HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Technical point of clarification
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:53:56 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] 

{ In general I agree with Galen's refutation of
Steven arnold's most silly assumptions about
military service and the notion of 'bodily autonomy. }

] No, your analogy would be better concerning the military in that women are
] denied combat roles.  In the military men kill without legal retribution.
] Right now (but not if some of the "pro-life" types have their way) in 
] abortion women kill without legal retribution.  It's a kind of warped
] sense of balance, but "pro-lifers" should like it just fine, being as
] how it is already warped and will fit right in with some of their other
] notions.


What I disagree with is Galen's Somewhat Antiquated notions
about the role of women in the armed services. He seems to
have forgotten that there were women in 'armed roles' providing
directed fire, and suppressive fire, during the panama liberation war.


In Like Manner there were women who were in positions that 
had events been othewise they would have been required to 
provide similar supporting fire in the defense of 'non_combat units'
in rear areas. { need we address the matter of the 'cooks and
bakers corp' at the battle of bastagne.... }

Just because you have been out for a bit, does NOT mean
you are at liberty to spew the Silliness of a Civilian!!!!

Things have gone a long way from the Bayonet Charge and
the Black Powder Muskets of your era....

{They gots them guns what loads their own bullets.... }


ciao
drieux





-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bush's abortion stance
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:23:34 GMT
	<usglkrx.713832448@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> <1992Aug15.223258.13015@ncsu.edu>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Aug15.223258.13015@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <usglkrx.713832448@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> 
   usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

   > Incidently, tothe press was asking Marlin Fitzwater about the statement
   > the Barbara Bush made regarding abortion.  He said something about her
   > being entitled to her opinion and then said that President Bush considers
   > the platform plank justified.

   Can you provide proof for these statements?

No, the mysterious and legendary Marlin Fitzwater has never been
successfully captured on video.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: politics
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:14:01 GMT

Newsgroups line greatly modified.

<AZATHOTH.92Aug17214213@lighthouse.caltech.edu> (Az for short!) writes:
> ObSexAlmost:  do the republicans have any homosexual support at all?  also, 
> 	i'm heterosexual myself, but this kind of intolerance really turns
> 	my stomach...  anyone else?

Both parties have made a calculated exclusion of a targeted group in
the hope that the exclusion will attract more of that group's enemies
than an attempt at inclusion would attract members of the targeted
group.  The Republicans are excluding homosexuals and the Democrats are 
excluding pro-lifers.  Respectively, they hope to energize the
religious right and the abortion-rights lobby to come out in droves
on Election Day.  In the process, they are throwing away the single
issue gay and lesbian rights supporters and the single issue right-to-
lifers, again respectively.  I expect these maneuvers will mostly cancel 
each other out, since I imagine these two groups are of about the same 
size, both very vocal minorities.

The Clinton post-convention buscapade was met at every stop by crowds
of pro-life protesters.  Expect Bush to be dogged by homosexual
rights activists at his whistle stops.

There may be one difference in the two.  So far, it has been only
Buchanan who has been outspoken in a televised convention speech
against homosexuals.  If the Republicans leave it there and let the 
issue drop, then they might try to play the distancing game.  After
all, Buchanan was that far-right challenge to the President, so Bush
could portray him as too extreme if he had to.  Then Bush could
play it both ways.  He gets a Buchanan-energized religious right,
but doesn't have to make alienating statements himself.

Contrast this with the Democratic convention where speaker after speaker
stood up for a "woman's right to choose".  (Choose what?!  For goodness
sake, if you can't even say it, how can you support it?).  The clear
message to pro-lifers was "Take a hike!"  We will see if the Republican's
message is equally clear to homosexuals as the convention progresses.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level (was Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:54:34 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <28628@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) drops a dud joke:
>In article <1992Aug15.195905.7786@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) writes the usual illogical garbage:
>
>The big joke, of course, is that if Chaney had ever even made it to
>Lefty's level, he should have withdrawn from all discussion
>immediately.  That way he could have retired at the peak of his career
>in rhetoric and logic.

Har har. Hardy har har. If this were the case, I'd be ten degrees
ahead of your league already.


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, Your
Black Ass, and other scornful (and racist) names heaped upon me during 
my lifetime...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32022 alt.birthright:408 alt.flame:12123
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.flame
Subject: Inturdgent bangs out lies on his Commodore
Keywords: Dennis, your parents are going to wash your mouth out with soap
Date: 17 Aug 92 04:45:27 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In Article <1992Aug16.000041.16074@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>And that insinuation holds after considering the e-mail my system
>admins got from Drieux and Dan King and Susan Garvin (over forging a
>post, which by putting my .sig on the bottom and announcing that it
>was a joke IN THE SAME ARTICLE, proved I was not truly forging
>anything at all - it was a joke, and my sysadmins treated it as such
>and junked it). They'll report people for anything after seeing this.

I guess Inturdgent believes if he continues to post his lying drivel 
it will somehow become true.  Heres a test for ya turd boy.  Take a look
at your Commodore you post this drivel from.  Has it magically become a
Next?  You telling us the Commodore you got for your 12th birthday is 
really a Next hasn't really changed it now has it?  Your lying about me
sending any e-mail to your parents system administrator hasn't made it
true.  You are still lying no matter how many times you feel it necessary
to repeat the same lie.

>			Robert Casey for President '96! 
>			 This Casey never strikes out.

There is little chance that the voting age will be lowered to 16 by '96.
Your just going to have to be patient and wait until the election of 2000
before you get a chance to vote.  Until that time, you are going to
have to trust us adults to vote correctly.  You keep posting like you have
been, and I wouldn't be to surprised to see the voting age increased every 
year.
 
>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 


>Alias ...... Inturdgent

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.202032.18219@javelin.sim.es.com> 
pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The next-of-kin of a child killed in an elective abortion can never
>> be acting in the best interests of the deceased. 

> What kind of interests do the deceased usually have anyway?

We generally respect the interests of the deceased long after they die. 
Doctors don't remove organs from corpses without obtaining the permission 
of the next-of-kin, and we don't ignore the wishes of the deceased as
expressed in a will.


>Pete Ashdown  


Doug Holtsinger
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: L
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:17:20 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug12.214730.14136@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug12.194144.28416@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>> P = privacy
>> A = invalidation of parental consent abortion laws
>> S = legal consentual sex between adults & minors.
>>
>> The judge ruled:
>>
>> (P->A) -> (P->S)
>>
>> I know this will mean a big discussion over logic,
>
>You claim that the above proves that A -> S, and you call that logical?

Hardy har har once again, Margolis.

Like I said before, it means that if you want privacy as you interpret it,
then you have to accept all that the judges tack onto that interpretation.

Including what Lockett decided in Florida.

>> >Yes, but on one hand, an 18 y-o could be considered a kid (he can't
>> >drink, you know, and is considered a minor) and a 15 y-o can be considered
>> >an adult, as they can get married. I'd call this a grey area, at the
>> >least.
>>
>> Uh, but they can go to war @ 18. 15 year old's can't.
>
>Congratulations - you've proven that 18 > 15.  The fact remains that
>the 18-year-old is a minor, so the case wasn't about adult/child sex.

But did the judge specify that this right applies to people under 21 or
<=18? No, not anymore than they specified that RvW did not apply to minors.

Of course it took the Casey decision to decide that minors could be
constitutionally excepted (via parental consent), but we haven't had a
Casey-style ruling on Lockett's decision yet, so no limitations (such as
the one you mentioned) exist in realtime yet.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:10:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug17132102@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>In article <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
> >I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "take
> >precedence".
>
>Imagine, if you will, a human life, and what rights a person has to
>take that life.

Well let's see.  I have the legal and moral (according to my moral system) right
to insist that anyone physically using my body against my will immediately
cease and desist.  If this person refuses to do so.  I have the right
to use any force up to and including lethal to enforce my control over
my own body.  Do you really have a problem with this?  If so, I believe
there was at least one person on the net who offered to demonstrate "fisting"
on someone who expressed similar reservations.  Just let us know when and 
where we should show up to perform this demonstration of the importance
of the priciple of bodily autonomy.  

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The Red Button Scenario
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:36:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Aug12.052533.54985@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <1992Aug7.145900.23337@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
> >
> > What if I don't agree that having sex = waiving my right to bodily autonomy?
>
>      Then you are mistaken.

No, Steve, you're mistaken.  QED.  :-)

> > This is certainly not a commonly accepted belief.
>
>      Correct.  The commonly accepted belief is also mistaken.

More blatant assertion.

> It just seems that no pro-legal-abortionist on this net can
> grasp the reasoning I'm trying to present here.

Were you trying to present reasoning?  It seems more like you were
trying to present a *really* bad science fiction story.

>      The woman caused the pregnancy, in concert with her partner.  Aside
> from those two, NOBODY ELSE caused it.  Not the fetus.  Not the
> President.  Not the Pope.  Only the woman and hjer partner.  She is
> responsible for the effects of her behavior on others, INCLUDING the
> fetus (if it be granted that the fetus is a person; that is a separate issue).

OK, she's responsible.  And if she gets an abortion, she's responsible
for its death.  So?

> > Okay, three questions. The point is, abortion does not involve individuals
> > separate from the mother.
>
>      Sorry, it does.  It is a medical fact that a new member of the human
> species begins at conception and continues until death.

Did you miss the word "separate"?

> >  It's not as if anyone, woman or man, can go
> > around killing indiscriminately.  In your scenario, the woman decides to
> > kill people that are NOT HARMING HER or INTERFERING WITH THE COURSE OF
> > HER LIFE in harmful physical ways.
>
>      I notice you add "in harmful physical ways."  Would you support
> interfering with the course of a woman's life if it were not in a
> harmful physical way?

Are you implying that pregnancy and birth are not physically harmful?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Summary: Larry Margolis achieves FLAMEFREE-ness! 
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:47:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.025424.40033@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug15.202225.8681@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> 3) Women are sometimes going to terminate unwanted pregnancies,
>> whether abortion is safe & legal or not.
>>      Hungry people are sometimes going to terminate hunger, which
>>      is deadlier than pregnancy, whether their methods of doing it
>>      are safe & legal or not.
>> 4) Do these women deserve injury & death?
>>      Do these hungry people deserve injury & death?
>
>The hungry people can have their hunger terminated for free, either
>by the state or through private organizations.  (Food stamps and soup
>kitchens.)

Well, pregnancies terminate with childbirth. Still 99% non-lethal,
95%+ non-injurious. And harmless to the baby to boot. 

Seeing as that you've only proven to us that the only form of
termination of bodily conditions, to date, is that which (in the case
of, most conspicuously hunger) does not make victims of someone else,
we could, in consistency with your statement, say: 

Childbirth ought to be free, along with prenatal care. 

The principle would, unfortunately, squeeze out legal abortion because
it's inconsistent with the "act with a victim" part which makes
robbery illegal. 

That part, you did not address in your food stamps/soup kitchens
scenario. 

>> Your reasoning is highly flawed here.
>
>I'll leave the conclusion up to you...

Wow, that old "inhabiting" defense sure acts like dust when I'm
slamming through it with a logic.tank.. 

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


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:28:13 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <!thycha@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> 
>>You say it's ok to pick the arbitrary point of birth to abort.
> 
> Just a clue, Brian, but a lot of women here get awfully annoyed
> when people persist in calling birth "an arbitrary point".

Well sure, but you can't go around describing the rigours of
labour and birth and whatnot everytime you mention them, especially
when we're discussing abortion.  Maybe it would make you feel better
to tack on an imaginary "(you know what I mean)" after each such
annoying statements.  My apologies.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Guttmacher - The Preferred Choice
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:26:16 GMT

In article <65868@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
}   IN MY NAME, which is Richard Pitts - note the 's')

You'll probably get used to it, as I did.  I've been called Heknius, Hellhairs,
Hezzuciah and other things.  Most often it doesn't mean anything at all.
Of course being called "cruel" is something entirely different.  :^)

}Since you seem to want me or the local groups I know about to 
}do a lot, WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE YOU PROVIDING?

This seems to come up fairly often here:  "Abortion providers" are often
charged with not providing alternatives to abortion.  I believe that even 
the most gung-ho and rabid abortionist will mention birth as an option,
especially if the abortion is unwise.  Often the same ob/gyn who might
perform an abortion will assist in the birth.  A whole bunch of 
"abortion providers" will provide for alternatives (such as, hard
as it may be to believe, birth) while virtually none of the "carry
to term should be the law of the land" types offer any alternative
to carrying to term.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:23:33 GMT

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

>The big problem, of course, would be the selection of the moderator(s).
>I sincerely believe that the following posters could serve as unbiased
>moderators (this is just what I thought of offhand, there could be others,
>but don't feel insulted if you're accidently left out):

>  Suzanne Forgach
Huh?

>  Steve Adams
I'm thrilled.  Look at the company.

>  Steve Chaney
Double Huh?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:42:10 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>> So can we charge George Bush with neglect?  He is willfully withholding 
>> medical treatment from human beings with Parkinson's disease, diabetes and 
>> other painful and deadly conditions.  

>That is a lie, President Bush supports fetal tissue research, but he 
>opposes using fetal remains from elective abortions.  

Bush does *not* support fetal tissue research.  President Shithead
modified his stance (only several months ago) in fear of losing the
election.  Medical experts immediately condemned the fake concession,
saying most fetuses from non-elective abortions are diseased or otherwise
not healthy enough for research purposes.

Bush knows this.  Like the wormy liar he is, he's as usual playing both
ends against the middle, hoping no one will notice he has no convictions
or guts.  He's the worst political coward we've had as President since
Buchanen in 1856.

In the meantime, horrible neurological disorders such as Parkinson's,
Alzenheimer's and Huntington's make life hell for hundreds of thousands of
Americans.

Nice of you bullshit pro-"lifers" to not give a damn about these already
alive and breathing victims of genetic disease.  Hypocrite easily comes to
mind.

>> He knows that fetal tissue transplants can help these human beings, but 
>> appartently he hates human life so much that he'd rather throw away this 
>> material than use it to save lives.

>The people who hate human life are those who are unwilling to  
>protect it in the first place. 

That means you agree that Bush is remiss.  Very good, Doogie.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion