HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<92281.220604KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <BvtCwF.Gyq@news.udel.edu>
	<92283.031516KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:15:13 GMT

In article <92283.031516KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

   In article <BvtCwF.Gyq@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) says:

   >This sounds like a mythical beast.  I can't think of anyone who advocates
   >the specific position you just stated.

   Of course, nobody claims to.  Rush believes, however, that there are many
   such people who use abortion for political power, and for the money.

   >No, he just blurs the distinction long after he makes his little defensive
   >point.

  No, he doesn't. As I said, he is certainly in favor of equal rights 
  for women. Despite...

   >He argues against women in combat -- so much for equal opportunity.

  He has reasons for this, besides the fact that a poll of the military showed
  that most of them don't want women in combat, either.  If it weren't 3 in the
  morning, I'd get into them.  Maybe later; or, just call him up yourself.
  (Good luck :)

It's 3 AM, Kurt! Get some sleep.. :-)

  >Does anybody know if Rush served in Korea or Viet Nam?  If so -- good
  >for him.  If he avoided the draft by being in college, then he's a hypocrite
  >everytime he mentions Clinton in this regard.  Heck, he's a hypocrite
  >anyway for not bringing up Dan Quayle on the exact same issue.

(Ah, but noble Danny Quayle protected his country - he flew a desk for the
Guard.)

  I've read that he was physically ineligible, some sort of cyst or something.

Yeh, Rush even refers to that cyst periodically. Something about "half his
brain tied behind his back"!

   ------------
   Kurt Ludwick
   ------------

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Poor Dan is in a droop..




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:59:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.035527.3671@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.215349.20594@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>What it does show, however, is that it was reasonable for her
>>to BELIEVE that you had made such a mailing, ...
>
>Eric, Keegan's admission wasn't made until AFTER CJ had made the claim
>publically. As much as I would like to see Keegan's nose rubbed in it,
>the fact remains that CJ's statement was unsubstantiated AT THE TIME IT
>WAS MADE. Keegan and the tribe are correct on that point.
It still is unsubstantiated. Keegan posted the original mailing. Whether
he asked for help is debatable at best.

That's not what's at issue here. What is is whether CJ was LYING
when she said that Jim had asked for support from the mailing
list. The fact that Jim, with the same evidence at his disposal,
stated that he had asked for help, implies that it was not unreasonable
for CJ to believe so(unless, of course, Jim was lying when he
admitted it) and that Jim therefore has not shown that she was
lying.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Human Life! :) (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:30:28 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct6.043316.24701@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote:
> 
> Right now I am addressing your common sense and general sensibility:
> -- Do you really think a cheek cell is a member of homo sapiens?
> -- Is a toe nail really a member of homo sapiens?
> -- Is a six month old fetus/unborn child a member of homo sapiens?

Mr. Guerrero, I've watched you riding this hobby horse for a seeming
eternity now.  Whatever it is you do up at Berkeley, I fervently hope that
it has nothing to do with the study of anything commonly thought of as
"science", since you clearly have neither familiarity with, nor
understanding of the concepts involved.

A queen honeybee is impregnated once, on its mating flight.  Over the
course of its life, it lays tens of thousands of fertilized eggs.  With
your vast grasp of "common sense", perhaps you can tell me the answer: if I
step on a fertile queen bee, how many members of the species am I killing?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:33:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.222622.7916@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>You are arguing that the Bill of Rights contains no provisions for the right
>to life? So, I suppose that YOUR right to life is not guaranteed in the
>Constitution? I don't know if you have heard this case, but in the 1960's


That is not the statement that was made.  Spike Burkhardt made the first
statement which was "a fetus has a right to life since it's stated in
the Bill of Rights that this right exists".  That is a direct quote.
Nowhere in the Contitution does it state that a fetus has a right to life.
Only born persons have this right.

Obvioulsy Spike was making a giant leap from born persons having a right
to life, (due process clause inserted), to fetuses having a right to
life.


Jennifer
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:11:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.005454.22989@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <Bw2oIo.Mz7.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> > People who support a woman's right to decide for herself on the issue of
> > abortion aren't ignoring the woman's reasons, they're accepting
> > whatever reason the woman may have.  
> 
> They're saying that a woman can kill a human being as long as that
> human being resides within her body.

Yes, they are saying women own their own bodies and should
have the legal right to control their own bodies without
others telling them what motives are acceptable for doing
with their bodies what they wish to do.

> They completely ignore the 
> woman's actual reasons for wanting an abortion, and focus only on 
> the location of the fetus in relation to the woman.  They attempt 
> to reduce pregnant women to fetal containers. 

The only reduction is yours, Reverend Doug.  There is no reason
to question the woman's motivations.  She owns her own body.  And
once that is said, nothing more need be said.  That is not
reducing women to containers, but recognizing their autonomy.
If I say I have the right to jump out of airplanes because I
own my own body, does that reduce me to an object that drops
through the sky?

Your remarks are stupid even for you, Doug.  I hope you repost this as
often as you reposted that out-of-context quote about third-
trimester abortions.  By posting this often, you will be doing
the equivalent of marching around in the streets holding a sign
saying "I am an idiot."  An act of honesty I find unusual for
you.

Yes, women are containers and much more.  And they own their own
bodies and it's not up to you or anyone else to tell them what
they can do with their bodies.  And thanks to Admiral Stockdale
for putting it so succinctly last night in the VP debate.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:06:13 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct15.215934.25523@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>
>
>It's arguable.  But it's also arguable that families 
>are directly responsible for the health and safety of 
>their children.  That's where the primary responsibility
>lies, IMO.  My reasons for supporting consent/notification
>laws don't involve the Bells or other victims of tragic
>abortion related deaths; they involve my family and what
>I believe is in the best interests of society.  Your ex-
>perience may be different than my own, but most of the
>adolescents I've dealt with simply lack the maturity to
>make such a difficult decision.  

IMNHAAO, if the family has a good relationship, the child will go
to their parents for help. If the family has tensions around this
sort of issue, the child won't. I suspect that if your daughter got
pregnant, she probably wouldn't want to talk to you, unless she
wanted to have a baby.
Girls aren't stupid.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:18:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.131719.2441@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.223007.8561@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>  
>> There is a big difference between an egg and a zygote.  In its current form,
>> put the egg in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.  Any screaming,
>> crying baby?
>
>If a happy lil'ol' sperm happens along at the right moment, then there
>just may be a screaming crying baby 9 months later.  I love them
>potential peoples.
>
I said in its current form.  

BTW, when the sperm comes along, and it fertilizes an egg, at that exact
point a new human is created.  There is no going back.  The only choice
is to allow the z/e/f/unborn to CONTINUE living as a human, or else
let the z/e/f unborn die.  Either way,

Before abortion, there is a special human life.  After abortion, 
there is death.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42200 alt.rush-limbaugh:7214
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:21:42 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <92283.031516KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick
<KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
> 
> In article <BvtCwF.Gyq@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) says:
> 
> >Does anybody know if Rush served in Korea or Viet Nam?  If so -- good
> >for him.  If he avoided the draft by being in college, then he's a 
> >hypocrite everytime he mentions Clinton in this regard.  Heck, he's a 
> >hypocrite anyway for not bringing up Dan Quayle on the exact same issue.
> 
> I've read that he was physically ineligible, some sort of cyst or something.

I think that's his _head_.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Just Wondering
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:19:15 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

The egg I broke open to make my breakfast with this morning was fertilized.

Did I have an omelette or chicken?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:47:51 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
# >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
# >>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
# >>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
# >>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
# >>an abortion.
# >
# >It does without a doubt.  Are you proposing responsibility police?
# >"Police!  Open up!  OK fella, pull out reealll slow and show us the
# >condom."
# >
# You make it sound like it responsible sex is a bad thing.  And no, I'm
# not talking about "police" of any kind.

Well then, Buckaroo, what the *HELL* are you getting at?

Is the whole point of this thread that you'd like it if we all paid
more than lip service to the idea of `personal responsibility?'

Oh what a Happy Happy Joy Joy World that would be, huh?  Everybody
doing the Right Thing, all the time.  No need for any police to make
sure doing the Wrong Thing demands punishment.

-----

Thanks for weighing in with your invaluable opinions on personal
responsibility, Simon... thanks to you, my whole life is turning
around.  I never knew how important personal responsibility was until
you came along.

Now that I'm voluntarily yoked to my sense of personal responsibility,
I'm free free FREE!


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:53:58 GMT

In article <np1z5=h@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Self-defense is only appropriate when a person faces an imminent and
>> immediate threat from an attacker.  

> Excuse me, but shouldn't that be "a person has a _reasonable belief_
> that they face an imminent and immediate threat"?

Yes.  Generally, a person is legally justified in using deadly force 
against an attacker when they have a reasonable belief that they 
face an imminent and immediate threat to their life.  
 
>                      -rocker


Doug Holtsinger
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:40:45 GMT
 <1992Oct13.021524.1140@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1992Oct13.191614.13665@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct13.191614.13665@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.021524.1140@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.044307.28561@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.ut
>>>
>>>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
>>>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
>>>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
>>>an abortion.
>>>
>>So if everybody has sex with condoms/other contraception, then
>>abortions are ok in your opinion?  That's interesting!
>>
> Abortions are never ok, in my opinion.

How about in this case:  Jane is 12 years old.  Her abusive crack addict
HIV positive father severely beats and rapes her periodically.  She
gets pregnant.  The doctor says she will die if she has the baby.
It isn't ok for her to have an abortion?

Never say never.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:36:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <adams.718394813@spssigSA: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

SA:Bingo!  Remember that the Constitution specifically lays out what
SA:government MAY do, and what rights or freedoms the people have ceded to it
SA:so that it may carry out its duties.

SA:All rights of the people are NOT listed in the document.  Heck, the
SA:founders were a bit afraid of a 'bill of rights' because they feared those
SA:would be the only rights protected.

I also didn't see anything in the constitution about rape and pillage
either.  I guess if the states felt the strange urge to ban or regulate
either of those things, you would claim that that would also be
unconstitutional.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:40:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Oct7.185331.16658@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>In article <1992Oct7.181733.15406@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>>> And Jesus said:
>
...
>The only "wave of biblical exegesis" which I've seen recently
>is coming from a single person -- "The Rink" -- who is responding
>to Steve Adam's claims that the bible supports abortion.  So once
>again, it is the pro-aborts who are the first to raise the issue
>of religion. 

First, shmurst.  See my repost of Suzanne's article where she states that
she believes that *SATAN* causes miscarriages.  If that's not "raising the
issue of religion" I don't know what is.


Gordon
-- 
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.
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:59:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct2.231605.27002@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>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.
>
>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. 
> 

Gee, then the man participating in coitus sex, who also is responsible
for "putting" the "child" there, should also be required to forfiet his
life to bring this z/e/f into existance???  Or is he under a different set 
of rules?  This argument asks a woman to pay the ultimate price, but men
get off scott free.

I guess all MEN really were created equal.

Oh, and for those saying that the man is responsible for the z/e/f after
birth, and after the mother has paid the ultimate price... I remind you
that there are no laws, or cases before the court requiring full paternal
responsibility until age of maturity.  And even if there were, do you
really think the consequences for the lack of paternal responsibility
would be Capitol Punishment?

CRS

BTW the Constitution and the like documents were written when women were
considered property of the fathers and husband.  Any using these
documents in their arguments, please keep this in mind.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:03:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.124218.24506@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>Eric Rescorla writes:
>
>|  What it does show, however, is that it was reasonable for her
>| to BELIEVE that you had made such a mailing
>
>Unless she was hallucinating that morning, it's not reasonable (or
>sane) for C.J. to BELIEVE that she'd *received* such a mailing
>unless she really had.
Keegan believed it. He said as much in email. Was he hallucinating?

>Again, I don't see how this quarrel can possibly belong; I don't see any
>legitimate role you can have in finding the 'truth' of it. 
Jim Keegan publicly accused CJ of lying. I asked him to support
that claim. When he made his accusation publicly(granted, CJ
accused him publicly previosuly), this became a public issue.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: I'm back....
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:11:40 GMT

<1992Oct8.033946.11484@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>After much traveling, almost being in Hurricane Andrew, attending the world 
>sf convention and doing other various things, I have returned.  I was quite 
>pleased to notice that...
>
><1992Oct3.022951.5733@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
>
>I am still remembered here!  Thanks Gordon.  And hi to my other ex-boytoys.
>:-)

You're quite welcome, and welcome back too.  You'll be pleased to know
that my signiture continues to offend the opposition.


Gordon
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42373 talk.politics.misc:51483 alt.rush-limbaugh:7289 alt.politics.elections:16545 alt.politics.clinton:10193 alt.politics.bush:8989 alt.war.vietnam:278