HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Chaney has one and knows *nothing* of the other.
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:30:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec3.051704.24085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.
>>>
>>>One was bad enough..
>>
>>Yeah, we know.  But you came back, anyway.
>>
>>--PLH (oh, well, can't have everything...)
>>
>As a matter of fact, I am Keith's brother. What's the matter with
>Chaney? He can't handle life in general or what?
>Maybe Keith and I should get the rest of the family on here...

Chaney seems to have a lot of problems with those he perceives as
opposing him -- the threats he sent me in e-mail via Fidonet testify
to that.  Bring the family on down, though.  It'll be fun watching
Airplane Boy blow all his fuses at once. :-)  (Even funnier, in my
opinion, than Rush experiencing a miraculous conversion to
libertarianism.)

>Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
>into the nearest cesspool?

Let's find out.  I suspect the number won't be very great, all things 
considered...:-)




-- 
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. 

              Hit this .sig and win a free trip to Dewalt, Texas!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Resolving abortion through legal and moral reasoning
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:05:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.021446.9946@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.202706.8756@eco.twg.com> 
>chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>
>> The abortion question has to be resolved through legal reasoning.
>> In order to do that, we first have to think about what the purpose
>> of the law is. There are three basic schools of thought on this:
>>   * Laws should attempt to increase the level of happiness
>> within a society, by providing "the greatest good for the
>> greatest number".
>
>The problem with this approach is that it often places 
>societal interests above the rights of the individual.  
>People can become enslaved, tortured, killed, etc. if 
>that so happens to cause the level of happiness in society 
>to increase as a whole. 

Likewise, I see the concern for "fetal rights" as a purely SOCIETAL
interest, and I would accuse pro-lifers generally of placing that societal 
interest over the rights of the INDIVIDUAL pregnant woman.

It's a double-edged sword, in other words.

								- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIE
---------------

"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
 himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
				    Susie Garvin
				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: conVEEEEENience (was: Vegetarianism and abortion)
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 00:09:11 GMT


---
Some attributionless young idiot wrote:
|>|"rights" should read "convenience". [...]

To which cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) replied:
|>And we all know that CONVEEEEEEEEEENIENCE is *bad*, don't we?
|>*ReSPONsible* people don't ever consider their own convenience.
[...]
|>Remember, people, the inconvenient choice is the only moral
|>choice. 

Then todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp blathered:
|You seem to be admitting that it is a convenience.  Wonder
|how many other people could justify abortion in the same
|way hairdryers are justified.

In what way did I justify abortion in the "same way hairdryers
are justified"?  I merely rejected a particularly foolish
argument against abortion.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Allow me to say that the arguments with which you have supported this
extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was
misjudged.  You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be
worked on by such persuasions as these."  Jane Austen
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:21:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <11DEC92.07014445@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
wrote:
> 
> In a previous article, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) wrote:
> >In article <10DEC92.17062100@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
> >wrote:
> >> 
> >> Children do not have all the rights that adults have.  They can't vote, or 
> >> drink.  Does that mean that they are not complete people?
> > 
> >Not at all.  They most certainly _are_ "complete people".  They happen
> >_not_ to be full citizens.
> > 
> >> As long as you see them as non-comnplete-people, why don't you take away 
> >> some other rights that are only for whole people (adults). 
> > 
> >See above.
> 
> O.K.  As long as you see them as non-full-citizens, why don't you take away 
> some other rights that are only for full-citizens.

No rights have been taken away.  Children do not enjoy certain _privileges_
that full citizens do, i.e. voting, drinking alcohol, etc., but these
things are _not_ rights.

Rights are _inalienable_.  Does this ring a bell?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
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, 17 Dec 92 00:53:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec3.001045.19528@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> 
>> Plus, NFP is now a sin in the eyes of the RCC.  Yep.  The new Catchetism(sp?)
>> says 'no human artifice or device, used before, during, or after intercourse'.
>> Seems to me that all that mucus checking and thermometer reading is a human
>> 'artifice or device'.
>
>1) A choice to abstain at a certain time is in no way an "artifice or device".
>
>2) Abstaining from intercourse entirely for a period of time thereby nullifies
>   the "before, during, or after intercourse" clause , since there is thereby
>   no intercourse, in any sense, to register "before, during, or after".
>
>You lose.

And you're lost as usual, Suxanne.  People who practice NFP/RM do not
"decide to abstain from sex".  They mark calanders.  They take their
body tempeture.  They fondle their mucus.  All to figure out when they
can have sex, and when they can't.

And that's now a sin, in the eyes of the RCC.

--
=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???=
=***************DON'T SHOOT!! I'M REALLY A BLACK BEAR!!!**********************=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: How I nailed Paul Harvey, was Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:30:21 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>That's exactly correct. There is no Lucifer/Satan/Devil in Judaism or
>the Hebrew Scriptures with the one exception that satan is the Hebrew word
>for adversary. In addition, there is no Hell or Heaven in Judaism, when
>one dies, one dies. The serpent is considered the shrewdest of animals

Uh, not so fast there Paul. Remember there is "Sheol", where Joseph's
father is threatening to go in a hurry, if things are figured out
fast. . . .

Dano
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: abortion
Date: 16 Dec 1992 09:47:44 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec16.160705.23542@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <nyikos.724089886@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>And BTW, an earlier post on this thread said all pregnancy involves a 
>>risk to life, and asked what the Weaver Nelson probability should be 
>>before abortion is allowed.  To which I would reply, that all abortion
>>involves a risk to life, and what anyone's probability should be
>>before they will EVEN SUPPORT LAWS MANDATING ABORTIONISTS INFORM WOMEN
>>OF THE RISKS INVOLVED.
> 
xI think this reply was to my question to Weaver Nelson.  However,
xI have been unable to figure out what  Peter is trying
xto say here.  I've read it over a number of times but I can't 
xfigure it out.  Then again I never took a SAT test so I don't
xknow if it is my failure to understand someone of Peters 
xintellect.  Could someone with comparable SAT scores to Peters
xplease help me understand what the hell Peter is saying here.

Hi, Dan.  

Peter is trying to say a bunch of crap.

Just print this out, post it on your wall, and you won't have to ask
the question again.  It is largely applicable to all of Peter's posts,
though not 100%.  I think  he spells rather well.


Of course, he apologizes very poorly.....


Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 DEC 92 05:40:05 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>>>Nope, what makes you a hypocrite is that fact that you would force women to 
>>>use their bodies against their will to keep fetuses alive, when you are not 
>>>willing to do the same.  
>> 
>>Again, I say that being pregnant is not the same as being fisted for 9 months.
> 
>It's not exactly the same, but so what?  Why aren't you willing to use your 
>body to save a fetus' life? 
> 
>>If insist on using this scenario, then my refusal to agree is equivalent 
>>to refraining from sex with you because you don't want me to wear a condom. 
> 
>Fantasizing about having sex with me again?  You will refrain from having sex 
>with me because if you ever try anything I will break a few of your favorite 
>bones.

No.  If I were entertaining thoughts of sex with you (which I am not) then I 
would refrain for the same reason I did last time.  You didn't want me to wear 
a condom, and I didn't think that was safe.  

>>Tell me.  Do you honestly believe that all pro-life men are hypocrites?  It 
>>must be easy for you to believe that, because you know that they will never 
>>get pregnant, therefore they will never truly ba able to prove themselves in 
>>your eyes.  Is it so difficult for you to accept that a man who is pro-life 
>>might also be pro-life it he were a woman?  
> 
>I know pro-life men who are not hypocrites.  The difference between them and 
>you is that they aren't interested in forcing their beliefs on others.  

Doesn't the title pro-life mean that you want abortion to be illegal?  
Otherwise you are pro-choice.  Anti-Abortion is irrelevant.  So I ask you 
again, do you believe that all men who are pro-life (want abortion to be 
illegal) are hypocrites?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:28:37 GMT

egard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) describes
Phoney:

->Of course, he apologizes very poorly.....

"very poorly?" i hadn't realized that he apologized at
all for lying about you. did he?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:55:45 GMT

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes ...
>In article <Bz9JH7.MJz@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.... shall exist within the United
>>States." 
>
>Just wait till Clinton's "national service" program gets rolling.

Which is entirely voluntary.

>Besides, as things are now, I work for the government for half the year.
>I have no choice about this, and I am not paid for that work.  What
>else would you call uncompensated involuntary labor?

Ah, another tax whiner.  Well bad news kiddo, you DO have a choice.
You're getting services; the government demands that you pay for those
services.  Seems fair to me.  If you don't like it you have two choices.

1) Vote for different services.
2) Move out of the country.

Easy, eh?  If you don't like the services the US government supplies,
then live in a different country.

>>The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals
>>the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions
>>regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business.
>>That right, which is part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions
>>about parenthood, including a woman's right to decide for herself
>>whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use
>>contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from
>>employment discrimination based on childbearing capacity. 
>
>I think that this is nothing but a dodge.  Applying this logic, you would
>have to also not allow the law to restrict whether a man may kill his
>wife and children, so long as they do it quietly in the privacy of their
>own homes.

Overlooking entirely that such an action would clearly violate the
rights of the wife and kids (and yes, wives _do_ have rights).

The rest of your comments are about as well thought out, and so I
didn't bother with responding to them.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52250 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10351
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:32:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <1992Dec17.140026.265@news2.cis.umn.edu>, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) writes...

>>It is a hollow effort to make assertions without the wherewithall to
>>substantiate them.
>>It is your perogative and I respect it. Just don't expect me to give any
>>credibility to your assertions knowing that you are not willing to 
>>substantiate them.

>Actually, I didn't expect much from you at all ;-)

So it goes. So I guess you weren't too disappointed.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52185 alt.abortion.inequity:5966 soc.men:21294
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:54:10 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec16.155816.17317@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>AR> The rest of Will's strawmen, deleted.
>                       ^^^^^^^^
>If *I* use strawmen, what exactly should I call the fact that you are attempting
>to slander Don's arguments by attacking him *personally* through declaring,
>*without providing proof* that he wishes to force women to stay pregnant?  You
>should know pretty damn well by now, that while he is defending himself from
>*that* charge, he will have a lot less time and energy to devote himself to the
>issues which he *does* care about.

Look, bub.

I have freely admitted to this net, and to Don, that I do not have the
archive to repost what I claimed that Don said.  While this doesn't change
my *opinion* about what Don said, (and therefore I don't retract it), I
cannot prove it, and I've said so.  

Now, what the hell blood do you want?  Or did you just 'miss' the posting?

>It's rather an effective way of keeping someone off balance, I'd say, and I'd
>wager that you already know that...

There you go again.  Reading minds in New Guinea, and getting things all
mixed up.  Try something else for a change.

Adrienne Regard

Sorry to hear Don's all off balance.  Check his inner ear.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: All right, who dunnit?
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:11:12 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec12181311@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>   In article <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>   >In article <1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>   >>In article <1992Dec3.051704.24085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.
>   >>
>   >>One was bad enough..
>   >
>   >Yeah, we know.  But you came back, anyway.
>   >
>   >--PLH (oh, well, can't have everything...)
>   >
>   As a matter of fact, I am Keith's brother. What's the matter with
>   Chaney? He can't handle life in general or what?
>
>Chaney is an immature, uninformed, immature, homophobic, immature,
>unreasonable, immature, woman-hating, immature, racist
>conservative-wannabe (IMHO).  He idolizes Rush Limbaugh (sp?)
>
>   Maybe Keith and I should get the rest of the family on here...
>
>Do they like playing with immature, uninformed, homophobic,
>unreasonable, , woman-hating, racist conservative-wannabes that
>idolizes Rush Limbaugh too?
>
>   Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
>   into the nearest cesspool?
>
>1.  I've seen Keith do it.

Come on, Scott, don't hold back -- how do you REALLY feel about Little
Stevie Witless?  :-)

--PLH, guess I'll tell the RUPD to be expecting another "visitor"...



-- 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:01:41 GMT

 (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid.
>
> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
> the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
> total liberal.

You don't get the point. It doesn't matter what he *really is*; what matters
is what he appears to be. My point is that he appears to be a moderate and
that makes him an unsuitable candidate for rhetorical attacks.

>>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
> it can be business as usual for us liberals"

Actually, it is not since I used to enjoy his shows. I am just
making a disinterested observation.

Satya Prabhakar

--
______________________________________________________________
I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Aaargh!  What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:00:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.005301.21226@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
  GJH>        TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K  K     C
  GJH>            T         S             A       A      K K      C
  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K K      C
  GJH>            T                S      A       A      K  K     C
  GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC


 Aaayyiiee!!!  Now *you're* even saying this!  :-)

 My GOiD, it's more of a plague than the GOiDS!  :-)

 Seriously though, what *does* T.S.A.K.C. stand for?  I have asked this
 question of James Keegan about a zillion times, and given the lack of an
 answer, you'd think that it was some sort of national secreat!  (Well, perhaps
 he did answer, but the message got clobbered when ZOOiD crashed, as it did
 several times during the occasions when I have asked him).

 Just curious...  Thanks.

It's a TSAKC thing.  You wouldn't understand.  (But keep asking Keegan,
though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
for us.)

--PLH, TSAKC original member, and I ain't saying nothing about what it means
either... 
 
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion