HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.re
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 02:28:43 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:
> ] 
> ] At least Vice- President Daniel Quayle SERVED honorably in the armed forces
> ] of this country while Slick Willie was organizing anti-American
> ] rallies on foreign soil and in the capitol of our former (and
> ] probably still) enemy. But these facts have escaped Drivel Drieux's
> ] attention.
> 
> Now There is Comedy.....
> 
> I presume that since Your Personal AngstFest is over ONLY
> DearOld DandyDan, that in the Main you accept as given the
> rest of my post.
> 
> Namely and to wit, that RUSH was advocating the Violation
> of US LAW, that Once again the Use of Armed Forces to resolve
> a political Problem Negates the Rhetoric of the Sanctity of
> Human Life.....
> 
> and now back to your comedic corner....
> 
> You find it better to allow into the Next to Highest Office
> in the Land a Person who's "honored Service" to the country
> was to find a cushy padded and protected position defended by
> the Perks and Rights of the Ruling Class....
> 
> As Opposed to say someone willing to support the Party Line
> of BOTH Parties in their Opposition to the War in Viet Nam.
> 
> Or Did you forget that Nixon was Elected on the Grounds that
> He would END the War in Viet Nam?????
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> 
> -- 
> MajorModernDayProblems: 
> "it's national 'clean off your desk' day.
>      I think I found Elvis."
> 		pyotr


Gee, Drieux, I thot Nixon got elected because he had a peachy-keen 
>SECRET< plan to win in Viet Nam.  Unfortunately he misplaced his 
>SECRET< plan and it was never seen again.

Pope Charles    SubGenius Pope Of Houston.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:05:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.051404.28590@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Was I wrong to draw the inference I did?

You don't admit it when you are, so why should I try to say anything?
Btw, I'll try to take into account you may just be trying to crawl up
on your soapbox when you do follow-ups, so I'll try not to take your
stuff at all personally, even when it includes my name.  I can't 
promise that, however, I may bite when you choose to follow me up.


--
       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:57293 talk.politics.misc:69136 talk.religion.misc:27224 misc.legal:23090
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:30:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan20.111708.13659@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- will not cause painful swelling) writes:
> What: <Jan.19.21.24.47.1993.7652@romulus.rutgers.edu>
> Who:  kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
#
# #Yup, sure as shootin'!  The Presidential candidate in question happens
# #to be Michael Dukakis, and I'm proud to say that I helped shout him
# #down -- because he happened to be saying lies at the time, and I
# #happen to disagree with lies.
# 
# Uh huh.  Do you disagree with the right of other people to express what
# you consider to be lies?  I think I may have gotten some critical
# insight here.  What were the lies in question?

Well, it's considered a valid liberal technique.  Anyone remember
what happened when Jean Kirkpatrick spoke at Berkeley?  Or rather,
TRIED to speak at Berkeley?

I don't think it's a particularly polite technique for anyone to
use, but when liberals start complaining about this, I find it hard
not to laugh.

# #And you will discover that I have _NEVER_ wielded a tire iron as a
# #weapon.
# 
# I have a hard time believing that the subject of a tire iron came up in
# a vacuum.  What's the story here?
# --
#      _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-

I find it easy to believe.  The accusation has been repeatedly made
by homosexuals, a group with serious reality grasp and honesty
problems.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:55:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.035734.4006@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.050539.6745@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <llm1glINN8r8@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>
>>[Deletions. Just 'cause I wanna]
>>
>>>If she mainly doesn't want the physical difficulty of the pregnancy
>>>process, how about an incubator that could support the fetus until
>>>its original projected birthdate?  Anyone happen know what state
>>>research is in concerning this?
>>>
>>No state at all, really. Look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Are
>>*you* going to pay for this incubator? Please keep in mind that
>>current technology can easily run over $5000 a day for an NICU stay.
>>What you are describing would be vastly more complex, and
>>correspondingly more expensive.
>>It's a nice idea, but it just doesn't fit the realities of life. We
>>can't even save all the ones people *do* want, let alone the ones they
>>don't want.
>
>Yeah, and the world is flat, too, Mark. If you don't believe it, just keep
>sailing East until you fall off the edge...
>
>Since the dawn of time, visionaries have had to endure the constant whines 
>and doubts and putdowns of non-visionaries. The wheel? It'll never work! 
>Fire? Just a fad! Organ transplants? You're nuts! Even as a medical layperson,
>I can imagine an inexpensive "auto-momma", Mark. Maybe not in my lifetime, but 
>sometime. Why can't you? 
>
I can envision a metal momma just fine kibble, and no doubt in much
greater clarity and detail then you. But not in anything resembling
the near future. Nor did I say that efforts to push back the
survivability date were not underway. They are, obviously. And equally
obviouslly a metal momma has to be developed based on the knowledge we
are currently gaining.
Unlike you, however, I live in the Real World (tm) and this just is
not going to be a reality anytime soon. If you want to leave it open
to *incredibly* expensive metal mommas, then in perhaps 50-75 years,
we might see something. But an inexpensive one? Kibble, a vaccine
against the mumps will cost you $50 in most pediatricians office. And
the cost certainly is not going down. If you can envision an
inexpensive metal moma in the near future, you're either desperately in
need of a reality check, or merely woefully ignorant about life
support technologies.
But since it's you, it's quite possibly both.

--
                  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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:21:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.213023.24642@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>The pope, 
...
> continues
>to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.

   How?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.philosophy.misc
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:15:45 CST

In article <nyikos.728167734@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>BTW I have started making a distinction between "philosopher" and
>"sophist", and I think there are relatively few true philosophers in
>our modern world, and even fewer who get the recognition they deserve.
>
I agree with this comment.  For instance, I think our
generation produced an incredibly astute existential 
sexual ethicist in the person of a wild-haired young
woman from Port Arthur, Texas.

muriel
standard disclaimer

we may not be here tomorrow...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Letting gays into the military and Pres. Clinton
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:56:35 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa


(bond)
/Dear President Clinton:

/	After the election you promised to focus in on the economy "like a 
/ laser beam." 

Actually, the person you are quoting is George Bush.



(bond)
/ So far, you have been in office for almost a week and the things
/ you appear to be focusing on are controversial issues such as abortion and
/ letting homosexuals into the military.  

Clinton did promise to make the economy a central issue. But he also _did_
promised to lift the ban on gays in the military, and he _did_ promise
to repeal the gag rule.  So far it appears that he is trying to fulfill
on the promises which helped to _bring_about_ his election.  

Whether they are "controversial" or not is irrelevant; just because they 
are controversial issues does not mean that acting on the issues should be 
put off.

Perhaps if you were a woman you would consider the abortion issue to be
more valuable. 

And perhaps if you were gay . . .



(bond)
/ Perhaps it would be wiser to spend
/ your great political capital on something we all can agree on which is 
/ improving on the economy.  When that job is done then you can concern yourself
/ with the other issues.


In other words, since you aren't gay or a woman, you want Clinton to focus
on things _you_ care about.  I see.

As the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said:  "A right delayed is a right
denied."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Does DearOldDoug REally Believe this?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:49:14 GMT

Wow! Now I really worry about DooDie, 
he was over in talk.bizarre trying to
see if he was like Way 2 Qool with his Drool.

So like are you now into an "Abortion is Like Way 2 Qool" thing?

ciao
drieux

Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion 
cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton) writes:
] Doug Holtsinger (dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu) wrote:
] :   "It was easy to shrug off an aborted pregnancy as nothing more than
] :    a sack of blood and globs of tissue--
] :    ... an eleven-week POC harbored tiny arms and legs
] :    and feet with toes.  At twelve weeks, those tiny hands had tiny
] :    nails.  ... pieces of face--a nose
] :    and a mouth, or a black eye (all fetal eyes are black in the
] :    first trimester) the size of a pea ...
] :    ...
] :    a human baby for the first time.  Since the fetal skull was 
] :    still soft, the head did not come out whole during the evacuation,
] :    but the legs and arms and rib cage made it through intact.  The
] :    hand of a second trimester fetus, ...  seemed big enough to shake.
] 
]   So, did anybody besides me get hungry while reading this?  Just curious.
] 
]   Oh, and Doug, that was better than the average post to t.b., but I've
] seen your other stuff, and I'm afraid you just can't keep it up.  Best of
] luck, die rat bastard, hugs and kisses, go jump in a volcano, and all that.



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:33:14 GMT

In <1993Jan26.230850.28993@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian 
Kauffman) writes:

[deleted material]

>This is not the whole truth: taken in context, it's seems rather obvious
>(to most people) that no woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy
>and then have an abortion for some trivial reason (on account the rather
>large natural disincentives to do so, ask a woman for details).  
>o Is there any reason to restrict late-term abortions?  Ie. can you 
>  document any "abuse" of late-term abortions?
>o Assuming such "abuse" existed, would outlawing abortion end this abuse 
>  while preserving unhindered access for those needing (not abusing)
>  late-term abortions?

>-Brian

If it is obvious to most people that a woman should not (would not?) go through
nine months pregnancy and then get an abortion does that mean those people 
would support legislation prohibiting that?

In addition, since babies are routinely saved ar being born at only five ve
months, I would consider any third trimester abortion a late term abortion.

MAC


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:20:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her 
>>that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>
>
> [...]
>
>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>made such a statement. Or retract it.

Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:57:04 GMT

From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> -> 
> -> You relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to me, and
> -> I will relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to friends
> -> of Jesus.
> 
> suzanne, this may be difficult for you to grasp, but
> try. if your god is going to offer there young women
> abundance, and offer abundance to any others who
> want it, he/she certainly doesn't need me or you for
> secretarial services. providing abindacne is a big
> job, you know. assuming you're telling the truth,
> i'm certain all of the logistical and delivery
> systems are already in place. i mean, what kind of
> person would offer abundance and then not be
> prepared to provide it.

So in other words, no you won't.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie? 
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:02:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.020412.9422@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.175344.22861@hemlock.cray.com>
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
[deletia]
>>> Cochran, I have a newspaper article in front of me which names
>>> Baby Theresa's neonatalogist, along with the hospital where he
>>> works.  If you'll publically name the baby's neonatalogist,
>>> as you have stated that you know him, I'll publically post the
>>> article reference.
>> Mark didn't say whether the neonatologist he spoke with
>> was working with the potential donor, or a potential
>> recipient.
>He claims to know a "director of neonatology, a neonatal surgeon,
>and a couple of the nursing staff" who were "directly involved"
>in the case.  Is it too much to ask where these people work?
>He has refused to answer that simple question, which leads me
>to believe that he's lying.

Snarf. _You_ know so much about the case. Why not post the newspaper
article for all of us to see?

Don't have it? Now why doesn't that surprise me?

Okay, Doogie, time to take the bitter pill. Put up or shut up.

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Left Wing Anti-Abortionists
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:13:50 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.034530.15925@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
|>In article <1993Jan20.000632.28446@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>
|>>In article <kkelly.7.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca>, kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
|>>
|>>|>As well I would like to hear from people who oppose abortion for 
|>>|>non-religious reasons.
|>>|>
|>>|>In addition I would like to know what reasons brought you to this view. 
|>>|>
|>>I oppose abortion simply because I feel it is wrong to take another life.
|>>Any life.Its just wrong. The death penalty is wrong. Of course I oppose 
|>>abortion because I feel life begins at conception. there you have it.
|>>No religion though I could throw some in if you wished.
|>
|>On what do you base your belief that it is always wrong to take another 
|>life, other than on religious beliefs?
|>
Maybe legal. Murder is illegal. I don't feel that taking a life is always
wrong such as in self-defense but that it is something that should be 
avoided whenever necessary.The law does allow murder in self-defense and
I support it even though I wish that it was not necessary to kill I do
realize that it may be necessary but only when all other options have been
exhausted.

-Jeff
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:24:20 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>
>>>>>No; but no goldfish has ever exhibited reason or free will -- at 
>>>>>ANY stage of its existence.
>>>
>>>>Neither has a fetus or a zygote.  Try again.
>>>
>>>Neither did a newborn infant named Cathi, once upon a time.
>
>>Ever try feeding a newborn infant something it didn't want?
>
>Response to external stimulus != (reason) or (free will)

Ergo, you have neither free will nor reason?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Some more NFP discussion
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:19:44 GMT

From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>problem.   As you well know, I have posted many times where and how
>>other people can learn to live successful, self-determined, lives
>>without messing their bodies up with contraceptives or slaughtering
>>their children with abortion.
>
> Yes, and whenever anyone asks you for any real details you evade
> the question. 

I don't evade.  I tell'em "no" outright.  I am not trained as an
instructor in NFP, and I will not take it upon myself to take that
kind of responsibility with other people's lives.  They're either
interested enough to take my referrals on resources, (or to look up
their own resources), or they're not.


> I will repeat the appropriate question about NFP
> yet again. You have repeatedly claimed that NFP has a success rate
> approaching that of oral contraceptives, and posted some statistics
> which, although not peer reviewed, support this to some extent. What
> you have not, and seem to refuse to do, 

"Seem" to refuse?  I DO refuse!

> is posted the percentage
> of time which one must abstain from intercourse to obtain such
> effectiveness. Will you please do so?

To avoid a pregnancy, a couple must abstain from intercourse for the
entire time of their fertile period.  This of course varies very widely,
even month to month for the same couple.

> -Ekr

S. Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57115 misc.legal:23010 alt.abortion.inequity:6611 alt.child-support:4622 soc.men:23022 soc.women:22905