HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:09:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.232217.1780@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.224204.24015@crd.ge.com> 
>james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>
>> you made another unsupported statement. i think, as i said, that your
>> statement is unsupported because it's not true. and i think it's
>> not true because you seem so intimidated by ms garvin 
>
>
>intimidated by ms. garvin => not true statement => unsupported statement
>
>
>OK, let's try out your reasoning above.
>
>I am intimidated by Ms. Garvin, so by your reasoning, it is not true 
>that I am intimidated by Ms. Garvin. 
Uh, Doug. I don't agree with Keegan here, HOWEVER....

I believe you are misreading him:
You are reading him as saying

(I believe(Doug is Intimidated by Ms. Garvin))->(I believe(Doug's statement
is unsupported)

(I believe(Doug's statement is unsupported))->(I believe(Doug's statement
is untrue)

This, if true, would be highly foolish.


However, I believe Keegan MEANS:
(I believe(Doug's statement is unsupported))
(I believe(Doug's statement is untrue.))
(I believe(The reason Doug did not support his statement is BECAUSE
it is untrue.))

This, while questionable:
Is Doug's statement unsupported?
Is Doug's statement untrue?
Are these related?

Is not foolish in the way that your version is.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28494 alt.politics.homosexuality:5135
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:26:13 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <nkmv8q8@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber):
> Though I am no biblical scholar, I do know that Jesus theoretically
> died in like 35AD.  I was under the impression that most of the new
> testament was written several hundred years later...

No way, most of it was written within around 50-60 years of Christ's
crucificion. The earliest bits are standardly believed to the Pauline
letters written sometime in the 50s (not 100% sure of this)?

Are you thinking of the time when the canon of the Bible was decided, a
very different matter?


Andy (living now but still monogamous) Fear
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:52:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.161308.15696@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

>> 9) I don't believe abortion is kiiling.
>
>I'm curious what strange definitions of "abortion" and "killing"
>you use to support this belief.  If an organism is alive, and
>I perform some action, and as a direct result of that action
>the organism is now dead, isn't it accurate to say that I have
>killed (not "murdered" or "butchered" or "slaughtered", simply
>"killed") that organism?  Isn't a human fetus (living organism)
>nearly always killed during an abortion?

'Scuse me while I jump in here but, yes, an abortion kills a fetus. 
Removing a wart kills a wart, and taking penicillin kills chlamidia.

Killing as used  in 9) above is not used in the context you put it in.
Life is short, let's not play games with semantics.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Homophobics and pro-lifers.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 23:19:23 GMT

<n24oacc@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) said:
>weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) writes:
>|But additional and probably
>|controversial to the original poster's opinion, I think that there is no 
>|need to give specific official protection and support to homosexuality.
>|
>|Marriage would meet that definition.
>
>I do not understand how denying gay people a right that
>straights consider fundamental is offering any particular
>support.  I consider it merely fair & equitable, on a par
>with "granting" voting rights to gay people.  They are
>citizens;  they should get the benefits of being citizens.
>
>If you think same-sex marriages would hurt you in some
>way, then yes, you are being homophobic.

This is what I don't understand -- why do some people feel threatened by
homosexual marriages?  It doesn't seem to make sense to me.  A lot of
people see gay men as wimps and sissies.  If they truely feel that way
then why are they threatened?  How can you feel threatened by someone you
consider a wimp (exception is George Bush who is one powerful wimp)?
If all you are concerned about it "an affront to god" then let god handle 
it.  Why do you feel impowered to act as god wrt homosexuality?  Where
does he give you the authority to take any steps against any sinners? Most 
Christians feel that their god's going to take care of all the sinners 
anyway.

*end of rant*


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
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
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: secret life
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:31:14 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Jul20.105044.1443@massey.ac.nz>, news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System) writes:
>Life begins when a woman and a man consent to intercourse the choice is already
> made  the purpose of reproduction, sexual gratification is the side  affect.

 This is one of the most stupid things I've ever read. Talk about being stuck 
in the dark ages. So people don't have sex for sexual or emotional gratification
huh? That is simply a "side-effect"?  The choice of birth is already made? Well,
no need to worry about our young as they are simply trying to procreate and not
just trying to get their jollies....

> Life is the most important issue, abortion is murder even in cases of rape.

 It really is people like you who scare me - folks with no sense of reality
what-so-ever - people who seem unable to understand that forcing a woman to
give birth to a child who is the result of rape is inhumane at least... I'm
amazed eve3ry time I read such mindless tripe...

> No-one can choose to kill another human being without being told the whole
> story that life is create the instant that the sperm enters the egg. 

 Well at least you realize that it is a "story" - now perhaps if you can be
taught that it is a myth as well....

> This
> generation Kills millions of people every year, when in the same  instance
> millions of people are wanting to adopt babies. 

 Do you really buy this bull-shit? Millions of people wanting to adopt? Tell
me, how many people are in line to adopt african-american children in this
country? How much money are conservative yahoos like you willing to spend to
raise and care for these millions of unwanted children you speak so freely
of? Geezuz - folks like you fight simple funding for educational programs
and you want me to believe that you'll pay for these unwanted children? No
of course not - you'll pray for them but you'll never pay to take care of
them... high and mighty though aren't you?

> Lets stop the killing and
> giving these unwanted children to good homes all around the world.

 Hey - great idea - and we'll start at your house - how many children have
you adopted this year? Maybe we can drop off a half dozen or so next week?

>   I love you with the love of Jesus my lord and saviour
 
 How the hell do you know the love of Jesus? Have him over to lunch lately?
Or does he leave personal msgs. on your answering machine? Keep your religion
out of my wife and daughter's womb thank you very much.... people like you
who think you've cornered the market on God make me wanna puke - *if* there
is a God, then I doubt she's as simple or illogical as you and I doubt she'll
be thrilled with your judgemental attitudes voiced in her name....  

			gln

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 02:16:00 GMT

In article <BrpuyA.A5M@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>In <q0cm=rj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.
>
>The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
>recorded. 

Now Steve.  You're doing it wrong (again).  But what can you expect from 
somebody who puts the word "queer" into their "subliminal" .sig???

Now, it's supposed to be like this...

You're going to BURN IN HELL come the judgement day of our SAVIOR and LORD
_JESUS CHRIST_ unless you REPENT of the evil SINS that the LORD OF LIES
has caused you to WALLOW in.
>
>steve
>-- 
>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA


--
=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 want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:42:19 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
>>his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child sex,
>>what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!
> 
> Do you really believe this is how teachers behave?
> 
> Do you really believe that a movie of someone sneering and smirking as a
> latex condom is placed on a cucumber is pornographic?


I really believe that handing children condoms and training them to
roll them on and off cucumbers and bananas is for the sole purpose of
desensitizing them to casual, random, and public, sex,   so that they
will be far more likely to participate in it.

(Anyway, what is pornography but public sex?)

SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:45:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.052528.2101@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Cool World applicant) writes:
>What: <1992Jul21.161854.15664@ncsu.edu>
>Who:  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>I notice, Doug and Steve, that you were both VERY silent about this article:
>
>= = = = = = = = = =
>From: dhanson@nyx.cs.du.edu (David L. Hanson)
>Subject: Abortion is a SIN against God!
>Message-ID: <1992Jul20.202431.13636@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

I responded to one earlier before that, though. 

Check today's posts. 

Sheesh, Jay, you've got to wait a while before you shoot off like
this. 

 
===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:45:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


The lawyer didn't look at abortion too closely, Kellmeyer.  I
pointed this out when Holtsinger tried to use that reference
regarding safety standards and clinics.  The U.S. District
Court held in Abortion Coalition of Michigan, Inc. v. 
Michigan Dept. of Public Health that freestanding abortion
clinics may be regulated by local health agencies.

I'd recommend that the right-to-lie side revise its claims
on the safety on legal abortion, and that they consult some
original sources this time.  Repeating some incompetent's
error doesn't help your credibility.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29060 alt.politics.bush:284 alt.politics.clinton:849
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BUSH
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:39:41 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
[follow-ups to talk.abortion, except for Freddie McCall, who
 will followup to t.b just because he knows it irritates some people]

heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
|	Why aren't more people focusing on ways to make it easier for
|women to  have and keep their children?  

Because it is very expensive.  The anti-choice Republicans
are busy working against the kind of programs you describe
below, even as they draft legislation that would force women
to have children.  They don't want to spend the money.  They
care about fetuses, all right-- they just don't care about
children.  Pigheaded selfish shortsighted scum, that's what I
call them.

[Terrance calls for the gov't to assist in:
* prenatal care
* health care for infants & children
* maternity & paternity leave
* child care]

 [...]
|Another method of decreasing the demand for abortion is to
|increase the information and access women have concerning birth
|control.  A pregnancy that never happens can't become a crisis.
|Making sure that anyone who can get pregnant, or who can get someone
|else pregnant, has access to birth control ought to be a priority if
|abortion demand is to decrease.

This is probably the most workable option.  It's the cheapest
to fund.  It's the least stressful for people.  It's empowering,
because it lets people choose when they want children.  People
who are educated about their bodies are less likely to get STDs,
too.

|Behavior can be changed through legislation, but faith cannot.

I don't think you can change even behavior through legislation,
especially when that legislation goes against human nature.
Legislated morality cannot be enforced.  Drug prohibitions cannot
be enforced.  People have basic drives to have sex & get
intoxicated.  Better to acknowledge it & work with it, than to
fight it & waste money that could be spent to make people's lives
better.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: INFO: Professional Women's Network
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Jul 1992 09:30 EDT  

The Professional Women's Network (PWN) is a non-denominational, bi-partisan
organization which unites professional women to work for the betterment
of women and for the rights of all members of society.  PWN currently 
focuses on the abortion issue, believing that the best way to safeguard
the rights of the elderly, poor, sick and disabled is to establish the
value of the most defenseless and voiceless in our society: the preborn
child.

PWN members believe that abortion and abortifacient contraceptives 
represent violent and unsupportive responses to real needs.  Women in
crisis pregnancies need family and community support, not the violation
of their bodies through abortion or the devaluing and destruction of
their children.

PWN's primary emphasis is to educate the public about the realities of 
abortion - its negative effects on women, families, and children - and
about abortion alternatives.  We are committed to working for a 
society that supports women and women's valuable contributions in both 
the workplace and the home, a society that respects all human life.

Founded in Pittsburgh in 1984, PWN has chapters in Chicago, New England,
Washington DC, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.  For more info, contact the
national headquarters:

	Professional Women's Network
	Human Life Advocates
	PO Box 112514
	Pittsburgh PA   15241

A tout a l'heure.

RG
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29315 alt.abortion.inequity:2702 talk.politics.misc:36318 soc.women:14203
From: joseph@emmax5crd.ge.com (joseph)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
Subject: Re: The Horrors of Capitalism
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:17:18 GMT
Reply-To: joseph@emmax5crd.ge.com (joseph)
Organization: GE Research


>vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
> 
>   OB-GYN PHYSICIANS AND RESIDENTS
>    $180,000 Guarantee
>     $180,000 annual guarantee for experienced ob-gyn physicians joining
>     brand new group just moving into Dallas.  Will open in July.  Full and
>     part time openings for residents in surgery, ob-gyn, and general
>     medicine.  Growth potential unlimited.
> 
> Ad run in _Dallas Morning News_ on June 24, 1974.  The above salary guarantee
> was four times the starting salary for regular obstetric practice.
>

  I don't know what the implications of this are, or whether this posting
  is to insinuate that the ad is really directed at OB-GYNs for doing
  abortion,  or if it is for something else, or what.
  
  I would like to point out the following:  This salary
  does not seem out of the ordinary compared to what average doctors
  make.  According to a study released by the AMA (don't have the
  reference handy, but can find if needed), in 1991, the average income
  of an M.D. was US$152,000 after all expenses, but before taxes.
  This study also stated that general practitioners and pediatricians
  earned  less than average, and that specialists earned  higher
  than average.  So 180K for an *experienced* OB-GYN does not seem
  outrageously high.

  Of course, if you ask me, most doctors make too much money for the
  skills, ability, and education that they have.  But a well-organized
  political lobby, lack of market forces, and the very high perceived
  value of their services allow them to get away with that.

  In New York, there is a proposal in the legislature to require all
  doctors to post the fees for various services in a prominent location
  in their offices.  A local newspaper ran a cartoon which showed a
  doctor's office where the sign read as shown below

                   **************************
                   *      BASIC FEE         *
                   *                        *
                   * picture of an arm here *
                   *                        *
                   * picture of a leg here  *
                   *                        *
                   **************************

  james joseph          joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Meaning of "Abortion" (Re: Fetal Heartbeat)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:19:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.224951.3065@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu 
(Don Porter) writes:

}OK.  If you want to insist on a broad usage of "abortion" you
}are absolutely right.  The majority of abortions do not stop 
}a heartbeat.  However, you also have to concede the truth of 
}several other statements when you demand this usage:

}1. The majority of abortions are involuntary.

}2. The majority of abortions involve women who are not pregnant.

}3. The fetus carried by Rev. Schenck at a protest a few weeks
}   ago was the result of an abortion.

It was statement #3 that made the issue rather clear, at least for
me.  When I hear the word "abortion" I tend to think in the 
general case.  If someone were to bring something dead and "unborn" 
to me (I can't imagine this one) I'd probably say it was an abortion.
If I were to be asked what Rev. Schenck was waving, I'd probably say
that I heard it was stillborn, not an abortion.  Clearly, I have
at least two definitions for the term "abortion" and I tend to use
the one where I decide it should apply.  Perhaps others do so also.
The difference might be in our criteria to apply context.  Perhaps 
that contributes to why we often talk past each other, rather than 
to each other.  

}So long as we're in a context like the present one, where it is
}clear that we're using this broad notion of "abortion", these
}statements are non-controversial.  However, I have no doubt
}that if I were to post any one of them in a more typical context,
}I would be immediately challenged.  Thus, it is clear to me
}that the usual usage of "abortion" refers to induced abortions.

Clear to you.  Perhaps not clear to another.  

In any event I'd like to apologize (see, new dictionary) to Don Porter
for some swipes here and some really nasty personal thoughts, which 
fortunately I didn't post here.  I really didn't mean what I 
said about Don and small dogs and children.  It really isn't true.
Well, at least not about the children.  

I won't, however, apologize to either Mr. Kellmeyer or Mr. Clausen,
who I consider to be nervous twits that are probably deserving of
any abuse that is heaped upon them.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Summary: You've lost me...
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:13:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.164502.21645@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.202245.4498@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
>tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>
>>dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> But if a newborn infant can't be transferred to another person, then
>>> the infant would not be "autonomous" by the original definition, and
>>> the infant would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. People could
>>> kill infants by placing them in situations where only one person 
>>> could care for them.  

[I reply and you say I'm wrong...]

Ok, four simple questions:

Pre-infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
Infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
Pregnant Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?


-Richard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion