HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 02:17:24 GMT

<Sep29.235338.66102@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) said:
><r_0nyh+.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> <1992Sep24.203912.637@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
...
>|> If a woman is forced to remain pregnant against her will by people who
>|> would let abort it if she had involuntary sex (i.e. was raped) then
>|> they are punishing her for having voluntary sex.  And if she considers
>|> it punishment, then who are we to argue?
>
>	And if she considers it Mount Rushmore, who are we to argue?  Rational
>people, that's who.  It's clearly NOT Mount Rushmore; and, albeit less clearly,
>it's not punishment either.

Well, you got  me there Steve.  A pregnancy is NOT Mount Rushmore.  Now,
did you have something pertinent to the discussion?

>	The mother voluntarily had sex.  She could have chosen not to, but she
>didn't make that choice.  If she didn't become pregnant, no problem.  If she does become pregnant,
>she is responsible for the new life in her womb.  

Why?

>                                                  She cannot kill it.  

Currently, she can.  Why do you think she can't?

...
>insisting that it must remain in her body; only that she is responsible for its
>life and cannot kill it or neglect it to death.

Yes, I can see that you are insisting on this.  But I see no reason to
abide by your insistence, and I see a great deal of reason to grant the
woman the right to choose.

>	The woman is responsible for her child just as a military recruit is

I never said that a parent is not responsible for their child.

>responsible to obey the orders of superior officers.  He or she signed a contract
>agreeing to do so and is bound by it.  Although the woman's agreement is less
>explicit, by putting the child in a potentially dangerous situation she certainly
>implicitly assumes responsibility for the child's life.

I agree completely.  But we were talking about abortion.  A fetus is
aborted, but you keep talking about children.  No children ever get
aborted, Steve.  Please try to keep the conversation straight (no offense
Keith).


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: why bill has trouble with medical terms
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:42:43 GMT

In <j_dzk!_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Sep23.201302.21529@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
  (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep22.145531.18485@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>>>>>> projecting again, bill? 
> 
>>>>>> Diagnosing again, Jim?
>
>>>>> now i see why you've had so much trouble with this
>>>>> thread. at first, i thought it was dishonesty, but
>>>>> now i see it was just ignorance.
> 
>>>> Jim, do you use words without knowing their meaning?
>>>> If not, please define the word "projecting" (or the
>>>> concept of "projection") as used in the above
>>>> context.
>
>>> i'll be happy to help you out bill, although i admit
>>> that i'm surprised that someone in your business could
>>> actually provide therapy without understanding quite
>>> basic concepts.
>
>> What makes you think that projection is a "basic concept" 
>> in therapy, Jim?  You seem to be wrong, here.
>
> stating that someone is mistaken, without supporting
> your statement, doesn't carry much weight, bill. would
> i be incorrect in speculating that you're diverting from
> the discussion? if so, you don't have to explain why.

The concept of projection derives from psychoanlytic theory.
Introductory psychology courses (which always deal with theory
rather than practice) typically include an overview of Freudian
psychology and its emphasis on unconscious motivations.  However,
the inference of such mechanisms and their implications are not 
detailed until much later (if at all, depending on the orienta-
tion of the particular school).  The most rigorous treatment of 
unconscious defense mechanisms is found among schools that train 
and certify psychoanalysts.  Such training is very specialized, 
requiring education well beyond the average practitioner's ter-
minal degree.  While many psychoanalytic concepts make for pop-
ular dinner conversation, they're not considered "basic" to the
practice of psychotherapy.

I've now supported my statement, Jim.  See how it's done?

Bill
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:37:43 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep26.001407.7131@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote regarding the cause of Becky Bell's death:
> 
> Um, I believe it was "septic pneumonia with abortion", but I'm still
> looking for my copy of the coroner's report, which I DID POST about
> 2 years ago.

You unconscionable _idiot_!

What on earth is "septic pneumonia"?  Something you get from being heir to
the "throne of Iraq"?

I can barely believe I expend calories reading the ravings of someone this
stupid!

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39659 alt.abortion.inequity:4162 alt.birthright:488
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:11:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.061730.13587@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes

>>And by all accepted and legal definitions the fetus is not a person.

>This may be true, but it is not an immutable law.  It can and will be
>changed.

Why should it be? So that you will feel morally superior?

>>Really?  Gosh, I'm so surprised.  Seriously though, you're going to have
>>to convince me if you want me to support your position.

>That's what I am trying to do.

Good luck. Care to try and convince me my spare time should be to toil
in the fields to help feed people to lazy to do it themselves? You'll
have about as much success.

>>For starters, read the Constitution.

>I did, I didn't find anything to do with abortion in there.

Perhaps because it only pertains to legal persons, of which the fetus
is not a member. Strange, isn't it?


Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Some Cheap Food with that Breastmilk, Sir?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:57:02 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Simple food and water is not expensive unless people like you hoard it.

Sure, dimwit.  Tell that to my friends living in my old neighborhood.
You know...South Dade County.  No one was _hoarding_ all the food
that used to be there, it was largely _destroyed_.  Ask any number
of relief agencies how inexpensive it is to feed thousands of
people every day.

It must be nice living in a sugar-coated world and turning a blind
eye to human suffering.  Of course _you_ don't have to care about
the starving millions on the planet, why, it's all because someone
is _hoarding_food_ and you're certainly not doing _that_, are you?
So you don't have to help, because it's all due to those nasty
people who are hoarding food.  When they stop, everything will be
just peachy keen again.

Of course, when Jesus spoke of "the least of my brothers", Suzanne
probably thought he _only_ meant embryoes...

>SF

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
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: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:26:39 GMT


Just a note for Peter:  I haven't seen a "live" human fetus
(those stomachs of women are *always* getting in the way!),
nor have I seen a fetal corpse (is that a good term?), but
I have seen a great video depicting various stages in fetal life
in which the fetus is quite alive.  Maybe you've seen the film
too, it's absolutely remarkable, and even shows the path of
an ejaculate coming from some poor slob's penis (imagine having
a camera shoved in there while you ejaculate *shiver*).

All in all it was a pretty good film, I only wish I knew whethere
it was National Geographic, Nova, The Nature of Things, or
something else.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:44:25 GMT

In article <kekni5m00WB4F_RkVh@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>
>If it were just a matter of people could get abortions, then I wouldn't
>care so much. But presently, my money is used to fund people killing
>children.
>
	"Presently" it's doing nothing of the sort; Operation Desert Storm is
over.  I assume that's what you were talking about.  Unless you want to
include aid to foreign nations that kill children, in which case your objection
is valid (some of our Central and South American allies come to mind...)

>ag

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sonograms and the mother of all prejudicial pieces of crap
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:07:17 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <nyikos.717801770@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> I'm beginning to have second thoughts about what I said about Brian
> McBean, that he is the kind of person I am glad is involved in the
> abortion debate.

Never knew anybody had ever said that about me...

> This reductionism, putting everything on an esthetic plane where there
> are serious moral issues, is not the kind of argument I am used to
> seeing from Brian.  I wonder, is it now going to be the rule or the
> exception?

What's the deal here?  Is it not ridiculous to allow an ugly fetus
less rights than a "cute" fetus?  I fail to see your point.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:31:48 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Planned Parenthood on abstinence and sex ed:
[parody deleted]
>-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------

When can we expect release 1006.0? (I strongly suspect it will take
1000 revisions to maintain an acceptable facade of humanity and thought,
and I'm allowing for 6 more to work out some of the major bugs.:)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:55:18 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
: 
: > There is no third alternative yet.
: > Come up with one and we'll discuss it.
: 
: How about ABSTINENCE? (No, I forgot, that's a dirty word around
: here!...)

I thought about pointing that out, before I reread Ms. Brindle's post.
Her statement would be correctly phrased as "There is no third alternative
yet to stopping a pregnancy between conception and birth."  Those
last four words should be unnecessary, but knowing these groups....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 29 SEP 92 21:21:47 GMT

In a previous article, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) wrote:

>True! I'm pro-choice. Yes, I agree that a woman should have a choice, and 
>she DOES!  She can choose to get pregnant, or not to.  Her so-called right 
>to choice, should however, disappear as soon as it involves another human 
>being.

Do all women have this choice Ron?  Try telling that to the women I know who 
became pregnant as a result of rape.  Exactly what choice did they have?
And also, women who became pregnant as a result of birth control failure - 
they clearly chose not to become pregnant, but it happened anyways.  Not every 
pregnant woman has chosen to be pregnant.

>Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation               Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com


				.... Heather
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:27:37 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <=7fzhm_@rpi.edu> Rejectus, posting as
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>->chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>->>Whoooooo! I'm Scaaaa]]]]red! Elizabeth Bartley calls me a HYPOCRITE!
>-><chortle>  <snicker>
>
>->Gosh, how characteristic this unconcern with intellectual 
>->honesty seems.

Whoooo! She does it again. A substance-free one-liner tac nuke, oh wowzee
wowzers what horrendous damage. Woe, me oh my, someone help me, I've been
hurt by a MIR-V nuke from Elizabeth Bartley...

RINGALINGALING! Alarm bell ends dream. Time to face reality, Elizabeth:
Wasn't it YOU who also jumped in on that Dennis Hall prank that Roby
started, which made me killfile you?

Your unconcern with lie-mongering shows how hypocritical you are.


>->Pro-Choice            Anti-Roe                - E. Elizabeth Bartley

When Roe goes and the HLA shoots into her state legislature, she'll wise up
and drop that .sig because Roe will be all she had.


>->      Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
>
>does this mean you no longer want to legislate against
>some abortions and imprison/punish the women who have
>the abortions you want to legislate against?

Hey, Elizabeth: want to chat with one'a your buddies? He has some bones to
pick with you...


>"intellectual honesty" indeed!!!!

Wooooh, a challenge from Rejectus. How will you ever survive, Elizabeth? I
guess his devastating argument burned your butt so bad you can't even sit.

Rejectus, you couldn't argue your way through thin air, much less through
an argument from someone like Elizabeth. For one, her IQ has 3 digits while
yours has 2, including the negative sign. I think she's grossly misguided
for some reason today, but you? Grossly misguided would be a vast
improvement on your part.

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:45:13 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.194552.408@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>So the existence of a human life, you would agree, is dependent of the
>location of that human life.  I didn't know I would be less of a human 
>if I were in a small jail cell compared to where I am right now.

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here.  You don't honestly think that
the only difference between you and a fertilized egg is that you're
not in a woman's womb, do you?

I don't agree.  You also seem to have overlooked the fact that the
z/e/f is drawing its sustenance off the woman's body, and that it
doesn't even have a working brain for half a year.  And you're using
the words "human life" where I think you mean 'person'.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:43:58 GMT


Geez, now I'm confused.


Simon

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos scores 749 and 745 on SATS!
Summary: And I rolled 556 at The Palace two weeks ago.  Whee.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:07:38 GMT

In article <6430@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <BvAx7x.GC2@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>#In article <1992Sep28.181026.10388@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (The
>#*official* Usenet virus) writes:
>##In article <1992Sep24.033225.22205@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>###
>###Speaking of SAT's and pro-force idiots, though, Patrick,
>###should we tell the A.B. that the Franciscan University
>###of Steubenville (home of the "Pro-life Activities" minor)
>###gives academic scholarships to people who score a big
>###1000?   That might give him something to shoot for when
>###he finally gets out of high school.
>##
>##Aw, that's scary. You'd never get out of high school, then. 
>#
>#Poor ol' Chaney -- never stopped to think Susan might have gotten out of
>#high school before he was born.  Actually, make that never stopped to think,
>#period... 
>
>Your second sentence is obviously correct, or POC meant to post
>this little dribble to alt.non.sequitur.  

He's not qualified for alt.non-sequitur...you have to have *some* kind of a
sense of humor to post anything in that group.  POC's repeatedly
demonstrated that's one other thing he's missing.

>##Perhaps you'll get into Steubenville. As a test chimp, that is. 
>#
>#Not until you finish up *your* contract there, at least.  See you in
>#2003...:-)
>
>:-)
>
>I guess this means Chaney/Hall made less than 1000, huh?
>
>Susan

If that's the case, he couldn't have even gotten into Cougar High (unless he
was in something like the top 1% of his class) -- which doesn't say a whole
lot good about the state of higher education in California...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:45:48 GMT

In article <19t0bbINNi1u@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep24.013758.27703@versyss.com>, keithd@versyss.com writes:
>|Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you end up
>|having to defend an uncomfortable position.
>
>Really?  I'm pro-choice, and I don't find my position to 
>be uncomfortable at all.  I find great comfort in reflecting
>that my position allows people to make their own decisions
>and run their own lives as they see fit.  I would be uncomfortable
>were I meddling in other people's lives.

Hey, David Duke didn't find his discriminatory position to be
uncomfortable, either. He found great comfort in reflecting that his
position allows (caucasian) people to make their own decisions and run
their own lives as they see fit. He would be uncomfortable meddling in
their lives. 

Then again, the people who defeated him in the Louisiana Guberatorial
election, including the Republican Party, were quite uncomfortable
with him. (Putting a pro-life Democrat in office!)  


Of course, as a pro-lifer, I don't find my position to be
uncomfortable, either. I find great comfort in knowing that I do not
support interfering in other people's lives, and I would legislate to
let the live as they see fit. However, when discrimination is taking
place, I find it necessary to ban it, and when the fetus is not a
person, we have discrimination. 
And of course, as most Americans would agree, if banning
discrimination means getting involved in people's lives, it is okay to
interfere in people's lives to stop discrimination. 


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40429 alt.abortion.inequity:4239
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:36:43 GMT

In <1992Sep28.121654.24701@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >

> How that elephant got into my pajamas, I'll never know.

Would that be a ram elephant, Dean?  :-)

Bill 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39154 talk.politics.misc:48447 alt.rush-limbaugh:6127 alt.politics.clinton:7674 alt.politics.bush:7073
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:03:56 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Try this on for size.
Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com