HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:14:57 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <-m9yh=a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu writes:

> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
> >  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all?  "It'll cost too much to save
> >this guy.  Ditch him."  
> 
> Jimmy, are you under the mistaken impression that this does NOT happen
> in this country, many times a day?

  All too well.  I was asking for RAYS's OPINION.  I'll ask yours to.  Do you
like it?  Is it okay?  Besides, it's not quite the same thing your're talking
about.  Ray says the money should be spent elsewhere.  You point to where it
supposedly doesn't exist in the first place.

[lots deleted]
> Now sure, there may be a few organizations that provide limited
> funds for cases like this.  But I'm just absolutely disgusted
> by the cultural tunnel-vision that lets people say things like
> "No one dies in America because they can't afford medical
> treatement."

  So am I.  I have not indicated (I hope) that I buy into this tunnel-vision.

> >  Somehow, I think this mind-set will meet with some resistance when you 
> >include money in the criteria.  
> 
> It hasn't met a great deal of resistance among hospital administrators,
> where money is likely to be the ONLY criteria.  Please find out a
> little more about the world before you make these ridiculous statements.
 
  Frag the hospital administrators!  Isn't the current debate over national
health insurance and skyrocketing medical costs indicative of people fed up
with the idea of $$ being a criteria for treatment?

> >Shall we then dismantle MD Anderson hospital?  Cancer
> >costs a LOT of money to treat, and its not even contagious.  Somehow I think
> >Susan Garvin would not appreciate the idea.
> 
> How long do patients stay there if they can't pay their bills?
> Who makes up the difference?

  Where should the money be spent?  That is my question to you and to Ray.  Do
we spend it on cancer, or other, cheaper, more easily fixable problems?  I have
NEVER said that the way it stands doesn't suck.  I want to know your priorities.

> >  I know for a *fact* my Dad wouldn't.  Or my aunt.  Or my best friend.
> 
> Did any of them have NO medical insurance when they needed treatment?
>                          -rocker

  Would *you* have rather seen the money spent elsewhere?



semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:43:24 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox


...And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:

"So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
 What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"

One of your "pro-life" cronies already 'fessed to being Mr. Judgement by
his lust to slap the woman in prison.  Maybe you'd like to see his bid and
raise it by some chain-gang hard labor?  Or execution?

C'mon.  Show us how compassionate you all are.  Like Chaney, charge the 
little b*tch with Murder One.

--Teddi
---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:50:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Aug31.083609.19696@pegasus.com>, tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug28.180126.4779@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
|> >In <1992Aug27.190809.26107@u.washington.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:
|> >
|> >>Well, I was wondering if there was anyone here who supported abortion but
|> >>wanted to stop sex-selection abortions, and so far it appears there isn't
|> >>anyone.
|> >> 
|> >   Actually, it seems that there are many people on the .net (some of
|> >whom have applied to your posting) who would like there to be no
|> >sex-selection abortions, but realize that there is absolutely no way it
|> >could be legislated.
|> >
|> >>Joel
|> >
|> >                                                            MP
|> 
|>    This will not be legislated, it will be made an uncovered benefit
|> in insurance plans.  If the woman wishes to pay the whole tab herself,
|> she will likely find someone willing to do it.  But third party payors
|> are going to respond to the pressure from organized medicine and
|> refuse to pay the tab since it is NOT 'medically necessary'.

	I wonder why you say that sex-selection abortions are not medically
necessary.  They can be.  What if the woman simply could not psychologically live
with herself if she had a boy?  Maybe she's not ready for a boy, maybe she
psychologically needs a girl.  Whose welfare means more to you: the woman's or
those of the clump of cells in her abdomen?  Would you condemn this woman morally for merely
having an inconvenient part of her own body removed?
	If abortion is morally right, sex-selection abortions are morally right. 
If the fetus isn't human enough to be protected from other abortions, then it
isn't human enough to deserve protection from sex-selection abortions.  To
suggest otherwise is to be inconsistent.

Steve
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I *WISH* they'd keep their stories straight... (Was: People...)
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:41:42 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <1992Sep4.023901.17473@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> In article <1992Sep4.005228.20374@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article <1992Aug30.010613.3907@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>>> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to susan garvin:
>>> -> I also wish that you would display the same
>>> -> compassion towards the children who are going inside
>>> -> the clinic to be killed.
>>> 
>>> can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
>>> killed?
>>
>>Can you say --- Becky Bell?
> 
> I really do wish you people could get your stories synchronized.  On the one
> hand we have Peter(?), screaming about how Becky didn't die of abortion
> complications, and Suxanne screaming about how she did...


In fact, if you read the coroner's report itself, which I have a copy of at
home somewhere, you learn that Becky Bell never had an abortion at all.  She
died of the same pneumonia that caused her miscarriage the week before.
Yet pro-abort propoganda keeps insisting she died of an abortion she crossed
state lines to get.  Nothing illegal.  She just crossed state lines.  So
I simply used this bit of propoganda where it was most effective -- against
a pro-abort.

S. Forgach
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A little bit of calm thinking
Date: 12 Sep 1992 15:28:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
Keywords: abortion,human,rights

In article <18rajhINN5fh@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Once again, a wedge is put on the pro-life side:
>  Pro-life base their opinions mostly on religion and since there is 
>  separation of church and state, it is abhorrent for them to "impose"
>  their religious views on us.

Why don't you stand up, show some guts and admit that it is true?
It is, damn it! If it were not for the religious imputus, there would
not be enough of a pro-life movement to cause the media to even bother
with storys about the issue. 

>Why wedge the pro-lifers?  There are many non religious folk, and even
>athiests who are pro-life.  Do they base their opinions on some 
>"religious notion?"  I don't think so.  

While those people exist, they are a small part of the pro-life movement.
Again, if you take away the pro-lifers that take a stance based on
religious beliefs, there would not be a pro-life movement. If you take
away religious participation in the pro-life movement, there would not
be a pro-life movement.

>Perhaps there is more to this debate than calling pro-lifers a bunch
>of religious fanatics "imposing" their religious views.

Hey, if the shoe fits, perhaps it is your shoe. As far as I am concerned
the pro-life movement is driven by a bunch of religious fanatics
trying to impose their religious views on the rest of America. I will also
say, (and I don't much care if you like this or not) that if these people
have their way our nation (and soon the world) will exist as a
theocracy, probably one worse than Europe during the middle ages.

Don't want to hear it? Sorry baby, but hiding your head in the sand
does nothing more than make you part of the problem.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0)
Subject: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Keywords: Saddam Hussein. NOT.
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:01:55 GMT


In my Psychology 1 class, our professor has announced that we will be
seeing.. you guessed it.. a SONOGRAM. Of, yup, you guessed it again... a
human (not ape, Leo Mauler or Dan King) fetus. Or as our professor told us,
a baby. How politically incorrect of him. We should lash him, eh, Adrienne
the Horse Mistress?

This reminded me of the Shari Richards problem.

What is it that drives pro-aborts on this newsgroup to run themselves into
telephone poles just before we get into serious discussion on Sonograms?

What is the problem, folks? Are you telling us that Sonograms that show the
human fetus is moving and has all his/her limbs visibly present, at 8
weeks, is wrong? That there is no such picture on a Sonogram?

Well, boys and girls, let's cut the b.s. and get down to the nitty gritty.

Someone PLEASE tell me:

1) There are no arms and legs that can be seen, on an 8-week old fetus.
2) The Sonogram cannot display it even if it was there.
3) Shari Richards' Sonogram show was a lie.
4) We have proof that it was a lie, preferrably documents and tapes of REAL
Sonograms that show a big blob of nothing that is the stuff of pro-abortion
propaganda. 

No sidetracks, no "well Dan King's mother the Ape looked that way at 8
weeks, too, nya nyaa!" or other similar b.s. Let's take those four
challenges I put forth, and answer them directly, like gentle folks, and
let's find out once and for all who's right about the Sonogram facts.


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Are you trying to threaten me, little man? (Was: Badges...)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 21:44:34 GMT

In <1992Sep3.233740.12447@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep1.020959.10514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>

>[Lots deleted...]

>>
>>I don't have absolute right to control my own body.  I don't have the
>>right, for example, to drive it away from an accident I've been involved
>>in without stopping to render assistance.  To take a more traditional

>Sure you do, Peter.  It may be illegal, but as long as you can move your
>body, you have the *right* to do whatever you want to with it.  It might
>be kindof hard if you're handcuffed in a police car, but...

I wish you would correct people who continually claim pro-lifer's are
trying to "take away the right of women to choose" by passing laws
against abortion.  By your standards, the right cannot be taken away 
in this way.

>>On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
>>body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
>>to controlling it.   

>And you wonder why people think you're a mysognist?

On second thought, maybe you should just correct yourself.

>>
>>As Portia said in The Merchant of Venice, Shylock
>>had the right to his pound of flesh, but not to one drop of blood.
>>
>>
>>>I'll volunteer to be the "doer" to Peter's body.  If you'd like some of my
>>>qualifications, see if you can find a post titled "You Asked For It!", where
>>>I describe some of the slight correlations between fisting and giving birth.
>>
>>If you are trying to gross me out, you'll have to try a lot harder than
>>this.  In fact, I don't think it can be done on talk.abortion without
>>calling the wrath of network censors on your head and bringing on pressure

>Are you trying to threaten me, little man? 

Threaten? who? me? Not on your life.  If anyone brings pressure to bear,
it sure won't be me.  My motives for saying the above were utterly
different.

And while we're on the subject of threats, my comment was in response
to a very explicit threat on your part, or have you forgotten?

> You might want to study the
>net.history of t.a for the last year or so, and see just what passes as
>"allowable" here...

Ah, but you have no idea just how explicit you have to be to have a
decent (if such a word could be used in such a context) chance of 
grossing me out.

>>Of course, I can't stop you from e-mailing me...

>Sorry, honey.  I don't do e-mail.  Or Windows.

Gee, too bad, you get to miss out on the cute response I was saving
up for you and any bozo who took me up on my challenge.

>Rumor has it you've done Jeff Stryker, though...

Pathetic, little man.  You have no idea what a real gross-out sounds like.
[No, that wasn't the cute response I was referring to just now.]

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Summary: Suuuuuure, Petie.  Yeah.  Right.
Organization: The Hermann Hospital S/TICU Nomad
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:51:05 GMT

In article <nyikos.715653015@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep3.180335.8977@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>>>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>>>>may not be both."
>>>>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
>
>>>Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
>>>calls PatricKKK?
>
>>Geez, Petey, do the continual anti-Jewish remarks by Holtsinger and
>>Chaney really pale in your mind next to the one mistake made by
>>Patrick?
>
>Sorry, I haven't seen any of them.  I simply don't have the time
>to read everything in talk.abortion.
>
>Peter Nyikos

Of course you don't.  Isn't it funny how your newsreader "breaks down" at
such convenient times, a la Forgach?

(So, when are you going to start throwing your tantrum because I'm following
up an article of yours?  You *did* post that threat in public, after all...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                     Support the Second Republic of Texas!
               (If at first you don't secede, try, try again...)   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Keywords: abortion
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:16:07 GMT

One's defintion of "person" by necessity must be philosophical.
Science can only tell you whether or not a given entity meets the
criteria given to it, not set criteria of moral worth.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:52:02 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes about Scott Safier:
|Your puppy is undeniably cute.  

Is that his "golden retriever of love"?  Or was that 
Chris Lyman's?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Correct Response is.....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:19:15 GMT

bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
] In article <1992Sep3.121320.7905@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] > 'to lose one parent is regretable,
] > but to lose both of them is sheer negligence.'
] 
] .... I did know your name was Ernest......

Close but limited....

You should have asked:

"do you play Snakes and Ladders?"


ciao
drieux


ps: who can forget 'Killer Dildoes, and BagPipes a Weapons.'



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Another hit off my CAN'T DODGE THIS album: That "Big" April 5 Rally!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.154358.10588@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

 [discussion of rally count deleted.  Rallies don't vote.]  :-)



>Nothing shatters a pro-abortion argument better than a
>direct attack.

And nothing makes a pro-life argument look sillier than to be couched 
in war metaphors!  :-)   :-)   :-)
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: 5 Sep 1992 15:59:05 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: National Abortion Federation = Pro-abortion??

>In article <nyikos.715648645@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <8yxyyyd@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>> Ummmmm, you're demanding "unbiased" (according to _your_ criteria)
>>> sources now?
>>> Why don't we see these same demands when Nyikos quotes clearly
>>> ANTI-abortion organizations?
>> You see them all the time, from Larry Margolis, Susan Garvin,
>> Adrienne Regard.....  

Incorrect.  (Gee, I think that's *three* for three, Peter).  I don't
demand unbiased sources, I debunk biased sources.  I rarely ask, let
alone demand, that other's do research work for me, because it happens
to be a pet peeve of mine when others ask me to do their research work
for them.

But, since you've proven yourself to be rather good at leaping from
impression A, and possibility C to FACTOID-DELUX_Pseudo/conclusion Y,
it doesn't suprise me.


Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:30:15 GMT

In <1992Sep3.180335.8977@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>>>may not be both."
>>>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

>>Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
>>calls PatricKKK?

>Geez, Petey, do the continual anti-Jewish remarks by Holtsinger and
>Chaney really pale in your mind next to the one mistake made by
>Patrick?

Sorry, I haven't seen any of them.  I simply don't have the time
to read everything in talk.abortion.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 23:45:50 GMT

In <1992Sep5.103115.11987@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>> Nyikos
>>> Adrienne Regard

>>>You would feel quite free to stake a WOMAN's life on it, but funny thing,
>>>your OWN life doesn't fit into the equation.  Pretty cheap rhetoric, Peter.

>>Who said anything about staking her life on it?  I wish you, who know
>>my views by now, would stop misleading readers about what they are.

>Not misleading.  I believe Adrienne realizes that beinng alive is more than
>simply having a heartbeat.

Now you seem to be misstating my views.  I never said anything about a 
heartbeat being necessary or sufficient for being alive.  

Also, you seem to miss Adrienne's point.  She accuses me of feeling quite
free to stake a woman's life on a continued pregnancy.  But I do make
exception for conditions endangering a woman's life, and Adrienne knows
that by now, or should.

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36043 alt.politics.homosexuality:5893
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:34:53 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
: necessary.  They can be.  What if the woman simply could not psychologically live
: with herself if she had a boy?  Maybe she's not ready for a boy, maybe she
: psychologically needs a girl.  Whose welfare means more to you: the woman's or

I see.  She's ready to be a _girl's_ parent, but she'll top herself if 
she has a boy.  Isn't this a contradiction in terms?  Sounds more like 
she's ready for EST, than to be a parent.

: Steve
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35216 alt.abortion.inequity:3554 soc.women:16205 soc.men:16011 alt.flame:12558