HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne admits that she lied about her newsserver problems
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:22:01 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <35738@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <C19J41.7qK.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
>writes about the latest emanations from Frau Forgach (>>): 
> 
>>>I never go away, you jerk.   I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you
>>>nuts.  And I'm glad.
>>
>>Does anyone else remember Suzanne claiming that she didn't
>>see repeated requests for documentation?  She said each time
>>that her newsserver crashed.  Now she says she never goes
>>away.  Is she lying now, or

Or does she never go away from a netserver that sometimes crashes (or is
put out of commission by a sysadmin who keeps making comments like, "the 
people inconvenienced by this are the same ones whose news is now 9 days
late".)?

> these fetus fanatics feel compelled
>to lie about their newsservers? 

> Do you think PHoney is a transsexual laboring under the
>same archaic behavioral code?

>SJM

Steve, you set the distribution to talk.abortion instead of alt.flame.

I'm keeping it here so you'll see this message and not flame me for
e-mailing you, etc., but really, if character assassination is what you
are all about, I suggest watching the distribution line more closely.

PJN
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Interesting Point
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:50:26 GMT

In <1993Jan21.045652.24305@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>] 
>] Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>] an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>] private or public of their choice.
>] 
>]                                 Craig


>p1: I presume that your position here is that
>supporting state sponsored murder is ok for
>reasons of state, and that this is NOT a
>violation of being "proLife"????

>p2: are you talking about all those EVIL NASTY
>folks who do not wish to 

>	2.1: Have State Sponsored Religious Institutions?

        Too late, Attended a required meeting for all "candidates" to the
        school of education, to hear a new-age psychologists talk to us
        about education being a spiritual experiance.  Sounds like some
        type of religion to me.

>	2.2: Support Racist Segregationalist Policies
>	masking themselves as "educational alternatives"?????

        Mud slinging at its best, but there are laws to deal with the first
        half.  But, when public schools 1. Teach on the morality of
        Homosexuality (rather than the principal of treating all equal) or 
        2.  Teach outcomes based learning or 3.  Ban all prayer(Kids will always
        pray, so banning it won't help, we need prayer education classes!,
        gee the argument sounds different when we use prayer rather than sex.)
        4.  Spend 1/3 hour on Math/Science and 1.5 Hours on multi-cultural
        enlightenment or 5.  "I don't have time to cover all the materials in
        each chapter so we just cover the headings" - Quote from a student
        in the bi-lingual education program who will be out there on the 
        battle lines contributing to dropout rates of English as a second
        language students. or 6.  Tell a parent that they have no right to see
        the reader book that their child is learning to read from.

        I have a problem with that, so what are my "CHOICES".

				Craig
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Keywords: Gestation
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:13:42 GMT

> = 90397106@bradford.ac.uk (JR HAVELOCK) writes:
>
>I am currently writing an article on the stages of gestation. I would appreciate any details/
>statistics on this and any ideas (plus reasons) on when life beings. I was interested to note
> [...]

"Life" doesn't "begin", it continues and permutes.
Your question is ill-posed.

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58385 alt.politics.homosexuality:10410
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:59:39 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
>> In forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>>>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>>>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>>>the opportunity to set one's house in order.
>> 
>>>We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
>>>AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
>>>confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
>>>ignore ours at our own peril.
>> 
>>      Ohh, I see! It is Christian to _support_ the spread of AIDS. I'm
>> finally beginning to understand the Pope's attitude to condoms.

>Don't be ridiculous.  If everyone lived by what the Pope taught, AIDS
>would never have happened.  If everyone started tomorrow living by
>what the Pope teaches, AIDS would be stopped cold.

Ignoring the other forms of (accidental) transmission.  Frankly, I don't
think it would be possible to get a society of millions of people to live
by what the Pope teaches, especially in a "free" society like the US.
(And especially with the way he tries to tell people how they ought to feel.)

>Abstinence or life long monogamy work.  Condoms do not.   (Condoms
>don't even do what they were designed to do - prevent pregnancy.)

She finally says something accurate and reasonable!  True, condoms have a
failure rate of about 3% EVEN IF USED CORRECTLY.  (at least that was the
figure when I was in high school)  Neither is any other ("fun") form of
contraception *perfect*.  Even so, you will not stop people from having
sex, and you can't stop all of them from getting pregnant, and not all of
the ones that *do* would be able to handle the responsibility--that's why
they were using contraception in the first place.  And that's why abortion
was invented, silly.

>S. Forgach

-Rob
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:10:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCSU

In article <bob1.728069317@cos> 
bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>> Funny thing is that nowhere in the ensuing articles or amendments
>>> did we tell them they could establish laws governing abortion.

>> Or laws governing homicide, rape, and robbery.

> Yep, general welfare. 

That refers to Congressional authority, not state legislative
authority. 

> Oh BTW, they did not say anywhere that the Constitution recinded
> the Declaration of Independance.

The DOI has no legal bearing.  

> better luck next time.

Aye.

>Grouch


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:30:23 GMT

> = (Douglas Meier) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Douglas Meier) writes:

>>>If you must pick on the Church, please try to remember that few Christian
>>>faiths are much better, save the Amish.....

>>That's your opinion.  I think it's the most repressive of the christian
>>sects in America.  And their meddling in poltics warrants the end of tax
>>exemptions for their million dollar cathedrals.  

>I thank you for wacking the part of my post that gives my experience in the
>Church.  Why address the fact that you can't pigeonhole the hole Church into
>one mold, when you can just say, "Some of group X do Y; therefore, all of
>group X does Y?"  

You make no sense.  The Catholic Church, the hierarchy, here in the
U.S., and at the behest of the Vatican, meddles in U.S. politics.

The pope, allegedly speaking for God here on earth, tries to force all
catholics to follow a most inane set of repressive rules, and continues
to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.

>There are Catholics with money, and there are Catholics without money.  I
>think you will find that this truth follows with damn near every ethnic group
>and religious group.

I really don't see the relevance of your remarks.  Perhaps you could
clarify what "some Catholics" has to do with overall Catholic policy.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:46:35 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...

>>>Response to external stimulus != (reason) or (free will)
>>Ergo, you have neither free will nor reason?
>Reason and free will => response to external stimuli,
>but
>Response to external stimuli => reason or free will
                              ^^
I'll presume the above was meant to be "does NOT imply".

Problem:  given that you're only able to determine a response to
external stimuli, how do you then infer reason or free will?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:32:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.013556.9249@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alison Colman) writes:
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes: 

>> Could it be possible that the availability of abortion may influence
>> partners to be less careful with contraception?  Could it not then
>> ALSO be possible that were abortion proscribed, these same partners 
>> would begin being MORE careful than they were previously?  Could this not
>> then reduce the 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies per year that WOULD
>> have resulted in an abortion?
>> 
>> With respect to at least my first question, Sandra Day O'Connor seems
>> to think so.

> As to whether the availability of abortion will have an influence on the
> sexual behavior of other people in this country, that would be hard to
> predict. 

I agree, but there is evidence from other countries which supports
Mr. Simmond's hypothesis that abortion restrictions encourage couples
to practice more effective contraception.  (See, for example, an
article in the December 1968 issue of Public Health Reports entitled
"Demographic effects of abortion").  

>  [... deletions ...] 
>
> Going by what you said, can I reasonably assume that you are greatly in
> favor of birth control being inexpensive and easily obtained? 

I don't know about Mr. Simmonds, but I am in favor of inexpensive
and accessible birth control. 

> In the meanwhile, though, what would you say to someone like me? Would you
> have the gall to say to someone like me that I shouldn't have sex because
> I can't afford the best birth control out there?  If I want to have
> intercourse, it is within my right to do so, and it is not within anyone
> else's right to tell me I can't. 

Why do you equate the right to sexual intercourse with the right to
abortion?  I don't see the connection.  Also, why do you equate sex
with sexual intercourse?  Don't you think it's possible to have sex
without having sexual intercourse?  

> Not to mention that I think that is a
> really snotty motive for making abortion illegal -- to try to control the
> sex lives of others.

No, Mr. Simmonds is interested in reducing the number of abortions.
If abortion were harder to get, couples might practice contraception
more effectively, thus possibly having the effect of reducing the
number of abortions resulting from unplanned pregnancies.  
 
>Alison


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
From: lenox@hardy.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:51:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <C1FxF5.L4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, 

Hmmm, I don't know too many opposed to abortion, per se, but I know many
who would not personally choose abortion for reasons that others may
choose abortion.  E.g. I would normally not want an abortion (I love
kids - even though SF may disagree that any PCer is capable of loving
a child).  I would choose an abortion in cases of threats to health that 
I consider far above expected health problems for pregnancy.  I feel
that it is best for me (with input from an SO) to decide what level
of danger I am willing to face.  It is possible that I would consider
abortion in cases where any existing children would be threatened
since I would consider my first responsibility to them (although I
do not imagine this happening, it is not beyond the scope of possibilities).

>                                                  but don't want to force their
>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
>in favor of allowing that to continue?

IMO the terms "unborn child" and "innocent human" are emotionally loaded
terms better left out.  Pregnancy is hazardous to one's health and I
do not believe that anyone should have to remain pregnant because someone
else thinks it is a better idea.  Do you forget to mention women on purpose?

I suppose this is part of the learning curve for a PLer.  I'm glad
you've moved beyond posting those empty articles, Cobb.  Expanding your
view to include a woman may give you an idea of how some PCers think.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Nyikos, Apologies and Humble Pie
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:37:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.182034.18718@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.205437.15431@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>
>>>> Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.
>>
>>> I don't apologize for things I don't do.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps you should reconsider.
>>
>>Did you not write the following Subject: line ?
>>
>>*** Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
>                                          ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>Questions are not the same as declarations.
>
In written messages, punctuation like ?!?!?!?! is often used to
indicate such emotions as shocked amazment. But I'm sure you knew that
already Kebbin.

>>And did you not write the following?
>>
>>*** I mean, your forgery, if it could be called that, ...
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Again, Nyikos implicitly raises the QUESTION of whether what Adrienne 
>committed could be called a "forgery".
>
He raises only the question of if forgery is the correct term for
words he obviously thinks she faked in one way or another.

>At no point did he come out and say "Adrienne committed forgery", although,
>as I have previously noted, he was extremely loose with his language. He
You mean, sort of like somebody who would defend the usage of the word
'schizophrenia' when he meant 'multiple personality disorder'? That's
a fine example of being 'extremely loose with [his] language' wouldn't
you say?

[Kebbins delusions about Adrienne deleted]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:56:15 GMT

In article <6013@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <C1F1x2.13C@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>>   As for all this talk about "the Church is oppressing" everybody,
>>please don't insult everyone's intelligence.  All anyone has to do to
>>put an end to the Church "oppressing" them is 1) leave the Church (if
>>you are sure it is not God's Church), or 2) ignore the "oppressive"
>>law in question (if you are sure it is not God's law).  As you appear
>>to have done both already, one cannot help but think you have an axe
>>to grind.
>
>As for all this talk about "the right to abortion is oppressing" everybody,
>please don't insult everyone's intelligence.  All anyone has to do to
>put an end to the right to abortion "oppressing" them is 1) leave the
>country (for, say, Ireland if you are sure the values in America don't
>match yours), or 2) ignore the "oppressive" right in question (i.e., don't
>have an abortion).  As you appear to have done 2), one cannot help but 
>think you have an axe to grind.
>
>--Teddi
>-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------

   Well, Teddi, since I haven't so much as _mentioned_ abortion in
this discussion, I'd say you were grinding your axe again.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: csmith@blackplague.gmu.edu (Christian Smith)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Followup-To: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
Organization: George Mason University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:44:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com>, irving@Happy-Man.com
(Irving_Wolfe) wrote:
> 
> As a shareholder in Kodak, and hence (part of) the ultimate 
> authority and employer at the company, I thought I should share my 
> perspective on this.  

(humorous bullshit deleted)

and in article <1k3ukoINNlq8@slab.mtholyoke.edu>, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
(Jurgen Botz) replied:
> 
> Certainly Kodak has the right to make and implement such policies...
> the problem is that independent, creative thinkers won't want to
> work for you if you do.  And such people (IMHO) are a company's
> greatest assets.  But it's your choice.

while in article <106596@netnews.upenn.edu>, rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich
Kulawiec) 
>
> Wanna join the Happy Fascists League of America?  Sheesh, man, one
> does not give up one's civil rights by virtue of employment.  

(long angry diatribe deleted)

Fortunately, n article <BRINCK.93Jan26084922@pd-dom.wl.com>,
brinck@pd-dom.wl.com (John Brinck) wrote:
> 
> Pardon me while I laugh.

At least on person got the clue that this was meant to be humorous.
Lighten up folks.

Christian Smith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:36:22 GMT

In article <markp.727722888@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan16.174531.13279@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726942638@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>
>>>The fundamental postulate is something like, "Entities ought to be
>>>treated in accord with their natures." The question is: what is
>>>any given entities' nature, and what treatment accords with that
>>>nature.
>
>>The "nature" of a conscious, volitional human being is to exercise its
>>Free Will, as long as that exercise does not unfairly impinge on the
>>Free Will of other conscious, volitional human beings.
>
>>The "nature" of a non-viable, non-conscious, non-volitional fetus is the same 
>>as the "nature" of other objects -- to exist, or to be destroyed, at the 
>>discretion of conscious, volitional entities.
>
>1. Goldfish have consciousness and viability, but no rights.

Where did mention rights?

>2. A newborn is non-volitional, but killing her is (I hope we agree) 
>   unethical.

Where there is consciousness, there is a spark of volition. Have you ever
read any of phenomenologist Edmund Husserl's works? Intentionality, or, as
he put it, _Intentionalitat_ (with an umlaut over that last "a"), was a
basic category with Husserl. In a sense, EVERYTHING was an intention, to him.
I'm not quite as radical as that, but intentionality plays a huge role in my
phenomenology also. Certainly I find it hard to imagine any state of 
consciousness which is completely void of intention or volition. Sometimes
volition is stronger than at other times, to be sure, but is it ever completely
absent?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:48:57 GMT

cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student) writes:

>I have stumbled into this group quite accidentally, yet a small sampling  
>of the 1000 plus articles has brought something to my attention- everyone  
>wants to talk about this subject from a human point of view(i.e. ultimate  
>truths in this world.)  Yet I see nothing, except for a few articles, that  
>deals with the fact that people  are trying, for lack of a more eloquent  
>phrase, to "play God."  And without "thrusting" my opinion on others I  
>would like to make this one observation to God fearing people and  
>blasphemers alike:
>       It seems to me that the last person to challenge the authority and  
>the omnipotence of God (i.e. our dear friend St. Lucifer) got a one way  
>ticket on the Quad bus to hell.

>**NOTE: before anyone rides me for judging others let me just say this:
>	I codemn no one who has made the choice to have an abortion even
>	though I am a pro-life advocate, yet I beg anyone who has made
>	this choice, or is about to make this choice to put your fears of
>	immediate future aside and contemplate where you will be spending
>	the afterlife.  Can any inconvienience caused by unwanted
>	pregancy compare to an eternity of pain and anguish?

Of course, this assumes the existence of God and eternal life-after-death.
Anything based on such assumptions will not carry much weight with people
who don't accept the assumptions.

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion