HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Summary: Just an inspired guess...
Organization: It's still just me.  (Get used to it.)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:00:19 GMT

In article <nyikos.714852140@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug24.203014.15935@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>
>>In <5737@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>
>>>Forcing a woman to take these risks against her will is degrading mothers to
>>>the status of slaves.  How can you require another human being to undergo
>>>agony and bleeding to satisfy your own mores?
>
>>>--Teddi
>
>>Oh, silly Teddi! You fail to understand Peter's logic. Obviuosly,
>>they're not human beings--they're just women!
>
>Who authorized you to speak for me?  

I dunno -- might could be whoever it was authorized you to demand in e-mail
that I apologize to Chaney for my tasteless remark to him *and* post your
demand of it because you couldn't figure out your own newsreader, neh?
:-)

-- 
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. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:52:45 GMT

---
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|I also wish that you would display the same compassion towards 
|the children who are going inside the clinic to be killed. 

Gosh, that's horrible, Doug!  A clinic is killing children?
Better report it fast, Doug!  That's against the law.

Now, what does this tragedy have to do with abortion?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:05:13 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:



The subject line says it all....


ciao
drieux


ps: Would you wish to leave your posts
in the hands of some ToolOfTheDevil[tm]????




-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Good News from a Premie!
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:46:05 GMT

From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
>>> Airplane Boy
> 
>># That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
>># trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
>># s/he can survive independently. 
> 
>>Lemme see -- if all third trimester fetuses can survive independently
>>of their mothers, and third trimester abortion is banned to prevent
>>pregnant women from willfully killing their fetuses, then...
> 
>>	...how about we just `separate' 24 week and older fetuses from
>>their mothers, and pretend it isn't abortion?


I heard on the news this week that a little girl named Sasha was born last
spring in Florida at 22 weeks and 15 ounces (yes that's less than a pound,
folks), and she just went home from the hospital this week perfectly healthy
and happy, with no evidence whatsoever of any damage, much less brain
damage, from her ordeal.

I also heard from a friend whose nephew was born prematurely last fall
that they have a new treatment for premie lungs as of only last October,
so I would bet that that's how little Sasha made it!!


Suzanne Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33882 alt.flame:12405
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:32:45 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Btnrt0.3uK@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
wrote:
> 
> In <lefty-270892102052@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> 
> >> It is a shame to lose one's self-image... eh trashman?
> 
> >Why don't you tell us about it, "Superboy"?  I'd say that you're the
> >leading expert on lost self-image around here.
> >On the other hand, I guess you can't really lose what you've never had, eh,
> >Stevie?
> 
> Well, I have gotten very good lately at ignoring your posts Lefty.

Out of sheer self-defense, I'm quite certain.  Begging me to stop clearly
hasn't worked in your favor.

> They've been, for the most part - boring, repetitive, and utterly
> shallow and fruitless. However, this post I did manage to come across,
> and for the life of me I can't explain it. 

Surely this is nothing new for someone who seems to be _so_ baffled by so
many things that occur in the Real World.

>    Where oh where have demonstrated any loss of confidence or self-image
> Leftie?

Well, gee, Stevie, there's your signature for starts, right, "Superboy"?
Then there's a small matter of _several_ pieces of email in which you
insist, with varying degrees of desperation, that:

  o  You've somehow accomplished great, and unspecified, things in the 
     nineteen years of your existence and that I should, for some reason, 
     respect you for this.
  o  You, contrary to _all_ available evidence, are somehow _much_ more 
     intelligent than I give you credit for, and that I should concede this

     obvious fact immediately..
  o  I'm clearly "not enjoying myself" demolishing you, and that I should
stop 
     immediately.

Fairly clear and pathetic cries for some kind of affirmation.  Why in the
world you think I would be inclined to bolster up your low opinion of
yourself, I can't imagine.

> I guess you must have a pretty strong reason to have said this,
> since you had the strong need to post it, so why don't you just come out
> and explain it.

Gee, Stevie, I'd have to say the degree of concern you're showing _right_
_now_ doesn't speak very favorably of your view of yourself.

> I'm sure I"m not the only one that this stupid post has annoyed and 
> puzzled...

In fact, I'm pretty sure you are.  Unless, of course, you're like Dennis
and there's more than one of you in there.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 19:27:51 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  <1992Sep4.173611.6427@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.164504.39938@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> > I don't understand how you can be discussing sources which support my
> > statements when you still claim that the statements are unsupported.
>
> I don't understand how you can casually dismiss my unbiased sources

(I don't believe that they're unbiased, but that's not particularly
relevant to the main point.)

> which show that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout
> the term of pregnancy and then expect me to accept your pro-abortion
> sources.  (And please leave the preceeding sentence intact, if your
> honesty allows you to do so).

1.  You have not presented any proof regarding RvW; you have presented
    speculation.  I will freely admit that you've shown support for
    that speculation, but it remains speculation.  I and others have
    presented facts showing that speculation to be groundless.

2.  Support has been provided for the fact that only 3 doctors in the U.S.
    perform third trimester abortions, and that they only do so for serious
    health reasons.  You might not like the sources, so you may choose to
    disbelieve it, but you can't say that support wasn't shown.  You have
    also failed to show any evidence to the contrary.

So the main differences between the two cases are verifiable facts versus
opinions, and that we've presented opposing evidence and you haven't.  Do
you now understand?  If so, perhaps you'll now answer my previous question:
   I don't understand how you can be discussing sources which support my
   statements when you still claim that the statements are unsupported.

See, I understand that you might not want to *believe* the sources,
so you might claim that it's not supported to *your satisfaction*, but
you're lying when you claim that it's *un*supported, since it's been
supported by multiple sources.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rkannan@diana.cair.du.edu (PiedPiperAtTheGatesOfDawn)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Keywords: Math student?? But...
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 09:24:12 GMT

In article <nyikos.715039374@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug25.113424.15235@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.714686947@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>}Keywords: You knew I'd do this
>
>
>>}This time it is Galen who is assuming too much about me. [That brings the
>>}score from 3-0 to 3-1, still in his favor.]  I haven't been around long
>>}enough to catch on to his habits.
>
>>I don't even know what game we are playing, I don't even know the rules,
>>and I'm still ahead!  Things that make you go "hmmmmmm...."
>
>The game: making unwarranted assumptions about someone.  Point system:
>each time you make an unwarranted assumption about someone, you have to 
>award him/her one point.

Strange. As per your system since your opponent has 3 points you have
unjustifiably accused him thrice and have been accused only once.
So either you are better at slander or your math is wrong.
Alas, you seem to be studying for a math degree so you will either be
studying for a long time or ...

>You certainly gave me some of the best laughs I have had all year.  But
>along this thread, your humor is wearing a bit thin.  So I bid you 
>adieu here.  If you desire any more responses from me, join me in 
>some other thread.
>

This newsgroup is certainly very funny and has given me a lot of laughs
today on reading this for the first time. I will henceforth read this 
group everytime I need cheering up and hope to see your funny articles
as well.

R.
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Should AntiFederalistStoogesOfAnarchy be allowed to moderate
Date: 3 Sep 92 05:06:44 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes
 
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>] 
>] I was one of the people you mentioned as possibilities, and I don't
>] believe anybody's objected.  I'm willing *in principle* to moderate 50
>] articles a day or thereabouts for a talk.abortion.moderated group
>] (though I still think a mailing list would work better).  However, I
>] am emphatically unwillling to moderate an abortion group to remove
>] flames if flames are defined as any insults, attacks, etc.; the
>] definition is too general and I'm not perfectly objective on the
>] abortion issue.
> 
> 
>The subject Line Says it all.....

I would add that you can't trust an extremist to moderate a discussion. 
I just don't understand why people even bother to read the post of
extremists.

Michael Loomis


 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33063 misc.legal:16307
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:11:20 GMT

> = 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".)

That's IT.  I'm getting a lobotomy and a bible so I can SAVE THE WORLD
from the CRETINS that want women to be FREE TO CONTROL THEIR OWN
BODIES!!!

:^)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:25:08 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>Obviously Ron, you've just refuted yourself, since if the baby is going
>>>to die anyway due to some defect, there is no reason whatsoever to put it
>>>to death!
>> 
>> Suzanne, let me get this straight.  If you knew someone who was pregnant,
>> and who had just been told by their doctor that the child was going
>> to be born with a defect that will cause the child to die within a few
>> years, you would counsel that woman to have the child?
>> 
>> I just want to be certain I understand what you are saying.

>Not only that, but if she didn't think she could deal with raising the
>child for that short of a time, I would offer to adopt the child myself.


>SF


I hope that no one ever takes you up on that offer, and I hope you never
have to go through the pain that those parents go through.  I am a
Special Education teacher, and have worked with many severely/profoundly
handicapped children and adults.  Many of their parents love them, and
give them all their time and energy.  Other parents are unable to stand
the additional stress that such a child puts on the family, and give them
to the state.  I love the kids and adults I work with, and wouldn't
give up the line of work for anything, but I would never bring a severely
handicapped child into the world.  With "normal" children, after 
approximately 18 years, the parents give up many of the responsibilities
of care for the child.  With a severely handicapped child, 18 years later
the child may still be non-verbal, in diapers, with little or no sense of
his/her surroundings.  One of the annual goals of some of the students
I have worked with include "keep eyes open for 10 seconds" (this is
usually because the medication they are on to prevent seizures or kill 
pain is so strong it is difficult for them to stay awake).  Some
other students have to be kept physically restrained (moral equivilant
of "in straightjackets") to prevent them from self-abusive behavior (read
this as: so they won't slam their heads against walls or scratch their
own eyes out).

If you really *would* adopt such a child, then do so.  Institutions are
full of them, and a real homelife would greatly improve their quality
of life.  Or would you only adopt such a child if the woman was a friend
of yours?  If so, isn't that rather un-Christian?

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

Only my thoughts
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:04:26 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  <1992Aug31.033632.24585@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <92230.235121ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@Ry
>
> >It is the one area that affects women and women only.
>
> Quick counter-example: breast cancer research.

I believe that men have been known to get breast cancer.

> Another quick counter-example: lesbian rights.

I'm not aware of any existing or proposed legislation which would benefit
exclusively lesbians; fighting against discrimination based on sexual
orientation benefits gay men as well.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: THE CHRISTIAN VIEW
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:52:21 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <Bu26zo.6In@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu writes:

[goofiness deleted]

> Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."

  This boy don't know drieux too well, do he?  Hey drieux, I got some spare
M-40's you can use to straighten him out...

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:55:13 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Ummm, perhaps because if they called themselves
"pro-illegal-and-septic-abortion," people like Suzanne and Wes wouldn't
be fooled?

(N.B. I haven't mentioned Nyikos, DOD and Challney because I don't think
they _are_ fooled by pro-lie rhetoric--I have a theory about this which
I hope to get round to posting soon).

                                                             MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:15:21 GMT

In <lefty-270892104229@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>Untrue.  You are known for being a loud, vituperative asshole who harbors a
>variety of delusions suitable to an extremely unpopular third grader. 

   Hmmm, haven't I called you that before Lefty? If i haven't, I should
have... You must have quoted that from someone, because I've never seen you
post such a long sentence in your life. Get help on that one? Vituperative
was a nice word choice, but of course, vituperation would have been cooler
since it uses all 5 vowels.

>> I have enough logic to handle your posts.

>I don't believe you "have enough logic" to reason your way out of a pay
>toilet.

   This coming from a man who can't even figure out how to get IN 
a pay toilet...

>In fact, maybe that's your whole problem.  Overpressure.

   And pray tell, what is YOUR problem? Underpaid? Malnourished? 
Over-estimated? Anti-social? Jee Lefty, you're just one walking
bunch of negative adjectives...

>Well, you just go right on believing that.  Your seemingly bottomless
>capacity for self-delusion is one of the many charming qualities about you
>we've learned to appreciate _so_ much.

   hahaha - you're talking to us about self-delusion? You're the one
who has us try and believe that you have a social-life, yet you seem
to have instantaneous replies to almost every provocative post on this
group. I solemnly believe that you are connected to USENET in some
way 24 hours of the day. Do you have a USENET pager Leftie? It wouldn't
surprise me in the least.

>You have yet to produce a flame capable of toasting a marshmallow.

   You have yet to produce a flame.

>You have yet to demonstrate that you can outthink a slime mold.

   YOu have yet to demonstrate that you can think.

>So, when do you expect that _your_ brain will myelinate?  Not too soon, I
>hope.  It would probably detract from your ability to sell those PC clones.

   Leftie... Nice IBM BASH! I don't like PC clones myself, so I find I
must enjoy this last sentence even though it had that stale odor of
stupidity that you insist on exuding. Nerves are already myelinated at creation
but of course, you already knew that. As well, I have to ask you the
question:
   "so, when do you expect that _your_ brain will kick in, or will you
exist at the level of a hamster for ever?"

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:01:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world 
Keywords: From: Decay@ no longer works, Susan!  

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>In article <BtM9BC.7sq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>What the death certificate says is this:  "septic abortion with
>>pneumonia."
>>
>>Nyikos vile accusation originates with Willke and the NRLC.  The
>>coroner who performed the autopsy has stated publicly that he
>>does not believe Willke's fantasy about how Ms. Bell died, and
>>that Willke's fantasy is not based on medical evidence.
>
>Yeah, and the coroner doesn't have a shred of evidence to back up his
>claim that Becky Bell died of an abortion. 
>
>You fools have YET to show us hard proof of any uterine damage
>or damage anywhere besides the lungs. 

Chaney, you can lie to yourself and you can lie to everyone else, but
given the choice of believing the coroner or believing your unsubstatiated
allegations, I'll go with the coroner.  At least the coroner has some
responsibility to accurately describe the cause of death.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion