HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:46:59 GMT

In article <18qpsrINN40p@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM 
(Mike Roncadori) writes:

}I'm kind of ignorant on this, but can you also drink it?

Well, the peyote button comes from a cactus.  As such, I imagine
you would have some difficulty drinking it.  It can, however,
be made into a drink, and sometimes is, in an attempt to have
it served a different way.  Some people call that drink a "tea,"
others tend to refer to it as a "milkshake," still others call
it The Drink From Hell and tend to avoid it.



--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:26:08 GMT

In article <43549@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

}All things being equal, I will not vote for a candidate who is a "pro-choice"
}activist.
}I will vote, all things being equal, for a candidate who regards abortion
}as a moral evil, and who is willing to consider further legislative 
}restrictions.

I don't see any necessary difference between the two, except that a
"pro-choice" activist might not wish to consider any legislation.
Your differentation boils down to whether or not someone would consider
legislation, regardless of its necessity or effectiveness.  Kind of a 
"pro-legislation" stance, don't you think?

}I suggest that many people in the US already vote on the basis of their
}canidates' *principles* as opposed to suggestions for specific laws.

You, on the other hand, would base your judgement on whether or not
the candidate supported legislation, regardless of their principles.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Not today, thanks.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:05:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.195202.24319@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <afxewrq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>>> 
>[sexist stuff deleted], then _all_ miscarriages would have
>to be investigated just on the odd chance that some foul play has occured.
>That's how it is when an adult is found dead...or missing.  Would
>you like the pregnancy police intruding into your life at a time when
>you most need privacy?  That's what would happen in your world to you and
>your wife.  No one would be spared.
>
>Does smoking endanger the life of the baby?

Yes.

>Has there ever been a case where a fetus has died as a result of
>maternal smoking?

Yes.  But if we allow the parents of born children to smoke around them,
then we have to allow pregnant mothers to smoke, if we are hooked on
the idea of consistency.

>And how much drinking is "excessive"?  Doctors don't know how much is too
>much.  And, how in the hell could you stop a woman from drinking while
>pregnant?

You wouldn't.  Just as you cannot stop a woman from drinking when you
suspect, or even KNOW that she is driving later.

The law could only come into effect AFTER the fact, as prior restraint is
illegal.

>If she's not overtly showing then I suppose you would require every, and I
>mean every, adult female to pee in a pregnancy test before serving her a 
>beer?  Jesus H Christ, just how far do you want your pregnancy police to
>go?  Does a woman have ANY rights in your world?

Talk about reducing the argument to absurdity. . .

You said it, not Sean.

>Jennifer

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:50:24 GMT

From article <mjc.716143302@NL.CS.CMU.EDU>, by mjc+@cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio):
> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>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.
> 
> Disclosure of this fact is near-automatic disqualification for the jury.
> Failure to disclose it is perjury (I've never heard of them not asking).
> Sad, but true.
>

Hmmmm, what will be done when _everyone_ knows someone who has
been the victim of a violent crime?  It seems like we might be
approaching this point already in some areas.  Or does it have to
be a relative?  For instance, I knew a woman who was murdered by
another woman (pretty rare, I imagine).  The murderess used the
broken pieces of a mirror and pretty well removed her victim's
head. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:44:18 GMT

In <fv7yvxg@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In article <1992Sep11.152346.21670@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep10.114521.21248@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>
In article <1992Sep9.231533.14559@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
   (Stephen A Chaney) writes: >>>>

>>>> I proved my case and presented all the facts needed to prove it beyond
>>>> a reasonable doubt. 
>
>>> Perhaps in the dimly lit theater of your mind you did.
>
>>> This boy is one funny little feller.  Keeps declaring victory
>>> for himself no matter how stupid the posting he presents.
> 
>>> And Overpeck doesn't think this little feller needs a therapist?
> 
>> Hmm.  Well, to me, it doesn't sound substantively different than 
>> the following, which was written after I'd asked Keegan to defend 
>> his diagnostic impressions by providing a list of symptoms that
>> seem applicable to Holtsinger or Chaney 
>
> believe it or not, bill did ask this of me! i've been trying
> to come up with some king of reasonable explanation for his
> having done so, but i can't. i never posted a "diagnostic
> impression." 

Sorry, Jim.  Your inference of "denial" clearly represents
the equivalent of a "diagnostic impression".  That you are
unfamiliar with the terminology doesn't change its effect.

> i have no qualifications to do so, not have i
> ever claimed any. i've repeatedly expressed clearly labeled
> opinions and bill seems compelled to label them otherwise.

Now that you are aware of your error, you can acknowledge
that you really don't know whether Doug suffers from denial
or not, can't you?

> if some well-known posters had done this, there would be no
> question that they were openly lying. i'd hate to suggest that
> bill is. perhaps there's another explanation and i just
> haven't thought of it.

Perhaps you're in over your head here, Jim, and redirection
is the only way to save face?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Chaney's sig
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep8.153321.10167@csus.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:36:13 GMT

In any article (Stephen A Total Idiot Chaney) writes:

A 25 line sig!?!

[misc. quotes deleted for brevity]

   =============================================================================
   |Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation  
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                               who does he think he's kidding?

   |Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice   Registered Democrat
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Borgie-boy has really blown his propeller now!

   |			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          
   |           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn           

Civil rights for the unborn?  Like equal housing, equal employment opportunity 
and voting rights?


___/\___  __
\      / /  \
 \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (corwin+@cmu.edu)
/_\  /_\    \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
   \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
        B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++             Carnegie Mellon

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to ...
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:48:00 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

In article <1992Sep11.114932.5856@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>: Certain rights should not be left up to the majority to decide.  You made
>
>Who should decide them then?   Why is a small clique better?

They've been decided, thank you.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:22:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.230934.26108@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
>a form of cannibalism.
>

Suzanne, are you even capable of thinking before you post?  I think not.
For one, that was just about the farthest reach I've ever seen and two,
assuming what you say can possibly even be remotely true, wouldn't organ
donations also be a form of cannabalism?

Is that why you haven't signed up yet, or do you still believe that
"they will take my organs before I'm ready to give them up"?!?


Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:21:14 GMT

Just a few comments:

In article <1992Sep11.221625.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <24887@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>> In talk.abortion, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>> 
>
>Birth are messy, but not real bloody.  From the three that I've been present
>for, most of the blood of the mother is from the incision the doctor makes to
>open the skin around the vagina.  It heals.

My experience was that birth was extremely bloody, my blood, and not from the
episiotomy. Hemmoraging is the common term. I lost approximately 3 pints. 
It healed, but IMHO this was more than the "mess" you witnessed and more than
an "inconvenience".

>But even if that's wrong, that's one of the many wonderful things about a 
>woman's body--they were designed to accomodate and nuture a growing baby.  
>They automatically intake more nutrients to account for it.

Unless they can't afford to.

>Stokes 
Sue

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:41:39 GMT

In article <=-znmrc.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep15.005244.9777@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
> >In article <y6yngcj.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
> >Kendig) writes:
> >> 
> >> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep14.220550.24355@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
> >> What does euthanasia (mercy killing) have to do with abortion?
> >
> >A lot, actually...so, please answer the question and I'll explain further.
> 
> Hmm.  I have no idea what you're getting at, but I'll bite: yes, I
> believe that there are cases of euthanasia which are morally okay.  I
> believe that it's VERY important for life to have meaning -- in my
> book, it's more important to die with dignity than to live a little
> longer at the expense of dignity.  Life is too precious to uphold
> blindly.
> 
> I'd like to keep this away from a discussion on euthanasia, because
> that topic belongs on another newsgroup -- so what's your point?  :)


Sorry, just one more question that I need to know.  Could you please
specify two or so general cases where you feel that euthanasia would be 
morally ok?

I'll get to my point quickly...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:19:40 GMT

In article <kaznz=p.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep13.182736.15433@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>><1992Sep12.013235.25908@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :

>>>record here as being against all forms of birth control, except NFP, in
>>>some way.
>>Well, Suzanne is RC, so naturally she's against every form of
>>contraception but NFP. To be fair, she does not to my knowledge
>>advocate legal action against barrier method contraceptives.
>
>Yes, she does.  She has posted that she would like to see a theocracy
>established in the USA.
I would say that she has implied it.

> It would undoubtedly be a Catholic theocracy.
Yah.

>Therefore she is advocating legal action against all forms of
>contraception except NFP.
Not clear. To my knowledge this is not the official position of the
RC.

>  She has referred to condoms as "tools of the
>trade" of prostitutes.  I guess you know the Catholic opinion of
>prostitution.  
Yep.
But I don't think that what you are accusing her of follows.

>Yes, grammar flames are terrible.  Therefore I am not going to put you in
>my sig file.  Sorry, no amount of begging will change my mind...  Oh go
>ahead and beg.
I think I'm going to cwy.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Third party request
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:19:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.223933.13166@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Btx4r8.D50.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>> Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in 
>> Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  
>
>I've seen no evidence that a state may enforce legislation 
>requiring the physician to employ the abortion technique which 
>would most likely result in a fetus aborted alive.

Nope, because people like Susan Garvin would be likely to prevent such
legislation from coming along because the fetus' survival goes against
every fiber of her being. 

Does the word "discrimination" come to mind? It should when you think
of Susan Garvin. 

Or, for that matter, Governor Weld of Massachusetts. 

>Doug Holtsinger
>
>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> we want to be precise)..."
>   -- Gloria Feldt,
>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
>
>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>

Oh, by the way, coming up soon is the final destruction of Suzie Q's
so-called "defense" against this. 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sdemitri@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Back on the Net!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:57:20 GMT


... back into the fray.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                                     sdemitri@nyx.cs.du.edu

formerly GB0012@siucvmb.siu.edu, formerly-before-that
                                            demitrio@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:11:35 CDT

In article <nyikos.716065542@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[Nykios' defense of Will Steeves' chilling hypothetical murderous
rage deleted]
>
>
>Adrienne, on the other hand, shows no signs of having grown as a human
>being in the wake of her 7 years on the network.  (If she has grown, I'd
>sure hate to see what a devil-may-care attitude she had at the beginning.) 
>
This is demonstrably false.  Just last week I watched in
amazement while Adrienne passed up the opportunity to flame 
John Stevens for his rudeness.  She simply deleted the flamebait
portion of his posting, and replied to the part that addressed 
the issues.  I was all set with the marshmallows, too.

muriel
(who's sometimes awed by the patience Adrienne has,
explaining the same stuff after seven years)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:29:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.230934.26108@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
writes:

}Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
}a form of cannibalism.

How so?  I was under the impression that cannibalism involved some sort of
eating.  "Harvesting" may be disgusting, but a form of cannibalism?
Do you think those who use fetal tissue actually eat it?  Darn, Suzanne,
you seem to have some weird ideas...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:54:00 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep12.133845.13714@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
> 
> It has occurred to me that the fundamental debate over abortion is really  
> about whether one says that a pregnant womb contains an unborn, but  
> living, child or a fetus, which is just tissues.

A fetus is *not* just tissues (well not anymore than I am), and there
are *no* unborn children.  Also, a fetus *is* a living being, something
which you seemed to imply not to be true.  A fetus is a fetus is a fetus.
A child is a child is a child.  I hope that clears things up. :)
 
> If everyone could know that a womb contains a living unborn child, then it  
> would be obvious that abortion is a form of murder, and few would condone  
> it.

I'm not into specific legal definitions, but feti are not legal persons,
and (as I said above) there is no such thing as an unborn child.
 
> On the other hand, if everyone knew that a womb contains only tissues, or  
> some other matter that is not a life, then few would really care if  
> someone did have an abortion, beacuse there was nothing there in the first  
> place.

Sure.

> Nearly all debate on abortion degenerates into this fundamental question.
> Can this question be adequately answered?

I think I answered that above, but it isn't just terminology that's the
problem, eh?  I suppose for most pro-lifers the debate "degenerates"
down to the question of whether the fetus is a person/soul or not,
and the pro-lifers generally think it is, and argue with pro-choicers
because the "truth" has escaped them (hmmmmm how's that sentence 
structure?  Who knows the "truth"? Hmmmmm).  On the other hand
(as if there were only two viewpoints, eh?), the pro-choicers
are usually hung up on the debate about whether or not personal/
religious values should be forced upon the population as a whole.
Usually the pro-choicer will figure that these values should not be
forced onto everybody else, and they argue trying to convince
pro-lifers this.

How's that for a summary?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:07:26 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 <1992Sep9.183517.9900@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep8.171005.15796@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> 
-> >        "I haven't noticed any behavior from either
-> >        Chaney or Holtsinger that would indicate a
-> >        need for psychiatric evaluation."
-> >		<1992Sep2.191938.5951@acd4.acd.com>
-> >
-> > might i refer you to the following articles. if
-> > you don't have them, i'll be happy to email them
-> > to you.
-> >
-> >	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151356.9274@csus.edu>
-> >	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151810.9463@csus.edu>
-> >	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152330.9676@csus.edu>
-> >	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152723.9942@csus.edu>
-> >
-> > after you read them, i wonder if you might not
-> > awant to mend your statement.
-> 
-> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
-> immaturity with mental illness.

i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad, really,
that you don't think therapy might help. perhaps you're
just doggedly hanging on to a point you've already
lost.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity