HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos' Credentials
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:12:02 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <5778@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>My comment here would be that excellence in a field does not necessarily
>translate into excellence in another field, even though there may be a
>few skills that are shared between the two fields.

And you're real skilled at religious bigotry, but nothing else that is of
any value to humanity.
Remember that insult against Catholics re "Vatican Rag"?

What cracks me up is that you can insult Catholics and it is okay to all
the pro-aborts around here, while the first negative word towards Jews, and
these "pro-choicers" stumble all over themselves like a Keystone Cops
Episode From Hell, to scream and shout and bang their heads into walls, in
protest. Hell, when someone slants pro-life religions, we can hear the roar
of dead ants louder than the pro-choice response, yet one word against
pro-choice religions, and whoOOoo, we hear the air raid klaxons and fire
truck sirens, and the Emergency Broadcast System's 1-minute beep becomes a
top ten favorite.

Which proves one point: pro-choicers are the stupidest, most hypocritical
form of ideological sludge that nuclear radiation from atomic testing and
1960's drug use, have ever spawned. Note I am not inferring that they are
mutants - just that their ideology is mutated. 

However, this person, fantasizing that he is the love child of a sick,
utterly gross collection of societal sludge as Ren & Stimpy, must truly be
human sludge. He must really be a relative of Jerry Brown.

And they chide ME for my Borg .sig? How's THAT for hypocrisy, E. Elizabeth
Bartley?


>I once knew a Physics major in my one (and only) Communications class.  This
>guy was at the top of his class in Mathematics and Physics and a nice, shy
>guy to boot-- but in debate and speech skills he was pathetic.  Even though
>he knew logic out the wazoo, he couldn't bend the slippery, fuzzy, and
>unwieldy English language into the discrete laws he was used to-- and
>he stalled.

Translation: he out-argued you so badly that your brain got scrambled and
you couldn't discern a word he said because everyone was laughing too loud
at you. Right after that you suffered a stroke and in your dreams, Jerry
Brown told you that you were Ren & Stimpy's Love Child.


>So, Peter, I'm extremely happy for you and your achievements, but you still
>can't argue your position effectively out of a wet paper bag.

Yeah, you've really flipped out.


=============================================================================
>My God, I can hardly believe what I'm reading! 
						- Jay T Stein 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:11:22 GMT
Summary: Doug is back, and lying again.

In article <1992Sep28.020302.7897@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.005723.18401@cs.yale.edu> 
> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> 
> >forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> >>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:
> 
> >>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
> >>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
> >>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
> >>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
> >>> of income in our relationship..  
> 
> >> Boy, you sure got it made in the shade, bub, don't you.   You're
> >> gettin' her money and her sexual favors too, and you ain't even signed 
> >> on the dotted line yet.  Let me guess, Mr. Sleeze Bucket.  You ain't
> >> even set a date yet, right?   
> 
> > Why are you accusing HIM of being a sleaze? You have no reason
> > to think that he is putting in any less money than she is. Why not
> > say that SHE is getting HIS money and HIS sexual favors and SHE hasn't
> > even signed on the dotted line, eh? 
> 
> I would expect a pro-"choicer" to blast the original 
> poster for insinuating that he would exercise some 
> control over his fiance's decision to abort. Is that
> expectation not applicable when the man's financial
> situation is at stake?  

All he said was what he thought she would do.  That he was so
definite indicates that he is sure of her decision.  In addition,
he provides what he thinks would be the reason for the decision.
One might fault him for being so certain about what someone else
would decide in a situation that has not yet arisen, and if one
were to go beyond that and seek "insinuations" (actually, the
more appropriate word is "inferences"), one might infer that
he had discussed the matter with his fiance and so come to
the conclusion that she would have an abortion were she
pregnant, but there is no insinuation or inference that the
original poster was exercising "control" over his fiance's
decision.  Any such reading is dishonest.  Welcome back,
Dougie.  I see you return with your "integrity" intact.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:18:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


You know, it just occurred to me that Chaney/Hall discriminated
against me.  As Beth pointed out, he said that he would killfile,
oops KILLfile, anyone who referred to him as "Dennis Hall."  I've
always referred to him as Dennis (since the only Dennis Hall who
has ever been on talk.abortion also answers to Steve Chaney),
but I had to put myself in his killfile.  Why did you treat me
differently than the others, Dennis?

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:12:06 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:

>There is a big difference between an egg and a zygote.  In its current form,
>put the egg in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.  Any screaming,
>crying baby?

Yup, one has potential to become a zygote and so forth, the other also
has p[otential to become the "so forth".

>Now try putting the zygote in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.
>Barring any miscarriage or abortion, see any sign of a screaming, crying
>baby?  (or perhaps a stillbirth?)

66+% of the time, NO.

>Also, I hope you can agree with me here, an egg/sperm/any human cell in my
>body is not a member of homo sapiens while the zygote definitely is.

No, I can't. I stated why in a previous post.

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: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Brother Gorr Apologizes
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:08:12 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
] In article <1992Sep26.224638.24714@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:
] >In article <1992Sep25.213302.16675@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
] >(Eric Rescorla) writes:
] >Oh, read:  (There is to much for me to type it all)
] >
] >MATT 7:1-6
] >MATT 23:1-12
] >MARK 7:1-15
] >LUKE 6:37-42
] >     11:37-54
] >     16:16-17
] >John 8:1-11


comrade rescorla, 

if you took half a wit of time to read brother gorr's list,
you would Notice that he is attempting to apologize to
you for his Faux Paux....

He understands that if we are to judge him by the
same standards by which he has judged others, that
he would be a lovely Bar-B-Que Delicacy....

So just accept that brother gorr is apologizing
and discount his lack of understanding of the
history and nature of christianity... it is a
common weakness with those new to the faith.


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:02:50 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct6.053306.27154@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>What is so wrong with the fact that a human life is dependent on its mother?

Nothing, nothing at all!  What's _wrong_ is that you say that it's
always unpermissible to kill the human life.  You're conveniently
ignoring the fact that the mother may have a very good reason to not
want to play host to the fetus.

>Being dependent does not mean not existing.

I never said it did.

>As for your above statements concerning pigs and z/e/f, I am saddened.
>I can understand how some people can justify abortion when they compare
>human lives, real human lives, human lives who actually exist, to pigs.

And I'm saddened by your position, too, but I can understand how some
people want to try to compare my life to the life of a fertilized egg,
and say that we're both equal (which is something of an insult to me),
but that the fertilized egg is more important than the woman who
carries it (which is an insult to the woman).

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PatricKKK the Liar Humphrey strikes again! (was Re: threatening larry, again (was Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported)
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:04:32 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep28.180947.14248@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.181813.3785@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>
>>PatricKKK has lied so many times about me that when he dies some
>>religion out there will make PatricKKK the God of Lies. When one wants
>>to perfect a good lie, they pray to PatricKKK.
>
>I hear lithium carbonate and tegretol are helpful for problems like yours,
>Steve. 

And psychological help in general is a good thing for both you and
PatricKKK to obtain, immediately. 
The only help I need from this society is that I need to be reprogrammed 
to follow the rules and accept whatever the pro-choicers say, without 
question, and without any backtalk. 

And to say Heil whenever I pass by the likes of you. "Heil Adolf!" 


>BTW - Erik and I want to meet you. Send me email and let's set a date.

Any time. I'm here at any one of the computer labs. I work at the CSUS
Computer Store on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Meet me any time you
want. 

If you're looking for trouble, however, I'm all you can handle. I
guarantee that the first swing you take will earn you and Erik a free
trip to the hospital, to prison, and then to the bank to pay off the
lawsuit I'll slap you with, for assault and battery. And seeing as
that you came all the way out to meet me, it would be first degree
assault. But hey, I'll do you a favor - I'll drop you off at the
police station myself. 

Do you REALLY want to meet me? 


>-- 
>The Earth Pig Bourne....

Bacon, anyone? 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:33:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.043530.12238@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct6.012239.4811@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>In article <1992Oct6.001448.19558@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>And unborn pigs are living pig beings, too.  So?  Does the humanity of
>>>a human fetus alone make it more important than a woman?  If not, then
>>>what other feature of a human fetus (not what it WILL become, but what
>>>it IS NOW) makes it so crucial?
>>
>>What it is now?  A Human life.  Pure and simple.  Is the destruction of
>>that human life worthy of the reasons for aborting?  I don't think so.
>
>I do.  The human life in question has most of the same biological
>systems as a pig or a human being does, except for a functioning
>brain.  As such, it hasn't really begun to take on the qualities that
>make us (as people) special and more worthwhile than pigs.
>
>And I haven't even heard you address any of the reasons for aborting,
>yet...
>
>>By the way, why switch species on us?  Steve refered to Humans.  You
>>referred to pigs.  In your mind, is a pig comparable to a human?!?
>
>Not really; the pig's more biologically advanced than a fetus (until
>the fetus is near the end of its gestation).  The pig can live quite
>happily as long as it can find swill and mud.  The human fetus can't
>survive for a moment without a woman's body to use.
>
What is so wrong with the fact that a human life is dependent on its mother?
Being dependent does not mean not existing.

As for your above statements concerning pigs and z/e/f, I am saddened.
I can understand how some people can justify abortion when they compare
human lives, real human lives, human lives who actually exist, to pigs.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:21:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.717802546@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <=7fzhm_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#
##does this mean you no longer want to legislate against
##some abortions and imprison/punish the women who have
##the abortions you want to legislate against?
#
##"intellectual honesty" indeed!!!!
#
#Is Keegan being intellectually honest himself?  Does not Elizabeth
#want to punish the abortionists, not the women?

No, Nyikos, Beth said that the law that she preferred would
include punishment for the woman who had the abortion.  
Either you can't read, or you are yet again speculating 
about an issue with no information whatsoever.

Keegan told the truth.  Beth is consistent.  I can see why
you have problems understanding either of them.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:19:11 GMT

In article <Oct04.222555.96000@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>>  Abortion is not a crime.
>>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
>>
>>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
>
>"Fetuses aren't borned persons." and  "Murder involves, among other things,
>the killing of borned persons." are the only statements  that are absolutely
>TRUE.  All the others are a little too fluid.
>

Since when is abortion a crime?  How many of the 1.5 million women whjo
obtained one last year were arrested and prosecuted?

Since when is murder not a crime?
Since when is murder not a legal term?
Where has abortion been murder?  When?
Abortion can never be murder unless the constitution is changed.  That will
never happen.
The legal definition of a child implies successful birth.

Sounds to me like each and every statement I wrote is true.

Jennifer
From: tommyk@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly and the Law (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:42:52 GMT
Organization: Computing Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland

In article <1992Sep28.124635.18081@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <44991@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>
>}So why should I not press for laws to stop you killing foetuses when I
>}do press for laws to stop you killing born humans?
>
>Simply because you have neither shown that such a law is necessary nor
>have you shown that it would be effective.

Since laws against murder, rape, robbery, speeding, tax evasion, child abuse,
you-name-it, all seem to have some effect - why should I suspect that a law
restricting abortion wouldn't?

My evidence for the efficacy of an anti-abortion law - eg extend the current
law to first and second trimestre's - is the similar efficacy of most other 
laws.

>Tommy, why shouldn't you press for laws to repeal gravity when you
>press for other laws?  I've conceded you the ability to pass such 
>a law.  

Because I cannot affect gravity with a law.
I cannot use the threat of punishment to try to stop the earth from pulling
me towards it.

But I can use such a threat to try and stop doctors from killing foetuses
of all gestations (life-threat to mother excepted).  I believe that such
a "try" would be effective, because other laws are.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:28:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>> 
>> How is birth arbitrary?  It is the specific point when the human is
>> removed from the mother's body and begins to obtain oxygen and
>> nutrients on its own, rather than having the mother's body supply them.
>
>Because that specific point is not fixed in time after the moment of
>conception when a process beings that will lead to the birth of a newborn
>child if nothing happens along the way to prevent it.

Ah.  I see your misunderstanding, let me clarify.  It is _conception_ that 
is not fixed in time in relation to birth, _not_ the other way around.

Or, if you prefer, it is conception that is not fixed in time after
the moment of ovulation.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40449 talk.politics.misc:49395 alt.sex:31840 alt.flame:13252
From: mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.flame
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:07:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>  Abortion is not a crime.
>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
>
>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
>Are you getting it yet?
>
Let's see if I can get this into your little head.
	ABORTION IS MURDER
	FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN
	JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR CHILDREN INSIDE YOU, DOESN'T MEAN
		THAT THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.
	THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NINE MONTH OLD FETUS AND A NEWBORN BABY
		IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY NOURISHING A NEWBORN.
	A FETUS IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER, IT ONLY RECEIVES FOOD AND OXYGEN
		THROUGH THE UMBILICAL CORD.
and
	WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
		BY LIMB, HAVING YOUR SKIN EATEN BY SALT SOLUTION, OR BEING
		DUMPED INTO A CAN, AND SUFFOCATING TO DEATH BECAUSE YOUR
		LUNGS WEREN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET???

I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO THEIR
FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

MS
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:13:30 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 <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
>Regard) writes:

>>You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>>a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>>and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.

>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.

Not dehumanizing. You're "humanizing" a fetus. (actually personifying,
but hey, it's a free world, right!) A fetus is not really more than
an amoeba, man-o-war, or squid for a good portion of its development.
After that time, until birth, it is not much more than any other young
mammal, and in truth, many mammals are capable of considerably more
at birth than any infant. You attempt to personify a fetus as a person,
which I contend it is not. You wouldn't be attempting emotionalism with
"unborn child" now, would you?

>>Our main difference is that you cannot see PAST the fetus/unborn.

>I don't think so.  I do see past the fetus/unborn.  And it is precisely
>because I see "past the fetus/unborn" do I see the horrors of abortion.

Nice of you to use a different meaning of the word past, as a time variant,
instead of a physical variant. Nice word-play!

Perhaps you should take a scientific look at exactly what you are proposing
to protect, and then make a rational statement why anything with similar
properties should not also be protected. Then try to rationalize why
I can't demand that you give me 4 pints of much needed blood for my
survival, today, out of your body, or perhaps a lung or liver, or heart.
Perhaps both kidneys. Yes, this is all depriving something from you,
but so does carrying a fetus to term from its mother. That it isn't
as easy to pin it down specificly is no excuse to make that demand from
outside. You do after all get to choose to donate something. Why shouldn't
a woman?

>Heh.  This thread sure is getting smaller.  I predict one liners in the
>next few days.

Perhaps I can help. It'll either get much bigger or wipe itself out
completely.

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.