HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:22:55 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep24.151734.14352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:

>>I am not pleased with myself.  I am not posting this to brag.  For one
>>thing, the abortion itself was the most physical pain I have ever felt in 
>>my life (I'm sure there are some of you who are satisfied by that). 

>I sure am not, it is one of the things I am angry at abortion mills for,
>not offering anesthesia as a matter of course.  As one can gather from
>my SUFFERING OF SOME... post and follow-ups, I care very much about
>women going through abortion, and this post only reinforces that 
>attitude.

Why have we not seen similar concern from you about the agony of
childbirth?  Myself, I am angry at birth mills for not offering
anesthesia as a matter of course.  In fact, the refusal of the
medical staff to provide painkillers has created needless misery
in the birth experiences of many women.  Does _this_ sort of thing
horrify you, or are you only horrified when an abortion is involved?
Or do you feel there is something magical about childbirth that
makes the woman just thrilled to suffer the most physical pain
most of them will ever experience?  (Surely you've heard the
old joke -
man: what's it like to give birth?
woman: ok, take your lip and pull it out as far as you can
man: hey, that's not so bad!
woman: now pull it up over your head.....)

Oh, and btw, with regards to your continuing snotty remarks to
Adrienne, I know SEVERAL women who begged doctors to stop during
childbirth.  I know women who were reduced to begging for C-sections,
because they knew that was the ONLY WAY IN HELL (and I do mean hell)
that they were going to get any painkiller.  Women who are breast-
feeding are often refused pain medication AFTER the birth as well.

But we don't see you talking about how terrible THAT situation is.

>Peter Nyikos

                         -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39236 talk.religion.misc:17369
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Getting Back to The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:20:13 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.202711.18652@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
> ] Eric, you're missing the point COMPLETELY.
> ] 
> ] Our debate centers around the question "At what point does a fetus
> ] become a person?"  We've given you our stands on this, and our
> ] reasoning, and how the points we choose (myelination or birth) can be
> ] logically and legally supported.
> 
> 
> Ok, so what does this interesting notion about modern science
> have to do with the Clear Biblical Tradition that there is a
> distinction between the Born and the UnBorn....
> 
> 
> That you do not wish to deal with Christianity is YOUR problem....

I never said that I did not wish to deal with Christianity...where did
this come from?  Please explain...or admit that you have nothing to
base this on.

In any case, would you please point out this "clear biblical
tradition"...since you brought it up, I am only assuming that you have
something to support this
statement...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:40:43 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <1ykzq+b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>_I_ will support keegan's position on this.  But as keegan has posted
>>that he does not want the details public again, you'll have to email
>>me for the story.

>Then your support is useless. 

Why thank you, Mr. Rescorla.  I suppose I will just have to live 
with that, as I was not one of the principals in the incident.  I
am not willing to go public with a story that does not directly
involve me AND that someone has already expressed a desire not
to rehash publicly.

>Mr Keegan made the accusation publicly, he should support it publicly. 

He already has, Mr. Rescorla.  That you did not read or do not
remember the thread is not really my problem.

>Note that you have no obligation to do EITHER, 

And neither does he.

>but that your willingness to support him via Email does
>nothing to absolve him of his burden of proof.

Oh nonsense.  The only one crying for "proof" in this thread is you.
This suggests to me that others either remember the incident or
have no further interest in it.  As this appears to be a matter
for your interest only, it is best handled in email.  There is no
reason to go over the details publicly yet again.  My name has
been mentioned as a contact in other threads, and I have received
exactly one (1) letter asking me about it.  To that person, I was
happy to explain.  

Or do you merely wish to add gasoline to the fire with your repeated
demands that this be made public again?

>-Ekr

                          -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39967 talk.politics.misc:49060 alt.sex:31646 alt.rush-limbaugh:6368 alt.politics.elections:14907 alt.politics.clinton:8134 alt.politics.bush:7468
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:30:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.155709.18679@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>>
>>we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
>>do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control, 
>>perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.
>
>Well, well, well...
>
>I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
>a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
>hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
>Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>There.  Is it sinking in yet?
>
>(nod your little head.)
>
>Jennifer

Jennifer, your statement works for anything up to the moment before 
live birth.  Let me modify that statement for one moment after that.

   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.

Why does your statement fail just because we wait one moment longer?  
Perhaps because your statement is flawed.

Ted
 
-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 17:35:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct3.165538.27752@cs.yale.edu>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Si
>
> >I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
> >wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
> >BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
> >sarcasm of the replies I get???
>
> What's wrong with it is that I want to have sex, and so, typically,
> do the women I have sex with. Contraception, when properly used, is
> highly effective in preventing pregnancy. An example. I like to ride
> motorcycles. I am concerned that I will have an accident. What you're
> saying, in essence, is "What's wrong with not riding as a means to prevent
> motorcycle accidencts?" If I followed that kind of logic, I'd never
> leave the house.

It's a question you'd expect only from someone who's never ridden a
motorcycle, isn't it.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:12:47 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Chaney, you're a hypocrite.  You obviously don't believe in eliminating
>>all discrimination and are just using this line of argument in a feeble
>>attempt to make a point.  It isn't working.
>
>Yes I am against discrimination. 
>When the presence of a human life is not personhood, we have
>discrimination. 

And when we disallow children from voting, we have discrimination.
And when toddlers have to obey their parents, we have discrimination.
And when we prvent anyone under 35 from being president, ...

After all, they're just younger _people_, aren't they?  If you're
opposed to all (age based) discrimination, you should be opposed
to any curtailment of rights based merely on age.

>Then you've thrown out everything that Martin Luther King, Jr., stood
>for. 

Nonsense.

>Are you a racist? 

No.  Are you?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:06:52 GMT

In article <1aq6b3INN140@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct3.171946.28034@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu writes:
>|>what follows is a post by cj, complete and unedited. in
>|>this post, cj states "I know that Keegan used the
>|>mailing list to try to get people to post in support of
>|>him." this is the specific item i have been referring
>|>to as cj's lie about me.
>
>So I can support the allegation.  If Keegan persists in lying in
>this way, I'll support it without permission.  (I find it
>distasteful that I should require Keegan's permission to
>demonstrate that Keegan is lying.)  If Eric & Larry are
>interested, I will email it to them.  (I don't consider this to
>be a violation of the netiquette.)  Other than this action,
>I'll stay out of this.
Minor nit:
Even if it is the case that Keegan sent email to the list asking
for support, as CJ says, the post that CJ references would not contain
a Keegan lie, since it would be true that Jim was referring to
that claim on CJ's part as a lie. However, Jim here admits to referring
to CJ's statement as a lie, and IF Jim in fact did write such mail,
then he would be lying when he called CJ's statement a lie.

As I say, it's a nit.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:59:27 GMT

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
->forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
->> From article by usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman):
->> > However, Suzanne has stated that she believes abortion is murder.  
->> 
->> You had better come up with a reference, because I don't believe I have
->> made such a statement.

[examples of suzanne making the statement she denies
making deleted.]

nice post russ. if suzanne follows her pattern, she'll
disappear for a bit now until she thinks most people have
forgotten this exchange.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39158 alt.abortion.inequity:4113 alt.birthright:479
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:15:36 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep28.201847.16813@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>In article <19voc1INN236@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>98% of all abortions are for birth control reasons.  That's too many!  

Why do you say this?  Would the distribution of 98% of all abortions being
performed for rape/incest make you feel better?

Given the stats from the survey I cited, 98% of all abortions are for birth
control reasons -- MOSTLY responsible sensible people who USED birth control
and who's birth control wasn't effective.  
                        ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

I don't these people are being irresponsible to follow up their original
intention with abortion, at all.  

>I believe that the increase in education is responsible for the increase 
>in abortions!  Remember that the schools are "educating" very young and 
>irresponsible children.  It's enough to get a teen-age girl to clean up 
>her room every day, can one really believe she will be responsible 
>enough to take her birth control pill daily.

(why don't these folks know how to use a carriage return and question marks?)

You would rather this teen-age girl who won't clean her room was having
UNPROTECTED sex?  You would rather this teen-age girl who won't clean her
room had a BABY?

Adrienne Regard
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:14:26 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <25672@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>The truth of the matter is, Official Virus, is that I oppose the teaching of
>>NFP because it does not work.  It makes about as much sense as including an
>>ephemeris for the phases of the moon in the drivers' education curriculum.
>
>Chris, I never said it should be taught as a method of birth control,
>just that the information of NFP (The cycles, etc) would be information
>on how the female body works, and that would be more than is taught
>in many schools today. 

If one really cared about teaching young women how the female body works,
one would encourage the teaching of masturbation.
Teaching NFP to show how the female body works is like teaching car washing
to show how automobiles work.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:35:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>Have we been so accustomed to death that we fail to acknowledge the importance
>of human individuals?  In a way yes.  We hear in the news everyday that
>a plane crashes, 200 die.  AN earthquake happens and 1000 die.  All in all
>we say, how tragic, then go on with our lives with little concern for the
>1000.  Yes, I too have gone through this phases.  

Pretty sleazy tactic.  Going from human life (i.e., cancer cells) to
people, human individuals.  In case you haven't been informed, there
are many important differences between and embryo and an adult.

And I'll bet you didn't even know (sanctimonious putz that you are)
that 30,000 people starve to death each day.  That's one every three
seconds.  You mention earthquakes and plane crashes; do you even care
about the people you can actually help?

>Abortion treats our fellow humans, our own children in similar fashion.  
>The value of those we abort becomes virtually set to zero.  Some would say,
>the value of those we abort is actually negative.  Let us put human life in
>a better position lest we ourselves become victims of those who look down
>upon human life.

"Us?"  I suggest you start with yourself.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:35:40 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <QemkVNy00VI=Q190kf@andrew.cmu.edu> Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
>
>Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>the deaths of millions?!
Well, let's see.
This assumes:
1) That there is a God.
2) The there will be a judgement day.
3) That God objects to abortion.

Can you say "begging the question"?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: apology to overpeck
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:16:35 GMT

about 30-minutes ago, i questioned bill overpeck for
not replying to a question by susan garvin. immediately
after sending my post, i noticed that new posts had
arrived. in the batch of new posts, i saw overpeck's
reply to susan.

so i want to formally withdraw my question. to leave it
an open matter would be to imply that bill had not
replied. and that, by implication would be lying, imo.

p.s. bill - how are you coming with that problem you're
			having? you know, the one where you deny the
			existance of an answer from me which you even
			replied to?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:56:53 GMT

In article <gem79Sq00WB55DRYUQ@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Jennifer,
> 
> Don't be so condescending.
> 
> You may think it's a responsible solution. But I disagree. Why don't
> you write 1000 times over:
> 
> What's good for me is not good for everyone.

Thank you, Ms Gansley-Ortiz.  You acknowledge the meaning
of pro-choice nicely.  You misinterpret Jennifer, though.
I don't have the original posting here, and you removed
the relevant text from your follow-up, but I don't think it
said that abortion is always the responsible solution, or
the only responsible solution, but rather that is a
responsible solution for some people.  What's responsible for
some people is not necessarily responsible for all people.

> This has brought up a nagging question. If people really want to
> discuss this issue, or any issue, why do they continually throw 
> flames at eachother? It's not like anyone's going to listen to your
> point. They're going to get angry and throw more flames back.

Because pissing in the wind gets your pants dirty.

> What I wrote above is a perfect example of what I see every day.
> 
> And I just don't understand it.

You don't understand what you wrote?  I think what you wrote
made a lot of sense and was perfectly clear.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: What is he blabbering about now? (Was: Attention!)
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: Fri, 2 Oct 92 23:32:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.212840.11036@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
>
>I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
>would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.

If Cthulu is a religion, what does that make Yug-Suggoth?

--
=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???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:09:38 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


egorr@cie.uoregon.edu writes:
|rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|>I pointed this out to you in Email, Mr. Gorr. Physical properties
|>are predicted by QM to at least appear to be nondeterministic.
|>Therefore any method of death you choose has some nonzero probability
|>of you not dying. These probabilities are so close to zero as to be
|>uninteresting practically, but you claimed certainty and that is
|>unavailable.

|Ok, how about this, you believe that there is a nonzero probability
|that my death will occur.  I think this is wrong.  You disagree.
|I know this absolutly, unless, you are saying that you were lying
|above...

Can you trust your perceptions?
[Oooh.  Can-o-worms time!]

|(Note, I might agree with you if some outside technology was 
|applied...but without it, there is zero-chance...any theory
|that says there is a chance (without outside technology),
|is wrong...of course, I cannot prove this, but oh well...)

This is pathetic.  What are you studying at U Oregon?
I hope that it's not one of the hard sciences, because
you'd be in for a difficult time.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it 
would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'." -- Stephen J. Gould
Newsgroups: talk.abortion