HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos scores 749 and 745 on SATS!
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:53:07 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <BvCF8q.8sM@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <6430@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <BvAx7x.GC2@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>#In article <1992Sep28.181026.10388@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (The
>>#*official* Usenet virus) writes:
>>##In article <1992Sep24.033225.22205@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>#Poor ol' Chaney -- never stopped to think Susan might have gotten out of
>>#high school before he was born.  Actually, make that never stopped to think,
>>#period... 
>>
>>Your second sentence is obviously correct, or POC meant to post
>>this little dribble to alt.non.sequitur.  

>He's not qualified for alt.non-sequitur...you have to have *some* kind of a
>sense of humor to post anything in that group.  POC's repeatedly
>demonstrated that's one other thing he's missing.

>>##Perhaps you'll get into Steubenville. As a test chimp, that is. 
>>#
>>#Not until you finish up *your* contract there, at least.  See you in
>>#2003...:-)

I'm surprised Chaney did not call Susan a racist for using the word
"chimp" there.  Must have been in a good mood.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:39:06 GMT

In article <120n24j.bskendig@netcom.com>
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>Okay, in continuing my answer to the last question: I suppose
>third-trimester abortions are permissible when there's some sort of
>medical concern.  This would set the limit quite a ways before "risk
>of death".

[ ... ]

>I'd favor giving late-term fetuses the same legal consideration that
>infants have, I think.  The distinction I make between third-trimester
>fetuses and ones before the third trimester is that a late-term fetus
>is capable of feeling and thinking, and possibly even breathing and
>being independent.  (I mean that I think that if you were to induce a
>birth even as long as a week before it would normally have occurred,
>the baby would most likely be fine.  Heck, that's what Marilyn Quayle did!)

You might note that these two proposals are incompatible.

I am in favor of heavy restrictions on third-trimester abortions.
However, I think it's a *very* bad idea to give legal personhood to
*any* fetuses, because I don't want doctors to have any hesitation
about sacrificing the fetus to save the mother -- even during birth.

-- 
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: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:20:15 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep30.043757.9187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1a9qv2INN412@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>I suppose here is where we are coming from.  You weigh the mother's
>right to be free from "unwelcome objects" to be greater than the child's
>because you don't think the unborn is 'a' human life.  I weigh the lives
>of the mother and the unborn equally.  Each life is equally important.  So

To you, maybe.  You are entirely free to go about 'weighing' anything that
will allow you to weigh it.  And, frankly, even if you had a fetus within
your body, I wouldn't consider it any of my business to tell you how *I*
weigh things.

I just get a little -- um -- strong when it comes to the efforts to impose
YOUR weighing of things upon some random woman somewhere who does not share
your value system.

>I too, care for the born.  But I'm afraid that your thinking MIGHT stem
>from the idea that children are liabilities.  When another child is born, 
>that child would take away the "resources" dedicated to some other child.
>Do we have to think this way?  

Well, I don't know about you, Martin, but I've made an educated guess on
how many children I can support with my resources, and do a good job of it.
And I would certainly resent *any* cretin who stuck his nose into my 
analysis of things and determined I was 'wrong' about either resources,
or decisions made upon my analysis.  See, that ain't the government's place.
Thanks.

>The child is hereby guilty of possibly using the resources
>intended for another child.
>I hereby sentence you to an abortion.

A perfect example of letting people hang themselves by their own words.
You've got to be kidding, Martin.

>Whether the woman thought it was wrong or right to have the child doesn't
>change the child.  The unborn child has a right to life just as the mother
>has a right to live.

You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.


>>Not at all.  The mother has the right to terminate a fetus's life because
>>she doesn't wish to carry it within her body and take the risks that carrying
>>and bearing a child entails.
>So I believe our main difference involves the value we give fetuses/unborn
>children.

Martin, you are very hardheaded, aren't you.  Our main difference doesn't
even involve the fetus/unborn.

Our main difference is that you cannot see PAST the fetus/unborn.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:25:22 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

I have followed up to Adrienne's post,
starting a new thread, "Adrienne's use of `asshole' is unjustified."

Karen, if you are still with us, let me apologize in the name of us all
(I am guilty of this too) of not being consistent enough about taking
things out of this thread that are unrelated to your personal experience.
I will have some more things to say about your post, for which we are
all indebted, tomorrow.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: For Adrienne and Kathi
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:33:22 GMT

In <1992Sep21.145233.8715@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard, getting the wrong end of the stick again), 
>writes:

>: In article <199209151128.AA04507@D012S658> Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de writes:
>: >
>: Frank's attempt at humor (with no smiley, yet again, *sigh*,) deleted.

>Here's your :-)   Do you want a sense of humour with that?


>Can we stop talking at cross purposes yet?

You've got to be kidding!  If even Jammer Jim can't get her to stop it with
him, what chance does a Suzanne-clone have?

>: Frank,
>: 
>: Live in a linear world, huh?
>: 
>: Sorry to hear it.
>: Adrienne Regard 

Now you see why I entertained that drieux-is-an-assumed-name-of-Adrienne
speculation.  But, like I said, there's no point in taking it seriously.

>Yeah, yeah, whatever.  Well I'm just yer average Suzanne-Forgach-clone, 
>dishonest, linear-thinking person I guess.  Thanks for explaining that 
>to me Adrienne.  Have another smiley :-)  They go on your face...

Adrienne, by the way, did not use a smiley when she came up
with that story about hearing women screaming at doctors to
stop delivering their children.  Part of her prerogative as
Lady High Everything Else, you see, is to leave them off.

Peter Nyikos
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Date: 2 Oct 1992 12:08:26 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <mlbruce.718043689@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

(alt groups alt deleted for alterior reasons).

>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>A thousand pardons for trying to oversimplify biology in a 2:00 A.M. post.
>How exactly, though, do you differentiate between a fetus and a newborn
>other than the fetus' being still attached by umbilical cord.

Are you nuts?

A fetus is entirely surrounded by the womb, abdominal wall, skeletal
structure, arms, legs, and head of a female person.  Newborns lack 
this appendage.

>(Hypothetical question all you woman-controls-her-body-at-all-costs
>advocates: Suppose the baby has just been delivered, but the umbilical
>cord not yet cut. This baby still derives its nutrition from, and is
>indeed attached to its mother. As such, until the cord is cut, the baby is
>no less a part of the mother's body than it was during pregnancy. Would
>not your arguments make it perfectly acceptable to kill the baby then and
>there, on the grounds that a woman should have the right to control her
>own body?

No dip-shit.  You cut the cord, which satisfies the pro-choice belief
that a woman should be able to control her body -- i.e., not support an
organism against her will.  Accomplishes the same thing, doesn't it?
Inflammatory idiocy will get you nowhere.

feh.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: MD's estimates (was Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:50:22 GMT

In article <nyikos.717900808@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}I don't think doctors quantify risks by % s.

I grew up with an MD Peter, and that's precisely how I thought they
did measure risk.  How do you think they do it?  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:34:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>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.
>>
>>Yeah, right.  And how about when the choice is between _your_ convenience
>>and the lives of people dying in the streets or starving in Africa?
>>
>>Or is that "different?"  It's always easy to impose unrealistic expectations
>>on someone else, isn't it?
>>
>Did somebody make those starving in Africa starve intentionally?  Is someone
>diceing and slicing those people in Africa right now?  

So because they were unfortunate enough to be in a situation that is 
killing them, you feel no obligation to save them.

What's your excuse for getting involved with pregnant women, then?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:59:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.201416.2717@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <z0!pcta.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> Not bad.  It is _not_ an absolute proof by any means, but not bad.
>> It assumes a foundation of axioms common in modern mathematics that
>> are widely accepted as true but have, in themselves, _not_ been 
>> proven.  Thus, that "0<1" is a fact that can be known absolutely
>> is something you haven't shown.
>
>Ok, since you won't accept that, how about this.
>
>If I am within 1 cm of ground-zero of a h-bomb explosion and have absolutly
>
>nothing to protect me, I will die.
Not only is this not KNOWN to be true, it's not even true at all.
There is a nonzero though vanishingly small probability that every
single particle of matter will tunnel through your body and that not
a single photon will be absorbed by your body. I.e. that you will
be completely unaffected by the blast. This is not a likely occurrence,
but it is also explicitly permitted by Quantum Mechanics. Care to
try again?
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:19:45 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In <25877@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wr
>
>]>>How about making a law against someone "throwing" a heavy tool or the
>]>>like down to earth from orbit? It could kill someone, but there is no
>]>>law against it.
>
>>>Litter laws.
>
>Only if it lands somewhere where litter is against the law. There is
>no law against the action, in this case, only in the result. (if it
>lands in a trash receptacle, it is not littering)
>
>>Reckless endagerment will do, also...
>
>Again, a result. The action is not against the law. This would be the
>basis of a suit, as it could, in all honesty, be argued that all precautions
>were taken to not injure anyone.

I don't believe this is the case.  If I do something, and take all possible
precautions to prevent injury, yet I know there is a good chance of
injuring someone, I'm guilty of reckless endangerment...if they are hurt,
then it's a different story all togehter.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39333 talk.religion.misc:17398 sci.math:12452
From: news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,sci.math
Subject: Re: Getting in touch with their bodies and minds [Was: Re: The fundamental question of abortion]
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:39:07 GMT
 <nyikos.717624472@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1992Sep28.183627.15025@jetsun.weitek.COM> <1992Sep28.231050.671@ima.isc.com>
Organization: Massey University

In article <1992Sep28.231050.671@ima.isc.com>, karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep28.183627.15025@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
> >In article <nyikos.717624472@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>It is not only pro-life men (I reject the label "anti-choice") that [...]
> >
> >I would suggest that anti-choice men get [...]
> >As for the label, if the shoe fits, wear it.
                            ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> If you're going to continue cross-posting to sci.math, please be advised that
> "pro-choice" means that you feel free to derive results that depend on the
> cross product of nonempty sets always being nonempty, and "anti-choice" means
> that you prefer to avoid using that axiom.
> 
I view of Russell's example, I thought the above was quite witty.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:40:53 GMT

In article <1ykzq+b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>_I_ will support keegan's position on this.  But as keegan has posted
>that he does not want the details public again, you'll have to email
>me for the story.
Then your support is useless. Mr Keegan made the accusation publicly,
he should support it publicly. Note that you have no obligation to
do EITHER, but that your willingness to support him via Email does
nothing to absolve him of his burden of proof.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40547 talk.politics.misc:49510 alt.rush-limbaugh:6529 alt.politics.clinton:8454 alt.politics.bush:7715
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 1992 16:21:17 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Ted Krueger) writes:
|> 
|> Because only one of the several people Dr. Kevorkian helped kill 
|> was terminal.  The others just wanted to die, they were not terminal.
|> 
You seem to be the only person in the world that knows that.  It 
certainly is not consistent with the coverage on the news or on
the 20/20 interviews (could have been a different news magazine
I saw).

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:07:49 GMT

In <usglkrx.717686544@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>>>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>>>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>>>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>>>>> >Father.

>>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>>>apologize for it.

>>Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
>>"castigation" for the hoax that it is?  And I've addressed this
>>"castigation" myself several times.


>Well, just to be fair, I asked my aunt what she thought of Suzanne's
>"joke".  My aunt is 78 years old, goes to church every Sunday, doesn't
>drink, etc.  Maybe not a typical Christian, but one who takes her 
>religion seriously.  She told me that she felt Suzanne's use of
>the word was "disrespectful".  She thought that the statement was "in
>very bad taste".  The subject was "nothing to joke about".
>I read her the statement that M. Price wrote, and she felt that
>it was a very nice way of putting it.

Did you read to her M. Price's original comment which elicited
Suzanne's sarcastic [but sarcasm directed at M. Price] remark?
M. Price accused Jesus of having "white hot flashes" and said
"think of how those Scribes and Pharisees must have suffered."

Suzanne's rejoinder, putting the "suffering of the Scribes and
Pharisees" into perspective, was, "Oh, yeah, he really crucified
them."

>Maybe M. Price wasn't serious, but it doesn't really matter.  There are
>people who feel that way.

But think of the context.  After making his initial disrespectful
comment, M. Price donned sheep's clothing, and your aunt saw only
the sheep and not the wolf inside.

>my opinions....(well, ok, my aunt's)

I'd be interested in your aunt's reaction to this follow-up of mine.
If she wishes, I can show her a lot more that has transpired along
this thread.

Peter Nyikos
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, no, not again - the snake in the grass is back (was Re: The fundamental question of abortion)
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:30:10 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep30.213511.11476@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.214115.22475@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.717186973@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep20.183313.26829@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>In  <nyikos.716939622@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>> In <25192@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>What is it with anti-choice men that they have this silly obsession
>>with women 'getting in touch with their bodies?' Do they assume that
>>most women park their body in a closet and come visit it once a week
>>or something?

>Obsession? All he was doing was talking about the purpose of NFP, Nadja. I
>really think you're stoned today.

Like I keep telling you, you should try staying on the subject for
a change. Ekr and I want to come visit you. What weekend would be
convenient?

Since when is the purpose of NFP to get in touch with women's bodies.
Oh, I get it. Since it doesn't work as a contraceptive, the NFP teachers
have had to come up with a new reason for people to learn it. Wouldn't
want to see them all on the dole, would we. :-)

>Okay, I agree.
>Use condoms. Since men are always fertile, we simply use condoms. Then NFP
>might not even be necessary.

Great. I like that idea. Stops HIV most of the time, too.

>Then again, NFP is an option. But of course you don't want to see it
>taught, right?

I don't care what people teach outside of the public schools. But I can
think of a lot more constructive things to teach if one's goal is for
young women to really get in touch with their bodies. If the goal is to
teach contraception, NFP has a place in the curriculum along with pills
and diaphragms - choices that are not always good options in this era
of HIV. 

>Are you one of those feminists who believe that every woman who has sex,
>is actually being raped? (We'll have more documentation on this when the
>9-25-92 edition of the Rush Limbaugh summary comes out on a.f.r-l.)

Are you one of those men who has to call every woman who doesn't agree 
with him a lesbian or a manhater? :-) BTW, where is your usual crude,
scatalogical remark?

>>Perhaps the anti-choice men are afraid that if we don't spend our time
>>getting in touch with our bodies that we'll get in touch with our minds? :-)

>Then put a big net in the toilet so you can catch your mind as it falls
>out.

Just found your usual crude, scatalogical remark. Thanks for not letting
me down. :-)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com