HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A Technical Request
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:26:33 GMT


I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....

So I will work on typing slower, and using only 
big block letters, so as not to intellectually 
stress their Over Workded little Minds....


ciao
drieux

ps: are their any TechNical Writers out there with
prior experience explaining things to MangleMent who
will be able to offer me some assistance in this area?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 30 Sep 1992 14:39:47 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.

Where, asshole?

(a) there is no 'right to life'.  Take a fucking look at the fucking
constitution.
(b) there is no 'child' until after birth.  Take a fucking look at the
fucking tax laws and about 200 years worth of the historical context of
life in this country.

(c) where the hell have you 'looked at' the woman's considerations?

YOU are quite willing to trade women away into slavery because *you*
value the fetus.


Well, Martin, let me just guarantee for you that there are some things
I value that you wouldn't much appreciate.  I think that my opinion should
optain upon your body.  How about it, bub?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Hey Peter (was Re: Legal Questions
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 02:45:35 GMT

<1992Sep25.003741.1481@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) said:
>In article <1992Sep24.212119.2323@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>You're a jerk, Kathi.

I wonder if Peter N. is familiar enough with the bible to know that Jesus
warns his followers that 'anyone who says to his brother, "Thou fool" is
in danger of hellfire'.  I know that Suzanne is now familiar with it since
I've told her myself several times.  Now Peter, if Suzanne was really a
"good Christian", why do you think she continues to ignore Jesus warnings?
BTW, she did respond to this once.  She claimed that I was being silly
because the ancient languages didn't really say "fool".  The implication
is that she thinks that Jesus  only meant that you shouldn't call someone
a 'fool', but that you can call them 'idiot', 'jerk', or 'craphead' and
that's cool.

Ah, well.  I can hardly wait to see his defense of Suzanne on this one.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: LifeStyle Choices and Personal Responsibility
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:56:36 GMT



there seems to be some confussion about what Lifestyle
choices are to be attributed as requiring personal
responsibility. I would Like to present another note
from the news, and consider how the persons involved
made a lifestyle choice, and have suffered the consequences
of that lifestyle choice, and HOW it is really the fault
of the wimp liberals.....


Recently an El Al cargo plane fell out of the sky on top
of apartment buildings in the nederland. This lead to an
estimated death of some 200+ persons.

Given the form of the argument:

Consent to X implies Consent to Y:

consent to 'live above ground with out clear AntiAircraft Defenses'
implies consent to 'having aircraft fall on you.'


The prudent person would have, of course, knowing that it
is possible that aircraft might fall from the sky, decided
to either:

1. build a safe dwelling with 3 metres of earth on top of
about a two metres of reinforced concrete, [1]

OR

2. Had an automated air defense battery active in the backyard.

As Long as the Wimp Liberals will not allows us to set up
Hawk, Nike, or Patriot batteries in our backyards, and people
continue to live above ground, they just need to learn to
be responsible for these things....


ciao
drieux

[1] quick chorus of the 'vapors' singing their classic anthem:
'we're living in bunkers.'


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:46:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>In article <_vfzvqn@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> One of the strongest points for choosing birth is that WE ALL KNOW when
>> birth happens.  It's there, it's visible, and there's generally a good
>> deal of noise involved.
>
>Much to arbitrary.  Especially when it can happen at any time, either 
>naturally or unnaturally.  Do you see a problem with it being
>arbitrary.  If not, why?

Not.  There is _no_ point which is not, in some measure, arbitrary.
Human life started billions of years ago.  Birth, conception, 
myelination, sex, puberty, are all steps along the way.  Each is 
necessary, none is sufficient. 

Given that arbitrariness is not a very useful distinction, we must select
some other measure.  I like my distinctions to be reasonably unambiguous.
Birth is certainly that.  There is no misunderstanding the when and what 
of birth.  I also find birth to be a reasonable compromise of possibly
conflicting rights and responsibilities.

>> When were you conceived?  Not, "on a camping trip" or "after a few
>> bottles of wine on Mom and Dad's anniversary", but the day, hour,
>> and minute.  You don't know, and you can't find out.  
>
>Not now, but what happens when this does become possible?

Please present a plausible scenario that shows how one might determine
the exact moment of conception.  For bonus points, create a scenario
that is feasable.

>> Not to mention the blatantly obvious fact that once you are born, you
>> are no longer bodily dependent on another human being. 
>
>Yes, you are.  The child needs to be fed by someone hand.  Need to feel
>the loving touch of another human.  Need to be spoken to....I could go on,
>but you get the point.

So then, you are a child?  You depend on other people for your food,
for your water, for your clothes, etc.  Does that mean we should be
treating you the same way we treat, say, a 2 week embryo?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (sussurra e grida)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fetus as a member of the human race (Ref: Ray)
Date: 27 Sep 92 05:22:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Larry
>Kevin
>> Larry

>> >But it actually exists, so clearly it's a "being".  I cannot honestly
>> >believe that you think a being that is human cannot be called a "human
>> >being" - after all, you're doing the same thing for the zygote.

>> There is a grave difference, Larry, between a being that is human and a
>> human being.

>I'm glad you see this, Kevin.  The former can refer to a sperm, egg, zygote,
>etc., but the latter refers to a person.

Actually, the last term is incomplete in meaning.  Legally, it refers to a
born Homo sapien.  Biologically, it refers to a Homo sapien, the correct
designation of the word.  However, a happy medium can be made with the
distinctions of a MORAL human being and a GENETIC human being.

>> To call a sperm a human being is inappropriate because the
>> term human being biologically, philosophically and legally connotes that the
>> being is a borne human (member of Homo sapien)

>Right, that's what human being means.

To NOT tell the truth does not mean that one lies.  To NOT lie does not mean
one has told the truth.  A being that is human is not a human being.


>> or is the result of the
>> unification of a sperm and an egg, a fertilized ovum.

>No, that's a being that is human.

A sperm is a being that is human in origin.  Hold the difference to be that
the creation of a zygote is a genetic human being...

>> Human being is a special
>> term that is reserved for this species.  Being that is human does not
>> completely describe a human being nor the reverse.  Simply originating from
>> the species does not equate it with equal status of the species...

>And simply being a fertilized egg does not equate it with equal status
>of a human being.

It does not equate it with legal status, but it most certainly does on
a biological basis.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

kcw

--
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Kevin C. Welch

I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:52:13 GMT
 <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.

So, decide.  Whose rights take precedence here?  Isn't that what the
argument is about?  A born woman's rights vs an fetus' rights to
**POTENTIALLY** be born alive?

NOTE WELL: pregnancy does NOT guarantee a live, healthy baby at birth...

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:33:14 GMT

In article <-jczw6m@rpi.edu> Rejectus posing as
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>the hall chaney thing posting as
>(Stephen A Chaney) writes of steve novak:
>
>-> I say we should boycott this dolt. 
>
>i can't wait to see how many net.readers jump to
>your support on this one.

No more, probably, than the ones who supported a boycott on me. Two calls
for a boycott, that is.
ZILCH.

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39692 alt.abortion.inequity:4169 alt.birthright:493
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:50:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Sep30.231911.28243@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
(Nadja Adolf) writes:

}                             So who was screwing Mary?

God.  Honest.   But he had an angel ask first.  That made it ok.  Ask
Suzanne Forgash.

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:16:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.045702.14711@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.024902.23519@midway.uchicago.edu> 
> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
> >varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
> 
> >> Well, for your information, (and I know this might shock you)
> >> I am NOT the only person in the world who stands up for the right to
> >> live. 
> 
> > I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
> > on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
> > the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
> > an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
> 
> I stand up for life too.  When I heard that a woman was 
> arrested in Greensboro NC for robbing several banks so she 
> could buy food and clothing for her children, I stood up 
> for legalizing bank robbery.  That woman should not have
> had to face the risk of being shot and killed during the 
> bank heist.  While bank robbery is immoral, I can't force 
> my morals onto bank robbers by making bank robbery illegal.
> That's why bank robbery should be made safe and legal,
> just like abortion. 

I think I told this story in talk.abortion once before.  I am
quite certain the point was missed by numerous brethren and
sistren, but what the hell, eh?  I only post here because
it gives the same satisfaction as pissing int he wind and it
doesn't get your clothes as messy.

When Fiorello LaGuardia was on the bench in New York, a man
came before him who was accused of stealing a loaf of bread.
The man explained that his family was starving and he stole
the bread to feed his family.  The Little Flower found the man
guilty and sentenced everyone in the courtroom to contribute
money, which was then given the man to feed his family.

But then you know what bleeding heart liberals are like.

The next time that woman has a bank in her womb, I strongly
support her decision to rob it.

How that elephant got into my pajamas, I'll never know.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39686 talk.religion.misc:17497
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why pro-lifers should continue to insist on fetal personhood, not doggiehood...
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep25.131129.5153@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>See how we can talk all day about _potential_ threats to the life of
>the mother, whereas the _potential_ life of a foetus is not up for
>discussion.  If you were intellectually honest you would admit that
>at 5,10,24 weeks the threat to the woman's life is close to nil.  At
>~9 months the threat is maximal.  But at ~9 months, the fetus is in
>the eyes of most people already a person.  It is certainly now as
>_viable_ as it will ever be.  Are you ready to compare like with like?

Uh....  Did it occur to you that: a) at 7-8 weeks, risk in abortion to
the woman is also lowest, b) an early abortion provides *more*
protection to the woman's life than a later one, as more of the risks
of pregnancy are avoided entirely?

-- 
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
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Date: 26 Sep 92 14:36:41 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
-> > Keegan
-> >-> Ferrari
-> 
-> >-> For crying out loud, Keegan.  Eric was simply
-> >-> stating an opinion.

no, ms. mills. he was not.

-> >i wouldn't think, ms. mills, that you'd take too
-> >kindly to someone determining the appropriateness
-> >of your posts, but, in that, i could be mistaken.
-> 
-> It seems, unlike you, I donn't get my panties in a
-> wad when someone EXPRESSES AN OPINION, which is the
-> very same thinng that I (and YOU) are doing.

ms. mills, as you so aptly put it, it appears to me that
you get your "panties in a wad" so frequently that it
would be hard for a person to notice if they were or not.

-> >-> IN NO WAY did he try to impose his values on
-> >-> everybody.
-> 
-> >oh i don't think he was either. over the years, it
-> >seems that most of the net.censors apply different
-> >standards to different people.
-> 
-> Well, if no one ever tries to censor you more than
-> Eric here has, you can just be happy that you live
-> in a free society.

ms. mills, i realize that your net access is erratic,
but you should really try to follow a thread before you
comment. eric was censoring someone else, not me.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 01:45:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes ...
>In article <-50nk1h.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>>>Let me state the relevant point of my position.  The sperm and egg left
>>>seperated, will never develop into a human child.  That is the
>>>reason why I do not classify them as human life.
>>
>>A zygote left in the woods will never develop into a human child.  So?
>>If you're going to add arbitrary qualifications than so will I.  In fact,
>>many human eggs DO develop into human adults.
>
>That is a case of interference with what would happen.  Not what I am talking
>about at all.  If you dont' understand what I am saying, let me know and I will
>expand further.

OK.  Without interference an egg will be flushed as part of the monthly
period.  Thus, since fertilization is clearly interference by the (would
be) parents, they are obligated to restore the natural order by getting
an abortion should the egg be inadvertantly fertilized.

>>>> Fertilization isn't any guarantee of reproductive success-- 2/3
>>>> of fertilized eggs naturally fail to develop, for various
>>>> reasons.  Implantation isn't any guarantee of success either.
>>>> I don't particularly value either stage.
>>>
>>>That may be true today.  But I would hope that you are aware of research
>>>that is attempting to make all fertilizations successful.  What happens to
>>>your arguement when this is the case?
>>
>>Well, when pigs fly we'll have to buy stronger umbrellas, and when monkey's
>>fly out of my ass, I'll go on the Tonight Show and talk to Jay about it.
>
>So, what's your point?  I see no relevant one here...please explain.
 
Not nearly all fertilizations are successful, and there is no reason to
believe that they ever will be.  I don't even consider it very likely.
Just the first problem to this possibility is the question "why bother?"
The next is: "Who's paying?"

Why speculate on something that is unlikely to ever occur?  More 
importantly, why base morality or law on the improbable?

>>>Can you expand upon this concept called "consciousness-capability"
>>>please...
>>
>>Myelenation is the point where myelin forms around the nerves.  Without
>>myelin, nerves don't work.  MS (or is it ALS?) is a disease involving the 
>>deterioration of this sheath.  Invariably fatal.
>>
>>Before this stage in the development of a fetus, it is clearly incapable
>>of thought or sensation.  Thus, it becomes a useful measure of human-ness.
>
>Many adults in a coma are like this also.  Would it be ok to kill them?

Such adults are not infringing on any one other person.  Further, in many
cases such adults _are_ allowed to die.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:41:58 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.005723.18401@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:


>>>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:

>>>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>>>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
>>>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>>> of income in our relationship..  

>I would expect a pro-"choicer" to blast the original 
>poster for insinuating that he would exercise some 
>control over his fiance's decision to abort. Is that
>expectation not applicable when the man's financial
>situation is at stake?  

>Doug Holtsinger

I don't see that insinuation anywhere.  I assumed that both the male and
female were rational and had discussed the possibility of pregnancy.  Saying
"she would definately get an abortion" means that he knows this, not that
he decided it for her.  If I say "my husband definately won't eat liver",
it's not because I'm making decisions for him, just that I know his
opinion on certain matters.

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsu.edu

my opinions...


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
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: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:51:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.064548.23641@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Ok folks, read this carefully: I am not promoting some sort of Orwellian
>"sex police", I am merely asking what's wrong with a little responsibility??
This begs the question that protected sex followed by abortion as a backup
procedure is irresponsible behavior. I do not believe this to be the case.
If you are going to assert that it is, you should argue for it it.

-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."