HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: For Adrienne and Kathi
Date: 29 Sep 1992 11:33:47 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep29.104445.28790@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717640402@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>
>It is a measure of your misogyny that you fail to appreciate
>Adrienne.  She is a doggedly consistent defender of individual
>choice for women, and a system of values which places the life
>and life plans of a thinking, feeling, living, breathing woman
>above the interests of potential lives in all cases.

Why, thank you Muriel.

Let me say for the record though that not only would I be surprised if
Mr. Nyikos 'appreciated' my posts, I'd also be dismayed.    I like to
think that I use some measure of logic.

>Adrienne
>has asked you to leave off the "Lady High" sarcastic bullshit.
>I'm asking you, too.

Just an experiment to see if he really believes that 'let's be reasonable
in our approach' crap he's posted to the net, or if in fact he's lying
through his teeth.

What do you think?   (-:

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:26:19 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep30.045121.9632@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1a9svbINN5cu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.092634.2832@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>And if the supposed "quality of life" (the end) is achieved via
>>>abortion (the means), then the means would be a greater evil than the
>>>supposed lack of quality of life.
>>
>>And if the supposed "life of the child" (the end) is achieved via
>>enslaving women (the means), then the means would be a greater evil than
>>the supposed lack of life of the child.
>
>Let's start out by saying the unborn child is definitely a human life.
>
>Now let's weigh two things:
>   1) "enslaving the mother"
>   2) destroying the life of the unborn child which is definitively human.
>
>Now, sure, "enslaving the mother" could be perceived (and it probably is)
>as an evil.  But when put side by side with the destruction of a human
>life, more importantly, our own sons and daughters, doesn't the "enslaving
>the mother" bit pale by comparison?

No!

NO!

God, what a stinking, disgusting, vomit-filled thing to say!

Do you have any idea of how many people DIED -- gave their LIVES -- to
eradicate the notion of slavery in this country alone?!?!?!?!?!?

Do you have any understanding--ANY at ALL--of history??!~?!?!?!?!?!?

Do you have any appreciation of the COST in social terms to a society
that would buy this kind of tripe and attempt (they *always* fail) to 
make it functional!?!?!?!?!@?!?!?!?!?!

You are pretty goddamned disgustingly stinkingly free with somebody
else's rights, buddy.

>I'm not saying that the birth giving process is something trivial to
>be ignored and looked down upon.  I'm just saying when the choice is between
>the life of a human and the mother's situation, the life of a human being
>must be protected.


No, what you are staying, you pile of turd, is that the process to gain
something that *you* value is worth trampling the humanity of other people
whom you DON'T value.

I said how jerks are dying to expose themselves earlier, didn't I?  Actually,
I was polite and changed that language in the original from assholes to 
jerks.

I repeal that change.

ASSHOLES always end up exposing themselves without any need for help from
the viewing audience.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:47:49 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->There is one minor detail. Mailing list messages are analogous to private
->email. For CJ to post such a message would be a violation of nettiquette.
->Mr. Keegan, does CJ have your permission to post such a message from
->you, if she believes one to exist?

mr rescorla, i do not control cj's actions! it was just
such an inference, when cj made it about suzanne lucia,
that started one element of this mess.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:58:49 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  <1992Sep25.210755.15125@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > >
> > >By Amy Grant

Umm, Amy Grant isn't in the bible I'm familiar with.  I suppose it's one
of those "New Testament" chapters?

> True...but read the topic again.  This discussion deals with the bible.  I
> would
> prefer that those who don't believe in the bible not enter this discussion
> since one
> assumption I plan to make is that those who respond do believe in the
> bible.

Then perhaps you want talk.religion.misc.  (Is there an
alt.bible.thump.thump.thump?)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 12:13:21 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
->> ->You *had* sent a letter to the mailing list at that time, correct?
->> ->It would seem to me that the only way to decide whether or not the
->> ->initial allegation were true would be to examine that letter.  Then
->> ->we could decide for ourselves whether the letter clearly asked for
->> ->support, clearly did not, or was possibly ambiguous (in which case
->> ->both sides could be arguing in good faith).
->>
->> mr. margolis -- it is not up to me to prove my innocence.
->>
->> an allegation was posted to this newsgroup about me
->> and suzanne lucia. that allegation was never supported.

->(What you showed was an allegation about you and a query of Suzanne Lucia.)

->There are two parts to the allegation.  First, that a letter was
->sent, and second, that it asked for support.  If you claim that a
->letter was *not* sent

i don't have to claim anything, mr margolis. i have
only to observe how the same people who demanded
evidence from me or an apology handle the same set of
circumstances when it turns out that i was not the
person making the unsupported allegations.

->> while you were just a minor player in this particular
->> discussion, it seems to me that, if you wish to pursue
->> the matter,

as i said, it would seem to me that if you wish to
pursue the matter, you'd direct your questions and
demands toward the person making the allegations, not
the target of the allegations. unless there's some kind
of double standard here where only some people need
support allegations.

->Sorry if I gave you the impression that I did.  :-)

quite the contrary; i am certain that you did not.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt your for a little while" - "Prince"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:24:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.071916.158227@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>No, I cited New York State law, as *quoted* from a legal section of an
>NYPD training guide.  I also quoted the Model Penal Code:
>  Section 2.04.  Use of Force in Self-Protection.
>   (2)  Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force
>     (b)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this Section
>          unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to
>          protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping,
>          or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat

Okay, Larry, now that you've finally cited at least ONE legal authority, 
you've sowed a seed of doubt in my mind. However, as I have noted before,
I do NOT have the resources to resolve this question one way or another.

I'd really like to see you ask this in misc.legal. They should probably be
able to give you a solid answer.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38695 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5947
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:24:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep24.211644.29471@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
(Stephen A Chaney) writes about Jesse Jackson:

>Like when he called the Jews of New York "Hymietown" ? 

I'm still laughing about this, but I've quit laughing as hard.
I'm starting to believe that Hall/Chaney thinks that
"the Jews of New York" is synonymous with NYC.  That's
disgusting, but it would explain the above sentence.

I doubt that the official virus of t.a. will be able to
explain his use of the phrase without revealing more of
his anti-Semitism.  He'll no doubt do it inadvertently,
as he did in this article.  (He was supposedly criticizing
Rev. Jackson.)

[the rest of Dennis' ravings deleted]

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: nyikis forgets? (Re: Garvin forgets [Was:...fundamental question])
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:05:43 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
-> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
->>I think that Nyikos just figured out what a killfile is and
->>feels a need to talk about it.  (I think that Dennis showed
->>him his, and now Nyikos wants one that's BIGGER than Dennis'.)

->Dennis who?  Oh, I get it, you are still repeating those 
->unsubstantiated rumors about Dennis Hall being Steve Chaney.

those "rumors," as you badly phrased it, have been
substantiated in this newsgroup repeatedly. i don't
believe that there is any way you could have missed
this. consequently, i conclude that you have some other
reason for stating something which you know is untrue.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:16:28 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep27.212356.9545@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.033623.131789@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >
> > In  <1992Sep25.164717.18973@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Go
> > > In article <1992Sep24.235939.51539@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > In  <1992Sep24.011944.8732@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoreg
> > > > > In article <1992Sep23.040334.27394@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > > > > > I think it's rather ridiculous to
> > > > > > consider a uni-cellular organism to be a person, but since you choose
> > > > > > to define it that way arbitrarily, and don't seem interested in
> > > > > > discussing it, I see no point in going around in circles again.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am willing to discuss it.  Ask me questions, demonstrate how my
> > > > > definitions don't make any sense, etc...no meaningful attempt has yet be
> > > > > made...
> > > >
> > > > See the first part of what I quoted.  I think it's ridiculous to consider
> > > > a fertilized egg to be a person.
> > >
> > > It is not arbitrary - is the start of human life.  Do you disagree?  Why?
> >
> > But not the start of personhood.  Do you disagree?  Why?
>
> Yes.  [you probably will not like this answer very well, but oh well...]
>
> In the years I've discussed this issue with lots of other people, I have
> never
> come across any other point that some could argue that made any consistant
> sense, violate basic facts of biology or which did not lead to irrational
> behavior in other related cases.
>
> If you can come up with another point I am willing to listen AND attempt to
> show at least one of the things listed above.

In the years that I've discussed this issue, I've never seen an argument
claiming that a uni-cellular organism was a person that wasn't completely
ridiculous.  If you wish to convince me that you have a point, you're
welcome to try.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: To Eric Gorr, eternal college freshman and all around geek
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:14:12 GMT

Hey, Eric,

I'm pretty tired of you saying things like "what happens when medical
technology makes..." and following up with "They're working on that,
you know".  Tell me, knowledgeable college boy, just WHERE is all this
wonderful scientific research happening?  in WHAT publications have 
these things been reported?  Please cite me each publication and report--
and something concrete, please, not "some movie somewhere" as that
means absolutely nothing to me.

Oh, and I can afford your mere pittance of $8/hour.  I pay my babysitter
more.

Jennifer
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:07:39 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) wrote (in article <1992Sep29.160053.17716@csus.edu>):
>Killing is always worse than abuse. At least abuse victims have a chance:
>victims of killing have no chance, you stupid dolt. Get lost - 1.5 million
>killings of children a year is mega child abuse, and on top of that, since
>1973, they're no longer called children.

You're making a questionable statement here.  Which is worse: to let a
two-year-old child be sexually molested, or to abort a two-month
fetus?  I think I know what your answer will be; will you legally
compel everyone in America to agree with you?

>And for all you "Oh, cut that out fetuses weren't ever kids" - why is it
>that all abortion laws made in the US were based specifically because the
>fetus had legal rights and recognition under the law? The AMA referred to
>it in the 19th century as wanton destruction of human life, a solid
>contradiction to your claim.

It doesn't matter to me what the AMA said in the 1800's, and I
disagree that have ever had legal rights or recognition in this
country, although I could be wrong.  Can you provide support by
reference for your claim?

>And arguing that unborn children should be ignored in favor of born
>children, is as stupid as rednecks who said minorities should be ignored in
>favor of some rednecks who would lose their jobs in the age of equality.
>You know... more "persons" equals more competition for jobs...

This is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, and I think you knew that.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: a good test of chaneyhall's veracity
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:18:55 GMT

the hallchaney thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
->>Well, you had to steal that "PRIDE=POWER" line in your .sig from somewhere.

->I was using it before they got here, PatricKKK.

this statement, if true, should be relatively easy
to support.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:56:24 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <6jsz0d_@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu writes:
|there was another way for you to resolve the dilemna.
|you could have told the truth.

I think it is clear to most readers that I did tell the truth.
I made a statement which you agreed with twice.  Now, in
the statement below, you retract your agreement:

|i do admit a mistake. my mistake was to admit in email
|that i had asked a mailing list for support when i had
|not done so, as the attached posts prove. . 

Since you now interpret your own actions differently than you
did at the time, I will amend my opinion.  I accept your new
interpretation of your own actions.  It smacks to me of
convenient revisionism, but they're your actions.  You may
interpret them as you wish.  I'm sure the readers of this groups
are capable of forming their own opinions about your
reinterpretations.  However, at the time, I had only data that
supported my opinion.  I stated my opinion in good faith.  I
believed it to be the truth.

Thus, you have failed to support your allegation of a lie.
Instead, you have managed to support my position.  Thank
you for your support.  Also, thank you for not attempting
to claim that your email was not yours.

|presumably, this is why you used as evidence my erroneous
|email rather than the post to the mailing list which you lied
|about me making.

You seem confused-- you did indeed send mail to the list, and
you include it below.  How could I lie, then, by saying that you
had sent mail?

Note, though, that the interpretation of that mail is open to
differences of opinion.  At the time of the dispute, you
expressed agreement-- twice!-- with my interpretation, so I had
no reason to amend it.  Do you understand this distinction?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Emma felt [...] that to be the favourite and intimate of a man who had
so many intimates and confidantes, was not the very first distinction
in the scale of vanity."  --Jane Austen
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39316 alt.politics.bush:7118
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:22:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <1a7mr3INNle@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>|If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
>|are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
>|protection does not mean they don't face the risk.
>Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
>to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
>a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
>automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
>to live with injury without medical redress.

	Yes, but medical redress in the case of a car injury does not
involve killing another human being. Don't you see that your analogy
is ridiculously false??

> However, also by
>their actions, they are clearly NOT consenting to pregnancy.
>They are attempting to avoid it, by minimizing the risk.  (To
>continue the car analogy, by obeying traffic laws & wearing a
>seatbelt.)

	But should someone who was in a car accident have the right to
kill someone else so they can be "healed"?

			Bruce
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39281 alt.consciousness:534
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:41:34 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
: [The fetus has a right to]
: >be spared a death perhaps more agonizing than most of us will suffer.
: 

[...]

: How can abortion be agonizing pain for the fetus if it doesn't have
: fully-developed and connected nerves yet, nor a brain to register
: pain?  And even if it does, why can't the abortion just include the
: injection of a nerve-deadening drug into the amniotic sac to keep the
: fetus from feeling anything?

This sounds like a licence to kill just about anyone, 
just so long as we can afford the morphine...

: 
:      << Brian >>
: 
: -- 
: _/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
:  _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
:   _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
:       bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
:     Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CWA Membership (was: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:17:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep29.055938.96821@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep29.001959.19878@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>> That would amount to the fact that America holds a compromise
>> position: legal for rape/incest/deformity, illegal for birth control.
>
>This is bullshit.  More people think that it should be always legal
>or legal in most circumstances than think it should be legal in only a few
>circumstances.

Okay, bud. Do you want a war on the statistics? 

I'll come back with poll stats showing that the majority of Americans
do support rape & incest, and you'll bring the poll data showing that
when asked about these issues, Americans support all of it. 

What do you want on your Tombstone, Tweedledum? And I ain't talkin'
pepperoni & sausage, either.  


=============================================================================
>Who's "we", white man?
	- Adrienne Regard
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion