HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: Saddam Hussein 2
Summary: What's this all about?
Keywords: p----  saddam hussein iraq sex
Organization: You see Burke Lee?
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:32:51 GMT

In article <9221014.14038@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> (Ronald LIGTERINGEN) writes:
>In an article (Marshall G. Flax) writes:
>>In article <5560004@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> writes:
>>>
>>>Yeah, I think they have also severed his p---- !
>
>Wait, wait, I got it !!!!!
>
>>paddy padre paean pagan paint palsy pampa panda panel panic pansy panty papal
>>papaw paper pappy parch parry parse party pasha passe paste pasty patch pater
>>patio patty pause peace peach peaky pearl pecan pedal peepy penal pence penis
>                                                                         ^^^^^
>>penna penny peony peppy perch peril perky peste petal petit petri petty pewee
>>phage phase phlox phone phony photo phyla piano picky piece piety piggy pilot
>>pinch pinto pious pique pitch pithy pivot pixel pizza place plaid plain plane
>>plank plant plasm plate playa plaza plead pleat pluck plumb plume plump plunk
>>plush poach pocus podge podia poesy point poise polar polio polis polka pooch
>>poppy porch posey posit posse pouch pound power prank preen press prexy price
>>prick pride prima prime primp print prior prism privy prize probe prone prong
>>proof prose proud prove prowl proxy prune psalm psych puffy pulse punch punky
>>pupal pupil puppy purge purse pussy putty pygmy
>
>It's PENIS, hey???? 
>
>Ooooh naughty boy!!!!
>
>>marshall
>Whatever
>
>Ronaldico
>--
>How the F... do you get your .sig here???

No, you're all wrong!  It's PINKY!!!  He has only 9 fingers!!!


-Richard
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:30:03 -0400 
From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why Perot dropped out/was in?

Who cares? Main point is, he's left the field clear for Howard the Duck
- Third-Party/ Second-Species candidate!
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: QUAYLE STEPS DOWN
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:36:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.164259.1612@gacvx2.gac.edu> marx@flash.gac.edu (Timothy Johnson) writes:
>I want to know if there is any truth to the fact that Marilyn Quayle has  
>been stricken with cancer and therefore Dan is not going to be Bush's  
>running mate in the fall, and that Kemp may be his new choice.  
>
>Any thoughts?!?!?!

   Well, I hope not.  Clinton needs every little bit of help he can muster to
   kick Bush's ass in November :-) and Kemp would be a formidable assist to 
   the ticket.   I don't think if Marilyn had cancer that she would want Danny
   boy off the ticket anyway.  She is rumored to be very ambitious for Danny 
   boy and unless she was terminally ill, she would probably play the role
   of brave, tortured, political wife standing by her man thru sickness and 
   whatever to the hilt.
     -William
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:49:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul24.104531.18822@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
## #james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
## ##garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## ##-# who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
## ##-# support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have
## ##-# an abortion
## ##
## ##wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
## #
## #Quayle said he would not support her having an abortion as a
## #minor, but would leave the decision to her as an adult.
## 
## I didn't hear him qualify it last night.
## 
## Quayle would deny this choice to all adult women who don't
## happen to be daughters, of course.  Are we supposed to be
## impressed?
#
#that's not so different from some of the men who post here, is
#it?

Well, no.  It's the typical stand - exceptions for rape,
incest, and my family.

Quayle's first election to the Senate, we should recall,
was aided by a right-to-lie PAC.  Without their help,
and the help of his equally unscrupulous father (Quayle's
father's newspaper ran editorials which implied wrongdoing
by Quayle's opponent.  The implications were false.  The
paper did not print a retraction until the day of the
election. - See _The Right to Lifers_ by Connie Paige.)

## I saw a quote from Marilyn Quayle today that said, "She
## would carry the child to term."  (Who was complaining about
## people treating their children like property?)  
#
#i wonder if marilyn came up with that herself or if she were
#prompted to speak out by bush's campaign staff.

Who knows?  I've never paid that much attention to Marilyn
Quayle (or Barbara Bush, for that matter), so I don't
know if she has a mind of her own or not.  I don't
think that the mere fact that one married someone who 
accomplished something makes one important.

## As far as I'm concerned, Marilyn Quayle's blanket
## pronouncement is another good argument against parental
## consent laws.  There's no concern for her daughter's
## feelings, health, or anything else here.  
#
#i agree.

I wonder about these sorts of "family values."

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:14:31 GMT

From article by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>>>(Doug Holtsinger):
>>>>A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is not "autonomous",
>>> 
>>> Excuse me, Doug.  I Have nursed three infants, and these 
>>> particular three precocious little darlings were able to
>>> pull away from the breast at will, and, of their own volition,
>>> decide to cry for awhile or take a nap instead of nursing.
>>
>>I suppose you could have then just handed the baby to _anybody_ to nurse
>>when you didn't feel like doing it youself.    (And you darn well know as
>>well as I do that breastmilk is far healthier for babies than formula is.)
>>
> No argument there.  However, there are lots of us who continue
> to survive after having been brought up on formula.  

And many of us who were, are paying a long term price in terms of
allergies caused by confused immune systems that got off to formula
starts.


> How well
> would most modern urbanites fare if the food distribution system
> (supermarkets and trucking industry) suddenly collapsed?  

Not very well at all.  In fact, I think that was the point.  None
of us are completely autonomous, not adults and not newborns.  To expect
the unborn to be autonomous and not dependent on anybody, is ludicrous
and particularly hypocritical.


> The
> only nutritionally autonomous folk around are Mormons, and old
> hippies who are still living in the _Whole Earth Catalog_.
> Physical autonomy is a different thing.

Well, I can't speak for hippies, since I haven't spoken to my hippie
ex-boyfriend in nearly 10 years, but I can say that you are wrong about
Mormons, as I have some Mormon relatives who raise neither tomatoes nor
chickens, who in fact, depend on other Mormons and family members (Mormon
or not) to pull them through tough times.


>>> Perhaps the ones you've nursed were different.
>>
>>No.  I don't think so.
>>
> Me either.  I think newborns assert more physical autonomy
> than most adults do, in some respects.  They are not bound
> by the constraints of politeness, and are therefore surprisingly
> difficult to manipulate.  When they eat, sleep, or stop 
> crying is not under anyone else's control.  

I think you are talking assertiveness here, not autonomy.  Just because
a newborn will decide, with absolute decisiveness, when he will eat, sleep,
stop crying, or inspect a face, does not mean in the least that he is
not in need of his mother's care.

So, ok, from my Webster's New World Dictionary:

  autonomous - 1. having self-government
               2. existing or functioning independently


Well Muriel, it seems we were both using the word "autonomous" correctly,
but each with the other of the two meanings.

 
> muriel
> standard disclaimer

Suzanne.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The C word
Date: 22 Jul 1992 07:46:51 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <l5rrklINNp3g@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> brian@baja.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>     No the C word doesn't mean Choice but Compromise.
>     I've been reading it in quite a few postings lately.
>     Lets be "Pro-Compromise".  Thats the only
>     and best way america has gotten anything done in the
>     past.  So why not on this issue?? 

I always find this attitude somewhat curious.  Abortion itself is a very
*personal* decision, and the specifics of each woman's situation very
different from anothers.  Yet here's someone who figures we should handle
this personal decision by group consensus.

It makes as much sense as to say, "All you Jews and Christians and 
Catholics -- get together in a room and compromise!  There isn't any point
to multiple religions and it's cost society a *lot* in the past for you
guys to be fighting about different beliefs.  It's the best thing for
America...."

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:08:36 GMT
Keywords: From: decay@

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:



>I don't claim omniscience, Kellmeyer.  

>I have discussed the Reardon "study" here many time before.  I
>really hope that you are not challenging my claim that his
>sample was hopelessly biased.  

Well, if you'd bother to read his book, you'd find that he points out
when he's using WEBA as the basis for data and when he's quoting 
published reports that did NOT use WEBA members.  No one, including
Reardon himself, claims that the WEBA sample is other than self-selected.

Note, however, that Reardon did a LOT more than just survey WEBA members.
He does an overview of the literature, showing where and how literature 
sources back up the experience of WEBA members, and how they sometimes
mysteriously "miss" the members of this half-million member organization.

You, however, focus only on the WEBA data, and claim that Reardon said
things he did not say, so that you can knock the straw-man down.

>I will, in time, research the morbidity/mortality claims by
>Hilgers and post the results.  (I can't promise instant results,
>but I will do the research.)  

For someone who does not claim omniscience, you sure act like you have it. 
I have a post in which you
specifically say that Hilgers studies have been refuted.  NOW you say
you haven't even done the research which backs up your claim!!!!!!!
You claimed to know how Operation Rescue training sessions
worked (though you never attended one) while you were unwilling to
make any assumptions about why an abortion counsellor would passively
lie to a customer about her baby's heartbeat.  I'm trying to be nice
and assume you have some sort of omniscience that applies only to
facts presented by pro-lifers. The alternative is that you are a liar.

I might also note that the article I posted with statistics about 
abortion contained exactly ONE (1) reference from David Reardon's
book.  That reference was a footnote whose calculations were based 
on a half-dozen studies published in medical journals and by state
medical agencies.  Those journals and articles were included in the
reference. My post contained quite a lot more references besides. 
So again, you construct a straw-man (implying that the
bulk of my article was based on Reardon's WEBA research) and try 
to knock it down.  

>Just out of curiosity, do you read articles and books which
>challenge the validity of anti-abortion studies?

More to the point, do you?

>Susan

Steve Kellmeyer
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 2
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:32:05 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <z2hmfa+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>Precisely because the z/e/f dies, we are aiming to pass a Human Life
>>Amendment which will grant them their right to live (which was a right
>>of theirs since science first knew of their existence, in the
>>1860's-1870's).  
>
>Science first discovered the existence of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses
>in the womb in the late 19th century?!?  Well, I suppose if Margaret 
>Sanger can get an abortion when she was in her 80's, anything is possible.
>Still, one does wonder about those biblical references to pregnant women
>being with child.

Biblical references don't necessarily have any relevance to fact, but
in this case, science proved that yes, fetus = person. 

It was just in 1973 that some supreme court judges forgot that fact. 

>Or maybe borg-for-brains is just practicing that trick again where he
>blows smoke out his ass?

What trick? Mimicking you, perhaps? 

>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
>ray@netcom.com


===============================================================================
Dan Bredy is gone and there's not a damned thing you can do when I
laugh about it, except bitch, gripe and complain! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:53:54 GMT

<1992Jul21.190634.5054@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>> Exactly when it becomes a "heart" is dependent largely on
>>> your definition of "heart."

<1992Jul24.034931.8710@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>> Of course.  I'd hoped to avoid playing semantic games, though.
>> That's why I did not ask about the "heart" per se, but about the
>> heartbeat.  You know, the rhythmic twitching of cardiac muscle that
>> begins in the fourth week (i.e. after three weeks have passed) of
>> gestation and doesn't cease until death.

<1992Jul24.054545.20429@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> In that case, I'd say you're playing semantic games 

No.  Semantic games would include redefining terms for my own
purpose, or using an unusual definition given the context of discussion.
I have not done that.  I have simply chosen my words carefully to
express what I mean.

> - cardiac muscle does not a heart make.

Agreed.  And if you reread what I wrote carefully, you will see that
I did not claim otherwise.

If I place my hand on my chest right now, I feel a beat.  As long
as I can remember, this has been true.  It will continue to be true
until I die.  When did this beating begin?  It began before
my heart was fully formed, before it had valves, before it had
four chambers, before there was blood for it to pump.  But
nevertheless, the beat was there.  And the beat goes on.

> Something that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting is clearly
> not stopping a beating heart (no matter how liberally you wish to
> define "heart"), and this would (I would hazard) constitute the
> majority of cases.

Isn't abortion often referred to as "termination of pregnancy"?
And would you not agree that in order for something to be
terminated, it must have begun?  If a blastocyst fails to implant,
whether naturally, or due to the encouragement of some sort
of abortifacient, then pregnancy never begins.  How can a 
pregnancy be aborted if it never begins in the first place?

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:55:59 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <lefty-270792164929@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> In article <1992Jul26.134114.1987@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca wrote:
>> 
>> In article <lefty-240792160241@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> > In article <1992Jul23.165522.1975@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> But all humans are born sinners, dontcha know?
>> > 
>> > Really?!  In which sutra did the Buddha say that?
>> 
>> I was referring to the Christian mentality only, sorry my sarcasm didn't
>> translate to the screen for you.
> 
> Opacity, thy name is "McBean".  The only difference between you and two
> planks is that you're thicker.

y'never know with me, I may be thinner.
 
> Try following this thread back and see whether you can possibly deduce the
> point I was making.

Why should I care about your point when all I did was make a flip comment
about a single sentence in the post?
 
> --
> Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
> C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Ahem...I Screwed Up.  (WAS PP executive says "personhood...)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:47:31 GMT

> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>> = (Jay T Stein -- Cool World applicant) writes:
>
>[to Holtsinger re: Atheist Doug's defense of religion...]     
>>>One more time Doug - it is okay for one's *personal* view on abortion to
>>>be guided by religious beliefs.  It is *not* okay for abortion *legislation*
>>>to be guided by religious beliefs.  This has always been my stated view
>>>on t.a.

>>*HEY*
>>Don't you *DARE* try to impose *YOUR* personal views on me!!!!!

>Geez.  Get a grip, and wipe that spittle off your lips.  Then remember the
>intent of the majority of anti-abortionists.  Now, don't you look stupid?

(The first of many insults deleted due to embarrassment.)

OOPS.  Missed your smiley at the end of your posting.  Please enjoy
raking me over the coals about this.  My apologies to Mr. Kellmeyer.  (When
did he get a sense of humor? :)



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:14:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: na

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>Hello there, I'd like to ask your opinion of the following quote:
>
>     "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>we want to be precise)..."
>  -- Gloria Feldt,
>     chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

Hard to say without having the surrounding context.  Some religions/cultures
did/do hold that personhood begins up to a year after birth.  Relevence?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:01:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


It's a lost cause, Mark.  

Suzanne, for example, believes that every fertilized egg
is a child, with a right to live and enjoy all the
wondeful things that life might offer.  At the same
time, she says that some (born) children have no
such rights, that they only exist, in misery and 
poverty, to teach someone compassion.  

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
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: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 02:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.221249.11640@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.194417.26891@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>How do YOU describe justice?  Special favors for your friends or group?
>>
>>Justice is that which is seen to be applied equally in similar situations.
>
>Exactly my point.  Thank you.
>
>>>You are the brutal one.  You advocate the unrestrained killing of
>>>millions of babies.
>>
>>Babies?  Who's advocating the killing of babies?  I've never seen a post
>>where Tim or any pro-choicer/pro-abortioner advocated killing babies.
>
>Pro-abortion means pro the choice to kill a baby.  I would appreciate it
>if you people would just admit that.  Saying that killing the fetus is
>not killing a baby is exactly the same as saying that murder shouldn't
>be illegal.  If it isn't illegal to steal the probable future of a
>baby, why is it illegal to steal the probable future of a child, or
>adult?

Because, by doing so you're STEALING THE CURRENT LIFE OF A WOMAN!

[Rest of article consigned to the bit bucket].
--
=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???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion