HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:31:40 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan7210135@lampasas.is.rice.edu> patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
[...]
>>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.
>
[...]
>>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>
>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.
>
[..]
>Meanwhile, keep on being the hateful, sleazy bitch you like to be in this
>newsgroup -- you're doing a bang-up job of convincing people that pro-life
>is a big sham.  I like it when folks like you are too damned stupid to
>figure out you're doing the leg work for the *other* side...
>
	I left in some of Forgach's nasty comments just to emphasize the
point.  But consider:  someone like that would probably be just as hateful no
matter what her political/social opinions were.  Her petty spite reflects badly
on her, but it doesn't particularly make the pro-life movement a "sham".  I
think it's pretty much a phoney argument to attack a movement based on the
personality characteristics of some of it's more vocal members.  The ideas
should stand or fall independent of the character of those espousing them.

>--PLH, does anyone else get the impression that Suzanne's a couple of cans
>short a six-pack?
	Which reminds me of this famous interchange:
In article <1991Dec13.192700.20802@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
 Forgach) writes:
 (btw - Don't think for one MINUTE, that Kimberly Bergalis' dentist didn't
        DELIBERATELY pass the AIDS virus to that pretty young virginal girl,
        injecting it into her as she lay anesthesized at his feet.   Of
        COURSE he picked a virgin, just to prove the hot political slogan
        that "everybody gets it".)
from Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu), to Suzanne Forgach:
"If you truly believe that, then you
 really *are* a couple of pinouts short of a chip...)"
The_Doge
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Anyone for Article 92, 133, 134?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:57:36 GMT

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
] In article <1993Jan1.221403.22732@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] |> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
] |> ] In article <1992Dec30.092753.12246@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] |> ] |> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
] |> ] |> ] 
] |> ] |> ] What's the problem?  Most 
] |> ] |> ] would gladly accept that label.  Unless, of course, you're just a wee bit 
] |> ] |> ] uneasy with the concept of abortion.  A hint of concsience maybe?
] |> ] |>  
] |> ] |> Just thought I would ask,
] |> ] |> or is this too a matter of conscience?
] |> ] 
] |> ] I wouldn't use napalm myself, but I'm for the rights of others to use it.
] |> ] So I guess I'm pro-choice.  ;->
] |>  
] |> Is this an Awareness of MoralGuilt Creeping OUT?
] |> 
] |> Its Not that you want to Use Napalm, but you will 
] |> allow others to use it......
] |> 
] |> Why Not come Right out and Admit that Latently You
] |> are AntiMilitary, and Want to Dehumanize All Vets,
] |> and deprive them of a Primary Defensive Mechanism....
] 
] I din't respond to this initially since I thought it was a form of
] sarcasm and I wasn't sure if I was really being insulted or not.
] 
] I am an officer in the military, sir.  My comment was meant to
] point out what I perceive to be an inconsistancy in belief with
] those pro-choicers who believe that abortion is wrong, but they
] feel that they have no right to lobby for legislation against it.
] That is, I believe that if something is wrong for me, it is wrong
] for others as well.


Minor Point of Logical Contention here:

What are your opinions, in light of your,
It stands for all approach, to the minor 
matter of the above stipulated UCMJ articles.

Either You have just asserted that You wish
all to be under the obligations of said stipulated
articles, or You have just stipulated that you are
in direct violation of them by opposing them.

If You are any man of Honor, then to follow
your Code, you are Obliged to resign your 
commission and seek other employment!

Please make a  bid, call, or fold.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:49:23 GMT

In article <1ifv7vINNpea@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.225301.2016@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.
>>Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS alone, and she
>>had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who that like to talk big
>>about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies, this case shows them
>>up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.
>
>Uh, you did say "her" didn't you?  Well, if the pro-lifers have their way,
>Suzanne, she won't be able to claim her WOMB is 'hers and hers alone', so 
>why should you be able to claim in her stead (especially believing as you
>apparently do) that her organs are hers and hers alone?  If the state can
>commandeer a woman's womb, why not her corneas?  Why not her kidneys?
>Why not her liver?  It's to *save a life*! after all.  So why not?
>


It's, ... um ..., lemme think a second here. Ouch! that hurt! um ...
it's because um ...

Oh stop it! it's not fair! Don't ask me tough questions!
Don't point out my foolish inconsistancies to me! you have
no right! I can be as stupid and ignorant as I want to be, and
you can't do anything about! So there!

>Adrienne Regard
>>
>>
>>S. Forgach
>
>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:39:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.042143.28771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <C041BC.GtD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>
>>"viability" is medically defined (roughly) as the point after which a
>>developing fetus could survive outside the womb.  It may also require that
>>the fetus could continue to grow "normally" although special care and treatment
>>may be needed.  It is generally considered to be sometime around the start of
>>the third trimester (I think).  It is not an exact time, it is a general range
>>in which it is usually found to occur in those born prematurely.  (They look at
>>children born prematurely at various times and compare the development at birth
>>to the statistical survival rates to come up with an average figure.)
>>
>In practice, 26 weeks is considered to be resonably viable.

OK, I'll go with that then. 

Do I hear Galen still whining?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:13:51 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>In <1993Jan9.075521.10717@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
>>>   walking down dark city streets; but
>>>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
>>>   right to self-defense.
>
>>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of pregnancy by
>>   having sex (if you're a woman, of course); but
>>B. This in no way weakens your right to your body, or your consequent
>>   right to an abortion.
>
>Try again, Ray. The parallel conclusion here is
>
>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent right to 
>   an abortion if your life is imminently imperiled.

So you're arguing that unless a woman's life is threatened, rape is
acceptable?  After all, her life isn't necessarily being _imminently_
threatened; many women (even the greater majority) survive being
raped with no long-term physical injuries.  And since you apparently 
feel that women do not have any rights with regard to their own bodies,
why not legalize rape?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:36:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.015943.20104@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore?) writes:
}
}                                                                  Coming
}from someone who claims to be a compassionate Catholic, it seemed quite
}significant to me.

I have long thought that Doug Holtsinger was a Catholic, I didn't
know that he claimed to be compassionate, however.  

Oh, were your talking about Suzanne and not Doug the Tree Killer?
"They are on my property, damnit!"


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54049 alt.flame:17582 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:684
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:33:44 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >>"Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to
-> >>describe the way I see what I do, Larry. Maybe 
-> >>that's a little too whimsical, though, perhaps even bordering
-> >>on presumptuous...
-> >>
-> >It's way past the border Kevin.
-> 
-> Well, if I'm not Mr. Pro-choice QC, who is? With 
-> all of the specious pro-choice arguments flying 
-> around here thick and fast, there's definitely a need for
-> someone to assume that role...

who ever said kebbie didn't have a sense of humor.

first, he wants "net.informants;" now he wants to be
"Mr. Pro-choice QC."
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:38:42 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <ny!38-_@rpi.edu>, by keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.):
> just in the past few weeks, we've seen an anti-choicer,
> admitedly a disturbed personality, post repeated sexual
> and personal slurs about an adversary's spouse and
> family.

This was posted email by Chaney to Humphrey, right?  If that's what you're
referring to, it was far too disgusting and perverse to merit any
sort of response.  Besides, it was email, and therefore not necessarily
appropriate for public consumption.

> we've seen another anti-choicer, a roman catholic, post
> that she hoped one of her adversaries felt pain and
> discomfort that his spouse was the parent of a child
> fathered by another man.

That's pretty disgusting.  It's deserving of condemnation, if in
fact that's what was actually said.

> i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
> of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
> nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
> anti-choice perspective, of course.

I'm sure you believe that only "anti-choicers" post offensive
material.  Not that I care what you think, James, but I'm more
than willing to criticize other pro-lifers, and I've done it
on several occasions.  The next time I see something offensive
written by a pro-choicer I'll be looking for your critical response.
After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, right?

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: pcrayne@halcyon.com (Peter C. Crayne)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:39:55 GMT

I usually make it a policy not to try to discuss abortion with people
who are unwilling to admit the *possibility* that they may be wrong, but
here goes anyway. (I know I'll regret it, but I just can't help myself
any longer.)


In article <C0pAqt.Jr@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
>Abortion is not a passive act.  It is an act of violence and aggression.

Your unproven opinion.

>The government should outlaw murder.

It has.

>  The woman who has an abortion does not
>just decide not to carry her child in her body.  She actually has her child
>killed.  

The basic problem here is the use of the word "child". What child? The
basis of disagreement is whether a fetus is a child. Surely, you must
admit that if there is no child, there is no murder.

Upon what facts do you base your decision that a fetus is a child?
Because it has arms and legs, a head, a torso & looks like a baby? So
does a cabbage patch doll. Because it is alive? So is a dandelion.
Because it reacts to stimuli, like pain? So do some simple organisms.
Most reasonable people would agree that there is a point at which a
fetus becomes a child. The disagreement is when? Personally, I believe
that it has to do with brain activity. I would even go so far as to say
that current law allows abortions to take place after said change
occurs. However, to say that ALL abortion is murder is just brainless
and silly.

>
>There is a serious inconsistency in government policy.  It is illegal for a 
>mother to abandon her child, or to neglect him in some other way.  One
>can even be arrested for not feeding one's horses in this country.  
>Generally, parents have a legal responsiblility to their children.  If mothers
>and fathers can legally be held responsible to use their bodies to care for
>their children, then mothers should legally be held responsible to use
>their bodies to protect their children in the womb.  
>

Again, you are assuming the unproven "fact" that any fetus, at any stage
of development, is a child.

[Biblical Deletia]

>Those who excercise civil disobedience to protect these young human lives
>obviously feel that by doing nothing they would be violating God's law to
>protect the innocent.  
>

Same assumption here.

From listening to 'All abortion is murder' types, I get the impression
that they are as much opposed to the prevention of a potential child
as they are opposed to what they believe to be murder. At what point
does this stop? Why then, isn't contraception murder? Why isn't
abstinence murder? (Willfully preventing the creation of a child).

As someone recently pointed out, in order to discuss, you must have *some*
common ground. If you wish to convince anybody, you need to first show
what beliefs you share, and work from there. You have not done this.

-Pete
pcrayne@halcyon.com
"Clever, applicable quote."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:35:50 GMT

In article <markp.726862548@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

[deletia]

>A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
>individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right
>to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
>hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact
>with the above definition only by expanding that definition of
>humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
>for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential
>and so do z/e/f's.

That won't do for this boy, chum. Severely retarded individuals cannot
reason, yet we grant them status as human beings (at least, any halfway
caring individual does).

I'm majoring in mol. biology. I can't hear, see, smell, taste, or touch
reasoning, individuality, or "potential". Give me something physical,
something concrete, something that occupies space, and then maybe
you'll be in business.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Abortifacients
Followup-To: alt.tasteless
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:55:11 GMT

dart@fugue.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan) writes:

>listen folks, this is a self-followup to my husband's earlier posting.
>we've gotten lots of letters saying to go to a doctor asap.
>well, we don't happen to have med. insurance OR the $500-600 it will take
>for an abortion.
	
	Obviously the only sensible response you are going to get is to
see a doctor if you are serious.

>we may be able to come up with said money, however, >I< would much rather
>find a more effective, safer, and inexpensive way, first.
>if we can't find a satisfactory alternative to abortion, then i .will. seek
>treatment at a clinic.
>please, if you can give us .helpful. information, then you have our thanks,
>otherwise, please file your response to /dev/null

	Have your husband punch you in the stomach.  
You can't get much cheaper than that.	

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:55:22 GMT

In article <bob1.726775467@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1ir2sqINNgio@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>
>>>Now, there is no law that says that I (as a man) cannot elect to
>>>have a fully functional kidney removed, assuming I can find a
>>>surgeon willing to perform the operation. I imagine I would have
>>>about the same chance as a snowball in hell. 
>
>>Poor example.  Such "removals" are not infrequently performed for 
>>kidney donations. 
>
>OK, try liver then. Yes please, I'll have mine with fried onions.
>
Not your entire liver, but the liver is a multi-lobed organ, and it is
possible to remove a single lobe from an adult liver for transplant
into a child.
So your chances here are still vastly better than a snowball in hell.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion (again)
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:57:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1993Jan12.180338.9654@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}>There was no federal law which abolished slavery.

}Correct, at least for the United States.  It was an amendment to the
}Constitution which did the job:

As I recollect, the 13th amendment had little influence on the ending
of slavery.  A better argument might be made that it was a presidential
proclamation, union troops, or Lee's surrender to Grant that actually
"did the job."  I think the 13th amendment may actually have been 
ratified after the fact.

[13th amendment quotes, while nice, deleted]

}>As a matter of fact, slavery
}>is probably quite legal in your locality, it is the    
}>enforcement of things that go along with human slavery
}>that will get you into trouble.

}If your locality is in the U.S., slavery is more than illegal; it is
}unconstitutional.

Unconstitutionality is neither greater than nor is it less than 
illegality, they are somewhat different.  The constitution and its
amendments provide an outline as to what laws may be enacted and 
by whom.  I don't think that anyone has been charged with being
unconstitutional or the like.  I can pretty much assure folks that
whatever their behavior, they are quite unlikely to be charged
with violating the 13th amendment.  

}>One of the reasons why slavery is such a poor analogy to
}>abortion is that there are people who actually wish to
}>make laws pinpointing "abortion."

}I fail to see the distinction.  Does not the 13th Amendment in like
}manner pinpoint slavery and indentured servitude?

Well, actually no, I think it makes reference to involuntary servitude
rather than indentured servitude.  (cheap shot, but as I've already 
said, those are what I can afford)  While it does indeed mention
those terms, it makes no law, unlike those who would attempt to
ban abortion, and not all abortion mind you, only those circumstances
and conditions they do not like, most commonly health, rape and incest.

I suppose you might make them somewhat closer if you didn't allow
any exceptions (except under due process), but that hardly makes
the situations analogous.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion