HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 8 Oct 1992 17:13:59 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BvsFow.IyB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu>, kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes:
>>I'm not on drugs, and it's not that late in the night.  Plus, I know I'm not
>>stupid because I made it through graduate school with honors.  What in the
>>heck does this say?
>[...]
>>there is simply no excuse for such wildly in-
>>comprehensible messages as this.
>	Hence, since you did not use words, and did not use sentences, you did
>not convey any meaning.
                         
To you.  To you.  Make sure you completely qualify your sentences, ESPECIALLY
when you are *preaching* about qualification and clarity, ok?
 
>time in writing your post, wasted the net resources in transmitting your post,
>and wasted my time in attempting to read your post.

drieux is one of the artists of the net.  These two fellows don't understand
his stuff, which is too bad, and unfortunate for them.  However, I note from
the enclosed replies that *both* of these fellows apparently own an 'n'
key ('not on' and 'not convey'), so I'd expect them to use their sancti-
monious right index finger and *use* the damn thing.

You don't understand drieux posts, you can 'n' past 'em.  You can 'j'
past 'em.  You can 'k' past 'em.  You can even put drieux in your kill file.

There are a number of people on the net who not only understand drieux's
posts, but actually appreciate them, thanks.

Adrienne Regard
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:28:36 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>That's real big of you, Dean.  I can certainly (as I've
>indicated elsewhere) understand why someone might tend
>to displace their anger when faced with such a situation.
>What the Bells (seem to) fail to do is accept any personal
		^       ^
Nice way to taint the message Bill. Subliminal Psychology, or what?
ANyway, that aside, this is a rather narrow-minded view, don't you think.
Perhaps they have realized that what ever their short-comings as parents,
that prevented their daughter from telling them, would not have mattered
had it not been for that assinine parental consent law. To foist it
all on the parents lack of insight to problems their daughter may have
been having, or for them not to be mind-readers in the event that they
did have a good relationship with their daughter, would not in any way
affect a daughter who might have been a little confused, frightened,
ignorant, totally at a loss for what to do and consequently made a bad
decision. If the parental consent law had not been there, she would
wtill be alive. (The same could be said of parental notification)

>responsibility *at all* for their daughter's death.  It is
>all laid at the doorstep of evil legislators, evil laws
>and evil pro-lifers.  You may think that's perfectly ap-
>propriate, but I do not.  I think it's kind of sad.

I think the entire situation is sad, and what I think is even sadder
is your transparent attempt to remove all blame from the pro-life supported
laws and place it on the parents.

Nice try, Bill.

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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:29:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.222622.7916@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>You are arguing that the Bill of Rights contains no provisions for the right
>to life?
That's right.

> So, I suppose that YOUR right to life is not guaranteed in the
>Constitution? I don't know if you have heard this case, but in the 1960's
>two college students from Chicago I believe were in the South working
>with SNCC to register black voters. They, along with a black companion were
>murdered, allegedly by local law enforcement officers. When a local 
>kangaroo court found the accused not guilty, federal courts found the
>defendants guilty of  RIGHTS violations. Also, the officers accused
>of beating rodney king now face counts that his rights were violated.
Yes.
So?
You are protected from being killed without due process by the
government. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are
protected from being killed without due process by private individuals.
Besides, this only applies to persons, and RvW establishes that
fetuses are not persons.
-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."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:08:10 GMT

In <1b4pu3INNg6k@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
In article <1992Oct9.154720.12872@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <26018@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ron Bense) writes: >>>

>>> Maybe it has to do with those who seek to impose their irrational 
>>> beliefs on the rest of us through law. 
>
>>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  
>
>Bill, in what material way was your life affected by the decisions in
>Roe?  What belief was imposed upon you?  What did you have to stop doing?
>Start doing?  

Your last two questions are valid criticisms, the answers being
"nothing" and "nothing", respectively.  But I can answer the first 
two, though you may disagree that my response is important enough 
to warrant reasonable objections.  At any rate, the Roe decision
is a legal endorsement of a set of values/beliefs.  It broadly
sanctions the notion that the choice to abort is potentially an 
ethical one, depending on the personal morals of the individual 
woman.  It also endorses the notion that the only overriding value 
that should apply to the country as a whole, is the concept of 
individual freedom, and that everything else is subordinate to 
that.  I believe in maximizing individual freedom within broad
limits; I simply think that (unregulated) abortion exceeds the 
limits of what is reasonable and good for the culture as a whole.  

Roe, on the other hand, sets standard for how we as a society
should think about abortion.

BTW, my position is *not* based on any misogynistic tendencies, 
as others have speculated.  It is not the ability of women to 
make such a decision that I question; rather, it is the nature 
of abortion itself, i.e. a life and death affecting decision 
that warrants stricter regulation.  

Bill
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 13 Oct 1992 11:15:10 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct13.062100.26274@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>as for war,
>you would have to look pretty hard to find someone who said war was a
>good thing in and of itself. It is an action to be only when the 
>alternative is less attractive.


Yeah.

Like abortion.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:31:18 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>In <adams.718553484@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>I think we should keep our morals to ourselves and to those who willingly
>>>come to follow Christ.  No Christian should impose his moral values on
>>>anyone else, and above all should be tolerant of others.  If we want this
>>>kind of treatment, we must first give it.
>
>
>See, I think all Christians should think about this:  especially Suzanne.
>
>If you all force other people by government fiat to be 'good' and 'righteous',
>and you are right about the state of the afterlife, then we are all going to
>be forced to go to your heaven, because we haven't had the opportunity to
>do anything 'sinful'.  Can you imagine spending eternity with the group from
>talk.abortion?!?!?!
>
>I think any *practical* Christian would only really want to group together
>with birds who think like themselves.  We are talking forever here, guys, not
>just a half hour of an afternoon.
>
>(-:
But Adrienne, a half-hour in the afternoon can be heaven...if you're with
the right person doing the right things...;-)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:03:07 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <nyikos.719096777@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|No penis penetrates as deeply nor as savagely into the woman as
|a suction curette or any of the other D& whatever devices.

Oh, lawdy.  Now he's writing bad porn.

Just so long as it's consensual, Peter honey, adults can
penetrate each other as savagely and as throbbingly as they
like.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Not only are you obviously a boring conservative twit with sexual 
dysfunctions beyond the dreams of analysis, but also the proud possessor 
of a one track mind that just keeps going and going..." --Rebecca Ching,
on David Rasmussen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:10:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.084856.16835@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>Minor Technical Point: the 'six hundred ship navy' was a Reaganism,
>that many of us in the Fleet Giggled About, 

Aparently Bush joined you in the fleet and giggled about it as well
since he refused to fund it. The person who wasn't laughing was Crowe
who resigned because he wanted the 600 ship navy you thought was so
funny.

>as You need BODIES to
>man them... They Tend Not to float well on their OWN.

Which Bush but not Crowe seems to have understood (which is why he 
didn't fund it). Crowe, by resigning, indicates that he didn't understand
that fact.

I wonder what Crowe is telling Clinton today?

>There is a Reason I have Respect for this Man.

Crowe? But you where laughing at him above.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------193 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Truth Hurts (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:43:41 GMT

In article <Bvrz74.7yt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu 
(Bruce Varney) writes:

}Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
}RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.

Wait a minute.  I speak for the unborn, and they would disagree with you.
As a matter of fact, Bruce, they are rather embarassed by you, and fervently
wish that you would shut up.

}                             Truth hurts, doesn't it??

It often does, but I sincerely doubt that Bruce has hurt anyone that way
recently...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:15:44 GMT

In <MeqQ8hS00WBOQ3Z49_@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Mr. Fischer writes:

>= >>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>= >>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>= >	   ^^^^^^^^^
>= >
>= >This question has my nomination for "pro-choice understatement of the 
>= >year," even though it is phrased as a question: it certainly makes a strong
>= >statement, especially about the state of mind of the one who wrote it.
>=  
>= And the consistent inability of any pro-lifer to answer it is even
>= more telling, Mr. Nyikos.  Care to give it a shot?

I've been doing it ever since joining this newsgroup.  Did you
catch "Another failure to communicate on an ultimate question"?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: On Resolving all 'this'
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: Sat, 17 Oct 92 01:00:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.231718.26048@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieu
, just drieux) writes:
>smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>] > = (Steve Novak, MBA) writes:
>] >> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>] >># = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>] >
>] >[re: newly-created Most Bizarre Awards (or, MBAs)...]
>] >
>] >>#In terms of "bizarre" twisted, our resident ZAP comic.....drieux!  
Cl
>] p,
>] >>#clap, clap, clap, clap...)  R. Crumb has to go a ways to catch up w
th
>] >>#THIS guy.
>] >
>] >>Well, that settles that.
>] >
>] >That was merely my not-so-humble opinion.
>] 
>] No, no, no.  I'd already made up my mind that you were the
>] sole judge in this area.  
>] 
>] drieux might have had an attack of modesty (like some other
>] people we know) if we'd let him decide, although Miss Drieux
>] might have had some good advice on how such things should
>] be decided.
>
>
>I am pleased that you have raised this MOST
>pressing social concern, and the Clear Arbitor
>of all of this will, perforce of the nature of
>the discussion, most obviously, intuitively,
>and Self Evidnetly be:
>
>PenisLength.
>
>
>ciao
>
>Miss Drieux

Thank you, Miss Drieux.  

I can only hope that Novak decided correctly, based on your
criterion.  Unless someone posts otherwise, I'll assume that
he did.

I'm still waiting for those other acceptance speeches.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41867 alt.flame:13461
From: khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:11:52 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <y-xzmnk@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
>[darcyspeak deleted]
>->-Ken (no spaces or capitalization, no relation)
>
>this is a good .sig for you to use if all of your posts
>are like this one.

Hm.  Mabye a problem with your newsreader, James?

But back to the point of my prior post.  Don't you think you should be
able to prove someone is a liar of you are going to accuse them?  Surely
with those huge archives, someone ought to be able to come up with some
substantive evidence.  But mabye I'm just old-fashioned.

Anyway, I will endeavor to correct my spelling, capitalization, and
spacing if that will help others with their critical thinking and reading
skills.  So feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

I'm glad you care. :-p

	Ken Hamer
	khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:32:41 GMT

"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes ...
>Mr. Fischer writes:
>= >>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>= >>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?

>I'm not quite sure of the question here. Is someone arguing that some of the
>rights of two year olds are presently eliminated? If so, what rights are those
>constitutionally?

A toddler has no right of liberty, no right to vote, and no right to
own any property.  Even a 17 year old teen may not vote, and a 20 year
old may not buy alcoholic beverages.

There is a scale of rights that starts with having no rights
whatever, to having the full rights of a 35 year old native of this
country.  (minor trivia: what right do you get at 35?)  To suppose
that all people get all rights is to ignore the obvious realities.
Even to suppose that a toddler _should_ have freedom to vote and a
freedom of liberty is to completely ignore the reality of two year old
children.  I know of nobody, pro-life or pro-choice, who seriously
believes that very young children should be given the same rights as
adults.

So, given that pretty much everyone is willing to remove rights of
young people roughly in proportion to their age, why not also remove a
right to life at an extremely young age?  If as fundamental a right as
liberty does not come into effect until the teens, why should a right
to life suddenly appear at conception?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:08:41 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->jbrindle@halcyon.com 
->I agree that many 14 year olds are capable of making good decisions,
->but the decision to abort is very difficult for many experienced 
->*adults*.  What makes us think that the typical young adolescent 
->has the requisite experience and maturity to make such a decision 
->unilaterally?  

->Beyond that, though, as a parent *I* have rights, too.  Since I am 
->legally responsible for my children, should it not follow that I 
->also be legally permitted to govern their activities?  If they incur 
->a debt, or destroy private property, or require emergency medical 
->treatment, the bill is ultimately mine to pay.  If, subsequent to
->a legal abortion, my daughter developed complications, the cost of
->treatment would also be my responsibility.  I don't want my right
->to influence my minor children's decisions taken away any more
->than pro-choice women want their right to abortion taken away.

->conclusion:  I have rights that I'm not willing to give up.  Does
->that sound familiar?

familiar? sure. it's the attitude that becky bell's
parents believe killed their daughter. it's the kind of
attitude that could kill a lot of young girls. i truly
hope that you never have to look back like becky bell's
parents have.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:57:51 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
|cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
|>Let the galled jade wince.
|How utterly literary of you.

Why, thank you!

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Emma felt [...] that to be the favourite and intimate of a man who had
so many intimates and confidantes, was not the very first distinction
in the scale of vanity."  --Jane Austen
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:39:24 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <26079@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>>"a human" as in human(n) meaning person. There are no unborn persons,
>>and it is actually questionable whether there is a person immediately
>>after birth.

>Okay here goes.  I am not saying anything about where I stand on this
>"personhood thing." But would you say that a "person" begins at birht
>or after birth?  Would you be willing to protect "persons" from being

Believe it or not, neither is a starting point. I'd say that personhood
is a gradual thing that you grow into, like a language or your adult
shoe-size. Some just never seem to make it.

>killed?  Would you be willing to protect non-persons who are humans?
>(i.e.  the time from conception to the time you perceive to be the
>age when a human life becomes a person.)

Since my definition is a subjective one, but one that makes it impossible
to ever be applied to an infant, I'll answer these questions. Yes, I
would work to enable the protection of persons from being killed, provided
that they are not engaged or have engaged in similar behavior towards
other humans. (Note that I also am a staunch supporter of the death
penalty.) As for humans in the non-person status, I also hold them under
protection to a point, and that is more under the parental umbrella
type protection. As for fetuses, since that is a separate faction, these
I do not support the protection for, as they directly and continuously
affect a person (in almost all cases, there could be the exception that
a woman had an accident that caused her to be PVS and not kill the fetus
in the process) and impinge on their physical selves in ways that cannot
be allowed against the woman's will under my value system.

This probably doesn't answer it in the way you would wish, but it is
my answer.

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: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:37:31 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>>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.

And another note on this.  I heard a story on CNN moments ago...

Seems a Florida couple has taken Bush's "The fetus is a person" to
heart, and have claimed (or stated their intention to claim?) their
"unborn child" as a dependent on their tax return.  They are being
rather (ahem) _strongly_ opposed by the IRS on this.

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion