that she was disturbed a *lot* by the
pro-lifers ranting outside the clinic and praying loudly and blocking
her way and holding up gruesome pictures.  A clip of a videotape of
the event was shown: as she was being escorted through the blockade by
a policeman, a pro-lifer ran towards her at full speed and slammed
into her, tackling her and knocking her forcefully to the ground!
Fortunately, she was unhurt.

Stuff like this makes me feel really disappointed in pro-lifers.
Sometimes, they just seem *such* like a bunch of hypocrites.

It amuses me that they often pray loudly in public, but that they've
apparently not even noticed the Bible verse in which Jesus tells them
to avoid doing precisely that!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:18:51 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <adams.718476286@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>MW:I also didn't see anything in the constitution about rape and pillage
>MW:either.  I guess if the states felt the strange urge to ban or regulate
>MW:either of those things, you would claim that that would also be
>MW:unconstitutional.
>
>SA:Not at all.  Raping and pillaging are invasions of other persons (we're
>SA:talking legal definition here) rights.  Society has deemed that such acts
>SA:are to be punished as they deprive another person (again, legal definition)
>SA:of their right to life or privacy.
>
>So once again we are back to legal definitions.  Legal definitions can
>be changed if enough persons want them to be.  If the legal definition
>of a person is changed so that it includes fetuses, then would not the
>fetuse now enjoy a right to life.

That is correct.  But there are not enough people who want to do this.
You'll have to ammend the Constitution, most likely.  Try it.  I'd be
willing to bet that it fails.  Big.

>SA:The states and the people are allowed to regulate in these areas. The
>
>So individual states have the right to regulate abortions.

Not necessarily.  The rights are left "to the states, or to the people."
In this case, the court found that the right to privacy is retained by the
people.  Given the thrust of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights,
that seems pretty darn clear.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:37:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



Patrick "I love cats" Humphrey said:
#So who said having children made people unhappy?  Susan didn't.  I can see
#why you think you're writing a novel -- you certainly have an active
#imagination...

I guess that's one of the occupational hazards of believing that
a z/e/f is a child - they can't tell the difference between spending
eternity pregnant and spending eternity with children.


#--PLH, not exactly anticipating a signing at Bookstop any time soon

Susan, who wonders if Booth will be able to read his own book


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.073654.28896@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

[text deleted]


#Maybe I should give up the sig.  People just have no sense of humor.  What
#does everyone think, eh?

I'd be heartbroken (again) if you did.

I say, keep the .sig.  It's fun to watch the newbies get upset.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:11:25 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct7.232040.1780@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Sep30.231911.28243@jetsun.weitek.COM>, by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
>>>>Let's face it, the ONLY fail-safe birth control known is abstainence.  
>>>>If 'she' chooses to use a form which is less reliable, that's her fault.
 
>> Thanks. Obviously Christianity is the biggest fraud on the planet if
>> the above statement is true. So who was screwing Mary?

>Hey, Mary was perfectly free to say "No", as has been pointed out to
>you before.  Anyone interested may read the first chapter of Luke. 
>She most specifically CHOSE to say "Yes!"

OK. So GOD (Marca Registrada) is a hypocrite. First he tells us not to
fornicate, then he does it himself.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:00:56 GMT

Steve Arnold writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>|> A pig has a heartbeat and its own blood, too, but we eat pigs for
>|> food.  Aside from DNA, what's the difference between you and a pig?
>|> Do you think that while a fetus still resembles a pig more than it
>|> resembles a human (biologically, not in "looks"), maybe we should give
>|> it the same moral consideration we'd give a pig -- which means that we
>|> shouldn't let it get in the way of a woman's freedoms and rights?
>
>	Brian, first I just want to see if you're consistent.  Most
>pigs are more aware, smarter, etc etc than most newborns.  Do you
>think that pigs have more "rights" than newborns?  Or do you think,
>perhaps, that neither newborns nor pigs have rights?

The difference between the average pig and a newborn human is that the
newborn human's brain includes parts that a pig's brain does not --
parts that allow what we consider "thought" to take place, not just
motor control and rudimentary learning/recollection.  No pig I've ever
known has ever demonstrated anything more than animal intelligence,
but the brain of an infant is biologically very similar to my own, and
I can't rule out the possibility that some thought _is_ going on in there.

A pig is "smarter" than a human infant in the sense that it knows how
to interact with the world around it, but its brain just doesn't
include the pieces that will allow it to hope and dream.  A human
infant's does.  That's the distinction I've been making.

Therefore, since a pig is incapable of expressing the qualities that I
believe would earn it the title of 'person', I refuse to bestow upon
it the same rights that I enjoy.  Since it hasn't been adequately
demonstrated to me that an infant human 's brain _isn't_ capable of
these qualities (primarily things such as hopes and dreams -- it has
the same "mental hardware" as I do), then I have to believe that it
deserves the same rights as I do.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau