HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Forgive me, I am young...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:40:16 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

] In <1992Oct7.085552.7325@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
] >Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
] >is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
] >middle of the night.  In many states it is quite legal to kill someone
] >who is sexually assaulting you.
] 
] 	Those crimes are not invasion of privacy crimes - and the laws
] against them, which justify the killing you mention, are NOT based on the
] 4th amendment.
] 
] 	Good try though.
] 		Bruce


If sexual assault is NOT an invasion of privacy,
Prey DO tell, what do you consider it?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43093 talk.politics.misc:52523 alt.sex:33226 alt.rush-limbaugh:7662 alt.politics.elections:17370 alt.politics.clinton:11047 alt.politics.bush:9534
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:51:24 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <PA142548.351.718490452@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.212542.15227@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu talk.abortion:48357 talk.politics.misc:59093 alt.sex:40003 alt.rush-limbaugh:7367 alt.politics.elections:13340
>>Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
>>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
>>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
>>Message-ID: <1992Oct5.212542.15227@ncsu.edu>
>>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
>>Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>Organization: North Carolina State University
>>References: <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com>
>>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:25:42 GMT
>>In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com> 
>>p00056@psilink.com (Faustus) writes:
>>And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
>>or his vaccum cleaner.  
>>
>>But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
>>would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
>>cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can?  Surely you
>>wouldn't mind having the same thing done to you which you advocate
>>for others.
>>Doug Holtsinger
>>
>What does any of this have to do with abortion, or politics?
>T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
----------------
I think he's trying to get in touch with his roots or return to the
womb or something heavy. Pretty weird. As to his question, if I really
had no mind, I guess I wouldn't mind, now would I. But knowing after a
lifetime of thought in a brain is dubious without an EEG. Knowing
about a little tadpole and whether it thinks is pretty obvious. I
could just about build something that smart with parts from Radio
Shack. Maybe K-Mart.
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:02:48 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <7109@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>No, she doesn't.  Regardless of Eric Rescorla's claims that
>he owns the title, your bizarre versions of the cause of
>male homosexuality, fundamental economics, and life in
>general lead me to believe that you're the most twisted
>person on the net.
Now, now, I didn't claim that I own the title. I'm not THAT arrogant.
I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.
But Suzanne. Nah. She's not half as twisted as me. Just ask Novak.

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:25:44 GMT

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>> = mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael Stroucken) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
>> what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
>> at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
>> at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off.
>> LOOK INTO THEIR FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!
>
>Abortion may be right or wrong, but simply because you are emotionally upset 
>by an icky, bloody mess is a pretty shallow reason to conclude it's wrong.
>
Looking into any surgical bucket is likely to turn one's stomach...although
it's better in hospitals, the 'refuse' of meatball surgery on the battlefield 
is likely as disgusting as anything you'll find at an abortion clinic.
Does this mean that meatball surgery shouldn't be used?

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42001 talk.politics.misc:50962 alt.politics.clinton:9761 alt.politics.bush:8661 alt.rush-limbaugh:7116
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: NEWS FLASH! Bible NOT WRITTEN IN MAGYR
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:55:46 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
] In a previous article, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
] 
[stuff deleted] 
] >In my Hungarian (Magyar) bible, a 1972 translation (20 years ago, like
] >the one you allege up there), this verse reads, literally, Don't kill.
[sd]
] >I am curious to know how it has been translated into other languages.
] >I have a sneaking suspicion that "Thou shalt not commit murder"
] >is ideologically motivated.
] 
] Give me a break.  Why should I care how it has been translated into other 
] languages?  I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding the text in 
] it's original Hebrew.  The commandment is "Lo Tirtzach", which means do not 
] murder.  If the original authors had wanted to say do not kill, it would have 
] been "Lo Taharog", but that is not what they wrote.  
] 
] Or do you think you know something the original authors did not?

Heather

Tell Me it Isn't SO!

Tell Me that the Bible Is NOT a Part of the Zionist Konsirakii!!!

what will they think of next?

ciao
drieux


ps: does this also mean that we can look forward
to another round of dealing with whether or not
there are Christians in the Military, and whether
or NOT being a Christian should AUTOMATICALLY
exclude one from being the Presidient, and
Hence the CinC of the Military?????




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:12:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.033716.27520@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>> the term of pregnancy.  

> The only restrictions on third-trimester state abortion laws are when the
> "life or health of the mother" are at stake. But who gets to decide that?
> Physicians do. At most, you have demonstrated that *PHYSICIANS* have the 
> power of life and death over third-trimester fetuses. 

Yes, physicians have the final word on the fate of a third-trimester 
fetus when a woman comes to them for an abortion. But that's not much 
different from unrestricted abortion-on-demand. 

> Is that such a bad thing? Bear in mind that physicians are
> state-licensed, so to that degree the state DOES have control over their
> decisions. 

No, the state does not have any control over the physician's
decision. If the physician determines that the woman's emotional
or psychological health would be impaired by the pregnancy, 
then the physician can perform the abortion without state 
interference. 

> Bear in mind also that physicians are bound by their own rigorous
> codes of ethics -- the Hippocratic Oath, etc. -- which, if they violate, 
> they are suspended or stripped of their physician status, and therefore, 
> by the aforementioned state licensing, become ineligible to practice. 

The state cannot revoke the physician's license for performing 
a constitutionally-protected abortion -- one which could be performed 
to preserve the woman's emotional or psychological health under
Roe and Doe.  

> You're probably not quite so trusting of the medical profession as Harry
> Blackmun is. I'm not so trusting either. But they've been around long enough
> to deserve the benefit of the doubt, Doug. Can you document cases where 
> doctors in good standing are regularly performing third-trimester abortions
> for "bad" reasons? 

I recently posted an article about an abortion doctor who was convicted
of federal income tax evasion. This doctor allegedly over-billed 
insurance companies, over-estimated the gestational ages of fetuses 
so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
to get up off the operating table to pay more money. Should we give 
all abortion doctors the "benefit of the doubt" and legalize each of 
these practices too? 


>- Kevin


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:18:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.230137.5727@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  
>>
>>Huh?   Let me get this straight.  Abortion will kill women?  I didn't
>>know abortion killed women.  Oh, I take that back.  Abortion does kill
>>unborn females directly.
>
>Read it again.  Carefully.
>
I did and the logic goes around in a circle before hitting the wall.

>>Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>>does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>>women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>
>Your level of compassion strikes me as being more than a little
>hypocritical.

I sure hope compassion != allowing the woman to kill her unborn children.

>
>>>The Serbs believe that they are defending the lives of themselves and 
>>>their people from the Bosnians and the Croats.  They don't think they 
>>>are doing what you've called "ethnic purging", they think they are 
>>>removing hostile enemies from their land in order to protect 
>>>themselves.
>>>^^^^^^^^^^
>>The protecting THEMSELVES argument from invaders, unwanted elements, etc.
>>Now who is more likely to use this argument in trying to justify the
>>destruction of human life?
>
>The Serbs are justifying their atrocities by their belief that they
>are defending themselves.  

Exactly!  Guess who uses the self-defense arguments for getting rid
of fellow humans?  Where have I heard something to the extent of being
allowed to kill the parasite within the mother because the fetus
is trespassing, causing pain, using someone else's body without their
permission, etc.  And because of this, the mother should have the right
to kill to defend herself.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:05:20 GMT

In <wtyz5ca@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>Not only does Adrienne's arrogance make her think she is above everyone
>>else in the net

>Pot.  Kettle.  You know the rest.

Sounds like another trumped-up charge to me.  I have seen little evidence
of Suzanne's arrogance.  Perhaps you should pay closer attention to 
Adrienne.  She can be a Dr. Jekyll for a long time, then turn into Ms.
Hyde, like she did against Martin Guerrero on the "I had an abortion
two days ago" thread.

Lots of other pro-choicers have this dual personality.  Some can be
raving lunatics in private e-mail, yet be reasonably civilized
on the net.  Others are more nearly the other way around.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:25:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205332.9526@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <Bw1p2H.AtC.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>    (Susan Garvin) writes> > 
> 
> >>> I have met Bill and Karen Bell.  I know grief and anger when
> >>> I see it.  
> >
> >>I saw those emotions in them, as well.
> >
> >You did neglect to mention it.  I guess you're a lot like
> >Will Steeves - you say something disgusting and then try
> >to explain it away.
> 
> Their malice seemed to overshadow their grief.

That's wonderful.  You saw the Bells speak one evening.  Is this
your expert diagnosis of their emotional state?

But let us examine this malice, since you have been avoiding
doing that very thing (avoidance behavior?) by focusing on
Susan's tone and not her arguments.  Is malice generally
unmotivated, Bill?  Do people generally just go around being
malicious for no reason at all?  Is there a reason the Bells
might exhibit malice towards pro-lie supporters?  Their
daughter died from an illegal abortion because she was unable,
for whatever reason, to go to her parents to obtain the consent
required by law.  The people who pushed for and support that
law are pro-lie supporters, like yourself.  Could this
possibly be the motivation behind their "malice?"

And don't tell me you don't have enough information to tell
us whether that could be the motivation because it is 
unprofessional to make such judgements based on so little
information.  You already said that their "malice seemed to
overshadow their grief."  So you've passed one judgement
already.

I am utterly unable to understand how you can be so quick
to condemn and judge a pair of grieving parents so harshly
for trying to express their grief in a way they feel may be
helpful to other parents.  I think, and here I tread the
dangerous ground of diagnosis, that you took their remarks
to you and your coterie of pro-lie supporters very personally.
I think they rather struck some deep chords with you and
you are lashing out in response rather than deal with the
notion that maybe, just maybe, pro-lie supporters do share
some responsibility for Becky Bell's death.  I think you
want to avoid facing the ugly fact that pro-lie legislation
did and will result in the deaths of women.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.052327.10257@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>Eric Rescorla (rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu) babbles:
>Archive Alert:  did anyone see CJ's retraction on this newsgroup?
I believe that CJ considered her promise to retract to be a retraction.
I grant that that is at best a debatable proposition. I would argue
that she should directly retract, if she has not done so.

>| Proving the nonexistence of an object with an essentially
>| infinite possible location space is very close to impossible.
>| CJ's potential retraction is such an object.
>
>And God is another.  Will you defend both?
You notice that I don't go around stating "There is no God" which
is what you have done wrt CJ's potential retraction.

-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: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Ovulation is avoidable! Steve says so!
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:48:23 GMT

> = sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
========================================================================
>        If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
> support the pro-choice position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
> because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.

Let's try a few variations of this logic:

1)  If women in auto accidents just popped out of nowhere, I'd 
support access to medical help.  But they don't.  Women have auto accidents
because of voluntary and avoidable behavior by the woman.

2)  If babies just popped into womens' bodies from out of nowhere, I'd
support the pro-life position too.  But they don't.  They're in the womb
because of pro-lifer's prohibit women from removing embryos.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Also worth noting about the bible
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:38:35 GMT

kwelch@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
] In article <1992Oct8.061020.25114@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] 
] >The fact is, most pro-lifers see anti-abortion in their bibles.  It's not
] >there, but they see it there anyway.
] 
] Most pro-lifers who use the Bible as their witness to the abortion issue
] do so because in the Bible, God/Jesus/Whoever talks to individuals
] about the "fruits of their mothers' wombs" and how God knew them
] before they were born, etc.  The Bible is taken to be the authority and
] what is stated in that is taken to apply to all.
] 
] However, you are right in saying that there is no SPECIFIC reference
] saying aboriton is wrong.

also worth noting:

1. when gamboling through the bible, AntiAbortionists
try to rush past the part that says God Knew <X> before
he was even concieved....

thus proving that the unconcieved are also persons to.

{a point all too often overlooked by the Dehumanizers
of the UnBorn who are unwilling to admit that 
Billions and Billions and Billions....
Or at least a couple of Sagans,
of Innocent little UnBornSpermiePersons
are brutally murdered Every Year!!!!}

2. the documentation about slavery is clear and
unequivicoble... and yet these same 'alledged'
bible believers are not at all upset about this
Violation of Christianity as perpetrated by
the GodLessSeXularHumanists...

need we go on?

ciao
drieux

-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42480 talk.politics.misc:51539 alt.abortion.inequity:4405
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Kaufman Needs Reading Skills
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:59:39 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

WAS Subject: Re: Abortion doctor builds small empire through his practice

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
] 
]    What's your point?  

Mark it was Patently Clear!

DearOldDoug Acknowledges that the process of Real Estate
Investment, is a byproduct of the GenocidalStruggle of
The WhiteRacistImperialistToadiesOfCristoColumboAndTheEuorDisneyKlique.

Thus it is Obvious that anyone who Owns Property is an
Evil vile Persons, Just like this Doctor, and thus clearly
that we MUST outlaw Abortion Now.

Mark, You Really MUST learn to read.


ciao
drieux

ps: no clearer defense of the AntiAbortion Possition has been made!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:42:40 GMT

In article <OSA.92Oct8163828@orville.unh.edu> osa@orville.unh.edu (Bart Simps.. er.. Oktay Ahiska) writes:
> "Dean" == dean.kaflowitz  <decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> writes:

Always has, old darling, as far as I'm concerned.

> Dean> Well, Barbara Bush recently stated that "sex is death."
> No, she said that "promiscuous sex is death."

Thanks for the correction.  I only heard a news report.  Actually,
Hunter Thompson Jr has said precisely what I quoted, and he said
it before Barbara Bush.

> Dean> I think she was just talking about sex with George, though.
> Probably.

Always a pleasure to be agreed with.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:56:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.195113.7552@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
}In article <1992Oct15.230439.6883@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <nyikos.719096777@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}>}
}>}                                            No penis penetrates
}>}as deeply nor as savagely into the woman as a suction curette
}>}or any of the other D& whatever devices.
}>
}>This guy ought to pair up with Simon.  What with his gift for turning
}>a phrase and Booth's flair for plot development...
}>
} What?? I just now saw this.
}
} Another pro-lifer on the net might pose a few problems.
}
} :-)
} (they don't like smileys here)

Simon, meet Peter.  Peter, meet Simon.  You were made for each other.

Oh, by the way, I'm just an unwarned clown here, don't pay any attention 
to what I say...

:^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)  :^)

(this ought to piss "them" off)
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!