HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:43:13 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

In article <1992Sep10.211853.17123@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep10.020726.6021@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> >>> after you read them, i wonder if you might not
-> >>> want to amend your statement.
-> > 
-> >> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
-> >> immaturity with mental illness.
-> >
-> > i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad,
-> > really, that you don't think therapy might help.
-> 
-> Therapy "might help" anyone who's interested in it
-> as a vehicle for effecting positive life changes.  I
-> don't recall having seen Doug express such an
-> interest.  That aside, though, why is it "too bad"?

it's "too bad" because it displays a callousness on
your part which i hadn't previously observed. most
posters to t.a., imo, wouldn't mind at all if someone
sought therapy to effect a positive life change.

-> > perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point
-> > you've already lost.
-> 
-> If you'd simply list the symptoms that you've
-> identified as clinically significant, it would
-> markedly enhance your credibility in this area.

i doubt it. i'm not expressing a professional
diagnonis. i'm expressing an opinion, one which is
shared by many.

-> Until you do that, you don't even have an argument.

you're the only one arguing as to DODie's and
chaneyhall's mental health, bill.





-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Keywords: blasphemy
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 14:22:52 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <nyikos.716340103@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>1. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
>wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
>may have had in a Creator of our physical universe.

>2. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
>wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
>may have had in personal survival after death.

>3. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
>wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
>may have had in a personal deity capable of directly intervening in
>human history.

Your post made me semi-curious Peter.  This power to determine who is 
or isn't a true Christian, where did it come from?  Were you born with
this power or did you develop it over the years?  Did your god grant
it to you or did you have to take classes?  It seems like a mighty
strong power, did they teach you to be cautious with it at all, or are
you suppose to go out and use it whenever you feel it is appropriate?

One other comment about your much too long post:

>Ms. Campbell's words are doubly misleading because they give the
>impression that Bush is trying to "harness" God in pursuit of traditional
>family values, rather than acknowledging that, at least in this, he is
>making a sincere effort to follow what he sincerely sees as divine values.

Are you really this gullible?  Do you see any other potential incentive
for Bush to push his family value agenda other than sincerity?

Dan King
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Siamese twins false analogy (Re: Badges of Honor)
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:34:19 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>How's about siamese twins?

>They're the only other instance in the world right now in which one
>human being uses organs that another human being is using, and while
>there is dispute from Ronald Bense on it, at least 40+ states currently
>mandate that no separation be allowed if it is fatal for one twin.

Another note on this Siamese twin topic. Steve, there's a fundemental
difference between siamese twins and a pregnant woman. With siamese
twins, it is unclear exactly who has sole proprietorship of which organs,
if any. This is not the case with a pregnant woman. She had sole proprietorship
of all her organs before conception, and the fetus is an invading lifeform.
Siamese twins develop simultaneously (at least effectively) and which
has rights to what organs is questionable. Not so for the woman, since
they are defintively her organs. A closer analogy would be the tapeworm.
It pretty much does the same things a fetus does: it grows in the body;
it sucks nutrients off the host; it defacates into the host; and it
did not grow up with host, but was introduced at a later time.

Oh, and separation is allowed if it falls within the criteria of trying
to save a life. There are times when Siamese twins will not survive
coupled, but one has a chance if separated. Then this may occur, unless
fetus idolators like you prevent it, on the synopsis that sacrificing
one life a little early to save another is IMMORAL.

>By rule of precedence, your entire argument is invalid.

>Of course, you could uphold your argument by making NEW rules...

By consideration of facts and your weak attempt at logical conjecture,
your argument fails, and no new rules are needed. I don't even have
to show a case of siamese twins that were separated and one died, since
it is immaterial to whether alleged laws applying to them could be considered
to apply to pregnant women. Now, if you wish to look at a better analogy,
the tapeworm, I think you'd find that *no one* would have trouble with
eliminating that pest from a person's body. You say a tapeworm is not
a human being? Well, I agree, and neither is a z/b/e/f.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:05:40 GMT

In <1992Sep03.165402.4834@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.715470407@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> I'm not sure what Suzanne's position is on these things, though I do
>> know she would not ban contraceptives,

>I'm not sure how you "know" this, since she has stated in this newsgroup
>that she *would* ban the Pill and the IUD (contraceptives which also work
>as abortifacients).

I should have said, "contraceptives which cannot also be used as aborti-
facients."

>> and I don't even know whether she uses them herself.

>Nope.

>> Trying to pry that information out of her is something I call tasteless.

>"Trying to pry it out of her"???  Try getting her to shut up about it!
>:-)

>(There's probably something that could be said here about her discussing
>her vaginal mucus being tasteless, but I'm eating lunch now...)

I like your sense of humor here, although Suzanne might not.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 13:30:26 GMT

In article ray@netcom.com, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>
>Q: What's the difference between animals & people?
>A: Animals only feel.  People feel and _think_.
>

Do you have some information/documentation to back this
assertion up?

---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:05:08 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

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> #garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> #-# james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com# writes:
-> #-# #garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> #-# #-# dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
-> #-# #-# #Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand
-> #-# #-# #Mr.  Nyiko's point of view and perhaps your
-> #-# #-# #folks did not lie or misrepresent or
-> #-# #-# #misunderstand his point of view
-> #-# #-# #conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and
-> #-# #-# #ask Mr. Nyiko himself.
-> #-# #-# 
-> #-# #-# I don't need to - I read Nyikos' article
-> #-# #-# when it appeared.  You should, too.  You'd
-> #-# #-# look like much less of an idiot if you
-> #-# #-# refrained from commenting until you had done
-> #-# #-# so.
-> #-# #
-> #-# #i don't think that's true, susan. mr. dick has
-> #-# #posted to t.a. in the past and always looked
-> #-# #just as much of an idiot as he did here.
-> #-# 
-> #-# I was beginning to think that no one else
-> #-# remembered Dick from his previous posts.
-> #
-> #heh. i remember. he was entertaining, in an odd
-> #sort of way.
-> 
-> And amusing.

in an odd, sad, sort of way.

-> #-# I'd still argue that he could look like *less*
-> #-# of an idiot if he read the articles he was
-> #-# interpreting.
-> #
-> #that may be so. if it is, he's certainly provided
-> #no evidence which would support that view. he began
-> #looking like an idiot, continued looking like an
-> #idiot, disappeared for a long time, and returned
-> #looking like an idiot.
-> 
-> No, no, I'm arguing degrees of idiocy.  I doubt that
-> he could cease looking like an idiot altogether, but
-> he might be able to cease excelling at it.

he might. we'll have to see, won't we? it shouldn't be
all that hard, considering his competition.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Seriously NOT the Basis for a DickSizeWar
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:11:02 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
] 
] I think I'm seeing a case of uterus envy that defies belief.  Someone
] pour cold water on me.

Minor Technical point here Komrade Bard,
but Uterus Envy is NOT a valid basis
for a DickSizeWar....


interesting, though the thought might be....

ciao
drieux



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:28:56 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <tyyn0gp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:

> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
> > You have deleted my question to you:  Should we have triage for all?  Shall we
> >let cancer patients die because we could save more lives by spending the money
> >elsewhere?  And don't forget the millions spent on pure research in the area.
> >Should the premie have been allowed to die?  Would have saved oodles of $$. And
> >how bout them artificial limbs?  Waste of money.  Shall I continue?
> 
> We already have triage for all.  The factors are complex and weigh not only
> the cost of the procedure and the likelyhood of success, but also the person's
> percieved "value" to society and the circumstances of the need.  Not everyone
> (not even nearly everyone) gets _all_ the medical care that might do them
> some good.
> 
> But in answer to your question ...
> 
> Would I rather see $100,000 spent on a 95% chance of saving my life or spent
> on a 5% chance of saving the life a 22-week preemie?

  I do suppose then, that you will tell the parents that the money was poorly
spent?

> Would I rather see $40,000 spent to force a woman to give birth than spent
> to save the lives of 40 living, breathing, starving, people?
> 
> Take a guess.
> 
> Perhaps preventing abortions _won't_ save lives.
> Ray Fischer

  You've gone binary again, Ray.  Either-or. C'mon man, not all choices are
1-0. All we need are about 12 fewer B-2 bombers. Then we could do almost
all of it.  I say we can do both.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is supported
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:38:00 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

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> #  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
-> #    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu#
->       -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here
->       -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
->       -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here
->       -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
->       -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)
->       -- smccabe@mn.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah McCabe)
->       -- lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
->    "Neither do I" -- ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) <2ymn8gh.ray@netcom.com# 

i see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to ...
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:49:32 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
: Certain rights should not be left up to the majority to decide.  You made

Who should decide them then?   Why is a small clique better?

: We have a democracy in the USA, but the Constitution does not allow the
: majority to remove rights from the minority.  That's one of the important
: aspects of the Constitution, and what seperates the USA from other
: countries - Democratic or not.

And the sea.  Don't forget the sea.  The sea is good.

: 
: 
: 
: Gordon
: Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
: Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
: 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.
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:37:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.221625.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>But even if that's wrong, that's one of the many wonderful things about a 
>woman's body--they were designed to accomodate and nuture a growing baby.  
>They automatically intake more nutrients to account for it.
>
>

How does a woman "automatically" intake more nutrients when pregnant?
I've been pregnant twice now, and not once did any nutrients "automatically"
enter my body.  All nutrients, minerals, vitamins, and junk food entered
the same way--*I* put it there.  There was nothing "automatic" about it.


Jennifer
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Date: 11 Sep 1992 16:47:59 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 3460@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <18o0utINNa4q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> >
> >In article <lav1kaINN7u9@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
> >.In article 15914@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official researcher of USENET's Astro_Boy virus) writes:
> >.. 
> >.. Rumor has it, he's got a TV show coming soon. 
> >.. What does Gloria Steinem have? 
> >.Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with
> >.1.  Dignity.
> 
> Rush has tons of that. He's also got:

Hmmm, I haven't seen any evidence of that.  Care to share it with us or should
I simply consider the source....
 
> 
> 1) Pride

In what?  Besides making fun of the opposition, what has Rush contributed
to solutions?


> 2) Fame

Jack the ripper is famous as is Hitler, what's your point?

> 3) Lots more fans than Gloria Steinem

Assertion, please support.
 
> 4) Lots more $$$$ than Gloria Steinem, probably. (Though that's pure
> speculation.) 

Your fixation with $$$$ is a valuable indicator of what you consider
valuable.  Is this part of the *family* values?

> 
> > 2.  The freedom to control the use of her body, for the time being at least.
> 
> Too bad marijuana users and hungry folks on the street, don't have
> that. 

Seems the Borg System has gone into hyper-space.  Care to explain why this
has *anything* to do with Gloria Steinem?


> 
> >Adrienne Regard
> 
> 
> -----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
> 	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.

I'll give you this much, I like this .sig better than those other monstorities


:^D.


Bob De Guc
Pro-Choice
Father &
Father to be (30 Nov 92)
 




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Clinton == !Choice
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 23:26:14 GMT

<la0aoeINNr7r@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) said:
>>	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>>American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>>"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
>>kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.
>
>	Seems I forgot to relate this more to this group.  With Clinton's
>economic/tax/health aide plan, we will all pay more taxes so that the
>government will pay for health care, thereby dictating to us where we can
>go.  

"Dictating"?  You mean Clinton's plan will not allow me to go to my
personal doctor?  I think not.

>     So, under Clinton, women will have the choice to abort, but they will
>not have the choice of doctor.  

Where do you get these lies?  Clinton's plan does not force women to go
to a particular doctor to get an abortion.

>                                If a woman chooses to have the child, then
>she cannot choose the school.  

Geez!  How can you type this stuff with a straight face?  Where does
Clinton's plan dictate that no one may send their child to a private
school?

>                               Boy, talk about odd.  

Boy, talk about lame.

>                                                     Oh well, at least a
>woman can choose whether or not to bring this child into the world....

She will if Clinton gets elected.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
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
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 19:39:55 GMT

In <1992Sep8.202941.27885@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>Actually I put the dividing line at the beginning of "myelination" in
>the brain, which I see as the last clear-cut step needed before the
>brain can come "on-line". 

Could you direct me to the source of this claim, so that I may clearly
see what you mean by "on-line"?

> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
>coincidentally is the the current viability age.

There have been cases of children being born at 20 and even perhaps 19
weeks and surviving.  According to Bernard Nathanson, there was a case
in a Chicago (!) hospital of one Madeline Mann, born on June 27, 1989
weighing all of 280 grams; she spent 4 months in the premature nursery
and was 

"discharged home on October 26, weighing 4 pounds, 3 ounces, healthy
and with reasonable assurance that she would have no significant health
problems in the future related to her extreme prematurity.  She is the
smallest survivor on record to date...but, as athletes say, records
are made to be broken.

"We are amused (and not a little chagrined) to read portentious
pronouncements by so-called science writers in popular magazines and 
daily newspapers to the effect that the unbreakable viability barrier
has been reached at 23 weeks, and there it will remain. 

"These writers
(some of whom have a not inconsiderable personal stake in the women's
rights-abortion on demand movement)...speculate with high mandarin
arrogance that the viability barrier is unbreachable at the 23 week
stage because of the difficulties in oxygenating the fetal lungs...

"But at this very moment, work is going on in Philadelphia using an 
oxygen-bearing fluid (a perfluorocarbon) to bathe the lungs of such
tiny babies...When perfected, this technology has the capability of
rendering the entire concept of viability obsolete: babies born at 
twelve weeks could conceivably be kept oxygenated, alive and growing
to maturity." 

[Bernadell Technical Bulletin v. 1. no. 2 Nov. 1989]

Peter Nyikos


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36574 alt.abortion.inequity:3759
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:48:58 GMT
 <1992Sep7.033921.8119@midway.uchicago.edu> <Bu7rGC.LE1@cs.psu.edu> <1992Sep10.043104.13016@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>Got it right on the button.  Especially the "hard-line" part.  It is
>how I've always regulated my sex life, in other words, I won't sleep
>with a woman I'm not willing to marry and raise children with.
>
>This has restricted my sex life, but I believe that I am happier for it.

Fine.  YOUR choice.  YOUR morals.  Please do not seek to impose your
particular morality on me or others.  The choice to have or not have sex is
a basic freedom that each of us has.  Dealing with the consequences is an
individual decision, with some responses compelled by law (child support).

No form of birth control is 100% effective.  Not even abstinance.  (Ever
hear of rape?)

Where exactly do you get the right to impose your brand of morality on the
general public?

 -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