HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:01:15 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug20.023112.7474@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.214911.10266@Cadence.COM> 
>phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>
>> Yes, but the pro-choice position allows pro-life women not to have abortions.
>
>But apparently the pro-choice position (as espoused by the Democratic party)
>forces pro-life women to pay for someone else's abortion.  

Gee, the pro-child-care position forces me to pay for someone else's 
children.  I'm sure you'd help me vote against this.  Also, this
pro-fire-department position forces me to pay for someone else's bad
luck/carelessness.  And you know, this pro-public-education position again
forces me to pay for other people's children.

Help Doug!  You have so much to do.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
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: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:41:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.142355.21787@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Rule 2) Novak + Cochran WILL be made to come out to California for
>a visit, under penalty of being sued by DJR.

Where's Cupertino in relation to LA?

Hey Steve!  How about it?

>Rule 3) Steve Chaney is a stupid git.

Um, a "git" around here is a "geek in training".  Steve should be classified as
being somewhere between moldy pond scum and moldy pond scum reguritated by a
frog.
--
=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
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:19:47 GMT
Keywords: Not!!!

Is this the same President who is campaigning as the Change President
 *AND* as the Traditional Values President?  How can you be for Change
 *AND* run on the same program that got you elected?

Here is the slogan for Bush's campaign,  "When Clinton says Investment,
he means Spending.  When he says Efficiency, he means fewer jobs.  When
he says Enviroment, he means anti-growth.  When he says Change, he means
Risk.  He wants the government to try to solve the world's problems, I
don't want government to do anything!"


I think the best thing for America and the Republican Party in 1992 is
for Bush to lose by a landslide.  There is nothing like a crushing loss
of the presidency to force a party to reorganize.  It took 4 or 5 crushing
losses to reform the Democrats, lets hope the Republicans are better
at it.



-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:27:54 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <23922@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>The big problem, of course, would be the selection of the moderator(s).
>>I sincerely believe that the following posters could serve as unbiased
>>moderators (this is just what I thought of offhand, there could be others,
>>but don't feel insulted if you're accidently left out):
>!@  Suzanne Forgach
>@  Steve Adams
>!@  Steve Chaney
>!@  Tim Buckley
>!@  Kevin Darcy
>!@  Peter Nyikos
>@  Richard Pitts
>!@  Wes Orr
>
>This is a joke, right? Thosae with !@ in front I wouldn't trust with
>a toothpick, much less being unbiased wrt abortion.

In theory, it would not be necessary for a moderator to be unbiased in their 
PERSONAL opinion of abortion. It would only be necessary that the moderator is 
unbiased in their selection criteria, looking beyond mere positions to actual
quality of content...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Elephants draw! Dolphins compose! (Was Re: A comment on RvW (personhoo))
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:27:14 GMT

>>> = emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>  = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>   = HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>>> The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
>>> (often using the label "personhood") is sentient beings. 

>> But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
>> just like sentient humans. 

> Point of order from the peanut gallery: If a creature is sentient, then it
> is not an "animal".  It may not be "human" (species-wise), but calling it
> an animal would be misleading at best (and certainly insulting).

I know I'm coming in from 'way left field here, but I'm reading a very
interesting book called "To Whom It May Concern" by David Gucwa.  The book
presents drawings executed by Siri, a full-grown Asian elephant.  It seems
that these drawings were very well received by artists and art critics.  As
the artist William Kooning said, "that's a damned talented elephant."

Although the author bends over backwards to avoid jumping to inappropriate
conclusions, he does raise some interesting questions regarding the nature
of the creative impulse and the relative value of humans and other animals.
I don't have the book with me but I'll post more if there's sufficient 
interest.

I wonder what Flipper would do with a joystick hooked up to a Yamaha
synthesizer with a MIDI interface to a Macintosh; all run through my
stereo setup???

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32162 alt.flame:12144
From: launce@apollo.med.utah.edu (Tri-Ungulate)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:16:00 GMT
	<1992Aug12.224546.2091@advtech.uswest.com>
	<1992Aug15.195147.7565@csus.edu>
Organization: Trifurcate-Hooved Ruminant Surveyors, Inc.

In article <1992Aug15.195147.7565@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) writes: (to Novak)
	> [...]
	> Your intellegence is like that of a block of granite.  

Yes, and you are like a stream of bat's piss - your intelligence
shining out when all around is darkness.  A typo perhaps??...

	> In other words, when it comes to intellegent debate and
	> dialogue, _you_ are irrelevant.

Nope, not a typo.  Oh dear, speling flames are so bush league.
However, I couldn't resist -- it's so especially amusing when put in
the context of Cheney's "flame".

	> But I admit; if I keep sinking down to your mentality, I'll
	> be irrelevant to intellegent discussion here, too. 

Three strikes. You're out.   

	> Excuse me while I pull myself up from your level...

I'm sorry, but punctuated equilibrium does not apply when it comes to
the mental evolution of cretins like yourself. With your feeble
cognitive capacity, you are doomed to remain in the unicellular stage,
floating aimlessly about your fetid cesspool with fellow lozers like
your hero Steve Franklin. Tough break, bud.

	> [large, pathetic .sig mercifully deleted]

--non-mu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level (was Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:25:24 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug15.195905.7786@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-120892143620@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >
> >Arguments?  You say you have _arguments_?
> 
> I'm known for them.

There seems to be some disagreement on this particular point.  Personally,
I don't consider the words "argument" and "tantrum" to be synonyms, but
obviously you feel differently.

> That is, when I'm not fighting an artillery war (this has gotten way beyond 
> flaming) with Patrick Humphrey and co.

I assume you must be using "fighting an artillery war" in the sense of
"getting the living daylights kicked out of you and being made to look even
more foolish that you ordinarily do".

> When your people decide it's time to flame Steve Chaney, I stop
> discussing and start shelling ass all over USENET.

First off, they're not "my people".  I assume that they're their _own_
people.  Second, you post useless crap all over USENET all the time.  So
what would make this particular occasion any different at all?

> Of course, I follow the law of self-preservation.

I can only assume that you would include things like diving off twelve
story buildings and jumping in front of speeding trains to constitute
"following the law of self-preservation".

What an _odd_ vocabulary you have, Dennis.

> There's only one problem: there aren't any pro-lifers, save Steve Franklin, 
> who have the courage to flame you folks the way you flame us.

Stevie?  Stevie couldn't flame twelve cubic yards of excelsior with a
blowtorch.  That's something that the two of you have in common.  As far as
flaming goes, you guys are strictly operating on a second grade level. 
This is, of course, commensurate with your other talents.

> (Of course, I could be proven wrong. I hope.)  

Why not?  You've been proven wrong every other time you've posted.  Why
should this occasion be any different?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Summary: Luke 14:26, the smoking gun of Christianity
Keywords: Luke 14:26
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug14.150113.3565@menudo.uh.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:41:38 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
<After some effort and confusion, I've finally found the Bible verses Gordon
<was talking about where Jesus commands his disciples to hate their parents.
<I'll type in the verse and context.
<Oops.  Forgot to add the version.  It's the King James.  Apologies for
<forgetting that first time around.

It is Luke 14:26, the smoking gun of Christianity. The best explanation for
these words from Jesus that I have heard so far is that the good Christian
should stratch out the words HATE and replace them with LOVE LESS. Makes you
wonder sometimes about these people who claim to have higher morals. By the
way: Fisher of Men is a term used by con artists for grifting or pandering.
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:31:58 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug17.194433.17775@ncsu.edu>, Doug Holtsinger writes:

> No, it's your crap reasoning: if a human being doesn't care whether it
> is killed, then people can kill it.  I'm glad you recognize it as crap. 

I see I need to spell it out for you in painful detail.

The woman is intimately linked with the fetus.  She, and only she,
has the ultimate right to determine whether she will abort or not.
So, more correctly, if the fetus doesn't care if it is killed or
not, the woman (and only her, not "people") should have the right
to abort, since clearly the women cares what happens to herself.
Where is the direct analogue to an infant?  Where is the direct
analogue to the general case of a person who is incapable of caring
whether or not they should be euthanised?  There isn't one, which
you would have seen if you had spent more than ten seconds thinking
about an opinion which doesn't agree with your own.

> An infant could be put up for adoption.  Try again.

> In other words, the parents have a legal duty to transfer custody of 
> the infant to persons who are able to care for the child. 

No, the woman in this case has an easy way of eliminating all
personal, physical, and financial burdens.  The same is not true
if she is pregnant.

Now it's your turn.  Give me your reasoning for wanting to force
a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, whether or she wants to or
not.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:47:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: LLNL


	"Dennis Hall" was reportedly sexist and arrogant? I guess that
being sexist did not endear him to the abundance of female
pro-choicers here.

	I wonder if us pro-choicers can start a boycott of Steve
Chaney, just as we had done of David J. Rasmussen.

	Say, what's happened to DJR? I haven't seen him post in an
awful long time.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.mic
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Can we say Rewrite the bible time...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:09:49 GMT

pooh.caltech.edu!rowanoak (Linda Heather Springer) writes:
] 
] Also, the Jews were under different rules than Christians.  They were  
] allowed to have slaves and kill other nations.  God expects more of  
] Christians. Please se my previous article *Re: I tend...*.
] 
] Linda Springer


So Linda, still not too aware of the Bible, in particular
the New Testament and what Paul has to say about Slavery.

Now would you like to Reposition yourself as either being
Overtly AntiBible, or that you are not too versed on christianity
and have merely fallen prey to the ModernSeXularHumanists 
and their Efforts to rewrite those parts of the bible 
that they do no like.


ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: The fate of future generations
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:25:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.204241.20106@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>First off, "choice"
>is not the issue.  "Killing Unborn Babies" is the issue.   Second off,
>there is NO BIGGER issue than this one for ALL future generations of
>Americans.    Since whether they live or die hinges on it.

Eh?  You mean all these future generations are registered and gonna vote for
Bush ... er, I mean Shrub (... oh, wait, I got it right the first time!)?

I'm confused -- how can people who haven't even been conceived yet vote?

Suzanne, ... oh, Suzanne, ... earth calling Suzanne....

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

 The real question for 1988 is whether we're going to go forward to
 tomorrow or past to the -- to the back!
                 -- Vice President Dan Quayle
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Campbell theory of abortion
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:44:23 GMT
     <1992Aug19.210114.29012@ncsu.edu>
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[lots deleted, none relevant to this quote]

>An abortion
>kills a human being, and many pro-choicers don't seem willing
>to confront that fact. 

That's because it's not a fact, it's your opinion.

Look.  I don't like the concept of aborting a fetus once it's viable.  I'm
not really keen on aborting pre-viable fetuses, but I don't have as much
trouble with it.  The problem is that "viability" is too slippery a line to
draw; one fetus might be viable at a certain age while another might not.
So we have to draw the line of "life begins here" elsewhere.  For various
reasons, I am opposed to drawing it at conception, so the only other well-
defined boundary condition is birth.

As a practical matter, I don't think abortions of eight-month fetuses are
justified unless the mother's life is in danger.  As a legal matter, however,
I'm not going to draw a line through an ongoing growth process and try to
pretend it's a discontinuity; the only discontinuity in fetal development
after conception is birth.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:06:46 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug16.192656.7067@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> This statement is not correct.

"This page is deliberately left blank."

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe."

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:52:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Aug19.163821.17023@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <onv3s2k@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>

>> adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
>> and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.  
>

>an abortion that they don't want, but the Democrats would force
>people to pay for somebody else's abortion. 
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>

I prefer to pay for someone else's abortion rather than pay for the
funding of murderous proxy goverments. At least the Democrats are
honest about their postions, not like Mr Clarence Thomas who never
once told the public what he thought of the abortion issue before his
confirmation, or how taxpayer money is spent in murky ways in the back
of congres..

Benjamin.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:27:37 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug15.195147.7565@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) advises Steve Novak:
> 
> But I admit; if I keep sinking down to your mentality, I'll be
> irrelevant to intellegent discussion here, too. Excuse me while I pull
> myself up from your level...  

First, you couldn't "sink" to Mr. Novak's level if you were tied to the
Goodyear blimp.

Second, you have always been irrelevant to "intellegent" discussion here.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:31:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.194554.9645@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>> 
>>>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.
>> 
>> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.
>
>
>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
              ^^^^^^
>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>more beautiful way to go."

SO she was pro-choice!
That's great.
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is not "abortion on demand" (was Re: ACLU's "Campaign
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:15:11 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra1c.cs.utk.edu
Keywords: From: decay@

>You doctored the quote about the interpretation of Doe, you
>lied about a legal decision regarding safety regulations and
>clinics, and you quote Bill Clinton out of context on a regular
>basis.

	Bill Clinton IS a miss quote.  Chicken anyone.....

>November, 1964, Wheaton Maryland - Firebomb destroyed Metro
>Medical and Women's Center.  Michael Bray (currently a member
>of Operation Rescue), Kenneth Shields and Thomas Spinks
>pled guilty to the crime.

	At least no one was killed at the clinic this time.


Bryon

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:00:36 GMT
	<1992Aug17.154217.19815@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>Rocker
>Don Porter<n1cypnr@rpi.edu> (rocker) writes:
>> I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>> who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>> need one.
> 
>A fair comment.  But consider that the arrow of cause-effect can
>go the other way too.
> 
>That is, you are saying there are people who are unlikely to need
>an abortion who then conclude they are opposed to abortion.
> 
>You should remember that there are also people who are opposed to
>abortion, who then guide their lives in such ways that they will
>be unlikely to ever need one.

There are also very many people who are strongly pro-choice who guide
their lives in such a way that they will never have to obtain an
abortion, myself included.

Alison Colman
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why doesn't the child have the right to bodily autonomy?
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:08:14 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug7.164018.14217@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>>(Ronald Bense) writes:
>>>(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>Why doesn't the child have the right to bodily autonomy?
>>
>>It can, out in the world.  Not in a womb. 

>The womb isn't very safe is it?

     No. It never has been.

                                                         MP
>Greg

>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

So, you don't consider the I.U.D. an abortifacient?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion