HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:48:37 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Sep30.223307.21945@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>Ray Fischer, welcome to the Trap. It was set a long time ago by pro-life
>>intellectuals using the power of scientific fact.

>Isn't "pro-life intellectuals" an oxymoron?

Of course not.  I've been one for the last 25 years.  Of course, you
are one of the people who gloat over how I was "stupid" enough to "fall
into" another Trap (an in-joke, really), but that does not make me any
less an intellectual, nor any less a pro-lifer.

For further info, see my post, "The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap."

Peter J. Nyikos
>>And in fact you may bring one of your voodoo scientists out to look at what
>>I've said (and this time, I got it checked first so there will be a battle
>>between embryologists if this is challenged), they'll also tell you that a
>>finger is a genetic part of your body while the z/e/f is a genetic part of
>>NO ONE ELSE's body but his/her own.

>Unless it splits into a twin, in which case it has the same genes as another
>person. 

Not completely.  Some genes are unique to one or the other of the twins.
Anyway, the real point is that the z/e/f is a genetic *part* of no one
else's body, a clear reference to the old claim, adhered to by a number
of pro-choicers despite clear proof to the contrary, that the z/e/f
is part of the mother's body.

> Also, cancer cells are genetically unique.  Do you proposed to bestow
>upon _them_ personhood rights?

Of course not, bozo, unless they have the potential to grow into people
like yourself.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:09:36 EDT

From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
 
>In article <1992Oct8.001541.3046@noao.edu> 
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, including 
>>death, with the rest of mankind.
 
>Bloody nonsense.  The rest of mankind doesn't come back to life two
>days after death.
 
 
You imply the belief system is internally inconsistent.  But in 
that belief system, the rest of mankind does come back to life, 
albeit not in two days.  
 
But then, I remind you of what you already know.  So you must not 
really think the system is inconsistent.  If so, I have wasted 
bandwidth. 
 
DARIST

 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
Organization: .
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.235931.14405@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Well, obviously I am planning to write about a dystopia.  I think extreme
>liberalism is a bad thing, and my aim is that one really bad thing might
>promote something equally bad or worse from the other side.  I say again,
>I am no facsist.           Simon.

It seems to me that if you think "liberalism" is such a bad thing, you
should write a novel about a "liberalist dystopia" rather than a novel
about a "facist dystopia".  After all, if the worst thing about
"liberalism" is that it goads its opponents into behaving as piggishly
as possible, it looks like the problem lies with "liberalism's" 
opponents rather than "liberalism" itself.

Its like saying that gay people are bad because their mere existance
incites gay-bashers to beat them up.  One hopes that you would recognise
an argument of "he was gay so I was forced to beat him up" as completely
and utterly morally bankrupt.

Get a clue, dude.


-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: why mr. bill doesn't do this stuff full-time
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:07:04 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->(Susan Garvin) writes: >>>
->>>>Unlike some pro-forcers, I don't see a need to discuss my profession
->>>>on the net.  
->>
->>>Are you ashamed of your profession?
->>
->>this is why.

->Jim, do you think Susan needs you to defend her?

not at all. why just in the past few days, i think she
has quite nicely demostrated your disdain for women and your
willingness to support legislation to kill more women.

you sound a bit defensive, bill. is something bothering
you?

->>>I'll bet you don't see yourself as hateful, do you?
->>
->>and this.

->Are you angry with me, Jim?

no. are you angry with yourself, bill?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:35:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.173304.9074@unet.net.com>
stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

> Once more--in my previous posts
> I have said over and over and over that the it is the large majority of
> people that consider themselves pro-choice are in favor of some restrictions.
> I have also stated over and over and over that there exist smaller groups
> that are pro-choice that do not share that believe. 

When several pro-choice women on talk.abortion expressed similar support
for very limited restrictions on abortion,  they were viciously attacked
by the radical pro-abortion people.  Why does Stan Knight, who is quite 
obviously a man, receive little to no attention from these pro-aborts 
when he expresses the very same support for limited abortion restrictions? 

> Stan Knight


Doug Holtsinger, who is wondering when James Keegan will get around 
to begin harrassing Stan Knight for his "pro-choice" position.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:14:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.224455.50391@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> In  <1992Oct15.164255.11261@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >
> >As for being "sensitized", where is the line between sensitivity and
> >overreaction/persecution-complex? How do we know when that line has been
> >crossed? I wouldn't buy a piece a piece-of-shit radar detector that was so
> >"sensitive" it went off constantly, why should I buy a line about Dean's
> >Miracle Racism-detecting Nose which seems to go off pretty easily too?
> 
> Check the calibration.  I don't throw out my top-of-the-line radar
> detector just because it goes off constantly when I'm driving around

Easy Larry.  The little bonehead Kibble has absolutely not one
single reason to think I have ever been wrong when I detected
anti-Semitism.  He's just showing his usual affection

for talking about things he doesn't know about.

And vt100 emulation sucks, dammit.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Admit it, anti-abortion laws will kill some women
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.214915.25234@acd4.acd.com>
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Oct14.123748.29558@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>Pro-lie legislation has resulted in and will result in the
>>deaths of women.  

>IYO.

Oh, *please*, Bill, laws restricting abortion have and will kill
women.  The number of women is open to question, but the fact that the
number is greater than zero is not, and you demean yourself by
pretending it is.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:08:12 EDT

From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
 
>... Apparently the only answer is that Jesus was sometimes a 
>man, when that was convenient and sometimes a God when that was 
>convenient and sometimes a Son of God when that was convenient. 
>Few Christians care to discuss this problem because there is no 
>valid solution. 
 
 
Apparently, light is sometimes a particle when that is convenient 
and sometimes it is a wave when that is convenient. 
 
Is there "no valid solution" and light therefore does not exist? 
 
No.  It is just hard to understand. 
 
DARIST
 

 
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:59:13 -0400 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
	<1992Oct13.053656.23665@ncsu.edu>

>Doug Holtsinger

>Do you have nothing substantial to say about FFL's positions? 


In a previous post, I said that I have recieved some FFL literature and
I was willing to post the contents if people were interested. If the FFL
are so durn wonderful, Doug, why haven't you asked me to post them? 

Alison Colman  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: "Have you heard of us?" (Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:13:38 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <_g4zv_m@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
wrote:
> 
> the hallchaney creature posting as
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> ->Have you heard of us? 
> 
> oh yes. is "us" the correct term to use when you are
> referring to a single person? personally, i think when
> you are referring to you and your dennis personality,
> you should say "I."

No, no.  He's _not_ a single person.

He's the Borg Collective.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: What color is your parachute?
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:12:47 GMT


While there shouldn't be any confusion left over how it can be
possible for an intelligent thinking person to be `anti-abortion' and
`pro-choice'...

	...can you be `pro-life' without being `anti-abortion?'


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:28:11 GMT

In article <Bw0Eq2.2H0@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>><BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) :
>>>...
>>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>>
>>>We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
>>>get you to your god that much faster. :-)
>>>
>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.
>
>Funny, I'm one of those "PC" people you rant about, and I've never felt
>*any* book should be burned.  That seems to be more the province of you
>folks who scream about how "liberals" should be suppressed, or silenced, or
>somehow neutralized, for the "good of society".  The pro-choice contingent,
>in general, aren't the ones advocating throwing the Constitution out the
>window to get rid of those nasty little annoyances like the first ten
>Amendments that keep you from doing what you *really* want to do to those
>who don't agree with you...
>
You seem to be afraid of a science fiction novel that is still being
worked on.  Now, repeat after me, "It's only a story, It's only a story"....







For now, anyway :)
Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:07:34 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes: >

>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>> about a dead young woman?  

> Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
> crusade.

Wait a minute, Bill.  I thought that they were campaigning to repeal
the parental-notification laws that contributed to their daughter's
death.

>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  

> I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...

If blatant disregard and blatant discounting of a woman's thoughts
and feelings aren't expressions of a misogynist mindset, I don't
know what is>

>> ("It can't have happened the way that her family and best friends 
>> described it, that would ruin our argument that women don't resort 
>> to desperate measures.  I know, let's call her a drug-addicted slut 
>> and hire a teenager and a few pet doctors to make some more innuendos.  
>> The suckers will believe us.  They believe everything.")

> I don't know what happened with Becky Bell.  She may epitomize the 
> kind of tragedy many pro-choicers want to avoid, and she may not.  
> I do have an idea of what her parent's agenda is, though, and it 
> seems to be based on some misguided sense of revenge.  Maybe if 
> they weren't touring the country blaming their daughter's death 
> on the right to life movement, no one would bother looking into 
> the circumstances surrounding that death.  But that's not really
> their fault.  Eleanor Smeal and the Fund for the Feminist Majority
> proudly trot the Bells out in front of audience after audience to 
> relive the pain of losing their daughter.  I'm sure they don't see
> themselves as the victims of political expediency, but that's how
> I see it.

Bill, please enlighten us as to how you formulated your idea of the Bells'
agenda and how you came to the conclusion that they are motivated by
thoughts of revenge.  It seems very ironic now that you attempted to
chide James Keegan and others for making 'diagnoses' of Steve Chaney, Doug
Holtsinger, etc.

>> You're disgusting, Nyikos.  

> Save some of your disgust for Eleanor et al.

I'm getting a picture here, Bill, and it's not very flattering.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:06:44 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

     [Nyikos warns Patrick that if Patrick doesn't conform to
      Nyikos' standard of etiquette, Nyikos will begin making
      racial slurs]

>You know, if this keeps up, Peter will have put everybody into his "de facto"
>killfile.

Does anyone else here picture a pouty five-year-old, fists jammed
firmly into ears, screaming "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
right after he knows he's lost the argument?

>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu 

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:10:44 GMT

In <1992Oct11.014248.25101@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com 
   (Ray Fischer) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >> 
In <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com 
   (Jennifer Brindle) writes: >>>

>>> I think that many 14-year-olds are capable of making good decisions, 
>>> particulaly when it concerns their own lives.  And I think that if a 
>>> teenager wants an abortion she should be able to get one--without 
>>> _having_ to get permission, or even inform, her parents.  
>
>>I agree that many 14 year olds are capable of making good decisions,
>>but the decision to abort is very difficult for many experienced 
>>*adults*.  What makes us think that the typical young adolescent 
>>has the requisite experience and maturity to make such a decision 
>>unilaterally?  
>
>What makes you think that the 14-year-old will be any _less_ mature
>than her parents?  What makes you think the parents are better able to
>decide what the teenager can handle than the teenager herself?

Life experience, including a history of making difficult decisions
and learning to predict the consequences of those decisions.

>>Beyond that, though, as a parent *I* have rights, too.  Since I am 
>>legally responsible for my children, should it not follow that I 
>>also be legally permitted to govern their activities?  If they incur 
>>a debt, or destroy private property, or require emergency medical 
>>treatment, the bill is ultimately mine to pay.
>
>If said 14-year-old gets pregnant and keeps the child, the parent will
>incur 4 years of responsibility while the 14-year-old will incur 18
>years of responsibility.  The teenager will be primarily responsible
>for the care of the infant.  

That is *not* the way it usually works in the real world, though.
Most often, it is the parents of the 14 year old who assume primary
responsibility for the *management* of the child's care.  Fourteen
year old girls are still children and *they need to be children*
until they mature.  Forced maturity rarely works.  

>Should she be forced under any
>circumstances to care for a child she was forced into accepting?

No.  

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42794 talk.religion.misc:18356 alt.atheism:19068 alt.religion.computers:832 alt.bacchus:153
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: hypocrisy
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:25:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.073943.11698@netcom.com>
gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Well Suzanne would throw the book at the abortionist while refusing to
>expose her daughter to the laws which *SHE* advocates apply to all _other_
>women.  I believe that's called *hypocrisy*.

Aw, come on, Gordon, hypocrisy's an awfully strong word for wanting
exceptions for one's nearest and dearest.  If your wife were raped and
proceded to buy a gun, spend two months tracking down the rapist, and
blew him away, would you help the cops convict her?  Do you think all
women should be legally allowed to kill anyone who has raped them in
the past?

-- 
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: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An Invitation
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:24:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <BvrnD0.3n3@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R
SULAIMAN) writes:
>
>I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Pro-"Lifers"
>to go to their nearest universities offering Womens Studies courses.
>
>Take one -- maybe two.  It would be fun to see some of you in these
>classes.
>

Cynthia

I've seen the way establishment feminist sometimes treat pro-life feminists. 
Doesn't sound like "fun" by my definition.

Paul
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:10:30 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



Do you think that gay men hate women, Nyikos?

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41104 talk.politics.guns:21814 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5025 alt.rush-limbaugh:6748 talk.bizarre:33153
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:45:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

> lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
> 
> Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
> they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.

The eternal search to find something good to say about Rush and Dan...

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:19:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.161114.21539@cs.yale.edu>
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <adams.718291469@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>>While every murder law I know of makes an exception for self defense,
>>>I know of no case law which suggests that this is a Constitutional right.

>>Under the 9th and 10th Amendments....whether or not the Supremes think so.
>>(Limited powers & retained rights)

>Don't be inane.

>There is nothing in the 9th and 10th amendments that requires a
>constitutional right to kill in self defense that cannot be interpreted
>to also provide a constitutional right to kill in case of say
>personal offensiveness or threat to property.

There is nothing in the 9th and 10th amendments to specify any
particular constitutional rights whatsoever -- that was why they were
put in there in the *first* place, and that is why I think they were
put in there to protect rights granted the people by other sources
(common law, state constitutions).

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion