HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: There is no bottom to this pit -- is there?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:59:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <88950@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>
> I do have jugment, you know.

How would we know?  If you do have any "jugment", you must have learned it
recently, while you were away from talk.abortion.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams)
Subject: You be the Judge! II
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:17:07 GMT

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) in article 
<1992Aug31.210559.7548@ncar.ucar.edu> writes:
  > 
  > It's 2000 AD, almost all abortions are illegal in the US.
  > A woman, 1 month pregnant, seeks & finds someone who provides 
  > an illegal abortion.  Unknown to anyone, the fetus was already dead.
  > Had she gone to a real doctor, she would have known the fetus 
  > was already dead.
  > 
  > Q1: Does she burn in hell?
Beats me.  I don't know if there's a God or not and I certainly wouldn't
presume to know what He'd do in such a case.

  > Q2: Does she go to prison for murder?
Nope.  It would be analogous to shooting someone who had already died
from a heart attack.  There might be other charges brought against the 
person who committed the attack -- desecration of a corpse maybe -- but
murder wouldn't be one of them.  You can't murder someone who is already
dead.

  > 
  > -Brian
  > 
Roger Williams
rwilliam@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re:  False, false, wrong, wrong, wrong.  (Was: TPPILH)
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Not likely.  Where would I put it in this mess?
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.222638.17658@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <Bu4FLt.EB5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>Wrong.  False.  Nope.  If you've got a PHD in CompSci, and currently make
>$100,000/year, and you have to pay child support, you can always go work at
>McDonald's for minimum wage, and the judge will _have_ to reduce/eliminate
>your support payments.  A judge _cannot_ force you to work at a specific job.

Wrong.  False.  Nope.  In the above mentioned scenario, the judge could and
probably would find you guilty of contempt of court (for attempting to
evade the court order) and toss your butt in jail.

Case in point:  A secretary at a company I worked for when I just got out
of college had recently divorced her husband.  Her husband was in the
Army, making a total of $122 dollars a month LESS than the combined total
of the court awarded alimony and child support payments.

The court ordered the poor man to come up with the extra $122 a month,
and threatened to jail him if he refused to pay.

To avoid EXACTLY the sort of spiteful actions you describe, most judges
will NOT reduce child support payments if you change jobs unless you
can prove to  him/her that you had no better paying choice.

>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:47:25 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> #garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> #-# dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
-> #-# #Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr.
-> #-# #Nyiko's point of view and perhaps your folks
-> #-# #did not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand
-> #-# #his point of view conveniently.  Why don't we
-> #-# #settle this and ask Mr. Nyiko himself.
-> #-# 
-> #-# I don't need to - I read Nyikos' article when it
-> #-# appeared.  You should, too.  You'd look like
-> #-# much less of an idiot if you refrained from
-> #-# commenting until you had done so.
-> #
-> #i don't think that's true, susan. mr. dick has
-> #posted to t.a. in the past and always looked just
-> #as much of an idiot as he did here.
-> 
-> I was beginning to think that no one else remembered
-> Dick from his previous posts.

heh. i remember. he was entertaining, in an odd sort of
way.

-> I'd still argue that he could look like *less* of an
-> idiot if he read the articles he was interpreting.

that may be so. if it is, he's certainly provided no
evidence which would support that view. he began
looking like an idiot, continued looking like an idiot,
disappeared for a long time, and returned looking like
an idiot.





-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 15 Sep 1992 11:20:13 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep15.145501.10150@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>> Go for it.  Have your field day.  I know drieux and he has no
>> network persona. 
>Meaning, I assume, that his eccentric demeanor is as pronounced
>in the real world as it is on the network?  Surely you didn't
>offer this information in drieux's *defense*!


No, meaning instead (according to that brilliant diagnostician, Peter
Nyikos) that drieux is me.  Or that I am drieux.  Since I've been relegated
to non-personhood, I get confused about these issues a lot.  

Gee, Bill, you've had such a *long* discussion about net.diagnoses, but you
haven't yet contributed your mite to Peter...I'm sure he'd appreciate your
"help".

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:18:15 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
: "'Reasonable belief' means a belief that would be held by an ordinary and
: prudent man in the same circumstances as the actor."
: 
: >That is, would Texas courts hold Paul's belief to be
: >reasonable, because of his emotional context, or would it require the
: >"reasonable person" standard, that cared nothing about Paul's grandma?
: 
: A jury would have to find that Paul's belief, under the circumstances,
: was a belief that an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as
: Paul would hold. Absent a specific connection between Paul's
: grandmother's death and the particular circumstance in which Paul
: used deadly force, it would be unlikely that a Texas jury would hold
: Paul's belief, in the hypothetical case he described, to be reasonable. 

Since other people are talking about what I believe, I would like to
state it specifically.  If I found an intruder in my home, I would
assume that he/she was a threat to me or my family.  If they ran the
other direction, even if they had some of my possessions, I most likely
would do nothing.  If the intruder made threatening moves or did not
leave, I would use force I thought necessary to protect myself or my
family.  If the burglar was unaware, I would probably protect myself and
my family first, but it would depend on the circumstances.

I question Mike's assertion that it would be unlikely that a Texas jury 
would hold my belief to be reasonable.  There are two ways I could be at
such a trial.  One is that I could be on trial, and the other could be
that I was on the jury!  If I were on the jury, then my belief would
become the reasonable belief that would find someone in this
hypothetical case innocent.  Since there are 12 people on a jury it is
likely that at least one of them knows someone who was a victim of a
violent crime.
: -- 
: Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
: mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
: (617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
: EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: (Badges of Honor)
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:43:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ray
>Peter

>>For the benefit of readers who might miss the import of the word 
>>"thought", let me point out that the umbilical cord connects to
>>the placenta, which is still not a part of the mother's body, coming
>>as it does from the original fertilized ovum, along with the cord,
>>fetus, and bag of waters.

>The placenta contains the mother/fetus interface which permits nutrients
>and waste products to pass but prevents cells/tissue from passing.  The 
>placenta, umbilical cord, bag, and fetus all have come from the mother,

Woah!  Did I read this correctly?  Surely you made a mistake...
Or is it that you actually believe that the fetus is a spontaneous creation
of the mother?  No, sonny, the fetus is created by the mother AND the
father.
 

>Ray Fischer



--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:35:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.152532.21740@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep10.034228.6912@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> the chaney/hall creature posting as chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu 
->    (DEVASTATOR OF PATRICK HUMPHREY to you, PatricKKK) writes to patrick:
-> >> it would really be luney for me to continue to heap
-> >> more verbal and emotional abuse on your already
-> >> troubled self.
-> >
-> > yes it would. i'm glad you admit it.
-> >
-> > i wonder how long it will be before you display that
-> > characteristic yet again.
-> >
-> > [watch carefully bill overpeck.]
-> 
-> What characteristic is that, Jim?  

did you not read the lad's own words, bill? they're
still included above in the first paragraph. read it
again, please. if you still have trouble, just ask me
and i'll tell you the characteristic. but heck, you're
in the business and i have confidence that, with a second
reading, you'll detect it yourself.

-> Is it one of the 
-> "symptoms" that you're putting together to support 
-> your diagnosis? 

have i made a diagnosis, bill? i don't recall that i
have. gee, how could i? after all, i'm not qualified
to diagnose. i am, however, qualified to form and hold
opinions. you wouldn't be, for whatever reason, calling
my opinion a diagnosis would you?


-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:19:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.021225.6846@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

...

>All joking aside, does this make you realize that many pro-lifers have
>no idea where a pregnancy takes place? 

Sure, in the back seat of a Chevy, in bed, at work, in small towns,
in big cities, in nature, in hospitals, in cabbage patches, on planes,
at the beach, in the bathroom, ...   Various stages and various locations.
Where it doesn't take place: abortion clinics.  If the "pro-lifers" don't
know it, they can read it here.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:49:53 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to bill overpeck:
-> I think that maybe I'm partially responsible for
-> that, Bill. This was an unexpected side-effect of
-> Keegan's Darcyization. Some folks react better than
-> others to having their layers of superficiality
-> stripped away. If I had anticipated this -- that
-> Keegan would be left, twisting in the wind, howling
-> out the sufferings of his exposed ego, annoying
-> anyone and everyone who doesn't already have the
-> appropriate killfile entry -- I'd probably have gone
-> somewhat gentler on him. My apologies.

	[from talk.abortion to susan garvin]
        "Who needs this inept play-by-play commentary? Please
        discuss ISSUES, Sue, or simply conserve bandwidth..."
		<1992Apr18.204403.20087@rotag.mi.org>

        "Even if this were true (MASSIVE hypothetical here), what
        possible relevance would all of this tomfoolery have to
        the abortion debate?"
		<1992Apr13.231749.16652@cfctech.cfc.com>

	"Mr. Darcy you have elevated hypocrisy to an art form."
			Linda Birmingham
			<92126.142810ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 SEP 92 20:50:40 GMT

In a previous article, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote:
>In article <1992Sep8.204903.13891@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> For those of you who are christians and also want to make abortion illegal
>> in some/most/all cases, on what do you base this position exactly?
>> 
>> Just curious...
> 
>Whew! Thanks for the opening.  I've been reading this group for a couple of 
>weeks now and haven't seen an appropriate place to jump in until now.

[stuff deleted]

>Choice?  We all have a choice before we have sex.
             ^^^

Really?  Does this mean that there is no more rape or incest in the world?  
This is wonderful news!

>Stokes McMillan 


                             .... Heather.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 5 Sep 92 11:42:43 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

In article <1992Sep4.145143.16044@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep3.144139.24044@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >  
-> > you're mistaken, bill. i would be pleased if the
-> > lad got help.
-> 
-> Since Doug has ostensibly demonstrated nothing that
-> would indicate the presence of any psychopathology,
-> your "concern" is misplaced (and not especially
-> compelling).

i didn't express any "concern," as you put it, bill. i
said i'd be pleased if the lad got help. i'd be pleased
if anyone i thought was crazy got help. why do you
think DODie is different?

-> > i hope you don't feel too badly about having made
-> > this mistake.
-> 
-> Perhaps this is yet another example of your
-> "sincerity"?

would you have preferred that i said "i hope you feel
horrid about having made this mistake?" plus, that
wouldn't have been true.

anyway, i'm not all that put off by your "sincerity"
remark. i think it demonstrates one of the underlying
agendas in this thread quite nicely, don't you.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 01:48:09 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


sg>In article <Bu392u.77x.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

sg>I don't think Dan can run for congress.  After all, he's the
sg>monarch of a different country.  Can people simultaneously
sg>rule Canada, Coyote California, most of Pennsylvania and
sg>Texas and other states and also be elected to congress?

Don't really see why not.

sg>Speaking of that, when Scott and I were in Houston last month,
sg>we saw lots of billboards for "Microsurgical Vasectomy
sg>Reversal," which made us start thinking about reversible
sg>sterilization again, and made me realize that I'm still in
sg>prison.  I want out.

I thought Scott and I worked that out ions ago.  Come on Scott,
I gave into every last one of your demands:  Let My People Go.

Since the Microsurgical Vasectomy idea has come up, and I kind
of like the subject heading, why not mandate vasectomys?  You
know if the government can determine what your gonna do with 
your body, why can't they force young males to get vasectomys?
This would solve the problem of un-wanted pregnancy and 
abortions.  The male would be allowed to get the Microsurgical 
Vasectomy once he has written approval from his wife or SO.
So all you pro-lifers who want governmental involvement in 
women's bodies, would you also allow it in men?

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:45:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes ...
>frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> I'm terrified.   If the "pro-choicer"s are wrong, I count more dead
>> people than if the other lot are wrong.  But the problem doesn't arise,
>> since *neither* side ever, ever, gets it wrong.
>
>This sounds an awful lot like Pascal's Wager:  "If I believe in God and it
>turns out that there isn't a God, then I haven't lost anything."  Actually,
>it turns out that you _have_ lost something; the free use of your mind and
>the free exploration of ideas.

It also _assumes_ that more people will live if abortion is made illegal.
This is an absurd assumption on many counts, since it considers only the
fetus and ignores women and the rest of humanity who will have to pay the
costs of forced pregnancies and illegal abortions.

>IMHO, God has pretty much left the issue for us to decide.  I think He is
>amazed at our inability to deal with ambiguities. :-)

Agreed.  Me, I _live_ for ambiguities.  Consistency is for computers and
accountants.  Ancient Chinese curse/proverb: May you live in interesting times.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 22:06:22 GMT

In <1992Sep3.213213.27379@tc.fluke.COM> eris@tc.fluke.COM (Chris Beckmeyer) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715384664@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Of abortion clinics in general]

>> very few people are allowed to see
>>what goes on.

> NO, any old body can't go waltzing in to
>any hospital or clinic and observe ANYTHING other than the lobby, business
>office or hallways.

But SO's are now encouraged to observe and even take part in births; why
are they hardly ever allowed to observe the other ways of terminating
pregnancy?

>>if any pro-lifer had cared enough about her to talk to her outside
>>the clinic before she went in, she would not have had any of her three
>>abortions.  She was that starved for meaningful human contact, and the
>			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>this is why she got pregnant three times.  she needed some kind of
>professional help, NOT the hearts-and-flowers crap from a pro-lifer and
>god forbid someone this messed up become a mother!

She did after another rape.  And gave the child up for adoption, and
probably has it all together better than most people I know. 


>>
>>The other is the woman who had the abortion forced on her while 
>>screaming "Let me go!" and "Don't kill my baby!" as described in
>>more detail on my COERCED ABORTION post of July.
>>
>the GLOBE? STAR? NATIONAL ENQUIRER?  maybe PEOPLE? some such legitimate
>journal, no doubt.

Guess again. Testimony before a subcommittee of the South Carolina
Senate Judiciary Committee, which I attended from beginning to end, 
and only included things in the post which I heard during her testimony.

>>
>>>I wonder: does a non-lethal dose of xtianity induce permannent stupidity?
>>>Actually, I don't wonder.
>>
>neither do i.

>>Ah, so you were offended by Nita's "giving her life to the Lord".  I'll
>>have to tell Linda about you.

>and WHAT, pray tell, does linda do?

She says she doubts if anyone would be offended by that particular comment.
See her post along the same thread.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:28:26 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)


#You are just trying to gross me out, and as I said to Keith, it cannot
#be done in talk.abortion without getting so explicit as to bring the
#wrath of network censors down on your head, and bringing pressure to
#make ALL talk.abortion moderated, something none of us wants.

Nyikos, there are no "network censors."  There are people who 
would like to have the authority to censor the net as a whole,
and certainly your site can decide what newsgroups it will
carry, but there is no group that can bring "pressure to make
ALL talk.abortion moderated."

If you are offended by something someone writes on the net,
you can complain to that person.  You can also complain to
their sysadmins, if you like, but in most cases those
sysadmins will tell you to quit reading that person's 
articles if they offend you.  

For example, Steve Chaney made several posts in which he accused
me of practicing bestiality, and other things which were, in
my opinion, disgusting and were certainly untrue.  No censors
emerged and advocated making talk.abortion moderated, even
though his comments were quite offensive.  (I just 
considered the source and carried on.)  No one forces me
to read Chaney's words, and I usually don't.  

#Back in Wollongong I saw a newsgroup with a name like alt.sex.kinky
#but there's nothing like it here.  So you can't gross me out by
#posting there either.

Again, your site can carry any groups it chooses, and not carry
any groups it doesn't choose to.  After all, they're paying
for it.

#But as I said to Keith, I can't stop you from e-mailing me.

In fact, you can usually complain about harassing mail and
get results. 

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion