HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:23:23 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <n8lz#h-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>->nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>->>Is Keegan being intellectually honest himself?  Does not Elizabeth
>->>want to punish the abortionists, not the women?

>->No.  As I am of the opinion that women are intelligent, responsible
>->people who make their own opinions, I think that women who get illegal
>->abortions (which I think third-trimester abortions should be) should
>->be punished.  Admittedly, due to some mitigating factors universally
>->present in pregnancy, I don't think the punishment should be anywhere
>->close to that for murder, but I do think it should exist.

>you once posted what you thought these punishments
>should be for the women who would be victimized by
>the anti-choice legislation you want.

>have you modified your views on what these punishments should be?

For the benefit of us newbies, James, could you tell us what punishments
she posted?  You are in her killfile, so she probably won't be posting
them herself, except perhaps if she sees this follow-up of mine.

Peter Ny.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:37:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer) writes:

>Okay... here we go... I want to kill my roommate and eat him.  He makes

Yup, you're right about one thing. Here we go ... again. Same old BS
argument we've seen at least thirty times in the last 6 months by newbies
who don't know better.

This is not imposing beliefs (religious). That religion happens to endorse 
some secular beliefs, or that they overlap shouldn't be surprising, 
as both ultimately are about controlling people so as to enable civilization 
to develop, prosper, and grow. Religion did this well in the old days,
when people knew little, and most could not even count. Now we can understand 
the higher reasoning behind why people should not be allowed to randomly 
kill other people (BTW, a fetus is not a person by any accepted standards, 
so obviously this statement does not apply to fetuses), as this would 
cause society to devolve into a family fued type of system, where injury 
is returned with injury, in a curcular fashion, until there are none 
left. Law prevents this by having a third (supposedly) impartial party 
de4al out the punishment/ retribution. (And yes, this has been gone 
over before, that punishment must carry aspects of retribution with 
it, otherwise you'd still devolve into a fued-type of situation.)

Please think next time.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:37:48 GMT

In article <92283.031516KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <BvtCwF.Gyq@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) says:
>
>>This sounds like a mythical beast.  I can't think of anyone who advocates
>>the specific position you just stated.
>
>Of course, nobody claims to.  Rush believes, however, that there are many
>such people who use abortion for political power, and for the money.

There is a lot more money (per hour of work) to be made in assisting births 
than in performing abortions.  This argument is bogus.

And Rush would have us believe that most people do not support abortion, 
so I don't see how being for abortion-rights yields a strong base of 
political power, given THAT premise.  Another bogus argument (Rush is 
good at those.)

>>No, he just blurs the distinction long after he makes his little defensive
>>point.
>
>No, he doesn't.  

I'm remembering a show where he defined feminazi at 
the beginning, but by the end of the show he was using the term 
indiscriminately to refer to any non-conservative females (NOW is not 
a radical group).

>As I said, he is certainly in favor of equal rights for women.
>Despite...
>
>>He argues against women in combat -- so much for equal opportunity.
>
>He has reasons for this, besides the fact that a poll of the military showed
>that most of them don't want women in combat, either.  

Oh, that's a good reason! <sarcasm>
That's usually the first argument brought out to justify any and all 
discrimination.  ("But we don't want THEM in our club/neighborhood!")
Rush gives lip service to equal opportunity to women (and/or minorities) 
in much the same way that Bush claims to be the environmental president.

>If it weren't 3 in the
>morning, I'd get into them.  Maybe later; or, just call him up yourself.
>(Good luck :)

*IF* I were going to try and call a talk-show, it would be C-SPAN, not Rush.

>>Does anybody know if Rush served in Korea or Viet Nam?  If so -- good
>>for him.  If he avoided the draft by being in college, then he's a hypocrite
>>everytime he mentions Clinton in this regard.  Heck, he's a hypocrite
>>anyway for not bringing up Dan Quayle on the exact same issue.

>I've read that he was physically ineligible, some sort of cyst or something.

Details!  We want details!  :-)


-- 
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,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:28:01 GMT

In article <9552@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
 
>In <1687B9B42.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>>Believe what you want, just don't try to enact your beliefs into law.
>
>Why not?
>All laws are in essence the codification of somebodies beliefs.
>Are you saying that you believe that laws you agree with are alright, but
>that laws you disagree with are not alright.
>--
>Mark
 
All laws are supposed to be the codification of the beliefs on which
society has achieved a consensus.  Under our Constitution, there are
areas of private life which are ruled off-limits, even when there is
such a consensus.
 
Murder is an issue on which there is a consensus.  It also violates the
generally recognized rights of a human being.  Can you think of anyone
who seriously advocates the repeal of murder statutes?
 
Can you honestly say there is a consensus on abortion?  I do not think
there is one.  I also feel outlawing abortion infringes on the rights
(perhaps not so generally recognized) to make personal decisions about
your own life.  You may *believe* an abortion infringes on the right to
life of the fetus, but there is no consensus on that point.  In fact,
that is the crux of the argument.
 
I would also be opposed to any law imposing any abortion on any person
against her will, and for the same reasons.  It infringes on the
woman's right to make personal decisions about her own life.
 
There is a much greater level of agreement in this country about
religion than about abortion.  Even those who do not practice actively
generally believe in a Deity of the Christian model.  There are many
other religions, and a scattering of atheists and agnostics, but this
is generally a "Christian" nation.
 
Given that consensus, do you think we should pass a law codifying
religious belief and practice?  I do not.  It invades an area
explicitly ruled off-limits.  I believe enacting a law codifying the
belief that a fetus is a human life is just as wrong, and for hte same
reasons.
 
Does that answer your question?
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:52:18 GMT

In article <nyikos.718565003@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}Peter Ny.

Uh, Petey Honey, are you confused about who you are, or do you just have 
problems with the last four letters?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The DOI and alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:01:00 GMT

From article (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>>> 
>>> And the DOI <Declaration of Independence> has no legal bearing, thank Dean.
>>
>>Tell it to Mother England, Keithy.
> 
> Su()anne, as a person who has dual American/English citizenship, I find it
> sad that you would attempt to use the phrase "Mother England" as a
> derogatory phrase.


What a laugh!   It has long been plain that you are the one who finds the term
"Mother" so horrifying, Keithy.  As an American citizen of English heritage,
I use the term "Mother England" affectionately, myself.

Anyway, as you are someone of dual citizenship, I find it even stranger, or
rather even more ignorant, that you think the Declaration of Independence has
no legal bearing.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:48:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.075103.1222@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>unborn have a right to live.
You aren't, but the people you are arguing with have mostly been
here for quite some time. This means that we have probably heard your
arguments many times, so you should think carefully before you say
things that have been fed to you.
-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: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:43:11 GMT

In <26381@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ron Bense) writes: >
In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >

>>That's real big of you, Dean.  I can certainly (as I've
>>indicated elsewhere) understand why someone might tend
>>to displace their anger when faced with such a situation.
>>What the Bells (seem to) fail to do is accept any personal
>        	^       ^
>Nice way to taint the message Bill. Subliminal Psychology, or what?

No intent to "taint the message", Ron.  I used it as a qualifier
to express my *inference* (which could be wrong).  Why criticize
that?

>ANyway, that aside, this is a rather narrow-minded view, don't you 
>think.  Perhaps they have realized that what ever their short-comings 
>as parents, that prevented their daughter from telling them, would not 
>have mattered had it not been for that assinine parental consent law. 

Perhaps, though I'd expect most parents would accept some
responsibility.

>To foist it all on the parents lack of insight to problems their 
>daughter may have been having, or for them not to be mind-readers 
>in the event that they did have a good relationship with their 
>daughter, would not in any way affect a daughter who might have 
>been a little confused, frightened, ignorant, totally at a loss 
>for what to do and consequently made a bad decision. If the 
>parental consent law had not been there, she would wtill be 
>alive. (The same could be said of parental notification)

And many thousands of drug users would be alive were it not
for anti-drug laws.  But I'm not particularly in favor of
repealing them.  Are you?  

>>responsibility *at all* for their daughter's death.  It is
>>all laid at the doorstep of evil legislators, evil laws
>>and evil pro-lifers.  You may think that's perfectly ap-
>>propriate, but I do not.  I think it's kind of sad.
>
>I think the entire situation is sad, and what I think is even 
>sadder is your transparent attempt to remove all blame from the 
>pro-life supported laws and place it on the parents.
>
>Nice try, Bill.

Sorry, Ron.  Parents are responsible for the health and safety
of their children, not the government.  I hope it stays that
way.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41690 talk.politics.guns:21947 alt.conspiracy:11115 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5191 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6580 talk.bizarre:33483
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:39:34 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

> Yes...Yes...I see it all now, so clearly...Just let me get my steel 
> marbles...and roll them around in my left hand...and get my cat...and 
> gently stroke its fur...and slowly begin looking like Humphrey Bogart.

> Wait a minute...I can't remember...Is my name Caine...Or is it yours?

The _ship's_ name was Caine, ya dweeb.  IMHO, you'd be hysterical (in all
senses of the word) as the captain in Mr. Roberts.

> "Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

That's what a lot of Republicans will be doing 27 days from today.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter 
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:44:22 GMT

From article by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
> 
> At 7000 feet, I bet I'm above most people on the net,
> except for perhaps the inimitable Steve Novak.

I always wondered what was wrong with him.  Now I know!
Oxygen deprivation!

:-) :-)

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Pro-force idiots
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:10:07 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  <1992Oct15.023035.15907@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.221354.17808@netcom.com>
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>
> >> But you do force the woman to justify her reasons for aborting.
> >>
> >> You say that a woman can kill a human being as long as that
> >> human being is inside her body.
> >>
> >> Since you ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting
> >> an abortion, and you concentrate only on the location of
> >> the fetus relative to the woman, you have managed to
> >> reduce pregnant women to fetal containers.
>
> > So then, by ignoring a woman's reasons for getting an abortion, we're
> > forcing her to justify her reasons?!?
>
> Allow me to rephrase:

Didn't make you look any less stupid.  How about a quick quiz.  See if
you can line up what's in the left column with the correct attribute
in the right column.
        A.  Woman          1.  Able to make her own decision.
        B.  Container      2.  Must have decisions made for it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:52:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.061211.165962@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>[C.J.] only posted the email in order to disprove Keegan's accusations.
>C.J., Eric and myself all asked Keegan if it would be OK to post the
>email.  C.J. also indicated that she'd feel forced to post the email
>in order to defend herself if permission wasn't forthcoming but more
>accusations were.  It wasn't; they were; so she did.

When C.J. raised a false accusation against me last May, I didn't feel
'forced' to post *her* private mail to vindicate myself ... even though,
as she has so kindly demonstrated, it would have.

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


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                      suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:07:03 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct12.153354.17164@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>  krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.085322.89833@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Oct9.211534.21315@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>> This is what I have been trying to tell these people.  Abortion destroys
>>> an unique, sentient, feeling person.
>>
>>Unique?  Yes.  Sentient?  Feeling?  Person?  No!  (At least, not in
>>99.99+% of abortions.  And the less than .01% (that's about 100 *total*,
>>per year, in the US) of third trimester abortions that *are* performed are
>>done for serious health reasons.  The woman is *undoubtedly* a unique,
>>sentient, feeling person, so if only one can be saved, she gets my vote.)
>>
>
>O.K. It's time to put forth the real issue for discussion.  Larry, and
>many other pro-choicers, have made the claim that 99% of abortions
>occur in the first tri-mester.

Reading problems, Ted?  I said that 99.99+% of abortions occur in
the first *two* trimesters (i.e., before the third trimester).  About
89% occur in the first trimester.

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Solving that Absolute Problem
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:41:39 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
] In article <92281.215719KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
] >In article <1992Oct7.172923.16641@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H
] >Woodyatt) says:
] 
] >>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
] >>anything deeper, Grasshopper?
] 
] >Besides absolute right and wrong, no.
] 
] No kidding? So how are these absolutes determined?

Does the idea of Numerical Analysis bring anything to mind?

It is merely a matter of sufficient number crunching
and seeing how the function begins to approximate the
asymtotes when the numbers get closer to 
BIG, or conversly SMALL.

ciao
drieux

ps: is this where I get to mention
the c90 and the fun of hex dumping code 
for the 'magic number?'


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Forced abortion in China and reflection on coerced abortion.
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:36:33 GMT

From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)

> 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.

I work with a young married woman who is also a Chinese national. 
She states that among people of lower socio-economic status who
(as you indicate) live in smaller towns and villages, forced or
coerced abortion does indeed occur.  Those who have advanced edu-
cations and/or money generally have nothing to worry about, unless
they appear to be reproducing indiscriminantly (my paraphrase), at
which time they might receive a friendly visit designed to politely
deter such behavior.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Guerrero shoots his foot!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:56:16 GMT

In <1992Oct13.180749.1540@kestrel.edu> mcdonald@kestrel.edu (Jim McDonald) writes:


>Martin, I've taken your argument and translated it as faithfully as
>possible to refer to the process that occurs when two or more zygotes
>(or perhaps embryos) fuse to produce something that develops into one
>person.  (Medically, such people are called chimeras.)   Note that the 
>conclusion of this argument is that zygotes are not, as you put it,
>human life (members of homo sapiens).

Could you provide me with a reference?  You are obviously not talking
about Siamese twins, who come from the same zygote, and
 are two separate persons: The Thais responsible
for the term "Siamese twins" were even married to two separate women.

I hope you are not like some people on the net, who condescendingly tell me
to go to the library when I say such things.  I have a book checked out,
_Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth Defects_, which has lots
of pictures of people with birth defects, but "Chimera" does not appear
in the index.  Please provide the title of a book, or a journal article;
and if "chimera" does not appear in the index or table of contents, a
page number.