HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:00:01 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
->Some would consider the email that Demitrio excerpted from
->to *be* a retraction. 

	"then I will retract that charge"

is a promise to act now considered the act itself?

  "I think you should support it publicly.  If you
  can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider
  retracting the accusation."
    <1992Sep30.010047.7477@cs.yale.edu>


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42169 alt.abortion.inequity:4369
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:49:12 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes ...
>The following is an article that refutes all arguments that justify abortion.

I'm not going to waste my time refuting everything in this bit of
trashy propaganda, but I'll start with the first couple of paragraphs
and let you all figure out how the rest will go.

>These 19 arguments are refuted:
>1.  A woman should have a choice.
>
>Between what options?  To give birth or have her child killed?  The choice

No, between the risks associated with pregnancy and birth and aborting
an embryo/fetus.  (calling a 8-week embryo is really stretching the
word "child" here, but I'll let it pass).

>between a live or a dead baby?  When a woman conceives, she becomes a mother,

No, babies have been born.  Killing a baby is illegal, abortion is
not.

>and abortion cannot terminate her motherhood.  It can only terminate the life

Really?!?  

>of her child, and she will eventually regret that choice.

Unsupported and incorrect.  A lie.

>Susan Carpenter McMillan has stated:  "As a feminist, I believe strongly in a
>woman's right of choice.  But with abortion, we're really talking about the
>rights of human beings versus the `right' of an individual to kill another
>human being.  We're talking about someone's right to live versus someone's
>right to choose death for another person.  We're talking about life versus a
>lifestyle."

BFD.  Just because she's quoted doesn't mean Ms/ McMillan is in
slightest bit correct in her assertion.

>Deuteronomy 30:19 reminds us:  "I have set before you life and death, the
>blessing and the curse.  Choose life then so that you and your descendents may
>live."

Quoting select verses from the Bible can be used to establish _any_
point.  People have posted biblical _support_ for abortion _and_
murder.


The rest of post is no more credible than this bit.  Filled with
meaningless pseudo-statistics, unattributed quotations, appeal to
emotion, and outright lies, it is not a collection of arguments 
against abortion but is rather nothing more than propaganda designed 
sucker the gullible and assuage the consciences of the fanatics.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Wow, isn't MissBitch just *SO* caring???
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:33:21 GMT

From article <lefty-051092110020@lefty.apple.com>, by lefty@apple.com (Lefty):
> In article <1992Oct2.023035.15605@cfctech.cfc.com>, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com
> (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <lefty-280992165521@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>>
>>>It wasn't a joke.  It was a quote taken out of context, and it should be
>>>treated with contempt.
>> Oh, right, like no-one in TSAKC ever takes quotes out of context, uh-huh...
>> Your last sentence up there gets my vote for Most Hypocritical, 1992.
> That's akin to getting David Duke's vote for Most Bigoted, 1992.  Who,
> other than you, said anything about TSAKC, anyway?  Did you intend to post
> this to alt.non-sequitur?
> 
> Suzanne Forgach expressed her opinion that "quotes taken out of context"
> should be "treated with contempt".  


NO. NO. NO. NO.  It was NOT me.  Since you're the one that cut the citation,
Lefty, you oughta know that.   Frankly I don't give a damn if you take quotes
of mine out of context, because it only shows everyone else how dishonest
you are.  But it is just plain STUPID to attribute something to me that I
never said at all.


> I pointed out that her contempt was

It was not mine at all.

> conspicuously absent with regard to Doug Holtsinger's (mis)use of a quote
> taken from Gov. Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention.  She
> replied, essentially, "Yes, but that was _funny_!"  I'm trying to clarify
> what her position actually is.


My position is that Doug's quote was funny.   I thought so then, and I still
think so.  He quoted Clinton very accurately.    But it certainly has no
bearing on 'removing the context' from a quote I never made in the first place.


> What part of this are you having difficulty with, Kevin?  Maybe I can
> explain it to you using smaller words.

I'd say he recalls the sequence of events much clearer than you apparantly
do.


> Lefty (lefty@apple.com)

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:28:18 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct16.073654.28896@netcom.com>  gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Oct15.134540.26238@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) :
>>I'm as hip as the next guy, but would you be proud if your wife was telling
>>thousands of strangers on a computer network of the ten men she had done
>>before you came along?
>
> What does everyone think, eh?

Some don't.  See above.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
  ex-boyfriend of Joy, Nora, "momma" Muriel, Lynn (she's great down-under),
  and Keith, the wonder-stud (when you say e++, you've said a mouthful)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 22:42:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.030349.18748@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.004852.26991@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> I recently posted an article about an abortion doctor who was convicted
>>> of federal income tax evasion. This doctor allegedly over-billed 
>>> insurance companies, over-estimated the gestational ages of fetuses 
>>> so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> to get up off the operating table to pay more money. 
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> I've been laughing at this line ever since DOD first posted it.  What
>> was he expecting?  That the "sedated" women would just run over to their
>> purses and pull out wads of cash?  That a sedated person is actually
>> coherent enough to write a check?  Maybe DOD thinks these women just
>> gave the doctor their credit cards, along with a signed note saying that
>> he was authorized to use them?
>
>A person who laughs when women are placed in such horrible circumstances
>might be accused of being a misogynist.  

Let's see here.  Women are sedated every day.  Unless its being done against
their will, it's not a "horrible circumstance".

Women obtain abortions every day.  Unless its being done against their will,
it's not a "horrible circumstance".

OH!  Wait a minute.  Let me guess. You think I actually *BELIEVED* you when
you said this this doctor was trying to tell *sedated* women to give him
more money right?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Summary: Gee, he doesn't support anti-abortion legislation, huh??? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 16:45:22 GMT

In article <altz+pr@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>->(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>->>Second, for hopefully the last time: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
>->>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!!! So please stop stating or implying that this is
>->>my view. You are dead wrong.
>
>->Is this the same Kevin Darcy who once wrote something about "...in this
>->circumstance, I feel it would be justifiable to force the woman to
>->continue the pregnancy" (Not an exact quote.  Anybody this one archived?)
>
>sure. i have it archived. i just emailed it to you.
>when you receive it you can post and show that he lied,
>again.

Thanks, Jim.  Indeed, here is the quote...


Subject: here is your kebbie quote

        "I would not force a woman to have an abortion, if by
        "force" you mean legally. But if a woman is not willing
        or able to pay the 100% of financial support she (in my
        opinion) will owe the child, when going against the man's
        wishes, I would question the wisdom of her keeping the
        child. And I would not feel bad about "forcing" her
        financially to give up the child, since it's probably
        best for her, the child, and possibly the man as well."
                <1990Jul12.012842.23584@cfctech.cfc.com>

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Women have awareness! (Was Re: Walking down to the student center last night)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 15:08:40 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct13.195505.14806@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.045427.14832@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:

34 lines that are essentially answered by this non response (deleted):

>I'm clueless because I show concern for children??  That's interesting.

And Simon then says:


>I thought the goal here was to debate, not to make people look foolish.


I'm glad you are coming to this understanding.  Now, would you please
exhibit an effort to, in fact, debate?  That implies that you avoid non-
response, you support your statement, and you don't waste our time with
foolishness.  We'd all be happier if you *were* to 'debate', Simon.

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 7 Oct 1992 07:38:53 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct6.191835.22191@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.170250.14130@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?

Yes, in approximately 98% of the cases.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Your Biblical Support ISN'T.
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 23:39:54 GMT



I thought that it was funny, too, Ray.

I think that the Official Virus has yet another new playmate.
(The allusions to violence and life! are there, too.)

Susan
s
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Meteorites and a chance in Hell
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:38:25 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Not long ago there was a discussion about meteorites hitting someone
on the head. Someone claimed that these things would not happen, so
walking around without a helmet was in no way implicit to consent to
get bonked by a meteorite. Well, this weekend, an 11 by 4 by 5 inch
meteorite weighing 20 pounds slammed into a parked car Friday in Peekskill
New York. I guess they're playing with snow balls in hell this week.

Story on page A7, Washington Post, Tuesday, October 13.

Addendum: It was stated that this was very rare for a meteorite of this
size to survive until it hit the earth.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Answer to Woodyatt's 'jisms (syllogisms, that is)
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:52:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523


	When you have sex, you know you might become pregnant.  If you do, you
are responsible for the well-being of the person who you have CAUSED to be in
your body.  You cannot wantonly kill that person; you must take every reasonable
step within your power to protect the life and safety of the person you have
endangered.
	When the life of the mother is in danger, however, we are talking about a
life vs. a life.  Who is to say which life is more important?  Both lives are
equally threatened.
	When two lives of equal value are threatened (an either-or proposition),
the state can prefer one life over the other.  The baby hasn't done anything
wrong, true; but neither has the mother, two lives are at stake, and one or the
other (or both) will die if nothing is done.
	When a mother has sex, she consents to take every reasonable step within
her power to protect the life and safety of the person her act creates.  But she
does not for that reason necessarily consent to abide any serious threat to her
life.  To offer an analogy frequently used on t.a, if I hit someone else's car, I
must do everything within my power to save the people I injured, but this does
not mean I must donate my kidneys.  If they die, I may owe something to their
families (who also lost something due to my negligence).  But in the case of an
unborn baby, the parents ARE the family; if they wish to sue themselves, fine,
but it seems a bit odd.
	On the other hand, if I simply left the people I had injured by the
roadside, I'd be guilty of willful criminal negligence.  Worse yet, if I killed
them to avoid the problem I'd be guilty of murder in the first degree.  I must do
everything within my power to save the lives of the people I injured; but this
does not mean I must substantially threaten my own life to do so.  Negligence is
the key.  If I do everything I can short of substantially threatening my own life,
then my duties to the injured person are discharged (though not necessarily my
responsibility to the family).

Steve
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:01:17 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <26031@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>>Your posts, which show your complete lack of respect for the person
>>feelings, thoughts, and humanity of the woman involved, even when pointed
>>out specifically, in your single, one-track thought process of SAVE
>>THE FETUS. Future posts can always negate this impression, and I have


>Thanks for taking your time to respond Ronald.  I hear you.  However, I
>did mention time and time again that what I was looking at was the
>right of the unborn child to live vs. the right of the woman to live.  I

I know what you've said. It doesn't alter the reality one bit. The emporer
of Japan was trying to make a better life for his people in WWII. That
he trompled, abused, killed, maimed, and enslaved millions to do so
was "overlooked".

>believe that the life of a human takes precedence (born or unborn).  In this

"a human" as in human(n) meaning person. There are no unborn persons,
and it is actually questionable whether there is a person immediately
after birth. I'll get to this later, as I'm still working on it. I'll add
you to the list of people to refer to it when I post it.

>particular case, more often then not, what is at stake becomes a battle
>between the right of the unborn to life vs. the right of the mother

First you must establish that the unborn have any rights, much less
the right to subjugate another person into complete servitude for any
period of time.

>to control her body (which easily includes, of course, the life of the
>unborn son or daughter within her).  The right to life of one human party
>must be preserved.

Now it is "human party" where human(adj) means of the human species,
as a skin cell would be. What happened to human(n) defintion, or was
that too much for even you to swallow?

>What this has to do with me being an "ignorant pompous oaf" I really
>don't know.

See above, and previous posts you've made. I know others have pointed
out many flaws in your arguments, yet you continue to assert your original
tripe with no substance to back it up and wish to apply it to others
through law. Do I need to spell it out any further?

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:45:54 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
>an abortion.

It does without a doubt.  Are you proposing responsibility police?
"Police!  Open up!  OK fella, pull out reealll slow and show us the
condom."

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:45:48 GMT

escorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>you are misspeaking yet again, eric. i won't call you a
->>liar because it could be that you've forgotten a post
->>you replied to not too many days ago.
->I grant, I had forgotten about this post.

it doesn't make much difference whether you "grant" or
not. the post itself proved my point.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:06:13 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
->>From article <9nnzwbm@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
->>> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
->>>> No one is asking the baby.
->>> 
->>> D'you suppose there might be a _reason_ for that?

->>Sure.  They're afraid they might not like the answer.

->You are one seriously disturbed woman.

uh oh, dr. bill will be calling on you.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Date: 7 Oct 1992 06:00:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct7.031241.8836@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <ld497uINN6ou@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>>>>>[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc. ]

>>>I never REdefined any terms.  I have always held that.  It's just that other
>>>people, without my consent, have redefined it for me.

>>Your definition of what human life is appears to be yours alone. Therefore
>>in the context of this discussion you are redefining usage of the term
>>"human life."

>A problem with communication does not mean I redefined any terms.

Obviously there is a problem with communication here. However it still
seems evident to me that you have your very own meaning for the term
in question. That would lead me to believe that you have redefined the
term.

>>>The scientific fact that human life begins at conception is common knowledge.
>>>I make "assertions" because it is almost a given.

>>But the sperm and egg are living human life. You admitted it yourself in
>>another post to me. You can't have it both ways. 

>No, I said the sperm and egg are alive, and that they are merely specialized
>human cells which are part of a male or a female.  Being a specialized 
>human cell does not make it a member of homo sapiens.

This raises two questions:

1> What do you mean by "member?"

2> Why should your meaning be used to determine whether or not a
woman's right should be taken away from her?

>>>>My living cell has a complete genetic makeup. I would say that it is 
>>>>complete as cells go. Put it in the right envioronment and it will even
>>>>grow. 

>>>Grow, but that doesn't make it human, in any sense of the world.

>>It is human and it is life, is it not?

>But it isn't a NEW human life in and of itself.  And it isn't a member of 
>homo sapiens either.

So now you are adding a new critera, that being of "newness". Why don't 
you just make this easy on both of us and answer my question about what
attributes you feel are necessary for membership in species homo sapient.
Remember, only current attributes count. 

Since you are advocating removing a woman's rights on account of these
attributes, you must have a crystal clear image of what the attributes
are and why they are pertanant, right? After all, you wouldn't
be advocating the removal of somebody's rights if you were fuzzy on 
any of the issues, would you?

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion