HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re:
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:16:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct15.170205.11432@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.145515.622@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct4.021610.26620@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> >> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
> > >> In article <1992Sep25.185248.15614@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley
> >> MG>  (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> >> MG> >We all want real change.
> >> 
> >> AR> Who's "we", white man?
> >> 
> >> White man?  ...  hardly warrants a flame based upon his race...
> >
> >Adrienne was obviously refering to an old joke involving Tonto
> >and the Lone Ranger.  ...
> 
> Gosh, I guess this is the kind of thing that happens when people use their
> "noses" to detect racist bigotry, instead of their brains, eh, Dean?

Well, sonny, I wasn't the one who said it, so I guess my
record stands as accurate.  I can't account for anyone's nose
but my own.

I could account for your brains, Kevin.  I believe you're
running a deficit.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:13:54 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>But you do force the woman to justify her reasons for aborting.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You say that a woman can kill a human being as long as that 
>human being is inside her body.
>
>Since you ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>an abortion, and you concentrate only on the location of
>the fetus relative to the woman, you have managed to 
>reduce pregnant women to fetal containers.

So then, by ignoring a woman's reasons for getting an abortion, we're
forcing her to justify her reasons?!?

Doug, you're an idiot.

Go away.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:17:57 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Oct10.054059.10736@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
><1992Oct9.170338.25387@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>><1992Oct9.085353.24603@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
...
>>>The woman is very special, but I don't think the woman has the right to kill
>>>in most circumstances.
>>>
>>You don't even think she has a right to say how her body
>>will be used.  If you think life is more important than
>>that freedom, would you submit to a rapist rather than
>>kill him?  Pretend those are your only choices.
>
>I remember you mentioning that I compared women to a location.  
>
>Now look at how you invite a comparison between an unborn child and a 
>rapist.

Nice dodge.  Now answer the question.  You must be reading too many of
Nyikos posts.

...
>>You cluless twit.  If you think illegal abortion is better,
>>you are not showing much concern for women.  Some of us are
>>old enough to remember what women went through before RvW.
>>The essence of your statement is that you think it would
>>be better if more women died as a consequence of taking an
>>action that you disapprove of.  Forgive me if I have trouble 
>>believing that you care about women.
>
>Is the only way I can "prove" my compassion for women is to become pro-choice
>and allow abortions to take place?  I don't think so.  Pro-lifers are
>not misogynist.  I don't see how Feminist pro-lifers and women pro-lifers
>can hate themselves and show no compassion for themselves and their sisters.
>Mother Teresa is pro-life.  I suppose she is a misogynist too.

Mother Teresa has never been pregnant, and given her advanced years, will
never be pregnant.  She's just deluded, as are you.  Look at it this way:
A celibate old man and a celibate old woman are telling people the proper
way to have sex and children.

I suppose you go to an automechanic when you need a physical.

...
>Also: 
>   Abortion definitely kills our fellow humans.  Abortion may also
>cause some death for the mother.  But legal, or illegal, abortion still
>kills.  Women still die as a result of abortion even after it has been
>legal for quite some time.  And not that much of a difference too.

10 times more women die giving birth than die in legal abortions.  If you
cared about women you'd be putting your efforts into better birth control
and pre-natal care.


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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re:  Re: Choice for life
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:02:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>Wait a minute, go to the action/adventure section of your local bookstore.
>Some of those books have similar scenes in them, and no flak has resulted from
>them.  And watch Kubrick's 1971 film "A Clockwork Orange".  Now if Kubrick
>was allowed to make that movie, I think my story abut the dangers of fascists
>rising to power as a result of a backlash against liberalism would be allowed.
>BTW, I'm not promoting fascism.  Wht my story is  is a criticism of liberalism,
>showing what could happen if Liberalism is allowed to run amok in our society.

It sounds to me like you've been describing the consequences of
unchecked fascism.  That you concoct an implausable scenario in a
feeble attempt to attribute this sort of corruption to liberals
betrays both your political prejudices and your writing abilities.

You've claimed a few times that people have been misunderstanding what
you've been writing.  Well, as any decent writer knows, in is the
responsibility of the _writer_ to be understood, not the
responsibility of the reader to divine what was meant.  Given your
limited success in making yourself understood in this forum, I suggest
that the chances of your getting your "novel" published are rather
limited.

And lastly, in response to a comment you made in another post, I don't
want to see you removed from the net, I don't hate you or your views.
You don't matter that much to me.  Thus far your opinions have been
poorly thought out and your attempts at debating so far have been
laughable.  But keep trying.  You may learn something.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:52:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.085749.89683@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct9.210851.21085@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dart
>> >
>> >That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
>> >*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
>> >the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
>> >yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
>> >worthless.
>
>This is inane; it doesn't distinguish between a one-celled zygote and
>a living, breathing, person.
>
>> Yes--perfect!!!  Abortion does indeed cheapen life.
>
>Failing to distinguish between a zygote and a person cheapens personhood.
>
>> Now don't give me that BS about the death penalty and warfare,
>> because everyone knows that is totally unrelated.
>
>Exactly - those involve killing *people*.
>
Actually, execution is the killing of a criminal, usually a murderer
deserving of death, and in war enemies are exterminated.
Simon
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41723 talk.religion.misc:17966 alt.atheism:18715
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:32:24 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <nyikos.718385973@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <10912@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>In short, I meant what you do when you either feel an extremely strong
>>physical pain or want to make it look like that (to fake suffering).
>>Unborn babies aren't capable of the latter.  Jesus was.
>
>Well, OK, let's substitute "simulate" for "fake".  Do you at least agree
>that Nancyjo Mann's daughter-in-the-womb *simulated* suffering

Yes, I do.  If it was a simulation, it was a good one.  I understand
that Gordon Storga's bacon-in-the-pan simulated suffering too.

>>Yet even normal people, not related to Yahweh in any way, have
>>been known to control their sense of pain, as well as other functions
>>of their physiology.  <...>
>>And, of course, gods don't feel pain, even when they have bodies.

I'm playing several games at once, you see.  I'm saying that, no
matter how much similarity there was between Jesus of Nazareth (on
whose very existence I wouldn't put a farthing) and gods such as
Horus, I doubt that he suffered on that cross.  There may have been
different reasons as to why not.  He might have been made in such a
way that he wouldn't feel pain at all, or he might have used his
peculiar powers (which he demonstrated on more than one occasion) to
suppress the pain.

Remember, we're talking of a person who could walk on water, eat
nothing for forty days, heal all kind of diseases and raise the dead,
drown pigs and murder fig trees by only saying a word.  He could feel
"power going out of him" when someone touched his garment from behind.
Are you telling me that this same person was unable to arrange not to
suffer when seated on a cross for a few hours in an uncomfortable
position?

>Back in the mid-'60's I read a book, <...> _The Son of God_, by Karl Adam,
>in which he devotes quite a bit of space to the contrast between
>Jesus and the various gods, and between his "Sacrifice" and the
>sacrifices of the various fertility cults.
>If you can't find a copy, I could quote from it. 

If you feel like it, and if you want a comment from me and others.

>> `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.'
>> (The Glasgow Gospel)
>
>Is this a translation, or a pseudepigraphical "Gospel"?

It is not a translation of any of the existing Gospels.  It is the
story of Jesus of Nazareth retold in the street vernacular of Glasgow.
The author is Jamie Stuart, a devoted Christian and a devoted Glaswegian.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Your Biblical Support ISN'T.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 23:59:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.130424.20793@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>A while back, someone posted biblical references that allegedly supported
>abortion.  I looked them up.  I wonder what that person did.  Picked random
>quotes, or something.  Below is a list of the references given, and what I
>thought to be the main quotes from each passage.  I did this with the intent
>of posting the quotes that most supported pro-choice, even though I'm a
>pro-lifer.  But I couldn't find a single one that had anything to do with
>abortion -- sometimes their wasn't even anything on sex or parenthood or
>children.  In short, the person who posted these references claiming them to
>be scriptural support for abortion IS A DIRTY LIAR.

This from the person who claims that Deutromony shows the bible to be
"Pro-Life".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:25:45 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <nyikos.718031409@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> Remember, I do NOT know who Andy and Ray are.

Mr. Nyikos, you don't seem to know much.

You make unsupported, and unsupportable, allegations.  You leap feet first
into the middle of threads you haven't read.  You make ridiculous
assertions.  You fail to respond when you're ridiculous assertions are
shown to be just that.  You blather on and on with fatiguing regularity
about your "de facto killfile", as though it were some sort of a mark of
pride that you seem unable to figure out how to set up a real kill file.

Guess what, Mr. Nyikos?  I don't think your opinions carry much weight
around here.

If your mathematics papers display the intellectual rigor you've brought to
this newgroup, it would be astonishing that you could manage to remain
employed in your field.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:55:19 GMT

In article <2b1zvaa@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->Jim, you seem to have a somewhat itchy trigger finger in accusing
>->people of lying. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.
>
>"Jim accused CJ publicly of lying. That made it
>public." is this statement true, rescorla? no, it is
>not, as you agree below. did you know it was not true
>when you posted it? yes you did.
Mind reading again, Mr. Keegan?

Funny that when you make a statement that is false(as you claim
the statement that you had asked for support from the mailing list
was) you call it an error, but when I do, (or CJ does) you call
it a lie. Funnier still when you accuse ME of intellectual dishonesty.
-Ekr







-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Sex education in schools (extra long)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:03:38 GMT

From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>Here are a number of article references calling for education in the
>>schools and others showing the effects of school education is positive
>>in reducing pregancies/abortions.
> .....
> 
> I'm sure Suzanne shares my feelings when, after reading this authors name,
> I say... 

Huh?

> AAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Why?  Are we "enemies" or something?

 
>>Author       Pauker, Susan; Gordon, Suzanne
>>Title        If There's No Choice after a Prenatal Test ...
>>Source       Boston Globe,  Jun 5, 1989,  17:1
>>Features     Illustration
>>Abstract     Susan Pauker and Suzanne Gordon comment that little has been
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why Gordon, I thought you'd never ask :-) :-)


>>             said about the impact overturning the Roe vs Wade case would 
>>             have on millions of women who want to conceive normal, healthy
>>             babies and carry them to term.
> 
> 
> 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.


But only Suzanne Gordon has your name :-) :-)


Suzanne.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Women have awareness! Do fetuses?
Date: 16 Oct 1992 13:46:28 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct16.201917.8786@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1bmkecINNc2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>At 7 weeks, a fetus does not feel pain.
>I once saw an exerpt of a film called "The Silent Scream" on TV a long time
>ago, now the ultrasound footage that was shown does seem to contradict this.
>I wasn't just making things up, although you might say the film was doctored
>in some way.  How it would have been I don't know though.  Now, how is it
>determined that a fetus doesn't feel pain??

Well, Simon, The Silent Scream has been pretty thoroughly debunked since it's
filming, but I'll answer your question anyway:

How can a 7 week old fetus feel pain if it does not have the physical
equipment required to register and interpret pain?

>>We will tell you how stupid you are when you write stupid things.
>>Stop writing stupid things, and see.
>
>That was one spur-of -the moment comment I had made, the above though
>is not made up.

Simon, this defense only makes sense if *all* the comments you have
been flamed for were little-thought-of, spurt-of-the-moment things.  IF
that is the case, please don't post little-thought-of, spur-of-the-moment
things -- makes you look bad.  IF that is not the case, your defense 
doesn't stand, and you are left to consider the possibility that you have
actually written stupid things, because a whole BUNCH of people have
read what you have written and said, "Gee, that's stupid."

You don't have to give up -- and I'm not advocating that you do -- but
you do have to do something DIFFERENT in order for people to respond
differently.  I would suggest, right off the bat, that you avoid writing
mutually exclusive things within the same post.  That you avoid talking
about a *wonderful* book you are going to write (haven't yet written)
while simultaneously proving to all readers that you cannot write, and
that you perhaps do a little more research on the subject of the nets
you participate in, rather than asking others to do it for you.

I just spent all of $.50 to buy a nurses maternity text book which contains
quite a bit of useful information (at a thrift store).  Shouldn't stretch
either your time too much or your pocketbook, and your brain would benefit.

>(Look, I am editing this, deleting things too, by using an on-campus terminal)


Good boy.  We are so happy.

Adrienne Regard
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:01:50 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <Bw5stq.3Iq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
writes in the tradition of a lie repeated often enough becomes the
truth:

>>I really admire people who decide that the burden someone else must
>>bear is `reasonable.'  
>
>Don't you condone taxation?
>And don't you condone fixing levels of taxation, rather then letting people
>decide for themselves how much they will give in taxes?

Elected officials have a constitutional right (in the US) to decide on
taxation.  You have no such right to decide the burden for women.

>True only if the discrimination is carried out because of hatred of women.
>Misogyny is hatred of women.  Discrimination in itself is not hatred.

You may not recognize it as hatred, but that is my interpretation.  If
you have another explanation or a case where you would force
non-criminal men to give up analogous rights, please present it.

>There is no misogyny.
>You have no evidence that I possess such hatred - and in fact you could have
>none, since I don't hate women.
>Not so, your conclusion does not follow.  I bear no ill will against women.
>For all you know I may be holding the view that forcing women to carry
>to term is a noble service I do for them.  Misogyny is hatred of women.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I do not hate women.

Oh, you just want to keep them in their place, below feti in the
distribution of rights.  Since discrimination is so illogical, I have
to conclude that an irrational basis such as hatred is behind it.  If
you have a different explanation, present it.  Try to do better than
the hypothetical I highlighted above.

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41785 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6601
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:10:57 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> 
> In article (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>  
>>Is Rush a feminist?  You be the judge.
>  
> Nope.

Oh no?   Why just today, a woman called up and asked him how she should
deal with this problem:  She herself was raised in a conservative family,
and is conservative herself.  Her fiance' was raised by a single mother
in the liberal persuation, and is liberal himself.  However, they are
very much in love, and will be married, but she has put off the wedding
over this question:  Since he has a good job and has great ability, once
they have children she wants to stay home and nurture them, since she
feels it is so important to do so.   He however, is insisting that she
go back to work full time as soon as she is on her feet again.  He has
no faith in his own ability to provide for them, since he was raised to
believe that men were not good providers (the caller's words not mine),
although she has every faith in his abilities.

She asked Rush what should she say to this man.  His answer: "Tell him
'It is my CHOICE to stay home with the kids, and if you insist I go back
to work, you're no feminist at all.  You're just like all those men your
mother told you about who just want to tell their wives what to do with
their lives.'

Sounds like a great feminist answer to me!


>>Kurt Ludwick
>  
> Dan King

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh