HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:42:56 GMT

In article <BvtCJH.A9u@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.035505.23247@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <Bvrnnx.3vu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>>
>>>In some religions "personhood" isn't optained until after 3 months
>>>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>of gestation.  For these religions that is when a soul is bestowed.  
>>>For these religions abortion in the first trimester is fine as the   
>>>z/e/f is still a non-human.
>>
>>
>>Which, if true, tells us that perhaps the pro-life, pro-choice debate
>>isn't necessarily a religious issue.
>
>
>I however, am not Christian, and I am of course referring to my
>religion.
>
>Pro-Lifers are saying that <human> life BEGINS at conception, using the
>Bible to back up their positon.  They, then have made it a religious
>issue.
>
Over-Generalization.  I haven't used the Bible to say human life begins at
conception.  Many others don't.  Some even don't believe in the Bible
yet they know Human Life begins at conception.

Careful now.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Eulogy for the "Pro-Choice" label (Was Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:29:00 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct14.231124.2068@csus.edu>, our resident feeb,
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen "Airplane" Chaney) wrote:
> 
> If "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" is valid, then the
> application of the most necessary parts of the pro-choice stand, would
> apply to drugs. 

Yes, and so?

> You see, use of cocaine or marijuana can be done in the privacy of
> one's home, and since it does not kill someone else, directly, you
> have a "right to control your own body" and use crack or pot in the
> privacy of your own home.

You should.

> Why is it, then, that given the three fundamental pro-choice arguments
> are true for drugs, too - and then some - this principle does not
> apply to a BIGGER situation than even abortion? By your exact
> standards, freedom of choice should be extended to pot and cocaine.

It should.
 
> HOWEVER, it seems that PRO-CHOICE organizations are unwilling to admit
> this as a FREEDOM OF CHOICE. It is not listed in the "Freedom of
> Choice Act" even though it would be a freedom by your exact
> definitions.

Well, gee, Dennis, the Constitutional Amendment your Republican pals are
bandying about doesn't seem to say anything about vegetarianism, or the
right to life of cows, pigs, ducks and chickens.  For God's sake, it
doesn't even say anything about _veal_!  And you call yourselves
"pro-life".  Where's your consistency, sonny?

> What is your address? I'd like to bring a drug-user over to your home
> and inform you that they are using drugs on their own body in the
> privacy of a motel room, for purely recreational purposes.

If somebody is going to use drugs in the privacy of a hotel room, that's
their business.

> Now, don't you go calling the cops.

Why would I?

> It is their choice, after all. If drug use in the privacy of one's home, for 
> the purpose of pleasing one's own body (and not doing anything to you at 
> all), is not the right choice for you, then do not use drugs.

I don't.

> But don't try to force your moral convictions on them. 

Why would I?

> If it is impossible to legalize drugs on these four basic principles
> that legal abortion cannot survive without, then we obviously have a
> contradiction when we turn around and say: 
> "A woman has a right to control her own body and kill someone
> dependent upon her in the process." 

No contradiction.  Drugs _should_ be legalized.

> Mainly because "No one has a right to control their own body for
> recreational purposes when it comes to drugs, and because it is
> illegal, people are DYING.."  

OK, witless wonder, here's a couple of questions for you: in the past year,
how many people died as a direct result of illegal drug use?  How many
people have died in the past ten years as a direct result of marijuana use?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:08:53 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

>In article <31022@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>>Discrimination against women can reasonably be interpreted to be a symptom of 
>>misogyny.  


...and while I'm on the subject:

Since about half of all the foetuses I would be discriminating *for* would
be female, your allegations of misogyny are doubly incorrect.

tk
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:32:07 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

[--edited for clarity--]

>> 'This woman' being Dr. Mildred Hanson, who, according to her associates,
>> hasn't lost any of these nuisance suits against her.  (I'd like for Peter
>> to explain to me how Dr. Hanson, who is 50+ years old, can hold a younger
                                                          ^^^^^^^^         
>> woman down on a table by force and put a band-aid on her, much less
>> perform an abortion.)

> Boy, Lyman, you don't even care how transparent your misrepresentations
> are, do you?

I simply responded to the information you gave me, Peter.  It was Susan
Garvin who filled in the blanks.  Funny how you leave so many blanks
around, Nyikos.

I've been laughing about it for months.

>>> Isn't that sooo convenient?  Last I looked, every time you
>>> posted about one of these lawsuits we discovered they were
>>> just harassment or the case had been thrown out.  Remember the
>>> one you posted about the woman who claimed they never informed
>>> her of cancer, where the court found that the clinic had
>>> tried for months to inform the woman that she had it?

> Right, that was the case, but unless I missed a post of yours, the
> only evidence the court "found" these things was the word of the
> assistant of Mildred Hanson.

You could also check with Hennepin County Human Services.  They also tried
for months to contact this woman.

>> I asked Peter to post the names of the plaintiff(s) in these lawsuits, so
>> I could check the public record.  He never responded.

> Ah, so, apparently I did miss a post.  The name was Kathleen Marie
> Maki, and these lawsuits can drag out for years.

You're 'way behind, Nyikos.  I posted that a jury found for the defendant
(Hanson) last Friday.

> The abortionist of COERCED ABORTION got involved in an unlawful death
> case that dragged on for four years, and finally the State Supreme Court
> ruled that the father of the dead woman could get the award of
> $100,000 that a lower court had awarded long ago.

> And the vote was 3-2.

I ask the following question simply because I'm considering the source:
Did that wrongful death suit involve abortion?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: The Keegan Rules (was: is overpeck everybody? (Re: The Keegan Rules (was: is overpeck everybody?) )
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:30:02 GMT

In <d-2z8!r@rpi.edu> 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <5k1z_gf@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >>>
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>>

>>>>> I guess in Overpeck's twisted mind, this implies an ulterior 
>>>>> motive.
>
>>>>Twisted mind?  Is that how you characterize people who don't
>>>>share your particular set of values?
>
>>>she said, "in Overpeck's twisted mind," bill. that's a
>>>specific reference to "Overpeck," which, in case you
>>>didn't know, is you. unless you think "overpeck" is
>>>also a group, that is.
>
>>Sorry, Jim, I didn't realize that asking a general question
>>to a specific insult was prohibited.  
>
>that's why i explained it to you.

I'm sure the entire net appreciates seeing this.

>>I keep forgetting 
>>about your double standard with regard to net.cops.
>
>you certainly do. but i understand the pressure you're
>under. why don't you explain the criteria you measured
>to develop your "double standard" label.

from what i've read, i think invoking the "double standard" 
label happens when a "double standard" is evident. a good 
example of what i'm talking about is when someone replies 
to one of your posts and sees a double standard in it.

Heh heh...

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Summary: And the egotism of Peter Nyikos... 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 15:15:50 GMT

[Recently, the man who loves to talk about himself got upon his hobby horse,
and valiantly typed in the following...]

In article <nyikos.718489686@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[140+ lines of Peter talking about how offended Peter is about Gordon's
posts deleted.]

>
>Finally, I continue to be deeply offended by the cavalier way in which 
>Storga dismisses the possible suffering of very real fetuses by 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As opposed to the very real suffering of very real pregnant women, you
twit.

>comparing it to the "suffering" of mythical creatures, and, in
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Um, you mean like that mythical creature "Jesus Chris"?  Or what
mytichal creatures are we talking about here?

>another post, to the sizzling of bacon in frying pans. 

Actually, it is about time for breakfast...
--
=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???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:44:56 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->(Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
->>You know, if this keeps up, Peter will have put 
->>everybody into his "de facto" killfile.
->Does anyone else here picture a pouty five-year-old, fists jammed
->firmly into ears, screaming "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
->right after he knows he's lost the argument?

oh yes. that's exactly what i think whenever some
pouty twit announces the contents of their killfile.

what's amusing is observing the silly twists that
follow one of these childish announcements. whenever i
see someone post along the lines of something like
this, "i'm posting this because blah-blah has you in a
killfile so maybe they'll see this follow-up ......", i
always speculate that the git who announced the killfile 
really wasn't killfiling and instead begged some third 
party to give them a chance to reply.

i've always thought these types were intellectually
dishonest.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:01:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Oct13.014957.25667@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:

>In article <grendel.718921500@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1bckfaINN1sf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>>> = (William Crosmun) writes:
>>>...lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>>Basically, the idea here is this: we _know_ Bush is corrupt.  We've
>>had him and his senile predecessor for twelve years.  Now, Clinton
>>may be corrupt as well, but there's always the possibility that he
>>isn't.  We vote for him because of that possibility.

>Here it is again, lack of an argument and therefore name calling.  Firstly,
>we don'T KNOW that The President is corrupt.  In fact many of us don't even

Iran-Contra.  Read my lips.  War for oil.  Stacking the Court.  Recession.
Trickle-down economics.  The environment.  Silverado.

I know.
 
>suspect that he is.  Secondly there is no evidence to suggest that former
>President Reagan is senile.  What really burns you folks is that Ronald

No...only the fact that he's the only politician in recent memory who comes
close to rivalling Quayle in verbal gaffes, general confusion, etc.  Napped
in public, let Nancy make decisions for him...read Peggy Noonan's book if
you don't believe me.  She was his _speechwriter_, and ought to know.

>Reagan was likely the most popular president this century and that he would

Afraid not.  Try John F. Kennedy or Franklin D. Roosevelt.  The first, who
won the narrowest victory in history, became so popular after his death
that a poll taken in '64 showed that twice as many people claimed to have
voted for him as actually did.  He has also been the subject of more movies
and popular criticism than any other president.  The second was elected for
four terms and might have gone farther if he hadn't died in office.
	
>likely still be president if not for the 22nd ammendment.  Remember the last
>Democratic president was Jimmy Carter and before that LBJ.  Neither of these
>two gentlemen were extremely popular.  I keep repeating it but it gets

Carter was twelve years ago.  Democrats have changed since then.  We've
seen the wretched excesses of the Republicans over the last two decades,
and we know where they stand.  I can point to recent examples of this, rather
than resorting to presidents of the seventies and sixties.

>misconstrued, if liberal ideas and policies are so great, why does Governor
>Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?

Liberal ideas and policies _are_ great, they're just not popular.
Unfortunately.  The Democrats realize this, and Clinton is a man who
symbolizes their move back toward the center.  This will make the
Democrats more electable, but sadly, not more effective.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mississippi Doctors want Supreme Court to end 24-hour delay
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:18:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


In Pennsylvania, following someone around is harassment.  
Suzanne should be glad that she doesn't live in PA.  Maybe
in Arizona, it is legal to follow people and harangue them.
("An ear to listen to" was funny, though.  I'd call it a
Freudian slip - most sidewalk harassers are not at all
interested in what people say to them.)

There were Congressional hearings this summer on the abuses
of information obtained from license plate numbers.  The
primary form of abuse cited was by anti-abortion groups.
If you wonder if this sort of thing is going on in your
area, check to see if the protesters are waving signs
with the names of patients on them.  That's a common tactic.
(When this happened in Pittsburgh, though, the names
weren't obtained through license plate numbers.  PA's
24 hour waiting period isn't being enforced yet, thank
Dean.  Some pro-forcer (now unemployed) who worked at
an insurance company was leaking the names.)

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Patrick Humphrey Warlorded!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:04:21 GMT

patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) signs:

> PLH (against stupidity on the net, the sysadmins themselves struggle
> in vain...)

Patrick Humphrey, you're no Friedrich Schiller!

(Bob Gallagher, mmmmmaybe)

:-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
      "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President.
       Now I'm beginning to believe it." -- Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:39:23 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>> Deuteronomy 30:19 reminds us:  "I have set before you life and death, the
>> blessing and the curse.  Choose life then so that you and your descendents
>> may live."

> Which translation is this?

Translation, shmanslation, what is required here is _context_.  The speaker
in that excerpt is Moses; who has just summarized God's law, and is now
exhorting the Israelites to choose to obey His law.  Nothin' in there about
abortion a'tall.

Perhaps The Rink should check out Numbers 5:12-31 and see what the Law says
about the reproductive destinies of women suspected of being unfaithful to
their husbands.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion doctor builds small empire through his practice
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:41:59 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct13.161830.11548@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Bw1nII.9EF.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##
## Did he use a big rusty nail to do the abortions, DOD?
#
#If he could have made more money doing abortions that way,
#I suppose he could have.  


Come on, DOD, it's certainly cheaper to use a big rusty nail
than to use medical equipment.  

Susan,
who notes that this is the only reply that DODie has made on
this thread, and wonders if it's because he's unable to
respond to the others.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Patrick Humphrey Warlorded!!!
Summary: Just as well... 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:07:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.200421.29013@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) signs:
>
>> PLH (against stupidity on the net, the sysadmins themselves struggle
>> in vain...)
>
>Patrick Humphrey, you're no Friedrich Schiller!
>
>(Bob Gallagher, mmmmmaybe)
>
>:-)

How did *you* know I had that Sledge-O-Matic?  :-)

--PLH (good thing I'm not Schiller...the payroll folks here would *really*
be confused.)

--
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:45:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct12.215240.3561@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>    (Susan Garvin) writes: >

[Becky Bell's parents]
> > I believe that their agenda is to prevent any more needless
> > deaths of teenagers.  
> 
> If it is, they have an odd way of expressing it...

I don't at all find it odd that the parents of a young woman who
died from an illegal abortion because she was afraid to tell her
parents about her pregnancy, and could not get a legal one
without telling them, should feel very angry and bitter
towards those who brought pressure to have such a law
passed.  I cannot understand why you don't understand it,
Bill.  I can think of  anumber of reasons why you might
not understand it, but then I wouldn't want to try to
analyze your motivations.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Summary: Doug lies again.  There's news, eh?
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:58:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct13.024955.18386@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct11154251@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> 
> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
> 
> > I'm curious about the criteria that other people who are pro-choice
> > would use to determine whether an organism is a person.  I'm
> > pro-choice, but it seems to me that abortion rights activists are
> > often unclear about this in their public statements.
> 
> Pro-choicers are often intentionally unclear about their definition
> of personhood because they're usually unable to express a consistent 
> and coherent definition without either accepting infanticide or
> animal rights, or both.  

I've seen some decent definitions posted here before, and
perhaps those people will post them again.  They were
consistent and coherent.  But Doug, is it really necessary
for you to lie by misrepresenting your opponents' positions
all the time?  I suspect that you can't even turn on your
computer without thinking about some lie to tell.

As for my own response, as a pro-choice advocate and not a
pro-lie advocate seeking to get on a soapbox and misrepresent
the opposition, I don't find personhood to be at all important
in the issue and therefore do not bother seeking a definition.
Since the law does not give born adults the right to inhabit
the body of another human being without that human's
permission, it is irrelevant how one defines personhood.

Dean Kaflowitz