HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:41:41 GMT

spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:

>The upshot of the story is that Mikey probably hasn't changed much since  
>his enforced vacation; the "use of force" you mention probably does  
>include bobmings, but not firearms, as it is easier to claim that you  
>didn't realize that the born doctor/nurse/receptionist/janitor was in the  
>building at the time thanit is to claim that you didn't realize that a  
>shotgun could do things like that at point-blank range........

Some OpRisk-lives members have already adopted life-threatening
tactics again.  During one of the recent protests at a Dallas clinic
they shut off the power after breaking in.  No telling what could have
happened to a patient _who_waysn't_necessarily_even_having_an_abortion_
(Do the OR folks actually think that's the only thing clinics do?).
Luckily, at least according to the news, no one was hurt.  No thanks,
of course, to a bunch of brain-washed pre-teens who think they're
_saving_ lives.

Two laws I've suggested would work well here: 1) Prosecute minorities
as adults when they commit gang-related crimes.  2) For legal
purposes, treat groups of protestors as ad hoc gangs.  This would put
an end to the tactics of using children who are for all intents and
purposes currently immune to legal recourse for their terroristic
actions.

For that matter, Child Protective Services should take these children
away from their parents.  The parents are, after all, promoting and
condoning the criminal behaviour of their children.

>Dallas won, the Redskins lost (bwaaaahahahahahahahahaha!), and I got a 3.4  
 ^^^^^^ ^^^  ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
>last semester. Things , as they say in astronomy, is lookin up"

Wonderful, innit? ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------

                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
                           The 'Boys are Back!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:07:26 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Rocker, just shut up. 

Now watch for Airplane Boy to announce what a patriotic American he is,
and how he would never do anything to discourage free speech.  Coming
soon, to a node near you.

               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:07:41 GMT

In <1993Jan24.092455.2849@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes ...
>>Of course not.  The whole idea I don't understand is that an individual's
>>life doesn't begin, but it ends.  You can't use multiple definitions of 'life'
>>at once: first to mean an individual life, and second to mean life in general
>>(which has no beginning and no ending).  One has clear beginnings and endings,
>>the other does not.

>It may be that the term "individual life" is incorrect.  It is more
>likely that the claiming that such has a clear beginning is incorrect.

>Just what is an "individual life" supposed to be?

Jerome Lejeune, the geneticist who discovered the basis of Down's Syndrome,
has some fascinating ideas on that.  See "Chris Lyman's Massive Denial,
Part 3" posted earlier today.  The title is motivated by the following
excerpt from this post:

_________________________________excerpt_______________________
>>Ron Graham (quoting Nat Hentoff?)
>Lyman

>> Once implantation takes place, this being has all the genetic
	^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> information within that makes each human being unique.
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Wrong. Wrong. WrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrong!!!!!!

Truly a case of massive denial, as will now be seen.
____________________________________end of excerpt_______________________

Now, there are apparent exceptions to this rule, such as identical twins,
but it has not yet been determined that these divisions are not programmed
in at the start, in the normal course of events.

As for more abnormal courses, here is what Dianne Nutwell Irving writes 
in an article to appear in _Accountability in Research_, Feb. 1993,

	And is it empirically true that these totipotent cells [in the
	freshly implanted blastocyst] "do not yet know whether to be
	one or two individuals" yet?  Is it that they are traumatically
	so "undecided"?  Of course if a totipotent cell is teased apart
	(mechanically or from natural circumstance)...from the early 
	developing human being, it can develop into an adult-stage
	human being.  But this phenomenon is *normal*! That is, totipotency
	is *programmed* into the single-cell human zygote just as *all* of
	the characteristically human developmental stages are.
		--from "The Impact of `Scientific Misinformation' on 
		  Other Fields: Philosophy, Theology, Biomedical Ethics,
		  Public Policy"

The point, it would appear, is that as long as the cells of the developing
human being are in proper communication with each other, their totipotency
is suppressed and they eventually develop harmoniously into a single human
fetus, and then a single human neonate (barring premature "termination").

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From:  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>
Subject: Congrats, Ladies...RvW is 20 and thriving.
Originator: steven@jaynes
Reply-To:  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:31:08 GMT

Thanks to this ruling, women are not subject to the whims of men when it
comes to controlling their own bodies by allowing women the freedom to 
choose an abortion when deemed necessary - except in the third
trimester, when restrictions except for health reasons come into play
(Liar Doug - neener, neener).

Next: the Freedom of Choice act.

Coming soon to a Federal Congress near you!

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Chris Lyman's failed reading comprehension (Was: Statistics)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:43:56 GMT

In <30178@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

[Stuff on libel, which I believe Darcy has adequately addressed, deleted]

>Peter, get a life. You actually think that anyone here takes you seriously
>enough to want an apology from you? Try again. It's more along the lines
>of "every time this stuff is posted, the next group of newbies finds
>out what a truly miniscule persona Peter Nyikos is."

>Hope that body blow didn't hurt that overstuffed ego of yours too severely.
>Floating egos are a terrible thing to sink.

No such problems at this end.  The really big egos belong to the
narcissists whose world-views are strongly influenced by Rousseau,
one of the great narcissists of all time.   Narcissism is completely
alien to my way of thinking.  What you interpret as narcissism is my 
naive belief that people mean their charges seriously, hence I used to
take them all seriously.  

Lefty has helped me to see the light.  What you say
above, for example, is simply another would-be entry in what I believe
to be a forthcoming book of insults by him.  I told him not to bother
with putting the original context in, because it would not make any
difference anyway.

There are still some people whose charges I take seriously, but you
are not one of them.  If for some reason you do want me to take
something you say seriously, I suggest you apologize for the remarks
you have made about me in the posts to which I have followed up today.

Otherwise, get someone else to say it for you.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:01:59 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.130133.15616@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>#In article <1993Jan21.014921.9070@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>## In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 

>I note that Reverend Holtsinger deleted Dean's explanation
>of why DODie was wrong in his reply.  Maybe DODie thinks
>that this really is 1973.  We already know that Simmonds
>thinks that 1957 was over fifty years ago, so maybe a
>problem with dates is common among misogynists.

If you will note I said that with ONE EXCEPTION all of her sources were
over 50 years old.  Sheesh.... wake up and smell the newsnet.  


>Susan
> 

Have a nice day,



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:02:43 GMT

In article <C18C5r.K6o@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <C1870B.1v8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>>>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>>>>> it is questionable whether Ms. Garvin's estimates could be 
>>>>>>> applied to today's situation.  
>>
>>>>>> Of course, I never claimed that they could.  
>>
>>>>> Then we agree that your estimates are worthless.
>>>>> Why are you still arguing the point?
>>
>>>> Susan never said any such thing.
>.....
>
>Gee, is this deja vu?  Seems like just a few weeks ago when I claimed that
>there were fewer abortion related deaths prior to RvW than now, Susan Garvin,
>along with a host of others dragged out a similar set of irrelevant stats. Of
>course, my sources were impeccable: NARAL, US Census, Am. J. of Obst & Gyn.
>Frankly, the whole thing is just a scare tactic - unfortunately its a
>successful one. 
>
Your sources were also disproven. According to the figures you posted,
your sources admited to about 50 deaths a year from abortions. Today,
there are about 4 per year. 
You tried to ignore it, but I'm sure readers noticed it.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:05:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.062733.15059@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>> What he supported, [Mr. Holtsinger], was forced abortion,
>>> forced sterilization, 

>> No, he did not support forced abortion or forced sterilization:
>>
>>   "Frankly I am not in favor of involuntary anything (including
>>    sterilization), niether am I in favor of being taxed to support these
>>    discultured primitives."
>>
>>       <C0ytpq.3CG@world.std.com>

> Nice of you to delete his earlier statement in favor of forced
> sterilization 

He never made such a statement, Cochran.  

> Kolker is still not pro-choice, as his original post clearly
> indicates. 

He supports the legal availability of abortion, which makes
him pro-choice.  What definition of "pro-choice" are you
using, Cochran? 

> Nor would it be fair, if he were pro-choice, to
> characterise the entire movement based on him. 

Of course, Cochran. 

>Mark Cochran          


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:32:17 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes ...
>We pay to kill the fetus, so why not pay to help the fetus live?  It's our tax

By all means, please jump right on in and pay as much as you like.  I
don't think anyone has any objection to your donationg funds to allow
pregnant women to get what they need to give birth.

>dollars, supposedly, and supposedly we have a "choice" in the matter, (until 
>the idea of removing funding is mentioned and then suddenly we all have no 
>choice in the matter and have to pay for one position).

I don't beleive government funds are used to pay for abortions these
days.  The pro-lifers have pretty well succeeded in spreading
suffering among those with limited funds.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:54:50 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
 <1993Jan22.202321.15474@ncar.ucar.edu> <93023.075954KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1993Jan24.092455.2849@netcom.com>

In article <1993Jan24.092455.2849@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
says:

>Just what is an "individual life" supposed to be?

I kind of thought it was self-evident.  For example, every person on this
planet lives his own individual life.  The term seems to be necessary, now,
to mark the difference from human life as a whole (or as a continuum).

When talking about 'life' in the sense of a continuum, it's possible to say
that life has no beginning and no end.  An individual's life does, and
the pro-life crowd feels that this beginning and this ending are coming
way, way too close together sometimes...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:19:31 GMT

<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
] In article <14017@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) says:
] >
] >So, when are we going to see the dramatic decline in physical
] >abuse and neglect of children, now that abortion is legal?

When we Start seeing folks having children
because it is their Choice, and NOT out
of Fear of their Churches....

When We start seeing folks treating children
as real people, and not as Toys that are cute
and cuddly, and sort of a Zowie Neato concept
that like everyone is having one....

In short, when we get past the Myths being
Spewed by the ProLifeFetalIdolators....

] >Now, I realize that a lot of things have changed in this country
] >since the 1950s.  Racial discrimination is housing, employment,
] >and public accomodations is now illegal.  There has been a dramatic
] >expansion of governmental assistance to the poor, and child protective
] >services is much more quick to intervene on behalf of abused
] >children.  Yet, physical abuse and neglect are MUCH more common
] >today than in the 1950s.
] 
] (1) You have reliable statistics on that?
] 
] (2) You forgot the rise in poverty among families with children and
] drug-abuse.

also the Stats on the Rise of Poverty,
which we could solve by OUTLAWING POVERTY!!!!!

JUST SAY NO TO POOR!

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected.....
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:56:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
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.

In article <1993Jan26.125733.17264@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.092749.10468@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> 
>> ATTENTION EVERYONE!!  Please cancel this thread!  The orginal article
>> was sent by mistake(malfunctioning terminal, plus my finger slipped and
>> hit s for send rather than a for abort)...
>> ...And please do not tell me about how stupid it was, because it's not my fault
>> if the terminals in the computer lab are junk.
>
>They sound pretty powerful to me.  I know of no other terminals
>that can make a person's fingers press the wrong keys.
>
>Actually, I think the terminals are probably fine, but I know
>the terminal user is junk.
>
	Or, as we say over in information services:  "garbage in, garbage out".
Part of emotional maturity, of course, is the ability to take respoinsibility
for one's screw-ups instead of blaming them on inanimate objects.
The_Doge
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:47:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <root.727512141@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>
>>>people like james g. keegan jr. who can't find the SHIFT,
>>>CAPS or CAPSLOCK keys
>>
>>I vote this the greatest stretch to try a flame yet this year.  I suppose
>>Stephen's never heard of ee cummings?
>
>You mean the poet who actually had something _meaningful_ to say in all-
>lowercase? As opposed to the Usenetter whose dearth of capitalization
>accompanies an even greater dearth of content? Well, I've heard of both
>of them. What, pray tell, do they have to do with each other?

The point being, not defending either cummings or keegan, is that flaming
for lack of capitalization is, well, inane.

 -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
From: hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:57:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.4]

Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:

> I support the right to choose to have the _fetus_ _aborted_ (please
> lose the emotionalist buzzwords).  If she wants to abort a fetus for
> some reason that I don't like, then that's just too bad for me, but I
> have no right deciding when abortion is 'okay' or not, and I have no
> right putting the woman on trial to decide whether or not she's
> telling the truth when she gives her reasons for wanting an abortion.

  Do you also support the right for the new mother of a two week old
  baby to terminate it's life?  If not, why not? 

  Steve Hamilton
  (hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 20 YEARS AFTER ROE, SUPREME COURT CHIPS AWAY AT ABORTION RI
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 09:44:12 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <nyikos.727644062@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <73664@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

[News article L-Bueno posted ommitted for bandwidth brevity]

>>(Sobel is a lawyer with the ACLU of Southern California and counsel in a
>>pending federal case against Operation Rescue.)
>
>Love those unbiased sources!

	Of course, Pedro, you *only* read un-biased sources! :-)

>Peter Nyikos

--Louis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:52:49 GMT


Well, some twenty odd years back they told me to cheer up
because life begins at forty. :-p

Grouch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:12 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Jan.19.21.24.47.1993.7652@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
 kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>The Presidential candidate in question happens
>to be Michael Dukakis, and I'm proud to say that I helped shout him
>down -- because he happened to be saying lies at the time, and I
>happen to disagree with lies. . . .

Lies?  What lies?  Fortunately for Mr. Kaldis, if he cannot come up with
substantiation, Michael Dukakis is a public figure.

							Daniel Reitman         
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:16:37 GMT

In article <3fYs03i8c9Qw00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>
>}In article <c8at03uec8tl00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>
>}Then you would favor as much federal funding for crisis pregnancy clinics
>}as you would for abortion clinics?  It would seem to me that in order to
>}be fair, that we should make going through with an unexpected pregnancy
>}as financially, emotionally, and circumstantially feasible as that of
>}have an abortion.  According to your viewpoint, there should just as 
>}much counseling available that would support having the child as there
>}would be for aborting it.  That way, all things being equal, the woman
>}would really be able to fairly choose.  Does that sound agreeable to you?
>
>Sounds fine to me.
>
>This is what I see as the major difference between those who are pro-choice
>and those who are so-called pro-life.  The former do not (again, as a
>group) desire to infringe on anyone's rights, nor do they desire to limit
>a woman's choices nor do they desire to limit her access to information
>or counseling or whatever else may help her arrive at the best decision
>for her. The latter desire all of the above.
>
>--James Preston
>

Thanks for your input, James.  How do you explain the fact that pro-choice
groups are greatly opposed to crisis pregnancy clinics?  Why don't groups
like Planned Parenthood support crisis pregnancy clinics?  It would seem
like if they were really pro-choice they would support them.

-- 
John Emery			
emery@tc.fluke.COM      
				


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal