HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:54:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.034056.24259@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.025459.24907@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Mark "He ain't heavy, he's my brother!" Cochran writes:
>>>Kibbles&Bits again.
>>>>Mark again.
>
>>>>>If you can come up with a single condition that makes it more
>>>>>dangerous to terminate a pregnancy then to carry to term, I'd be
>>>>>interested in hearing about it.
>>>>>The only case I can come up with is the chance of being in the clinic
>>>>>when the pro-forcers start firebombing.
>>>>
>>>>That's not an answer.
>>>
>>>An imposible situation does not require an answer Kebbin.
>>
>>Are you saying it's theoretically "imposible" [sic], or just that medical 
>>science hasn't happened to encounter such a thing, yet?
>>
>>>If you can give me a single example of a case in which it is medically
>>>shown to be more dangerous to terminate then continue, then I will
>>>give an answer.
>>
>>I don't care about the mundane details of medicine, Mark. I care about
>
>Or about the "mundane" details of:
>   science
>   history
>   the legal system
>   logic
>   grammer
>   English
>   philosphy
>   Women's rights
>   &etc
>
>>the operative moral principles. Hide behind medical science all you want;
>>I'll still consider you morally inconsistent as long as the question goes
>>unanswered.
>
>Wow!  That's _TWO_ people from the Cochran Clan that Kebbie considers
>to be "morally inconsistent" [sic].

Kebbin is just mad because we live in the Real World (tm) and not in
some Darcian fantasy in which it is more dangerous to terminate a
pregnancy then to carry the fetus to term. Considering his tendancy to
argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.

I'm still waiting for your real life example to validate your question
Kebbin...
As has been said before. Analogies need to have some basis in reality.
Yours does not.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:24:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <519@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   (1)  Not all laws are decided by a vote from 
   the majority of the electorate.  Very few are.  Many decisions are
   made by courts, and most of the rest by legislative bodies.  

And the executive.  You forgot executive orders, like the gag rule.  

Susan, you are being inaccurate.  I am shocked.  I am dismayed.  All
my conceptions of a perfect universe based upon your infinite wisdom
have been blown to smithereenz!  Oh whoa is me.  Whatever will I do?

Sutt/2


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: Clark University
Date: 18 DEC 92 21:57:02 GMT

In a previous article, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:

>No, Heather, I (and probably 99% of the rest of the net) just felt
>that the constant and endless bickering between you and Loren,
>almost none of which contained anything intelligent from either side
>(I seem to remember something about a bet and somebody being tied
>to a chair) was pointless, juvenile, irrelevant, and certainly a
>waste of bandwidth.  

Speak for yourself, David.  I've gotten over a dozen e-mail messages from 
people who enjoyed my responses to Loren's silly posts.  No one is forcing you 
to read what I write.  If I have something to say, I intend to say it.  Get 
used to it.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.194837.14312@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>|>Suzanne, I only hope that someday one of your daughters tells you
>|>she's pro-choice, or that you have to deal with a victim of rape.
>|>I think that the best thing for your idealistic opinions would be
>|>a strong dose of reality.
>
>I am so glad that you wish bad things on someone..I may be a woman hater..
>a cold insensitive bastard..etc....(things that have been said about me on
>this net) but I would never wish the misfortune of rape or family problems
>among anyone....

I wouldn't wish rape on anyone's family either...however I fail to see
how a child being pro-choice  is a family disaster.

>-- 
>-Jeffrey Price

Lost Boy, Professional Smartass.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: misjudging kebbin
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:47:47 GMT

smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes to
kebbin:

->(1) You seem not to have noticed that the very language you are
->reacting to as condescending is word-for-word from your reply to me.
->If you can't take it, I'd suggest that you avoid dishing it out.

i must disagree. i don't think whether kebbin noticed
or not is at all relevant. kebbin has always done that
which he criticized other for doing.

	"Mr. Darcy you have elevated hypocrisy to an art form."
			Linda Birmingham
			<92126.142810ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 18 Dec 92 09:57:45 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <BzF13M.9Cx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
by smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy):
> In article <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu>
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[deletions]

>>This right of separation does not lead to an unrestricted 
>>right to abortion, since most abortion procedures directly
>>violate the child's "right to bodily autonomy".  

> True. Again, however, this right is not there until the fetus has gained
> personhood, which from all the evidence I can gather isn't until the third
> trimester!

Eeeeaaaaasssssy does it.  You have some myelin and some brainwaves
and, I'm led to believe, some reason to believe they tell you when a
human can think, or be conscious, or be sentient, or be able to laugh
with frustration at an overstated argument.  "Evidence" for "personhood"?!
We're talking about philosophies here, aren't we?

[more deleted]

>>One could justify it on the grounds that the child will die
>>anyways after separation, but this rationale would also 
>>justify intentional homicide in situations where a person 
>>can choose between leaving someone to die, or helping them 
>>to live.

> This is a very difficult argument to make; I doubt many ProChoicers would
> choose to make it. Most of them have gone the easier, MORE REASONABLE route
> of saying that a fetus is not really a person until some point during
> pregnancy or until the time of birth. Most Choicers say a fetus is not
> a person until birth. I myself say a fetus is not a person until the
> third trimester. Most AntiChoicers say a fetus is a person at the
> time of conception. This is where we disagree, fundamentally.

Ahhhhh.  That's better.

[snipsnipsnip]

> 	Doug, I have a feeling that many reasonable people in the ProLife
> community are getting tired of these attempts on your part to SCARE people
> into a ProLife stance, through graphic descriptions of abortion and flimsy
> arguments that the ProChoicers must condone some attrocity in order for
> their arguments to remain consistent. I know I've given you a hard time
> myself, but it really does not go as far as this sort of thing you do almost
> every other post on this group. Perhaps you should temper your posts
> with some reasonable analysis of the situation. If I were grading your
> article as a paper, I'd give you a C+ if I was generous.

Agreed.  But I think there are plenty of folks (not necessarily t.a
regulars) who *aren't* consistent, for precisely the reasons you
(Lost Boy) have outlined.  In other words, I don't think it's all that
common outside of this forum for people to apply their understanding of
personhood to their stance on abortion.  Doug's vinegar might never be
welcome or appropriate, but the discussion is relevant, and personhood
is the only way out of the trap.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:03:32 GMT


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:05:42 GMT

In article <16DEC92.07072453@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>> 
>>The answer to your question is right upstairs, bub.  I said "...I could get
>>51% of a given population to vote..."  Therefore, I am 'giving' the population.
>>You took the bet --
>>                    probably because you are too damned stupid to read.
>
>You just proved your own wonderous comprehension skills.  You said you could 
>get 51% of a given population.  Given implies one that was given to you.  You 
>should have said taken if you wanted to take a population of your choosing.  


Let's try it and see how it fits...
[I could get 51% of a taken poulation to vote...]
Nope, doesn't make sense to me.
Tell me (and the rest of the net.world) something Loren.
Is English your second (third?) language?
You certainly seem to have a hard time understanding it.
Or posting comprehensibly in it...
One more thing to add to the list...
Loren Finkelstein does not understand:
Law, sociology, medicine, contraception, political processes, honesty,
or English.
What will be the next thing added to the list?

Face it buboe, you're trying to weasle out.
Nobody else had any difficulty understanding the terms of the bet. You
posted, quite plainly that you accepted the bet.

Officer, arrest that man. The charge? Felony Stupid.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dallagata@fnala.fnal.gov (Michele Dall'Agata)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Poor Michele, stuck in the Middle Ages...
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:16:38 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnala.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec11.195453.7420@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
[bla, bla, bla about names deleted]

[Prehistoric notions about how to treat women, deleted]
> 
>         Nice bit of misogyny there, BTW. Is it just you, or do all
> Italians have such disgusting, prehistoric notions about how to treat
> women? No wonder you hate American women.
> 
[1] I do not hate American women. I tend to be a gentleman, but I am 
feminist and I post in alt.flame. So, if I piss off guys, I do not see 
any reason to do not piss off women here (they do with us, too). 

[2] There are no notions and no rules about how to treat women. We 
have just to be the way we are. Maybe, my way can seem prehistoric and 
disgusting to you, but you are not a women, you can't judge. Many women 
like the cute, nice guys. Many others of them like the macho-style guys.
I prefer the second kind of women, they DO flame more than the first, I 
do not care if somebody else do not like the way I behave. 

[3] I tell you what many girls, from different countries told me:

			*Women like assholes*

It is not a rule. It works with them, not always, but it does works.

>         Now go ask Santa Claus for a life and a clue. And be a good boy.
> 
> Tep

Do not worry. I am a good boy (sometime a little bit asshole, but ok, 
nobody is perfect!)

	Michele
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: A clue for Loren.
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: Fri, 18 Dec 92 03:01:33 GMT

In article <33915@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <8DEC92.15434580@vax.clarku.edu>
>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes to Heather in a thread where the
>opinions expressed by LF get more and more surreal:
>
>>I do have compassion for the pregnant woman.  I am just MORE concerned for 
>>the child whose life is being threatened, rather than the parent who would 
>>only have to undergo a change of lifestyle for a few months.

Ahem.  I would appreciate it if somebody would suggest to "lfinkelstein" that
he talk to some women about their experiences, and then never post anything
like this again.  Thank you.

>
>This seems to be willful stupidity: Lost wages, possible permanent
>health complications, physical pain and discomfort, the trauma of
>labor and birth, possible death, possible career damage, etc.  There
>is a lot more involved than a change of lifestyle.  Are you a parent?
>
>>If two people were kidnapped, and you knew you could either try to rescue one 
>>of them, but the other would die, or you could wait 9 months for the 
>>kidnappers to release them both, which would you do?  These are your only 
>>options.
>
>I just love it when the pro-forcers revert to their ridiculous
>hypothetical scenarios.  We talk about real women and real pregnancies
>here.  Get a clue: When you have to make up ridiculous situations it
>suggests something about your the logical consistency of your
>position.

Very true.  Analogies can be good things.  Remember the glue slatherer?

>
>>Now how about if one of them sent a message to you saying that they want you 
>>to rescue them and sacrafice the other one.  They would rather have those 
>>months of freedom, at the expense of the other persons life.
>
>Person is a legal term.  There are not two people involved in
>abortion.  If you doubt this, try to get a social security number or a
>tax deduction for a fetus.

Also, let's not forget that you need to start paying for a "child" admission
to the theatre, the "split plate" fee at the restaurants, etc.

--
=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???=
=..."And another hundred people just got off of the train, and are looking at =
=us who got off of the plane only yesterday" - SS - "Company"                 =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
X-To: LARRY MARGOLIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:41:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> Note that Adrienne Regard was falsely accused of forgery not that long ago,
LM> by Peter Nyikos.  Peter edited a post he made in response to Adrienne, and
LM> got confused by his own editing.  I don't think it unreasonable to point
LM> out that Adrienne did not, in fact, write all the lines that some idiotic
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
LM> piece of software flagged with her initials.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HEY YOU!!

I happen to *like* SLMR (okay, okay, *ignore* the damn tagline which it picked
this time...  <-: ).

To repeat, what happened was that when someone had replied to my message to
Adrienne, that person's attribution marker was a ">", thus what appeared in
the reply was ">" plus the "AR>" etc.

Besides which, SLMR places the NAME> before *all* quoted text, although it
does make the difference between attributions clearer, by allowing a
distinction between "NAME>" and "NAME>>" etc...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * This tagline is umop apisdn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1992Dec17.043415.9969@pellns.alleg.edu> <BzEsv7.M55@rice.edu>
	<1992Dec18.201519.9172@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.201519.9172@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

   In article <BzEsv7.M55@rice.edu>
   patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>(Not many people are pro-abortion, anyway -- I've only seen one in this
>newsgroup in the last three years.  I think your definition needs a major
>revision.)

   Three.  Gordon and Diana - Catwoman and I forget the third.

Oops.  Sorry about that.  Two confirmed and one possible, though, is a far
cry from the multitudes that the misguided Mr. Roeminger is trying to
imply...

--PLH, who at least can tell the difference between one and many

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:50:11 GMT

<1992Dec11.022530.23407@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Dec6.205522.11696@nmsu.edu>, by sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe):
>> <1992Dec4.044322.7917@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Who created "the big sleep" in the first place?  According to your bible
>>>your god created death to punish Adam and Eve and all of their creations.
>>>It compares to you hanging your kid off a cliff by a rope and when her
>>>arms get too tired to hold on any more and she lets go and falls to her
>>>death you just say, "Well, it was her choice to let go."  You created the
>>>death-situation, then blame her for dying.
>> 
>> This is one the best metaphors for the behavior of the God of the
>> Bible I've seen in a long time.
>
>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>someone who prefers suicide.

What Suzanne fails (or refuses) to understand here is that her god is
the one who laid the obstructions that tripped the child.  And he put
them there solely to trip people.  She also presents other interesting
aspects of her own beliefs:  In her expansion of the analogy her god
requires that the child perform a task (answer yes, or no) in order to
be saved.  It appears that you don't feel this god should save the
child out of general kindness, but only if the child "asks" to be
saved.  Doesn't seem like a "merciful" god to me.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:24:15 GMT


lf>In article <16DEC92.21143872@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
lm>In a previous article, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) wrote:
 
lm>I hate to clue you in, but by the same reasoning a fertilized egg will
lm>never develop into an adult, either.  It might become an embryo, but then
lm>it wouldn't be a fertilized egg any more...
 
lf>Except the fertalized egg will grow into an embryo...adult.  There is a 
lf>difference between growing into something (fertalized egg -> Embryo), and 
lf>being changed into something by outside forces (unfertalized egg -> fertalized 
lf>egg)
 
Loren, there is a woman involved.  No fertilized egg has grown into
an adult yet without it being done by an outside force.  I'm sure 
the abortion debate is much easier to deal with when you ignore the 
woman involved, but many of us don't have that ability.
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:07:40 CST

In article <1187@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>
>I view abortion to save the life of the mother as self-defense, and I
>would treat it the same way, i.e. the same standards would apply.

So you wouldn't mind putting every couple who loses
a wanted pregnancy because of tragic health complications
through the additional pain of, say, a grand jury hearing?

You are one cold-hearted bambibal.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: My vote for funniest comment of the week
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:08:12 GMT

In article <nyikos.724092839@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <lefty-051292033007@90.190.56.101> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>
>>Come on, Susan.  Kevin has certainly had admirers in the past, Steve "Late
>>But Not Especially Lamented" Franklin being only the most recent.
>
>>Not surprisingly, they were uniformly even sillier sons of bitches than
>>Darcy.  Mr. Beaver seems to be no exception in this regard.
>
>I've decided to put no more weight on insults emanating from
>lefty@apple.com  than if they emanated from apple@apple.com
>instead.  They bear so little resemblance to anything going on in
>the world of human beings.
>
>>--
>>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
>
>I know DOD stands for "Dear old Dougie." 

Actually, "DOD" has been in Lefty's .sig longer than Doug has been a regular
poster to t.a. "DOD" here stands for "Department of Defense". 

>What does CMC stand for?

"CMC" is a company that makes networking products. Lefty apparently 
considers himself a fairly studly techie/networking dude. Or, at least
he DID, before he became a just another worm in the Apple Corps.

>and how do all those :. change the meaning?

That's just for uglification.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51968 talk.religion.misc:23806 alt.atheism:23619 sci.skeptic:21359