HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:24:17 GMT

In article <1asgclINNeee@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BvpJJ8.A5p@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.000647.26246@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>>I'm not stretching, and I found it to be a reprehensible remark
>>>>not even worth a reply.  
>>As for Adrienne Regard, she wrote, *without* a smiley-face (the usual
>>indicator of humor):
>>    Who's "we", white man?
>
>By which we see you were talking through your hat when you indicated that
>once you understood the joke and therefore the comment that you would 
>revise your opinion of my hatefulness, hmmmm?

I'm having trouble parsing this, but see below, anyway.


>I didn't use a smiley because in the context of some fellow telling me
>what *he* figures *we* should do about some OTHER PERSONS pregnancy, the
>comment *isn't* a joke.  I'm not joshing with people who would remove 
>from a woman they don't even know the right to make personal decisions.
>
>Maybe that's hateful, I dunno.

What is hateful is your use of racial and sexist slurs, regardless
of the target and the "validity" of your point.


>>>>If indeed there is a common joke, then
>>>>I'd be "happy" to change my conclusion -- although there wasn't 
>>>>any context to suggest otherwise.

Thus: you say you made no joke, despite the number of people coming 
to your defense.

So I'll return "happily" to my original conclusion:  that you used
reprehensible language to make your point.  It really was not worth
the time of day.  And I'm sure you couldn't care less.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:38:12 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
->sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->|I'd suggest that you seek some real help instead of confessing
->|your shortcomings in talk.abortion, Overpeck.  I'm really
->|not qualified to tell you why the "jokes" you feel compelled
->|to repeat in this newsgroup all have sexist overtones.  I
->|think you should see your therapist, and ask *him*.

->You know, I've often felt Overpeck to be a twit.  But I'm 
->suprised to find he's the only major participant in this 
->thread who doesn't look like a twittering fool.

unless you lied about putting me in your killfile, you
must be calling susan garvin, cathi cook, and dean
twittering fools.  apparently, your judgement has
continued to fail.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Date: 27 Sep 1992 05:38:31 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) insults sparker:
|>Boy, you sure got it made in the shade, bub, don't you.   You're
|>gettin' her money and her sexual favors too, and you ain't even signed 
|>on the dotted line yet.  Let me guess, Mr. Sleeze Bucket.  You ain't
|>even set a date yet, right?   

|Why are you accusing HIM of being a sleaze? You have no reason
|to think that he is putting in any less money than she is. Why not
|say that SHE is getting HIS money and HIS sexual favors and SHE hasn't
|even signed on the dotted line, eh? 

Silly Eric.  Women don't enjoy sex.  Unmarried women who have
sex are lower than prostitutes, because they don't get paid.
Can't you remember *anything*?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"That is the case with us all, Papa.  One half of the world cannot
understand the pleasures of the other."  --Jane Austen

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:11:41 GMT

In article <1ad6r3INNfc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>>>a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>>>and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>>>
>>
>>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>
>Where, asshole?
>
>(a) there is no 'right to life'.  Take a fucking look at the fucking
>constitution.

Does the Constitution have to tell you everything?  Blacks, for many years
did not have any protections whatsoever for many years in the Constitution.
Does abscense necessarily mean it doesn't exist?

>YOU are quite willing to trade women away into slavery because *you*
>value the fetus.
>

Yes, I value human life, mother, father, daughter, son, the unborn son
or daughter, cousin, uncle, etc.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:04:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.220258.19741@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu 
(Eric Gorr) writes:

}Interesting.  Just curious...how much myelin sheath is necessary for a
}human
}to reach a state of human-ness?

I don't know about the "human-ness," but I think (perhaps someone
can straighten me out here) the myelin sheath is like the last coat of
paint.  As the nerves grow together they don't come pre-painted,
so after they all get put together the paint is applied.  Thought can't
happen much before the structure is painted, as a matter of fact the
paint is somewhat of an insulator, so even if the building blocks of
a thought try to get together before myelinenation, they leak off and are
slow to boot, never mind getting together to form a thought.
I don't know how much (as in thick or percentage completeness) is necessary
either. The paint forms pretty quickly, but the nervous structure only
gets painted once, before that, I'd say it was pretty hopeless for
any organism to achieve anything like what we call "thought." 

Maintenance of the sheath takes place throughout life, however.  
Several things can interfere with that, unfortunately.
There is some debate as to whether it is an auto-imune response
to the sheath itself, or those cells charged with maintaining it.
Lest this be unclear, there is a fair amout of debate as to whether
or not it is a auto-imune response at all.

}By the way, what exactly do you mean by human-ness anyways?  (I may be
}falsly assuming that you using it in the same way I use person)

Beats the stuffing out of me what "human-ness" means.  I'll try
to not haggle over the definition.  It doesn't make much difference 
to me though, as far as the legality of abortion is concerned.

}It was being argued though that to be able to think or feel was a necessary
}condition for human-ness.  I was merely pointing out a case where this was
}not possible to demonstrate.  

}If you still don't like that example, ever heard of people becomming "brain
}dead" for a few moments, but then comming "back to life?"  In the time
}between, was it ok to hack them to
}pieces?

I don't think that thought or whatever is protection against being 
hacked to pieces, neither do I think it is a useful legal distinction.  

I probably have a lot more areas where I don't think it is "ok to hack
them to pieces" than you do.  It has little relation to my stance
regarding the legal status of abortion, however.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:19:08 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

[This article is so full of distortions, stupidity, and outright
lies that I'm having to take it in stages.]

>In America an unborn child can inherit property, be named an executor, have a
>guardian appointed, sue for injury, file for an injunction, receive Social
>Security benefits, sue for a blood transfusion, obtain "equal protection" by
>law, and yet be denied the right to save its own life from death by abortion.

This is not correct.  The "unborn child" may do none of these things
until it has been born alive.  It was ever thus.

>*****  The Rink  

                      -rocker
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:44:22 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.717799403@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep28.030021.7074@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Ju
> >In article <1992Sep27.203052.4629@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eri
> >>
> >>I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.
>
> >So, tell me something.  Was Hurricane Andrew "good" or "bad" interference?
> >Was Mount St. Helens "good" or "bad" interference?  Is a miscarriage "good"
> >or "bad" interference?
>
> Natural disasters are a different category from willed actions.

This is true, but irrelevant, since Eric's daffynition of "interference"
doesn't distinguish between the two categories.  Perhaps you missed his
[re-]definition?

> [I do hate to belabor the obvious, but Mr. Cochran's disingenousness
> is a little too heavy-handed for me to stomach.]

> >>An example of bad interference would be anything that prevents the fetus
                                            ^^^^^^^^
> >>from being born

No, I guess you didn't miss it, since you quoted it in the next paragraph.
[I do hate to belabor the obvious, but it's difficult for an observer to
tell if you're attempting to be disingenious or are merely stupid.]

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40577 talk.politics.misc:49564 alt.sex:31941 alt.rush-limbaugh:6547 alt.politics.elections:15177 alt.politics.clinton:8500 alt.politics.bush:7738
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:15:34 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

: MW:Legal definition only.  It can be changed at any time by an act of 
: MW:congress.
: 
: SO:Such an act would be (or should be) beyond Congress' power.  The STATES
: SO:have the authority to write criminal law.  With the exception
: SO:of treason, and "interstate/international" crimes (ex: kidnapping
: SO:across state lines, smuggling), the federal government does not have
: SO:the authority to legislate criminal laws.
: 
: Then why does congress feel it has the power to declare that the states
: do not have the right to limit abortions.

Well, it was the Supreme Court that started the mess at the federal
government's level.  The Supreme Court does have the authority to
overturn states' laws should they violate a person's individual rights.

Congress has "given" itself this authority because it makes for "good"
politics... or at least that's how it looks from my POV.  :)

[...]

: SO:That's a can of worms we don't want to open.
: 
: Too late.

Sad, but true....

--
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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38987 talk.religion.misc:17322 alt.atheism:18134
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:44:41 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <nyikos.717627005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>> I don't think I'm the only one here (I'm posting from alt.atheism) who
>>>> is tired of this talk about the "agony", "suffering", and "death" of
>>>> Jesus from Nazareth.  (Yes, I mean all those quotation marks).
>>>> ...
>>>> Rightly so.  Go ahead, prove that he suffered.  Only be sure to make
>>>> it quite clear that he didn't just fake suffering (for whatever purpose).
>>>
>>>Oh, yeah, you mean like the way unborn babies "fake" their suffering when
>>>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.

That article by S Forgach never materialised at my site, so I didn't
get the chance to reply directly, but for what it's worth:

No, I don't mean like that way.  I don't think unborn babies scream or
wringle when ripped limb by limb, so they don't show suffering, fake
or genuine.  Since they are made of animal stuff, though, there can be
no doubt that at some point the section of the nerve system which is
responsible for physical pain is developed the vast majority of them,
and they become able to suffer.  (I say "the vast majority", not
"all", because once in a very big while that subsystem, as any other,
may fail to develop in some organism.)

On the other hand, we are told that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived in
a very particular way, in accordance with none other than God's
ingenious plan, and so on, and just why am I wrong to suppose that God
didn't decide to make him so that he wouldn't feel pain?  It is just a
matter of a few nerve fibres leading from the limbs to the brain.
Suppose they weren't implemented in Jesus.  Then he would look, walk,
talk, etc., like any man, but his hands wouldn't feel the nails any
more than your fingernails feel the clipper, or your hair the
scissors.  That's how I would do it, were I God.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:47:28 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <w+lzmvf@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
>->of he who propounds them.
>that being the case, there was absolutely no
>reason for you to blatently assert that my answer
>was not an answer, ws there?
Sure. To point out the vacuity of your argument.

>->I repeat:
>
>yes, you do that quite often which nicely displays
>your immature pettiness.
Do you consider this sort of personal attack to be a sign of maturity,
Mr. Keegan?

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: For Adrienne and Kathi
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:44:45 GMT

In article <nyikos.717640402@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>
>Adrienne, by the way, did not use a smiley when she came up
>with that story about hearing women screaming at doctors to
>stop delivering their children.  Part of her prerogative as
>Lady High Everything Else, you see, is to leave them off.
>
It is a measure of your misogyny that you fail to appreciate
Adrienne.  She is a doggedly consistent defender of individual
choice for women, and a system of values which places the life
and life plans of a thinking, feeling, living, breathing woman
above the interests of potential lives in all cases.  If you
find this irritating, it speaks volumes about you.  Adrienne
has asked you to leave off the "Lady High" sarcastic bullshit.
I'm asking you, too.

Perhaps the reason you don't see a smiley on the posting about
women screaming at doctors is because it wasn't intended to be 
funny.  It was intended to make you think about your twisted sense 
of priorities, which focuses in so tightly on the suffering of
a few women who've had negative experiences with abortion, and
completely glosses over the very real suffering of millions of
women who go through long and complicated labors and deliveries.
If you gave this some serious thought, it might occur to you
that childbirth is a much more prolonged and violent experience
than abortion, an experience which should never be forced on an
unwilling woman.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:07:43 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <av8n!kd.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote (in article <nyikos.717204801@milo.math.scarolina.edu>):
>
>>Such a mother would be guilty of gross child abuse, and her child 
>>would be taken away from her.
>
>Not always true.  The number of low-income single mothers in the
>country is many times greater than the number of public-service
>workers who can find out that she's doing this and take her child from
>her.  If she leaves her child at home all day and lies to people that
>the baby's with a sitter, can you honestly say that she'll always be
>found out?

So? Many people steal software and use drugs and don't get caught. Bill
Clinton openly admits to using drugs and yet they want to elect him to
office. (I had problems supporting Clarence Thomas over this issue,
y'know.)
Just because some people can find a way to get around a law, does not mean
the law should be abolished. That would mean that all the thieves and
RubberGaters in Congress would be off the hook in a flash...


>Besides, haven't you seen the TV commercial for the
>'save-the-starving-children' charity?  "This little third-world boy is
>too weak to even cry... this little Indian girl will never achieve her
>dream of learning how to read... this little boy right here in America
>is left alone in his apartment all day because his mother can't afford
>day care."  That's where I got this example in the first place.

Yeah: Kill them while we don't have the common sense to know that they
exist, so their lives will be improved. - typical pro-abortion argument.


=============================================================================
>##       "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

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Father Notification R
X-To: DAN KING
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1992 02:20:00 GMT
Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
DK> db>In article <Bu1E8z.DIn@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
DK> tes:

DK> db>PRECISELY!  How can a man make a fully informed decision about whom
DK> db>to have children with, when his "offspring" can be aborted without
DK> db>his knowledge?

DK> db>How How can you justify responsibilities of husbands (child support, etc.
DK> db>based upon their entering into a "marriage contract," without also
DK> db>providing them full information in these specific respects?

DK> db>Why do you want to repress men so strongly?

DK> I believe Will Steeves already answered that question in an earlier post
DK> in this same thread:

DK> I believe that Will is not anywhere near the norm.

Would *you* be " in the norm" if someone had crushed your feelings and
ignored you as though you didn't exist?  I have *never* considered violence
to justify *anything*, but a lot of people have been undone by this sort of
experience, and in many cases, violence *does* occur.  I don't like it any
more than you do, but you can't ignore it.


DK> For these men, I would hope that the woman would go to them and discuss
DK> the options rationally.

But she didn't, as I explained to C.J. before.  And in fact, she threatened
me with death if I told anyone what happened.

Now try to tell me just *who* was in whose "mercy"?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Few people have the imagination for reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Summary: Get the slug a dictionary, someone...
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (meeting at 666 Rayzor Hall)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:42:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.212840.11036@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.204440.7668@csus.edu>
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
>
>I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
>would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.

This is almost as funny as your claim that there's a place called "Naziism"
and that there's a religion called "Hymietown".  Sounds like you got a few
connections cross-wired wrong, to me...:-)


-- 
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. 
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39697 alt.abortion.inequity:4171 alt.birthright:495