HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:30:58 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


cj>In article <1aihnuINNhn3@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
fo>In article <1992Oct2.153605.25461@sniap.mchp.sni.de>, Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de writes:

fo>Karen, I feel rather ashamed that it's because of people like
fo>me that you felt you had to explain yourself in this way.

fo>If it's any small help, your post was not a waste of time, and
fo>at least I am now beginning to realise how foolish I have been.

cj>Dude, allow me to give you a virtual handshake.

Me too.  To change deeply held beliefs is difficult.  At times it
takes a slap like Karen's to make you realize how your beliefs may
effect real people.  For myself, primarily a post by Stella convinced
me how wrong I was.  Then posts by various others, but primarily
Adrienne made me realize how I could reconcile some of my beliefs
with pro-choice.  

fo>So what should I do in t.a. now?  It's possible that I should
fo>just keep my fool mouth shut.  If I do, you may remember me to
fo>the next simpleton who comes along, and does not let compassion
fo>get in the way of a good argument.

cj>You should tell other people about your experience here.
cj>You can show them (with compassion) why you changed your
cj>mind.  As somebody who can perhaps understand their state
cj>of mind, you might be able to reach them.

cj>Join Dan "Sky" King in the ranks of the converted.

Why thanks for rememberin' CJ.  Any conversion is difficult.
I would guess you are still not fully comfortable with letting
go some beliefs that you have held.  But pro-choice does 
not require a major change in beliefs.  You can be pro-choice
and still work to see an end to abortion.  It only requires a
change in strategy, not beliefs.  You can try and convince
others of the legitimacy of being opposed to abortion but 
pro-choice.  You can assist women who recognize abortion as 
a difficult choice and just need a hand regardless of the 
choice they made.  You can continue to post and maybe get 
ideas for the most non-restrictive method to eliminate
abortion.  Then again you can just hang out here and 
occasionally make thoughtful replys and occasionally flame
no-nothings such as Chaney.  Flaming hopeless little dweebs
such as Chaney can be a lot of fun.
 
Just a few ideas,
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos scores 749 and 745 on SATS!
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:47:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct6.121629.21846@cbnewsj.cb.att.com# decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <nyikos.718314787@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
## In <BvCF8q.8sM@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
## 
## #In article <6430@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP# sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## ##In article <BvAx7x.GC2@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
## ###In article <1992Sep28.181026.10388@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (The
## ###*official* Usenet virus) writes:


## ####Perhaps you'll get into Steubenville. As a test chimp, that is. 
## ###
## ###Not until you finish up *your* contract there, at least.  See you in
## ###2003...:-)
## 
## I'm surprised Chaney did not call Susan a racist for using the word
## "chimp" there.  Must have been in a good mood.
## 
## Peter Nyikos
#
#Or it might have been because it was Chahallney who said it,
#not Susan.  I'm not surprised that our resident expert in
#set theory has difficulty following the attributions and
#no idea what's going on in the thread he quotes.

(I wonder if Nyikos imagines that I'm responsible for
POC's actions.)

What's surprising is that Dennis didn't take follow
up on this and respond as Nyikos suggested.  The OV
has proven recently that he has trouble following
attributions as well.  (He dropped that thread when he
called for proof and got it - I wonder if he still
thinks that he's Larry Margolis.)

#Ah, but he is so anxious to find an excuse to call Susan
#a racist he'll attribute racism to her because someone
#else said something insulting.  Yes, that must be the
#much vaunted logic for which he has claimed expertise.

There is an alternate explanation - maybe Nyikos had a
bout of temporary sanity, and he was making fun of
Chaney/Hall.  

Nah, I think that Dean has it right. 

#He must have been in a dumb mood.  So far I haven't seen
#him in any other.

Yeah, but what an impressive dumb mood it is.  

Susan





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Summary:  Guess what's all the rage, again?  Taking center stage, again? 
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.
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:11:47 GMT

[Note: Basically a ton of deletions...]

In article <nyikos.718380256@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Totally unsubstantiated.  For this reason, I have deleted the rest of
>Storga's paragraph as irrelevant.

Gee, I wonder what sort of Borg name Chaney is going to give you...

>
>Nothing.  She even e-mailed me saying she appreciates my concern, but
>I don't really need to defend her.  But you see, Storga, you said you
>are expecting an apology from me, so now you've made me go through
>this series of posts, don't you see?

Another "pro-lifer" whining because people are making him do things...

Sigh...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 18:38:20 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  <1992Oct6.040340.23570@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct06.020302.32597@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin
> >
> >> Wrong.  The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
> >> the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
> >> you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
> >> right?
> >
> >Right - if you buy your premise that the living human sperm/egg isn't human,
> >or that it isn't alive.
> >
>
> Please note that the premise does not come from an out of this world
> supposition that the sperm/egg isn't human.  Instead it just makes plain
> old sense.

Well, if the premise is "that the living human sperm/egg isn't human, or
that it isn't alive", and you're not making an out of this world
supposition that the sperm/egg isn't human, then you must be making
an out of this world supposition that the sperm/egg isn't alive.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 20:33:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes ...
>In article <kekni5m00WB4F_RkVh@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>>If it were just a matter of people could get abortions, then I wouldn't
>>care so much. But presently, my money is used to fund people killing
>>children.
>
>I'm pro-choice, but also share a distaste for public funding of abortions.

But not funding terrosit activities in other countries?  Or artificial
trade barriers?  Or bombing other countries?  Or research on nuclear 
weapons?

OK then.  You can pay for those and _I'll_ pay for the abortions.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re:
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:06:47 GMT

> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>> = (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>Adrienne was obviously refering to an old joke involving Tonto
>>and the Lone Ranger.  It's a very well-known joke.  It was
>>clearly not a flame based on race, and if one knows the joke,
>>which I am sure most people reading this group do, there is a
>>point to using the punch-line here.  

>I don't read misc.humor and I never heard the joke.
>Would you publish it?

It goes SOMETHING like this:

The Lone Ranger and Tonto were in the desert, surrounded by a horde of
Indians ready to kill them.

Lone Ranger: "Looks like we're in deep shit this time, old friend."

Tonto:  "What you mean 'we', white man?"

Get it?  The "white man" reference is to point out that L.R. is white,
and that ol' Tonto the Indian has just changed allegiances.

>>  I haven't read any other follow-up
>>articles to this one yet, but I won't be surprised to see a
>>good deal of that stretching as soon as I send this article.

>I'm not stretching, and I found it to be a reprehensible remark
>not even worth a reply.  

It'd be nice if you blasted the "reprehensible" flood of shit from the
Chaneys and Holtsingers of t.a., ripping some of their misogynist
ravings, for instance.  But, you seem to have trouble recognizing that
trait in the obvious cases of, say, John Stevens and Suzanne Forgach.

>If indeed there is a common joke, then
>I'd be "happy" to change my conclusion -- although there wasn't 
>any context to suggest otherwise.

I would have thought it didn't NEED context, and I'm sure Adrienne
thought the same.  It's not only an old joke, it's been repeated in
movies and etc. to address other similar situations - and usually
without reference.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Not That I would disagree with Uncle Len....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:45:06 GMT

tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
[ eric gorr's stunning proof that -1 is zero deleted. ]
] >|Hmmm...CJ, whatcha think about this?
] >question.  He hasn't defined his symbols.  I don't think he
] >realizes the enormous amount of work it took to establish those
] >
] >Mathematics is the last place I'd go to look for "absolute
] >truths", but that's because I studied math.  Gorr is making
] >a layman's erroro

First off, I must disagree, but Mathematics IS, 
by definition of its axioms, and primative, 
'absolute truth' - the problem is whether
that phrase can be exported from the field of
mathematics, and axiology, into ethics with any
meaningful utility...

] This rediculous thread has been resurfacing time and time again.  The
] hebrew and greek texto not support abortion, despite what the
] proponents say.
] 
] The question is not one of religion but of ethicf your ethical postion
] is that of autonomy, then you support abortion.  .

This too I have major concerns with....

1. If we allow an epistemological system that can prove
that minus one is a positive number, what hope have we
of resolving anything?

2. If the resolution of ontological questions at the
level of divinity is to be dismissed out of hand, then
how do we resolve the questions of the relationship
of ethical and ontological questions?

3. In like manner by dismissing 'religion' out of hand,
we also avoid dealing with the whole of the nature of
belief systems, a key component of epistemology as it
brushes up against ethics, and thus avoid the whole
of the issue quite gracefully.

ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:47:26 GMT

Martin writes:
>Brian writes:
>>Martin writes:
>>>You are still into the sperm/egg are humans (is a sperm a member of
>>>homo sapiens?  Com'on now) aren't you.  Well they aren't.
>>
>>Who says?  You?  Why is it you're right and we're wrong?
>
>Do you seriously think that sperm/eggs a human?  I don't think so.

Well, I don't know.  If they're not homo sapiens, then what are they?
"No species"?  Then how are human sperm/eggs different from those of a pig?

Besides, the sperm sure wiggle a lot and manage to successfully swim
up a Fallopean tube; they sure seem alive to me!

>Why do I think that sperm/eggs are not human lives?
>Well, I come to the conclusion based on common sense and reason enlightened
>by science and biology.

... and influenced by your own definition of 'human' is.  With a
different definition of "human life", you could easily have come to a
different conclusion.  If you can't get people to even agree on what
"human life" is, how can you ever get anyone to agree on what a
'person' is?

>>Why is it that so many pro-lifers seem to assert some kind of moral
>>superiority and absolute righteousness?  I hate to make sweeping
>>generalizations like this, but I've found VERY few pro-lifers willing
>>to even really consider pro-choice arguments and respond meaningfully
>>to the key points of the issue.
>>
>The contention is based on the existence of a human life at conception.
>What's so moral about that?

Nothing, until you assert that it's always wrong to kill this human
life that exists at conception, and imply that you're going to keep us
from doing the wrong thing because you know what's 'best' for us.
This is your position, isn't it?

>And you wouldn't necessarily call scientists people with some kind of moral
>superiority or absolute righteousness would you?

Okay, you're right.  So I'll agree with whatever scientists can prove to me.

So how do you get from "sperm/egg isn't human life, but anything from
conception onwards is" to "it is never permissible to abort a z/e/f"?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 1992 15:20:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct6.023143.20915@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <ld1pc0INNqg2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>>The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
>>>the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
>>>you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
>>>right?  

>>So a sperm/egg isn't human? If not, what is it?

>Sperm/eggs are specialized human cells which acts as messengers.

>>So a sperm/egg isn't alive? If not, what is it?

>N/A

What do you mean, N/A? This is a very simple question: is the
sperm/egg alive or not? If it is not alive, then what is it?

>>If a sperm/egg is human and it is life, then does that not mean
>>that _by_definition_ it is human life?

>Certainly, you wouldn't start calling sperm/eggs human life would you?

Your darned right I would, because it _is_ by definition human life.

>You do know that you cannot call a sperm/egg members of homo sapiens.  Doing
>so would be a very big leap.  By human life, I do not mean that which is
>alive and is merely a messenger cell from a human.  Messenger cells are
>not members of homo sapiens and therefore, cannot be called human life,
>for the umpteenth time.

Again, this is truth by blatant assertion. You have admitted that the
sperm/egg is human. Now, is it or is it not alive?

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:07:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 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  <Sep29.235338.66102@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>         The mother voluntarily had sex.  She could have chosen not to,
> but she didn't make that choice.  If she didn't become pregnant, no
> problem.  If she does become pregnant, she is responsible for the new
> life in her womb.

Responsible for its existance?  Yes.  Responsible for continuing said
existance?  No.

> She cannot kill it.

Sure she can.  It's called "abortion".  Oh - you mean, you don't think
that she *should*.  Well, I think that's a decision best left up to her.

>         The woman is responsible for her child just as a military
> recruit is responsible to obey the orders of superior officers.  He
> or she signed a contract agreeing to do so and is bound by it.
> Although the woman's agreement is less explicit, by putting the child
> in a potentially dangerous situation she certainly implicitly assumes
> responsibility for the child's life.

I think the only "implicit assumption" there is yours.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:51:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164536.18161@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.222132.130562@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
><margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>> In  <1992Sep24.010702.7332@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> >
>> > How in the world could anyone consider a sperm or egg a person?  Makes
>> > absolutly no sense and would be rather silly.
>> 
>> I totally agree.  Whether or not the egg is fertilized, considering it
>> a person makes absolutely no sense and would be rather silly.
>
>
>huh?  Why?  (In reference to when conception occures)
>

Tell me something, college boy, when your schnauzer bitch becomes pregnant,
do you sell the puppies then, or do you wait until they are born?  It would
seem to be silly to sell them before they are born, don't you agree, as they
aren't "here" yet.  Well, do you sell them while she is pregnant, or do you
wait until they are born?  

(no, folks, I don't think he'll answer this question, and if by some miracle
he does answer it, he probably won't understand it or think I'm comparing
schnauzers to babies.)

Jennifer
mother to two human males and two schnauzer females
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: a glimpse of chaney hall's veracity
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:24:22 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

the chaneyhall thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> PatricKKK, we know you are a major liar around town.

if this were true, it should be simple to demonstrate.
first, of course, you'll have to define "we" and "major
liar." but it's not true, is it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: CWA Membership (was: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:59:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep29.001959.19878@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> That would amount to the fact that America holds a compromise
> position: legal for rape/incest/deformity, illegal for birth control.

This is bullshit.  More people think that it should be always legal
or legal in most circumstances than think it should be legal in only a few
circumstances.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:50:04 GMT
Summary: Outrigt lies from Chahallney

In article <1992Oct1.012445.17612@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> Even though Gloria Feldt is a Theocrat, to say that is wrong is to be an
> Anti-Semite. 

Gloria Feldt is not a "Theocrat."  What this lying little pointy-
headed twit is refring to is an out of context quote previously
supplied by Doug Holtsinger in which Ms Feldt said her view on
abortion was based on a religious perspective.  The entire quote
goes on to say that her view is actually based on her religious
perspective and a number of other things.  Chahallney's anti-Semitism
showed up in more places than just his lies about Gloria Feldt.

CHahallney then goes on torepeat his lies about his little
stunt when he posted under the name "Dennis Hall."
> >>3) That I am Dennis Hall. 
> >
> >Dennis forgets that Dick Smith, sysadmin at CSUS, is willing
> >to verify that the account from which he posted was, in fact,
> >issued to Chaney.  Dennis is very sorry that he got caught
> >lying, it seems.  He would have preferred not have been
> >caught.
> 
> Another blatant assertion. 
> 
> You have absolutely no documentation of this crap and you never did. You
> continue to make this assertion yet you have no facts to back it up. 

The fact is that Dick Smith called me and told me exactly the same
things that Susan just said.  Just because he didn't write it down
doesn't make it false.

> Typical action of a liar, eh? 

Your behavior is atypical of most liars, but I think you're
pathological, Bill Overpeck not withstanding.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Anti-Abortion
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:27:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <l0!prfa.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>The unborn is a member of homo sapiens.  I don't believe any other
>>animal is capable of claming that.  
>>
>>Why don't members of homo sapiens deserve the right to life?
>
>An egg is as much a member of homo sapiens as is a zygote.  Notice
>any problems so far?
>

Now tell me whether the egg is a member of homo sapiens.  (in other
words, is an egg a human life?).
Newsgroups: talk.abortion