HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 16:32:19 GMT

In <1992Sep04.162824.32187@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <nyikos.715613094@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> When I posted the original article along this thread, it was before I
>> realized that talk.rape had the sign "Cross-posting not allowed."  If I
>> violated any USENET rules thereby, I apologize.

>But you did it again, nevertheless.  (I deleted talk.rape from the
>newsgroups line.)

Thanks.  From the responses I got, it does not seem that I violated any
hard and fast rules.

>> >>  You mean it
>> >>is simply a baseless speculation?  Gee, I wonder where I
>> >>learned how to do that?
>>
>> >Maybe you read _A Handmaid's Tale_?
>>
>> An off-the-wall novel set in the future USA, in which women
>> are enslaved, RAPED, made to bear children, and if they procure
>> an abortion, they are executed.

>(Note that you're responding to yourself here.)  Dean wasn't referring
>to the anti-choicer's utopia presented in A Handmaid's Tale;

As I recall, he was giving us all a tall tale about ultra-right-wing Christians
artificially inseminating women and forcing them to bear children.
Since I have never heard of an ultra-right-wing Christian doing the
first, and the second is just the spin he puts on laws against
abortionists, I figured the Handmaid's Tale might be where his fantasy
came from about what Christians are like.

[I am working from memory here.  Maybe I am confusing his post with a
similar one and he was just attributing these desires to me.  But that
is even more mistaken.]

BTW "anti-choicer's utopia" is the first valid use of the term 
"anti-choice" that I have seen in talk.abortion.  None of us 
pro-life networkers look upon the world described there as anything
but a dystopia [a term for which I am indebted to Elizabeth Bartley].
It's even more horrific than 1984, and probably lacking all the 
sophistication of Orwell's classic.

> he was
>referring to the example of baseless speculation that you've shown
>with just about everything you've posted.

When I quote from newspaper articles, magazines, books, is that baseless
speculation?  As Holtsinger told me, you don't demand unbiased sources,
you merely label our sources "speculation."  Sorry, the distinction's 
been lost on me so far, but I'll try to keep it in mind.

Peter Ny.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron
>Steve
>>Larry

>>        A fetus is a living member of the human species.  On t.a, a common
>>distinction is made between "person" and "human being" (a distinction, of cours

>Mighty big of you to unilaterally decide what goes on in t.a. I take
>person and human being to mean one and the same thing, unless one starts
>to use them in a fashion to describe things as one of the two for mostly
>emotional reasons, with little validity.

A human being can be a person, but a person is not necessarily a human being.
Person is term describing an entity with certain traits.  It just so happens
to be that certain human beings (moral sense) happen to be persons.


>>which I do not believe is valid).  A human being is any organism which is alive
>>and which is a member of the species homo sapiens.  Unborn children, all of the
>>fall into this category.  A "person" is a human being who is recognized by some
>>group or another and by some standard or another to have human rights, includin
>>the right to life.
>
>You think so. You've yet to show any reason for this except that there
>is a good chance that they will meet the criteria given time. Baby Theresa
>never made it to this stage, and was merely human, not really a human
>being, although a being that was human. Semantic play.

Not correct.  Once a human sperm and a human egg unite to form a zygote, that
zygote is classified as a human being.  Simple biology, not semantic play.

>Ron

kcw




--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35784 talk.religion.misc:15979 alt.pagan:9023
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: "Mystic" predicts Virgin Mary appearance in Kentucky!
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:14:37 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Aug31.203930.17405@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

[Religious information not relevant to talk.abortion, deleted.] 

>I wonder if Suzanne and Chaney are buying their tickets.  They should
>have gone to the Watsonville sighting, it would have been cheaper air
>fare.  Maybe they're waiting for a "private" visitation...

Gordon Storga obviously can't read and his electronic reader was
broken on those days when I posted that the Church and I go on wildly
separate ways. 

Is your electronic reader fixed or will I have to tell you again one
day? 

>It must seem to a lot of people that I only listen for BVM news (I
>assure you I am not interested in thousand year old virgins), but I
>just happen to be listening to KCBS (local station) for traffic reports
>when these little tidbits come across.  Yeah, lucky me.

More religious slurs. Damn, we can find these little slurs just about
anywhere. 

Maybe you're a closet follower of Scott Roby or the Church of Bob. Who
knows? 

=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:01:04 GMT

In article <-zmnl9j.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>>In article <vzlnjl-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>>>>When should legal personhood begin?  And if it's before birth, does the
>>>>>z/e/f have more rights to the mother's body than does the mother?
>>>>
>>>>If it's before birth, does the z/e/f have more, equal or less rights to
>>>>IT'S own body than does the mother?
>>>
>>>How's about the _same_ rights?
>>>
>>>Currently no person may use the body of another person without that
>>>person's consent.  
>>
>>I disagree with your premise, one counterexample (IMO) being child support.
>>This reduces to whether one feels forced labor is a use of the subject's body.
>
>Child support is not bodily servitude.  It requires no forced labor of
>any sort.  It requires only money, which might just as legally come from
>an inheritance as from breaking rocks.

Well, if you are willing to take a pound of flesh, you may have a point.
In real life, however, getting money does require labor from most people.  
I don't know, my inheritances don't quite come in as fast and in as 
"great" an amount as my salary.  

Moreover, the judge bases the support amount on the maximal return of 
your LABOR (ie. imputed salary), not on your subsequent inheritances or 
gifts.  It cannot be assumed that any given person has enough inheritance 
to cover that amount, hence the use of that person's body, time, and labor 
is required.  If breaking rocks makes you the maximum money, then you gotta 
break rocks.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 08:00:42 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep3.223559.16902@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
>> 
>>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
>ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.

Yeah, I'd never vote for a Catholic...


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.
-- 
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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:27:01 GMT

In article <88898@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Chris
>>Eric
>>> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:
>>  ^^^^^^
>
>>> Listen, shithead: I personally know a woman who had an abortion
>>> following a pregnancy which was the result of a rape. Try telling
>>> her that wearing pants is 100% effective.
>
>>I was a little taken aback by your response, Eric, but then I looked
>>at the attribution line.  Talk about ikky-gross:  Kevin Welch is back!
>>
>>So Kevin, have you harassed any pregnant women lately? >:-|
>
>I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually congratulate them
>for achieving it.
So, Kevin, are you going to apologize to all the rape victims that
you insulted in the above post?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<SCOTTS.92Sep10141204@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<24879@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
	<1992Sep10.221722.8254@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:25:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.221722.8254@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

   In article <24879@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) 
   writes:
   }In talk.abortion, scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

   }>                                   (like smoking Peyote...

   }                                    ...peyote smoking...

   Uh, you don't smoke it, you eat it, and I'll bet you only do that
   once.  Talk about a self-limiting drug.  Come to think of it,
   I've never seen a peyote addict.  I hope I never do...

Thank you for the correction.

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Let Galen speak for the undead (Was: Bats don't suck blood)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:38:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.190551.24803@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov 
(Dan King) writes:

}               So Galen, would the analogy hold for the undead?
}What say they?

undead...undead...

(ruffles through requests)

oh yes, the undead...here it is...

*ahem*

The undead would like you to know that they do NOT suck.



--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35584 alt.abortion.inequity:3614 alt.birthright:450
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: control
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:04:05 GMT


Ah, the inimitable Mr "Pregnancy is harmless slavery" Welch is
back with us.

kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes:
|In article <pmar1vs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
|>Gosh, Nyikos, why don't you name for me a contraceptive
|>that's 100% effective?  That is, a contraceptive that will
|>prevent pregnancy for sexually active het women 100% of the
|>time.  Can you name one?

|Pants ( for both ).

Nice try, Mr Welch, but "dry humping" (as it is sometimes
called) is still not 100% effective.  Sperm can still make
their way from those wet, stained jeans up into the woman's
fallopian tubes.

And even if a woman should decide only to dry hump, and
never to engage in clothes-off intercourse, she could still
be raped.  Rapists are probably not going to respect her
wishes, don't you think, Mr Welch?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"So starvation is not the direct cause of death.  Starvation alone 
does not cause death.  Starvation does not cause death." --Kevin Welch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:18:34 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BuF467.5FK.2@cs.cmu.edu>
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I don't know how many women would suspect that they are pregnant 
>if their period was a week late.  Lots of teenagers have irregular
>periods - one week is not an alarming delay for them.

Lots of adults have irregular periods, too, and/or ridiculously long
cycles.  This also assumes that the pregnant woman has kept a
calendar, which not every woman does.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:42:46 GMT

In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
>body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
>to controlling it.   

You are being unrealistic and possibly hypocritical here.

A woman doesn't absolutely *have* to control a fetus in order to kill
it.  If she has surgery to remove a tiny bit of her *own* body, right
where the umbilical cord connects, the fetus will die in very short
order.  Presumably it can then be removed.  On the flip side, unless
the woman has the right to control the fetus's body (whether directly
as in a modern-day abortion, or indirectly by controlling her own body
as above), she loses the right to control her own body to avoid the
effort and effects of being pregnant.

In the *real* world, either the woman can control both her own body
and the fetus's during pregnancy, or she can't control either.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Summary: Now, wait just a minute... 
Organization: Transylvania Tech 
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:41:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.142500.29819@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.133839.3909@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
>(dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>}Mr Mezias did not refer to vampire bats, but to vampires. 
>
>So what are you trying to say, that vampires suck?   Do you have
>any documentation?  Besides Scientific American, that is, that sounds
>like a pro-vampire publication to me...

As someone who, up until two weeks ago, didn't show a reflection from a
mirror, I resemble that remark...:-)

--PL"hey!  get that garlic AWAY from me!"H.  Sunlight bad.

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:10:11 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <3x6ypsp@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>#
>#                    -rocker
>#                     who will post the quote if there is sufficient interest


>I'm interested.  Please post it.

This is in an article about fetal tissue research.

"...those who are pushing hardest for the transplant of fetal brain
tissue from aborted babies into the brains of adults suffering from
Parkinson's Disease or Alzheimer's disease.  Don't they realize that
in proposing such a procedure they are advocating putting the body
of one individual into another human being to create a somatic
multiple person (this concept is common to all tissue and organ
transplant), but also in placing brain tissue into someone else's
brain they are creating a second personality as well?  Think of it:
two human beings of separate tissues and separate personalities 
within the shell of one being."

Bernard Nathanson, _Of Pre-Embryos and Bourbon Kings_, All About
Issues, vol 13 no 4, August-September 1991

>He seems to get more ridiculous in his claims with each passing
>year.  

Well, saying that a few cells will transplant an entire new
personality definitely indicates that his elevator stops a few
floors short.  Unless he's done some sort of bizarre human
experiments that we don't know about.

Another interesting note in the article is "He and his wife 
currently run their own firm, Bernadell, Inc., a producer of
pro-life educational materials."  Guess owning an abortion
clinic wasn't nearly lucrative enough for the dear old doc.
I'll bet he rakes in the bucks from those dedicated pro-
"life"rs.  Anyone wanna try and find out what his company
brings in in a year?

>Susan

                           -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 22:14:09 GMT

In <18if47INNfja@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715891740@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>We were talking about a very specific quote from a very specific post
>>by Will Steeves.   

>Followed up and quoted by a number of other posters on this net.  It's not
>like his dangerous foolishness appeared once and only once then disappeared.
>I join Keith in being somewhat skeptical.

>Adrienne Regard

Now that the post has been repeated on the "FOCA : and I quote" thread
by Dan King, no thanks to you, you get to read my opinion about it.
Enjoy.

Peter Nyikos



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35780 alt.abortion.inequity:3660
From: wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:59:07 +0200
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <siyemop@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
> In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>> >Currently true.  But IMO, that's what this discussion is all about, changing
>> >that.  Just because a fetus is not recognized as a person now, does not
>> >mean that law (or amendments to the constitution) cannot be passed to
>> >change it's status.
>> 
>> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
>> 
>> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ray Fischer
>> ray@netcom.com
> 
> That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
> think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
> - and my wife has said the same thing...
> 
> 
> -- 
> =========================================================================
> Sean P. Curley						Unify Corporation
> Engineering Manager					Sacramento, CA.
> =========================================================================

If only more people would realise the truth and stop trying to sweep it under
the rug.  Congrats Sean P. Curley for making a stand for the right to life of the
unborn.  
James Wanliss, University of Cape Town, South Africa                                                                     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Heeee's Baaaccck! (Was: What's easy & difficult in abortion)
Summary: I *KNEW* I shouldn't have used his name in a post... 
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, 9 Sep 92 00:51:46 GMT

In article <43429@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

Well, Tommy's back.  With the same old arguments.
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35127 talk.bizarre:28954
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
Subject: On Daniel's flaming sermon
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:30:10 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.154102.20862@pony.Ingres.COM>, dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> : In article <Btx54D.GtI@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
> : finds himself unable to take the heat and, surprisingly, manages to find
> : his way out of the kitchen:
> : > 
> 
> Heat or mockery?  

[much holier-than-thou ranting about flames and some stuff about killfiles
 that most people already know about deleted]

It seemed to me that Steve engaged in nothing but mockery by the time
August had rolled around...

Besides that, do you truly hope to engage in a lasting discussion about
abortion without getting a little hot under the collar once in awhile?
You already look red in the face over a flame directed at someone else.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca