HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 19:34:26 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <79591@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:

>I'm going to add fuel to the fire and urge someone who isn't in the terminal
>stages of sleep dep to post the lyrics to "National Brotherhood Week".  I
>need a good laugh.

Anything for you big guy.  Enjoy!

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks.
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And ev'rybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Ev'ryone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
  -Tom Lehrer

>--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:21:50 GMT

In <1992Sep9.203016.717@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep8.212031.6149@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep5.114243.2300@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>> i didn't express any "concern," as you put it,
>> bill. i said i'd be pleased if the lad got help.
>> i'd be pleased if anyone i thought was crazy got
>> help. why do you think DODie is different?
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Why would you be pleased if you weren't at all
>> concerned?
>
> why do you think DODie is different?

I don't.  I didn't indicate that I did.

> now, to answer your question even though you avoided
> mine, concern does not generate pleasure nor does all
> pleasure result from concern. the two are not
> necessarily related. why would you think they were?

Seems reasonable to assume that your sentiment is based 
on some rationale.  Concern seemed to be the most likely
candidate, though there are undoubtedly other possibilities.
If you'd rather not say, I will understand.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: More Fodder For Peter's "Facts"...
Summary: Abortion by censured MD? 
Keywords: One has to wonder how this relates to the Florida MD... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 17:25:55 GMT



From _The Denver Post_, 09/04/92, Lower half of the front page:

ABORTION BY CCENSURED M.D.?

Allegation:  Unrecorded office procedure performed on sex partner.
By: Ann Schrader, Denver Post Medical/Science Writer.

A Littleton gynecologist whose license was suspended last month faces a new
allegation that he performed an unrecorded abortion on a patient when he
learned he was the likely father of the child.

[Ok, here's the story:  Dr. Sweeney had his license revoked for having sex with
three of his patients and fondeling a fourth.  As it turns out, he was also
having consensual affairs with his co-workers.  He treated this woman for
infertility problems in 1988 and 1989.  He performed the abortion on her
"with her consent" after he found out that he might be the father.  The same
woman later conceived another child after having further intercourse with
Sweeny.  During that pregnancy, it is alleged that Sweeny harassed her and
her husband].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All typo's and such mine.  All I can say is that it must take all kinds of
weird people to keep this world going.
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:15:44 GMT

scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
:    |Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice   Registered Democrat
:                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: Borgie-boy has really blown his propeller now!

Does your mother know you have her computer?

: 
:    |			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          
:    |           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn           
: 
: Civil rights for the unborn?  Like equal housing, equal employment opportunity 
: and voting rights?

Something to do with the right to life.  The rest follows.  You should watch more TV.



: ___/\___  __
: \      / /  \
:  \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (corwin+@cmu.edu)
: /_\  /_\    \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
:    \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
:         B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++             Carnegie Mellon
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:28:47 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <79066@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>Then why IS it treated as negligence?  Remember, what kind, and whethe or
>>not contraception was used by the man, he is still liable for child
>>support payments if the woman has the baby.
>Because our legal system is based on an outmoded principle that the
>man is always and solely responsible in such cases.  Good enough?

No, sorry, not good enough.

Why is it that folks always write about child support as if a man pays it
and a woman incurs no liability whatsoever?  What do you think those women
who struggle to find jobs, who need daycare, and who depend quite desperately
on the help of their families to watch the little one while they work are
DOING with that money?

Are either of you fellows aware that BOTH parents are "liable" for child
support?  Do either of you fellows have a *clue* about the WOMAN's obligations?
Doesn't look like it here.  

And folks wonder why I harp on the invisible woman over and over.

Because she apparently IS invisible.  Over and over.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:11:22 GMT

In article <43429@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

He's baaaaaack.


Sarah McCabe
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:33:50 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.

SJM
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:39:53 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.715653432@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep3.211916.20669@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>In <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>>>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>>>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>>>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>>>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>>>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>>>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

>>>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>>>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>>>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
>>>particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
>>>for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.

>>  (Tragic article deleted).

>>    Peter, why is it so hard for you to understand that yes, it is WRONG
>>for someone to perform an abortion on a woman against her will (because
>>it is interfering with her reproductive independence), but it is ALSO
>>wrong for someone to refuse to allow a woman to get an abortion IF AN
>>ABORTION IS HER DECISION (for the same reason)? You seem to be an
>>intelligent man--why do you struggle so hard with this concept?

>>                                                               MP

>Because there is often also another human being involved, the one that
>is killed if the abortion is a "successful" one.

     Peter, given the choice between a sentient woman suffering horribly
and an insentient fetus not having the chance to live, which would you
choose?  Why?

                                                            MP

>Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 01:17:56 GMT

In <1992Sep4.001120.13056@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = Suzanne Forgach:
>>> = (Kathi Mills):

>>>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

>>ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.
> 
>You mean pro-choicers EAT HUMAN FLESH? (Also known as "long-pig".)
							     ^^^
Did Kathi Mills mean pro-lifers do the same?

Not having mastered the art of using a sig. file, I will type out in long
hand:

****  Fetal pigs is pigs, but fetal humans is only potentially human  ****

Peter Ny.

PS the non-grammatical nature of the above was dictated by a classic
American short story, "Pigs is pigs."

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Oh, my, this is just *SO* funny... (Was: 3 docs doing 3 things)
Summary: I just can't *WAIT* for the next installment of this one... 
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: Tue, 8 Sep 92 04:29:03 GMT

In article <nyikos.715899504@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Well, one thing he has admitted to doing is defend a lot of drunk driving
>cases.  I asked him if he felt bad about it, and he said usually not, 
>because usually the State has such a rotten lack of evidence that the
>case should have never come to trial.

Peter, I have little to no respect for you.  I do have respect for anybody who
can actually make it through law school, and then actually become a lawyer.
So please forgive the following.

Snigger.  Is he one of those people who advertises in bold print in the
newspapers about "Remove Drunk Driving Convictions" and stuff like that?

Seriously, it would be nice if your friend were "Head Legal Counsel For The
State Of SC", or some such, but if he's got proof that abortionists are not
faithfully reporting cases of incest, let's see them.
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:20:12 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep14.161750.22316@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> In article <Sep14.173415.54646@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep12.155140.28327@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> >|> In article <Sep12.074253.38224@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
|> >|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> }	Yeah, and what if the hang glider did something to cause the guy to be
|> >|> }hooked up in it?  If the hang glider swooped down and grabbed the guy, for
|> >|> }instance (still assuming the hang glider is a person), then it seems to me that
|> >|> }the hang glider wouldn't have a right to just let him go in mid-air, would it?
|> >|> 
|> >|> What a concept!  I think I see why people might shoot hang gliders on 
|> >|> sight.  I'm not sure if a hang glider would have the right to let someone
|> >|> go in mid-air, but if they had that capability, who knows, it might even 
|> >|> be a right.  I sure doubt that I would support legislation making that
|> >|> illegal, however...
|> >
|> >	Do you mean to suggest, Galen, that if hang gliders were persons you
|> >wouldn't want to make it illegal for them to swoop down and pick up people, and
|> >then drop them from mid-air?
|> >
|> Even though Galen speaks for everyone now, I don't think
|> he'll mind terribly if I speak for him here.
|> 
|> No.  He wouldn't want to make it illegal.

	Muriel, you dumb slut. :-) (I hope you watched SNL in the '70s, or I'm in
trouble...)
	Well, if people can legally swoop down and pick up other people, carry
them a mile above ground and then drop them, all this without their prior consent,
then your vaunted right to bodily autonomy isn't worth the power it takes to heat
the hot air you use to talk about it.
	And your right to commit abortions goes poof along with the right to
bodily autonomy.

|> muriel
|> standard disclaimer
|> wondering how one punishes a hang glider...

	You'd destroy it.

|> and who will be the first to succomb to the enticements
|> of a really fine straight line.

	I don't know what that means, but if you're offering something....

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Kevin "C is Cum in my mouth, Daddy" Welch (again...)
Summary: Sorry, Honey, I don't do windows... 
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: This actually isn't a post.  It's all in your mind... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 01:26:40 GMT

Recently, I asked Kevin Welch a question:
>If a woman self-aborts, would you charge her with murder?

Kevin sent me e-mail, asking (basically):
>Are you talking about a miscarriage or an intentionally induced abortion?

Well, now, since I don't do e-mail, let me continue...

An intentionally induced abortion.  Say that the cheapest doctor she could
find wanted $1,000.00 up front to do it.  So, she went home, got herself a coat
hanger, some chlorox, and performed an abortion on herself.
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:42:15 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Notes on a few disingenuous arguments from Mark Ira Kaufman:

>1.  The woman with limited financial resources should have spent them on
>contraception.  A condom costs 25 cents, maybe 50 at an expensive gas
>station.
Which is not 100% protection.  There is NO 100% protection from conception.
An abstaining person can be raped.  And rapists aren't likely to use 
protection...

Even the pill is only 99.9% effective.  That means 1/1000 risk.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:20:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <24888@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:
>>In article <pmar1vs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>]>Gosh, Nyikos, why don't you name for me a contraceptive
>]>that's 100% effective?  That is, a contraceptive that will
>]>prevent pregnancy for sexually active het women 100% of the
>]>time.  Can you name one?

>>Pants ( for both ).
>
>The crotchless kind??? :-)

No, those GAP and J Crew "uni"sex pants...

kcw



--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Vampire King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:46:43 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I believe you about the bats, but I want more documentation on
>the other vampires, please.

Ahhh, ve'vve been much maligned, ussss that you refer to asss vvampiresss.
Ve only take sssoo little, and our condition isss not contagiousss,
ssso there isss nothing to vorry about. Give sssome blood, sssupport
your local vampire. Ve even drink out of cupsss.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:04:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron
>Kevin
>>>Ron
>
>>>Mighty big of you to unilaterally decide what goes on in t.a. I take
>>>person and human being to mean one and the same thing, unless one starts
>>>to use them in a fashion to describe things as one of the two for mostly
>>>emotional reasons, with little validity.

>>A human being can be a person, but a person is not necessarily a human being.
>>Person is term describing an entity with certain traits.  It just so happens
>>to be that certain human beings (moral sense) happen to be persons.

>I'm glad to see you coming round. In effect, you're saying that not
>all human beings are persons, and all persons are not human beings.

Yes, that is the general assumption I have.

>In general discussions, I acquiesce to what I perceive to be the general
>mood on the subject, and that human beings and persons mean the same
>thing.

You are correct in a sense - sense that there is a moral human being (you, me)
and a genetic human being (dead human being, fetus).

>I do hold that just because it looks human, talks/walks like
>a human, and may even think, that it not necessarily is a person. Take
>Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahlmer for instance, they are more animal than
>human (regarding civilized behavior). Take an intelligent chimp or gorilla,
>they appear more human than animal. Which would you rather have in your
>house?

Well, the answer is obvious there.  But the two human beings are more (ARE)
persons than are the monkeys.

Persons can waive rights, since they have the ability to conceive and 
understand rights, right from wrong, good from bad ( in most cases).  These
two men waived there rights.

>>>You think so. You've yet to show any reason for this except that there
>>>is a good chance that they will meet the criteria given time. Baby Theresa
>>>never made it to this stage, and was merely human, not really a human
>>>being, although a being that was human. Semantic play.

>>Not correct.  Once a human sperm and a human egg unite to form a zygote, that
>>zygote is classified as a human being.  Simple biology, not semantic play.

>Depending on how it is classified, etc, literally, yes. In the context
>of the previous discussion, no. Hence the semantic play.

Perhaps we should stick to the use of person to describe us and genetic human
being to refer to fetuses.

>Ron

kcw


--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:41:27 GMT

In <BuDIvH.ALx@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <29674@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>>American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
>>contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
>>terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.
>>
>>SJM

>So do I -- and I was the one who first used it, in the article that started
>this whole sorry mess, and I apologized for it -- but you should note 
>something:
>I did not describe Chaney in such fashion.  I told him to get his down here 
>and see just how hateful he'd be to me in person.  There is a large difference
>between the two usages,

Granted. Are you saying that you ONLY wanted him to bring down his
[expletive deleted] and didn't care whether the rest of him was
attached?  And just what did you have in mind to do with that particular
piece of his anatomy?

[As you can see, I am done with "whining" to you, which is your
term for my efforts to be diplomatic.]

> and Chaney is lying through his teeth as usual when
>he says I described him as one -- so you can see why Chaney isn't going to
>be getting an apology from me, when he deserves it more than anyone else.
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do I see a ray of hope in this last clause for ending this vendetta?

>He had his chance -- and he threw it away.  

Big fat chance.

Peter Nyikos