HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:46:45 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1y6nqzf.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep19.034112.12616@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) :
>><1=zn4rl.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>This little gem is from last summer about establishing her theocracy:
>>>=<1991Jul10.234449.29514@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>=>From article by emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
>>>=>> How long will it be before America becomes a
>>>=>> theocracy?
>>>=>
>>>=>Heh heh heh.  As long as it takes.
>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>This is supposedly the infamous quote where Suzanne endorses theocracy? 
>
>What does it look like?

It looks like someone has taken a vague statement, interpreted it in the
absolutely most unfavorable way to Suzanne, insisted that it MUST mean what
they say it does, and now they're using all of this to try and smear her. 

In other words, t.a. business-as-usual. Sigh.

>>                                                                        It's 
>>pretty lame, Gordon. I mean, "as long as it takes" could just as easily mean 
>>"never" as "tomorrow", couldn't it?
>
>What turnip truck ran over you while it was backing up?  If I publically
>said that I would kill you no matter how long it takes would you just
>assume that there was no threat?  

Bad analogy, Gordon, since it's not possible to "kill" someone after they're
already dead, so even with the "as long as it takes" part, it's still a
threat to kill me before I die of natural causes. The "as long as it takes" 
is a finite (though indefinite) quantity in your analogy. All men are mortal.

In the case of the hypothetical theocracy, however, there is no implication
in Suzanne's statement that it will EVER occur, necessarily. Her statement
made no threats or predictions whatsoever. It was, in fact, a meaningless
statement. Please consider treating it as such.

>What the hell kind of logic do you use?

Basic Aristotleian, with various refinements added over the last few
centuries of thought on such matters. What kind of logic do YOU use, Gordon?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 03:29:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes ...
>Oh, as an aside, the proof for 0<1 is:  (sorry it took so long)

Not bad.  It is _not_ an absolute proof by any means, but not bad.
It assumes a foundation of axioms common in modern mathematics that
are widely accepted as true but have, in themselves, _not_ been 
proven.  Thus, that "0<1" is a fact that can be known absolutely
is something you haven't shown.

In particular...

>(Given by prof. Koch at the University of Oregon)
>(a) If x is any Real number, then one of the follow is true:

What's a "Real" number?  What's a "number?"

>x = 0
>x is containted with in the positive numbers
>-x is contained within the positive numbers
>
>(b)Also:  If x & y are Real numbers, we say x<y if y-x is contained within
>the postivie numbers

Define "<".

>(c)Also, if x & y are positive, then x*y is positive.

Define "*".  Define "positive".

>Now that that is set,
>By (a), either 1=0 or 1 is positive or -1 is positive.

Define "=", "1", "0", and "-1".

>By the laws of algebra, 1 != .  If -1 is positive, then by (c), (-1)(-1) is
>postive, so 1 is positive.  So in all cases 1=1-0 is positive, or 0<1.

Define "laws of algebra".

>done.

Er, yes.  Rather.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:17:18 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <q__pzy.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> >bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
> >> That doesn't change
> >> the fact that 50% of the zygotes implant naturally and 50%
> >> don't implant (also from natural causes).
> >
> >So, are you saying that if a couple wants a child, we should not utilize
> >every means available to help them have that child?
> 
> What's this "we" shit, Kemosabe?  You want to help someone, by all means
> please do so.  I'm sure that their are many couples who could use help
> paying the $10,000 to $20,000 it takes for trying in-vitro fertilization.
> If you have a few thousand bucks lying around, go for it.  I don't.

Here we go with the money thing again...I've responded to this in this
recent batch of articles..
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39488 alt.abortion.inequity:4146 alt.birthright:484
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:39:44 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <98PLRB12w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>> In article <23SEP92.20083018@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>> >Also, in the U.S. a woman is raped every five minutes, not every other day.
>>> Hang on one second...
>>> Isn't the standard figure for rape that 1/3 of all women will be
>>> raped at some point in their lives?
>>
>>If you define rape as "sexual intercourse without consent", then I believe
>>recent studies suggest that approximately 40% of female university students
>>in the UK have been raped.  I would therefore suspect that your figure of 1/3
>>is a big underestimate.
>Ok. Then what's this every 5 minutes stuff?

>-Ekr

Just a guess, but perhaps it's "a rape is *reported* every five minutes"?

Really have no idea, but that would make sense to me....


Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions.....

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:40:11 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Of course they're still alive.  The point being that there is little
>>difference between an egg and a zygote, and that the personhood bigens
>>at conception reasoning is no less arbitrary than the personhood begins
>>at birth reasoning.  Given that they're both pretty arbitrary, and
>>that the conception model is really tough to manage, why not birth?
>
>There is a big difference between an egg and a zygote.  In its current form,
>put the egg in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.  Any screaming,
>crying baby?

Sure.  Just add one sperm, nutrients, waste removal, water,
temperature regulation, chemistry, shelter, a little luck, and 
viola!

>Now try putting the zygote in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.
>Barring any miscarriage or abortion, see any sign of a screaming, crying
>baby?  (or perhaps a stillbirth?)  

Sure.  Just add nutrients, waste removal, water, temperature 
regulation, chemistry, shelter, a little luck, and viola!

>Also, I hope you can agree with me here, an egg/sperm/any human cell in my
>body is not a member of homo sapiens while the zygote definitely is.

Because you say so?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:29:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct3.064647.5038@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep21.115540.3572@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep20.221052.27531@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep18.122144.20665@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >> >my parents and grandparents.  At an early age I knew that black
> >> >people could spot racism pretty quickly, and that one need not
> >> >say "nigger" for a black person to realize he was being called
> >> >one.  But then, I also learned at an early age that one need
> >> >not say "kike" for me to know when I am being called one.  The
> >> >smell of anti-Semitism and racial hatred are easily detectable
> >> >to the experienced...
> >> So, just kiss reason and benefit of the doubt and due process and civility 
> >> aside, and just go by your "nose", huh, Dean?
> >Usual blather from you, Kebbie.  When you are Jewish or black,
> >you come tell me about reason and benefit of the doubt.  
> Am I supposed to apologize for being a White Anglo-Saxon Male, is that it,

Did I say that?  No, I did not.  I just recognize that your experience
is very different from my own, and especially where racial or
religious hatred are concerned, and that a wider experience in a
specific area can give one greater awareness about it.

> Dean? Must I be on the Approved List of Oppressed Minorities in order to
> debunk your "I know it when I smell it" bluster?

You could never debunk it, Kibble.  You can't even understand
it.  You've never been there.  How many people threw pennies
at you in high school, or punched you because of your religion?
How many times were you fired for being Jewish?  How many times
did you listen to some very strange remarks from a girlfriend's
relatives about your religion when you visited with her on
CHristmas?  Are there national organizations calling you and
your's the source of all evil in America?  Were all your
mother's family in Europe slaughtered because they picked
the wrong day to hold a Sabbath?

You just don't know anything about it Kibble.  This one is
just another of your "I have to have a fight with him
because he doesn't like me" postings.
> 
> "Assuage your hidden guilts", indeed... Just what do you think I'm guilty of?
> Look up Persecution Complex, Dean.
Extraordinary stupidity and a bizarre need to be flamed just to
get attention.

Dean Kaflowitz
Extraordinary stupidity and a bizarre need to be flamed just to
get attention.
> 								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Please include trademark tokens where relevant
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:23:59 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] 
] DIPLOID BIGOTRY!


beth,

if you do not USE the [tm] mark, the above
could well slip into the public domain and you
will loose all control over you Pet Rant.

and if there is anything I hate to see its
a Pet Rant on the Loose....

So Remember: Leash that Rant.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.201627.22487@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>be dead?)
>
>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.
>
>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>

Are you going to take the 2 year old's right to life away?
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:26:34 GMT

In article <1a8re8INNs3p@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   While the anti-abortion zealots and the pro choice folks fight
>over the nature of that period of time between the moment a sperm
>busts through the wall of an egg and the moment of birth, none of
>us disagree that from birth to death IS life.  And yet the anti's
>obsess on pregnancy and don't seem to give a shit as to what type
>of world these children will be forced into. 

Forced to?  Solve our problems by destroying our sons and daughters?
Why kill our sons and daughters when we can't even be sure that they
will hate life and hate us?


> The indifference of
>the anti-abortion zealots to war, hunger, poverty, birth defects,
>and a host of other calamities to be suffered is proof that their
>having taken the label 'pro-life' is just a bit spurious. 

Do we have to go through this again?  Of course there are lots of people
who care about life BORN AND UNBORN.  In many ways, they may agree
with you in idea and in methodology.  In others, while they may disagree
with you in terms of methodology, the general interest in the wellbeing
of the invidividual is always in mind.

> If the
>quality of life takes a back seat to the quantity of birth, their
>label of pro-life is a lie.  When these zealots show more concern
>about human suffering, they might not appear so hypocritical.  It
>would certainly add a bit of credibility to their name, which has
>no validity so far.

This sounds as if people are less worthy to be a human if there are more
people in a family.  Is the only son in a family worth any more
than the youngest daughter in a family of eight?  No.  Each individual
is equally important.  The "quality of life" mindframe, however noble,
actually makes our children to be annoying liabilities (one more child
will create an unmanageable liability, for example) instead of beautiful
additions.  

And if the supposed "quality of life" (the end) is achieved via
abortion (the means), then the means would be a greater evil than the
supposed lack of quality of life.




I ought to sleep now...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:58:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.233957.17714@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct2.185339.28770@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct02.052949.12333@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> >
>> >Well, sure.  So does masturbation, ovulation, and surgery.  So?
>>
>> You are still into the sperm/egg are humans
>
>I *never* made such a ridiculous claim.  They're human (adjective), and
>so can be called "human life" in any sense that a fertilized egg can be,
>but they are certainly not human (noun), which means a person.  But neither
>is that fertilized egg.
>
Sperm/eggs are human cells but they are not members of homo sapiens.

>> You don't have to bother responding either.
>
>I do when you misrepresent my position.

Well, you are implying that sperm/eggs are, in a sense equivalent.  Either
that or you are trying to attach that view to me in some form or another.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an abortion two days ago]
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 01:51:28 GMT

<1acp28INNq6h@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) :
><1992Sep29.201537.25354@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) :
>>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>I gots to hand it to you, Adrienne.  If there be an Official Virus[1]
>>lurking in the heart of a pro-lifer, you draw it out somehow.
>
>It's pretty simple.
>
>Restrict yourself to the principle of only using the ammunition they
>provide.  People will eventually post their thoughts to the net.  If
>their thoughts are insightful or interesting, you get one good posting
>out of a mass of stuff.  If their thoughts are not well considered,
>you have only to point out:
>	(a) there are gaping holes in their arguments or
>	(b) the arguments that exist are stinky cheese.
>
>They cannot claim they didn't say it.

Adrienne meet Suzanne, Suzanne meet Adrienne.

>They can claim they didn't mean it 'like that', but that excuse only has
>currency once.  By the third time it's used, the net participants will
>translate it into a pretty clear "I haven't a clue and now I'm just stubborn."

Some of us were able to translate Suzanne and Chaney after two times.

>Some people who post to the net do so so badly that it isn't even sporting
>to go after them.  Chaney and Holtsinger may be the current examples, but
>trust me, in 6 months it'll be three new guys.  (-:
                                          ^^^^
Now, now.  Although the assinine pro-life men do out-number the assinine
pro-life women, there is no need to be sexist. :-)

>Other people are a little more sporting, but still easy game.  How long
>does one have to wait until Forgach or Nyikos says something ludicrous
>after all?

Times up.

>It isn't necessary to know anything about them as people (and I'm sure
>they are all perfectly fine people), nor to make up things about them, nor
>to make up arguments for them (horror of horrors).  All you have to do si
>pay some attention to the arguments presented.  For many of the folks here,
>you don't even need a long memory.

For Suzanne you need a lot of file space.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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,talk.religion.misc
From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Eric Gorr on Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 18:14:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.150407.19495@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>Since Eric's Bible is on CD, I'm not surprised that he would find verses
>on this new(er) medium that no one has ever heard before.  After all, when
>Glenn Gould's piano recordings were transferred to CD, it was discovered
>that they were actually vocal recordings[1]!!!  When I use Bach's Goldberg
>Variations for their intended purpose[2], I find that Mr. Gould's crooning
>has quite the opposite effect.  For this reason, Mr. Gould's piano recordings
>have been nominated in rec.music.classical as one of the five worst classical
>vocal recordings ever.

So, I guess I can add you to the list of people attempted to
harass me off this board.  How does it feel to feel so much
rage towards another person?  

I would be interested in knowing how you came to the absolute
conclusion that my bible is on musical CD's?  Or you can just
admit your ignorance, appoligize, and we can continue in a
rational fashion.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:47:45 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep28.223941.23600@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?

>An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.

>BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.

BTW, this statement is not correct.


                                                      MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion