HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Moving right along...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:17:23 GMT

/dev/nul writes:

interesting how some times the truth comes out in the
'dues ex machina' ....

] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] > I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
] > my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
] > and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....
] 
] I have a better idea.  Why don't you try something intelligent, like editing
] your follow-up line and removing a.f.d-q from the list, sparing those of us who
] don't really care what you think from having to read it.
] 
] |Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
] |Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|


Ok, lets try something simple:

The Justice Department is opening an investigation into
why someone decided that a prisoner should NOT be allowed
to speak about having sold Dan Quayle marijuana during the
time that he was in the national guard...

I guess, dear old dan has problems doing his own leg work,
and needs the support of others to get his jobs done for him.

Which of course re_raises the question:

if George were to be incapacitated, and Dear Old Dan were
to be obliged to act as the president, who would actually
get things done for him.....


Also sorta makes one wonder about dear old George
having personally selected an alledged drug addict....

ciao
drieux

ps: but I guess that is not really a worthwhile topic...
especially as Dear Old Dan is really such a good guy....





-- 
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: Finally, honesty from one of the anti-abortion types
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:32:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.165417.22038@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.045121.9632@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
># Let's start out by saying the unborn child is definitely a human life.
># 
># Now let's weigh two things:
>#    1) "enslaving the mother"
>#    2) destroying the life of the unborn child which is definitively human.
># 
># Now, sure, "enslaving the mother" could be perceived (and it probably is)
># as an evil.  But when put side by side with the destruction of a human
># life, more importantly, our own sons and daughters, doesn't the "enslaving
># the mother" bit pale by comparison?
>
>No.  It does not.  Not even remotely.  But, your honesty about what
>you think is acceptable treatment for pregnant women is refreshing.
>

"Enslaving the mother" is a phrase commonly used.  I don't necessarily feel
this way but some people do.  If some people relate to it better, so be it.

As for your contention that the mother's situation is grave enough to
warrant justifying destroying a human life, but more importantly, a very
direct blood relative of the mother, I disagree.  I do not want to say
too much more.

># I'm not saying that the birth giving process is something trivial to
># be ignored and looked down upon.  I'm just saying when the choice is between
># the life of a human and the mother's situation, the life of a human being
># must be protected.
>
>I love the implication that mothers aren't human.

If it was implied that mothers aren't human, it isn't intentional.  The
reason the life of a human is mentioned is because we do abort our children.
The reason the mother's situation is mentioned is because women do
get pregnant.

It was stated this way because of the situation of abortion.  No one phrases
the issue in a way that people are free to kill mothers vs. the unborn's
situation.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:53:17 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


ss1@kepler.unh.edu writes:
|>>If she really didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it.

cj wrote:
|>If you really didn't want to get hit by that car, you shouldn't
|>have risked crossing the street.

|Sarcasm intended, truth emitted.  Anybody who doesn't want to
|risk getting hit by a car when crossing the street shouldn't
|cross the street.

It is true that I "emitted" truth.  However, I somehow suspect
that your agreement with me is only accidental.  You probably
intended to write "omitted".  Excuse the vocabulary flame,
please.

|But can you really equate the odds of getting hit by a car crossing the street
|with the odds of getting pregnant by having sex?

Getting hit by a car *is* much more likely than getting
pregnant.

The point is that people take risks that they judge to be
"acceptable" all the time.  They drive cars, ride motorcycles,
cross streets, get into airplanes, have sex, etc.  They know
that risk exists, usually take some steps to minimize it, and
have no moral qualms about getting medical help if an accident
should happen.  Sex & abortion are no different.  Unless you're
a modern puritan, that is.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:26:13 GMT

In <1992Oct1.142920.1767@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <1992Sep29.230649.4628@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
->   (Nadja Adolf) writes: >
->> I am so happy that your aunt and uncle wish misery 
->> on someone else so that they can attain their version 
->> of happy. Personally, such an attitude doesn't strike 
->> me as one desirable in parental units.

->How is it that you're able to infer the attitudes of people you've 
->never met or spoken with?  Such presumption seems incredibly judge-
->mental.

why couldn't she do it the same way you do bill?

did you not just wind down a month-long thread where
you posted several inferences about my attitudes?

perhaps you think you possess some superior attributes?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Sep30.183054.15612@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> <6803@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:41:54 GMT

In article <6803@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
>Let's see if I can get this into your little head.
>	ABORTION IS MURDER

No, you are confusing that with IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

>	FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN

Not even *human* fetuses are human children. After all, human children are not
human adults either. Whether you want to argue that human fetuses should have
the same rights as human children is an entirely different question.

>	JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR CHILDREN INSIDE YOU, DOESN'T MEAN
>		THAT THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.

I'm pretty sure that no child lives inside me. I'm also pretty sure that no
white 20 foot alligator lives inside me, although I can't see it inside me.

>	THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NINE MONTH OLD FETUS AND A NEWBORN BABY
>		IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY NOURISHING A NEWBORN.

Yes, that is one thing we agree on. Now, could you tell me who exactly outside
of China is advocating aborting nine month old fetuses.

>	WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
>		BY LIMB, HAVING YOUR SKIN EATEN BY SALT SOLUTION, OR BEING
>		DUMPED INTO A CAN, AND SUFFOCATING TO DEATH BECAUSE YOUR
>		LUNGS WEREN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET???

I have never experienced that, but it sure sounds like fun to me. I'll have to
try it at the next opportunity.

>I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
>what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
>at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
>at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off.

It certainly sounds like a safe bet that such a fetus is aborted for good.

>LOOK INTO THEIR FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

What's the point in that? Do you expect them to reply?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:30:40 GMT

In article <BvBGz8.DKt@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> 
> Thanks for attacking the argument, not me!

Just wondering, given the prickly tone of your response to
me, whether this was written with me in mind.  If so, you are
dead wrong about my original follow-up, and if you read it
again you may just see that.  If not, no harm no foul.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: YES, so what is your point...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:50:07 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

] In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
] 
] >  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
] >  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
] >  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
] 
] Try this on for size.
] Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
] Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
] Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

Mark,


I shall take the liberty that you presumed that this
was some sort of rebuttal....

can you help us understand what you were trying to suggest.


ciao
drieux


ps: "Shoot the wounded and Move OUT." May not be a pleasant
Idea, but sometimes it really is the ONLY OPTION.



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 17:29:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.192511.23079@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.113706.20405@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>Even where birth control is involved, acceptance of the risk of pregnancy is
>>implicit in consent to sex - and the woman, and her partner, bear 
>>total responsibility for both her own and the fetus' predicament.  
>>Enforced slavery, my eye!  Do you or does anyone else really believe 
>>this crock?
>
>This is YOUR OPINION, that "acceptance of the risk of pregnancy is implicit
>in consent to sex." I do NOT share your opinion. Thus, I guess I "really
>believe this crock."  Consent to sex = consent to sex, nothing more, nothing
>less.


What I would like to know from you is the following:

When there is a zygote in a woman's womb, who put it there?

The tooth fairy?

If the parents had nothing to do with it getting there, then how did this
happen?

If the parents are not responsible for it, then who is?

Assuming that you think parents sometimes have responsibility for their kids,
when do you say they acquire it?

By which action does a father acquire responsibility for a child, if not
through his consent to sexual intercourse?   After all, that is all he does 
until the baby is born.

[...]

>>--
>>Frank O'Dwyer	
>
>-Kristy
>-- 
>    +==========================+===========================================+
>    |Kristy Patterson          | What is the law?      NO SPILL BLOOD!     |
>    |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | Who makes the rules?  SOMEONE ELSE!       |
>    +==========================+============================Oingo Boingo===+


-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:34:51 GMT
 <1992Sep29.230816.4718@jetsun.weitek.COM> <5696@news.duke.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>Taken from an article by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
>?mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>?>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>?>
>?>Try this on for size.
>?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>
>How about replacing "responsible" with "convienient"?

How about not?  Some of us have living will which state in no uncertain
terms that herioc measure are not to be used if we are judged to not
recover.

My wife and I have had these documents drawn up, plus cross-powers of
attorney, and written codicils instructing ALL life support be terminated
when there is no hope of recovery.

That is responsible.  I'll leave it to God to let me survive sans medical
technology if that is his desire.  After all, when only a 'miracle' could
bring one back, that sounds like a very reasonable idea!

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Keywords: philosophy, ignorance
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:40:15 GMT

Is it just me, or is Nyikos starting to sound a lot like Chaney/Hall?
The same overblown ego, casual treatment of facts, and intolerance 
for other opinions are showing up in Nyikos' posts as well.  Too bad
Nyikos isn't as funny.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>All the salient issues which have been brought up on this net so far, you
>mean. I have not yet begun to fight.

>Count me out.  My present pro-life stance is based on an agnostic
>world-view, and I can run circles around most people when it comes to 
>science and philosophy.                  ^^^^^^^^^^^

>And it is as nearly a sure bet as anything, that what I said is literally
>true, and probably it would be literally true if most people who post
>regularly to talk.abortion said it.  After all, the average American
>is abysmally ignorant of science and has next to no idea of what philosophy
>is all about.  

>At any rate, with my credibility
>in all kinds of other matters under intense fire by Larry, I felt I had
>to seize this opportunity to show how he had compromised his own
>credibility with this outrageous claim.  How else to do that, except
>by posting some of my credentials?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:16:05 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


psl>In article <3828@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
dk>In article <1992Oct2.195517.21533@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) write:

dk> Where I think your argument lacks consistency is
dk>if the woman knew when she participating in coitus sex that she could
dk>die if complications arise in the pregnancy.  Wouldn't she still
dk>have a responsibility to this fetus?  Shouldn't she then due to this
dk>responsibility have to forfeit her life to save the fetus's life.
dk>She made the commitment by having coitus sex and why would threat
dk>to her own life allow her out of this commitment?

psl>     The resolution of the case where two lives are in contention seems to be a
psl>very complex one.  Our society does not require a parent to die for his or her
psl>child.  On the other hand a certain amount of risk IS demanded.  If abortion
psl>were ever criminalized this issue would surely have to be addressed.

I still think the argument lacks consistency.  In the case of the two
lives in contention, with the responsibility argument, it seems clear
at least to me who's right to life should take precedent.  According to 
the argument, the mother put the fetus in this position and is 
responsible for it being there.  The fetus is in this position 
through no fault of its own. To expect the fetus to forfeit its life
when it took no action and wasn't prepared for the consequences
would be wrong.  The woman knew that coitus sex carried the risk
of death and voluntarily participated in coitus sex knowing the 
risk.  I don't see the problem in determining who's right to life
would take precedent.

Our society also does not allow the killing of a born child
to save your own life.  However, if you were to put a child 
in a predicament where they could lose their life, then there
is a good chance you will be punished.  It may not be murder,
but it may be manslaughter or child endangerment. A parallel
to this abortion argument might be a parent takes their child
somewhere and it ends up only one of them can survive.    The
parent knew going to this location that there was the possibility
that they would be faced with this type of danger.  Should the
parent have the right to kill the born child to survive?  
 
Why is a certain amount of risk demanded?
 
Note:  These are not my arguments.  I don't believe the act
of coitus sex creates an obligation to the fetus or unborn
child.  I just was wondering about the consistency of those 
that do use that argument. 

psl>Paul

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Give me one good reason, why I should listen to you... (Was: Drinks)
Summary: They just don't learn, do they, Martha? 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 22:51:52 GMT

In article <l!_ps+.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>But I don't want to allow a woman to say, "Oh gee, seven months
>pregnant... you know, I really don't feel like having a baby at all."
>with no better reason than this.  This just wouldn't be fair to the
>person within her; she should have made up her mind before the fetus
>had a mind.  ;)

Before you go around talking about making laws about this sort of stuff,
kindly provide some evidence that women say, "Oh gee, seven months pregnant...
you know, I really don't feel like having a baby [after] all."

As Murphy Brown said, "I didn't just wake up one morning and think, 'well, I
can't go get a perm, so I think I'll become a single Mother'".

Think about it.
--
=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???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Galen fumes, rants, then expectorates...
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:27:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center


"Though I speak with the tongues of angels, but have not love, then I
am like a loud gong or a clanging cymbal."

No, that may not be an exact quote, nor do I know what translation it 
is from.  I can look it up if someone demands.  I believe it is from
Paul (aka Saul, before his bad acid trip in Syria) in his first letter
to those at Corinth.  This is from memory (I've read the book cover
to cover three times now, something I would think some of the people
here might try even once).  My own favorite is in another testament,
but I do know where that is:  Isaiah 2:4

I state again, and no one (not even noone) has contradicted me, I doubt
that you can find support for any secular law in the new testament.
I have met some wonderful people here who truly act in accordance
with their beliefs, and then again I have met some others.  "The 
cock shall not crow..."  

I spit on you.

(No, I did not forget a smiley face.  If there was a spitting face
that were as well known, I would have included that.)

--
       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!
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Finally!
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:37:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep29.024358.25643@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Geez, now I'm confused.

Now that you've admitted it, the next step is doing something about it, eh?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Have you herd about the ram?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:48:22 GMT

In <1992Sep29.192650.1304@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

->In article <1992Sep28.163816.15163@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->>In <Bv5s9r.3nn.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
->>   (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
->>In article <1992Sep23.201837.21608@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
->>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->>>> I think your egocentrism justifies current speculation 
->>>> that you're the "ram of the herd"!  You obviously think 
->>>> so!

->>> Would you care to elaborate on this comment, Overpeck?
->>> I'd like to know who you are calling a herd, for one
->>> thing.  

->Hmmm... who is bragging about being the biggest sheep?

and overpeck will probably continue to deny that his
remark was sexist.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39285 talk.politics.misc:48506