HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:16:16 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <ffrzdk=@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->There is one minor detail. Mailing list messages are analogous to private
>->email. For CJ to post such a message would be a violation of nettiquette.
>->Mr. Keegan, does CJ have your permission to post such a message from
>->you, if she believes one to exist?
>mr rescorla, i do not control cj's actions! it was just
>such an inference, when cj made it about suzanne lucia,
>that started one element of this mess.
Would it be correct to state that you would not object to CJ posting
such a message if she believes one to exist?

-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: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:30:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.013224.14982@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep25.215742.19812@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> 
> Eric:
> 
> The point you are trying to argue is that "at conception, a person exists".
> 
> Please explain why, IYO, "at conception, a person exists".

It is the start of the process that will result in a newborn child if 
nothing interferes with it's development.

Before the the moment of conception, nothing exists that could be
considered a person.  The reason for this is because left seperated,
the egg or sperm will _never_ develop into a human child.

What I mean by interference is anything that would prevent the fetus
from being born and where no cases where euthanasia would be permissable
occur.  

I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.  

An example of bad interference would be anything that prevents the fetus
from being born and where cases occur which would result in euthanasia
being permissable.

An example of good interference would be anything that makes it possible
for the fetus to be born without any cases occuring where euthanasia would
be permissable.

I believe I've followed your ground rules.  If you feel that I haven't
met your conditions, please let me know.  If you have any questions about
what I've said, please ask them.  You are free to show me why any of my
defintions are useless, unclear or not understandable, etc...

-----
(Please also note, that I have a low tolerance for flame messages and if
sarcasam (sp?) is used, I will *always* ask you to explain what you are
trying to say in clear terms without it and not respond until it is done)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Some people think I got scared off..
Keywords: NOT!
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:25:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.172942.9130@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Correctus to you, Nadja) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.021544.3447@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned) writes:
>>
>>Hi, Potty Mouth, ready to play? 
>>
>>It looks like you've confused your hemorrhoids with someone else's. Not
>>surprising for someone of your maturity level.
>
>Well, if it isn't the Little Cobra, the Snake in the gr(ass) herself.

Oh, PS - I didn't notice this before on this terminal - but you have me
indexed as stoned.  I think you have me confused with some jive ass
sapphire chick - drugs other than alcohol aren't a big mover with my
people.



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:42:29 GMT

In article <1a9sc0INNd6k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   If Martin Guerrero is so 'pro-life,'  why do you not fight gun
>ownership, why do you not fight cigarette smoking, why do you not
>oppose ALL war?  The 'pro-life' name sounds SOOO lofty and noble,
>but it holds as much truth as Dan Quayle's head holds intelligent 
>thought.

You don't know me and what my views are on these other subjects.  If this
view comes from a stereotype either brought about by the Left/Right split,
or the Democrat/Republican split, or whatever, then I kindly ask you
to reconsider.  

Pro-life should neither be Republican, nor Democrat, Conservative, nor
Liberal.  It might be better to disassociate abortion from the political
spectrum altogether.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40634 alt.abortion.inequity:4251 alt.birthright:519
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Forced abortion in China and reflection on coerced abortion.
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:43:11 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

Since posting a request for information about whether China has a
forced abortion policy, and what it entails if it exists, I have
received email from what appears to be a Chinese national attending a
University in the U.S.A. who asserts that China has never had, nor
does it now have, a policy of forced abortions that it will publicly
admit to.

The individual did recount speculation that the government has engaged
in forced abortion on rare occasions in outlying provinces.

Note: there should be no doubt as to whether China has a policy of
`coerced abortion' -- distinct from `forced abortion' in that physical
force is not used to coerce.  I point this out because recent
developments on the issue of `welfare reform' in the United States
could be considered timid forays into the realm of coerced abortion,
i.e. rules that discourage welfare mothers from having children by
refusing benefit adjustments.  One wonders how a typical pregnant woman
facing grave economic demands as a result of pregnancy might react to
the idea that she wasn't enduring any `coercion' to abort.


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40626 talk.politics.misc:49612 alt.sex:31954 alt.rush-limbaugh:6561 alt.politics.elections:15201 alt.politics.clinton:8528 alt.politics.bush:7760
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:25:42 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com> 
p00056@psilink.com (Faustus) writes:

> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will 
> experience doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford 
> an unwanted child..

And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
or his vaccum cleaner.  

But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can?  Surely you
wouldn't mind having the same thing done to you which you advocate
for others.

>Faustus


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 01:27:01 GMT

I replied in detail to this post two days ago, changing the subject
line to "Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne. [Was: I had
an abortion two days ago.]"  The way it appears in my table of contents,
"Adrienne" is contracted out.

Today I just have a few comments.

In <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <19tls2INNgfv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>I sense, Adrienne, that you dehumanize the unborn and that abortion, is
>>indeed, justified.  

>I think abortion is indeed justified when a woman decides for herself that
>abortion is indeed justified.  What that does with your speculation about
>my impressions of the humanity or lack thereof of fetuses escapes me.

There's plenty of fuel for it in my follow-up, mentioned above, and
the post mentioned below.

>>We assume too much when we think that abortion would save that child
>>from suffering and misery.

>Who's "we", white man?

>(I'm getting awfully tired of that particular phrase......)

I did a little variation on it in my post, "Adrienne's appalling
attitude towards the unborn."  Enjoy.

>Nobody in this exchange so far has made this 'assumption' except you in
>your spurious attempt to set up a straw man, attribute it to me, and then
>knock it back down again.  Spare us all the exercise.

Yes, Martin, look at my posts before you try to knock this "straw man"
down again.  Look at some more of Adrienne's other posts too.

Like the one to which I am responding:

>  Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.
>Karen was expressing her dismay at aborting this particular fetus.  I
>merely pointed out that there are other perspectives.  She could greive
							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[BTW that's "grieve"]
>for this one -- and have another one later on -- or she could have had
>this one -- and NOT had another one later on.  In *either* case, she would
>only have known and loved one child.  Why is one considered a tragedy by
>people, but the other is not?  *I* believe it is because the first case
>isn't a tragedy, either.

So, would it be a pointless exercise for her to "greive [sic] for this 
one" ??

>But you just decided it was worth *more* than her other children!!!! How
>insensitive (and just plain foolish!) can you get?!?!?

Look who is calling who insensitive, and attributing ideas ("*more*")
to the other that were not expressed!

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a glimpse of chaney hall's veracity
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:45:35 GMT

the chaneyhall creature posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-><keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
->>the chaneyhall thing posting as
->>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
->>-> PatricKKK, we know you are a major liar around town.
->>
->>if this were true, it should be simple to demonstrate.
->>first, of course, you'll have to define "we" and "major
->>liar." but it's not true, is it?

whoops! you forgot to define "we" and major liar." now
i'll admit that "we" might be tough for you to define,
particularly in the context you used it (because it
wasn't true, was it), but you should be able to cope
with "major liar," as that's something you're quite
familiar with.

->Here are a few instances:
->1) "I have DOCUMENTATION."
->2) "Chaney poses as Conrad Vincent."
->3) "I never said Chaney posts as Conrad Vincent."
->4) "Chaney is not at Nextnet." 
->5) "Steve Chaney likes Randall Terry." 
->6) "I am not a Klansman." 

->At least six lies right there have come out of PatricKKK Humphrey's
->mouth. 

you've not shown that patrick said those things, nor that
any of those things is a lie.

->Now that I've demonstrated it, Rejectus, care to take your head out of
->your ass? 

i'll bet you heard the big kids talking like that, didn't you?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Summary: Holtsmussen on being an asshole 
Organization: The Allen Wrench Clench 
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:18:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.213806.5084@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BvK8Fs.9sn@rice.edu> 
>patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>
>>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
>>> Surely nobody could take offense in
>>> regards to the suggestion that the posterior of a black person is, indeed,
>>> black?
>
>> Well, nobody with more than a single functioning neuron could, anyway...:-)
>
>
>People who have publically expressed their clear and unequivocal
>objection to Patrick Humphrey's use of term "fat black ass": 
>
[Doggie's little rosary list deleted]

Still fixated on *that* idea?  I hate to tell you, but that was two months
ago -- and why aren't you screaming at Chaney for re-posting my words
numerous times?  After all, if my saying them *once* was so bad, I'd expect
Borgie Boy's incessantly splattering them all over the newsgroup would be as
bad, if not much worse...could it be you're using a slightly different
standard for Li'l Stevie Witless, perhaps?

(Since you wouldn't notice, I made my apology to everyone concerned, and as
far as all of those people whose names you invoke in your mantra are
concerned, it's done with and behind us.  Except Chaney, of course, who is
still creaming his jeans because he thinks it gives him an excuse to be the
vituperative little twit he is on the net -- but he had his chance and threw
it away by his subsequent actions, so he doesn't count.)

>>--PLH, and we don't have white sheets, either
>
>Denying it?  It must be true.
>
Well, now, Doggie -- just when were you in *our* bedroom to determine that?
Breaking and entering *is* a crime in this city and state, you know -- and
remember, if you deny it, "it must be true".  You should know.  :-)


(Oh, well...I guess it's not easy having to suck up to Master Chaney all the
time, is it?  Ask me if either one of us cares what you say...)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 20:16:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In article <c6_pr7k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Besides, an egg exists before _and_ after fertilization, as does the
>>sperm.  Both are alive before _and_ after fertilization.
>
>I am, of course, talking about the existence of a human life.  Before
>conception, it does not exist.  Afterwards, even if it is a product of two
>non humans (but it is a human cell), human life exists.  The egg and the
>sperms, as individual objects, do not exist in the same form after conception.

Well of course.  If you define a human life to start at conception, then
of course anything after conception is a human life.  I don't accept your
definition.

And, by the way, a zygote doesn't exist in the same form for very long
either.  Neither does a newborn.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40048 talk.politics.misc:49133 alt.rush-limbaugh:6385
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:30:57 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep30.183947.28189@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>That's kind of silly.  Abortion solves the problem for the only person
>involved: the woman.  Since it solves the problem, and it only effects the
>person choosing to use this solution, it appears to be very responsible.

This only works if you do not consider the fetus to be a person.
I do, and so do a lot of others.  You are going to have to convince me
otherwise if you want me to support your position.


-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Want to talk about stealing?
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:35:46 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct5.174427.11112@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>You should really get smart, Cochran, Garvin and Safier: your attempts to
>hurt my character or make me hurt my own character, are utterly failing 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is it just me or does it sound like Steve's referring to himself 
in the plural sense?   :-)



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: What a difference ~20
X-To: CHRIS A LYMAN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity,e-mail
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:51:00 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes...
CAL> lee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
CAL> > I'm a baby worshiper.

CAL> Congratulations, Richard.  You're the _first_ pro-lifer in my experience
CAL> to actually go out on a limb and admit that you value the fetus more
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CAL> than the mother.  Would that more of you could be so forthright.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, hold on a minute before you pounce on the man, and just look at what
you have just said.

To explain what I mean...You have just cast aspersions upon Mr. Lee, because
he has implied that he considers the child/foetus over the woman.  Now, even
though I do not have an opinion to offer, either way, you should at least
admit your own bias in presuming the woman over the child/foetus.  (This is
to presume that you probably do indeed have this bias).

In other words, you can hardly blame him for his bias, any more than *he*
can blame *you* for having yours.  In other words, as much as you can call
him "woman enslaver" (you didn't call him this, but you get the idea), *he*
can also call *you* a "baby killer," and you would *both*, IMHO, be equally
wrong in casting aspersions upon each other, merely upon your own biases as
to who is more important, because both of your viewpoints are rooted in these
very conflicting beliefs, which IMHO, are both equally exclusionary, because
they both ignore the other side of the situation.

Not to sound like a doddering old schoolmarm, but IMHO, it's silly for one to
blast someone for having a bias when he/she has the flip side of that same
bias.

This is not a flame, and I am *not* taking sides in your argument with
Richard.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Captain, spare me your inspirational anecdote, dammit!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:05:27 GMT

In article <usglkrx.717514784@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Just a guess, but perhaps it's "a rape is *reported* every five minutes"?
>
>Really have no idea, but that would make sense to me....
Yes,that's been suggested.

I'd like to hear something a little more convincing.
-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."
From: grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:31:43 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

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

[...]
>Maybe it has to do with those who seek to impose their irrational beliefs
>on the rest of us through law. Bill, I though you held yourself above
>this low-level sniping.

Okay... here we go... I want to kill my roommate and eat him.  He makes
me horny... but only when he's dead (I also missed lunch today).  Don't
try and talk me out of it... that would be imposing your beliefs on me.
Mr. Daumer and I have been corresponding, and he's sent me some recipies
for Cream de la Medula.  Anyone want to join me?  The recipie makes 
dinner for 6.

-Stephen

-- 

Stephen Spencer		grendel@cis.ksu.edu		sdstpk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Kansas State Univ.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Question, especially for Religious Pro-life
Keywords: surrogate motherhood
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:01:04 GMT

usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

] My sister asked me to post this question:
] 
] What do you think of surrogate motherhood?  Is it moral, or
] not?  Should it be legal or not?
 
Lori,

Well the Tradition of concubinage is Long and Illustrious,
and many of us have been Hoping that with 12 years of
Alledged 'Religious Right' in power that we would have
seen the restoration of this God Given, Bible supported,
Wholesome Family Tradition.

Hence the simple and clear answer is that a 
'surrogate mother' is acceptable, if she is
a concubine of the Husband, or the handmaiden 
of one of the wives.

Otherwise it is a Mere Degeneracy of the 
AntiChristian Capitalist Oppressors.

ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:06:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.225408.1789@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Strange how those who capitalize excessively regularly get "schoolmarm"ed to 
>death, but nary a word of criticism is heard of those whose posts suffer from 
>a chronic LACK of capitalization...
I don't usually think that highly of the Jargon file, but I think it's
right this time:
>One of these is that TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS INTERPRETED AS `LOUD', and this
>becomes such an ingrained synesthetic reflex that a person who goes to
>caps-lock while in {talk mode} may be asked to "stop shouting, please,
>you're hurting my ears!".

Loud is annoying in a very different(and IMNSFHO more intrusive)
way than failing to use caps.

-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."