HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW    (personhood)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:32:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.174214.27540@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
>   Indeed, for that matter how do I know I'm not just the figment of some all-
> powerful (even non-powerful) being's imagination?

But I thought that was the only question resolved by "I think
therefore I am."  After that, and despite his claims to the
contrary, poor Rene fell into the trap of his solipcism.

I found it interesting that the Meditations were intended to
prove the existance of a god, and succeeded only in showing
we cannot believe in the existance of anything but self.

Then there's the Samuel Johnson response.  "I refute it
thus," and stubbed his toe upon a stone.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: APOLOGY (another one)
Date: 15 Aug 1992 06:28:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Nothing Kevin could understand.

In article <1992Aug15.030855.6744@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <lefty-130892171337@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.222911.25263@noao.edu>, (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> 
>>>Well, I apologize to Patrick Humphrey for making my "much as you'd like to"
>>>remark, when he said his wife wouldn't let him forget their anniversary.
>>>I'm sorry about that.
>>
>>See this, Kevin?  _This_ is what an apology is supposed to look like.
>
>Shorter than mine, you mean?
>
>							- Kevin

No -- one that's honest.  That's a concept you know very little of, I 
understand.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems

    (Obviously, Kibbles doesn't have SENSE.COM in his PATH statement...)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: ANOTHER QUOTE FOR DOUGIE!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:03:16 GMT


   "I am opposed to abortion."  Mark Ira Kaufman

   Dougie, you may use this quote in any manner that you see fit.
Because even if you were able to understand my position, you will
certainly use the quote out of context.  Go get'm, tiger!

                              Your pal,

                              Mark

P.S.  The quote is absolutely true!
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DearOldDoug
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:59:53 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

I guess it's completely in character for DearOldDoug
to complain about being the target of character
assassination even as he makes his own feeble attempt
to discredit me.

After all, when it was noticed that he was quoting others 
out of context he suddenly started complaining about people
quoting _him_ out of context.

And it appears to me that he didn't start accusing
others of intellectual cowardice until his propensity
for disappearing from threads was called to his attention.

I have noticed a certain symmetry between his criticisms
of others' behavior and his own tactics.  The amazing thing
is, he persists even though no one is fooled, no one is
convinced by his attempts at argument.

DearOldDoug's ineffably stoopid antics have one redeeming
value:  he's almost as good for a cheap laugh as a rerun
of 'Get Smart.'

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<1992Aug14.195804.4628@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:19:35 GMT

>> = dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) says:
>>The Western ethic against infanticide gained its roots from
>>early Judeo-Christian thought. 

This does seem a bit strange. First off, the ethic against infanticide is
basic to all Homo sapien sapien, it's a minor extension of the survival
extinct and also shows up in many animals. This is why abortion for abortion's
sake is "bad". However, there are few pro-abortionists. Most people are
reasonable and understand that in the real world, freedom of choice is the
answer. As for the Judeo-Christian Bible, it is clearly pro-abortion, or
pro-induced-miscarriage if you prefer that word. At the option of the husband,
of course. And on the topic of infanticide, well you will find quite graphic
descriptions of the Lord ordering that babies be smashed against rocks for
entertainment, hardly any model for our much more advanced, equality and
freedom for all, society of today. We are finally coming out of our long
period of slavery and we have a ways to go. There are many who would prefer
that the shakles be put back on to restore some lost sense of order, but it
is clear that individual freedom is the way. It is not easy walking that
freedom walk and talking that freedom talk. The easy way is to return to
slavery, at least that way one knows who the master is, but this is hardly
a way for an authentic individual living an authentic life.
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some effects of Pregnancy
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:35:52 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug17.194346.2895@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
(MILLER, JIMMY A.) performs a useful public service by injecting some
information into the debate.  Kudos for that contribution.  I have a
question on one part of the discussion, which I will skip to:

>	the back.  This can result in backache or muscle strains.  Old theory
>	held that the mother's teeth decalcify to provide calcium and phosphor-
>	ous for the fetus, but this now known to be invalid (inflammation of
>	the gums IS common, however). [It would seem that some posters still
>	hold to this belief, that the fetus drains calcium from the the 
>	mother's bones.  This apparently is incorrect.  Sheldon does not men-
>	tion any such concerns.  However, since the fetus does use calcium,
>	it IS neccessary to increase its intake, so there is sufficient for
>	both.  It seems that perhaps this belief developed out of insufficient
>	calcium intakes in the past, with weaker bones/teeth as the result.
>	This last is just my guess]

My understanding from my wife's ob/gyn was that osteoporosis was
linked to having carried a child.  For this reason, increased calcium
intake was recommended as a preventative therapy.  Does anyone have
anything more definitive on the /z/e/f/ calcium drain question?

SJM
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:15:23 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug21.204130.12507@noao.edu>, Suzanne Forgach writes:

> And I'll tell you, wearing a sign around your neck that says
> <"Former Fetus"> at a protest picket in front of a Right-to-Choose
> fund raiser REALLY shakes up the people going in and out.
> No, it wasn't me, but I've seen it done, and I wished I'd thought of it
> at the time.

How clever.  Do they also wear a sign that says "Former egg and sperm"
and march up and down in front of the condom and sponge display at
the local pharmacy?
-- 
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_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:09:29 GMT

In article <168454A.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick Liar Harumphrey) cackles:
>In article <1992Aug15.232518.14958@csus.edu>
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <Bsz7Cr.2K7.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>Suzie Q steps in her own shit by claiming that Mark Kaufman is still
>>in my killfile when I said before that I took him out of the killfile.
> 
>Which, I suppose, completely invalidates every statement ever made
>by any pro-choicer on Usenet, right?
> 
>(Susan's skepticism is very understandable, considering the number
>of times you've claimed to have someone in your killfile, yet still
>managed to find a way to respond to them...but hey, that's all in a
>day's work for the Brainless Borg, isn't it?)

Your statement here, has not been correct for over 7 months. 

I occasionally lift the KILLfile to search for someone's post on a
specific thing, but when I move it back to the filename KILL in my
killfile directory, and I come back to the newsgroup, the "junked"
messages light up like a christmas tree. 

My KILLfile works just fine, thank you. 

And yes, Mark Kaufman is out of the KILLfile now.

>--PLH, still waiting for li'l Stevie Witless to actually DO something
>other than foam at the mouth and drool all over his keyboard...

Which means, since I never started, Pat the Liar Harumphrey is living
in a time warp. 

That explains Harumphrey's intellegence! 

Go say hi to Ann Stone, Harumphrey. You're about the only friend
she'll have at that Republican convention. 

And take a shower first, for heaven's sake.


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:30:13 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Patrick L Humphrey):

[re: Humphrey's non-apology to Chaney...]

>Patrick, an apology for an insult to everyone BUT the one whom you've actually
>insulted, does not count as a real apology in my book.

Suzanne, how can you post this crap with a straight face?  Have you EVER
taken Steve Chaney to task for his innumerable lies, his "Jews in New
York" tripe, his weak attempts to post as "Dennis Hall"?

Where's your consistency?  Where's your honesty?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: I'm back, sort of
Summary: I may still be having problems communicating
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:33:14 GMT

I'm back at the University of South Carolina from my visit to
Wollongong, and I've been posting a lot of replies, but not
seeing any responses to mine.  Have my replies been getting 
through?  My suspicions were aroused when I tried posting an
original message (using :post) and saw the notation:

Distribution? (default uscar)

I asked a colleague about this and he said whenever he saw that,
he assumed it was local (because of the usc, as in University of
South Carolina) and always put "world" in its place.  

So, have I just been communicating with next to nobody before
this message?   

Peter Nyikos
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:44:53 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> = Tim Lynch writes:

>> Is there any black
>> person who's speaking at the convention, for that matter?  I'm not up on 
>> the scheduling, since I plan to stay far away from most of the coverage.)

>  Louis Sullivan spoke last night.  And the tv guys made (IMO) a point of
>showing several black delegates.

I swear, they had one black for every circle of 25 whites, perfectly
spaced.  It was weird, like seeing Phyllis Schlafly at a NOW meeting. 

>  Huh?  Yeah, I watched some of it in between chapters of my Civil War book.

Would this be the Shelby Foote classic?  (I started Vol. II of III last week.)



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:53:04 GMT

Keegan apparently wants to resume our flamewar over whether or not I'm
a pro-choicer....  The most recent attempt was in the thread "Re: A
crack in the iron curtain?"

Since I'm sure you're going to continue posting articles like this,
and I can't resist defending myself if I see them, and I have *NO*
intention of being caught in a permanent flamewar with you, I'm
creating a KILLfile just for you -- so I won't see the articles and
won't feel any need to respond.

So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't respond, it's not because
he's right and I don't have a defense; it's because I didn't see the
attack in the first place.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Choice" of words.....
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:09:58 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Bryon S. Lape) writes:

>	Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion,

True.

>	Pro-Abortion does mean Anti-Life.

No.  Anti-*fetal*-life, maybe.

>	Pro-Life does not mean Anti-Choice,

It certainly does, unless you're using "Choice" as other than a woman's
right to choose an abortion.

>	Pro-Choice does not mean Anti-Life.

True.

>	Pro-Life can mean Pro-Choice,
>	but Pro-Responsibility is better than both.

As long as the "Choice" is available.

>Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.

The way I've heard it, "phosphate free" detergents are, for some strange
reason, only available in certain areas of the country.  Why is that??

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did Bill Clinton embrace the Bush campaign?
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:40:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug13.184108.24179@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> "... We're against family values, we're against work, we're going to
> tax and spend to death."
> 
> 			-- Governor Bill Clinton addressing a rally at 
>                            Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 8/10/92

This wouldn't by any chance have been taken out of context,
now would it Don?

I know you meant it as a joke, but  actually there are a bunch
of rather empty-headed fools out in netland who are probably
going to take this quote home with them and tell everyone that
Clinton seriously intended it as it reads above.

Oh well, I like you anyway.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:16:26 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <16e9bfINNijc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

> In article <1992Aug13.155229.7513@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >  Ahem.  Every now and then I am reminded to dot my i's and cross my t's.
> >Allow me to be painfully specific.  My real issue was with the words "ruin
> >a person's life".  This implies that pregnancy will almost certainly "ruin" 
> >your life physically, emotionally and financially.  
>[deletion]
> >  I was merely bringing Gordon's statement to heel.  Unwanted (or even wanted,
> >for that matter) pregnancies CAN do all these things--with the effect of "ruin."
> >But it is NOT a certainty.  Or highly likley.
> 
> How can you tell?

  How can you?  Got any hard data?  I've been looking (obviously in the wrong
places) to no avail.  And you've deleted a lot--including my questions.

> How can you, Jimmy, who have never sat through an unwanted pregnancy, tell
> what is 'highly likely' with any certainty?  If I had to figure who would have
> a better picture about this, you or a pregnant woman, I'd vote for the
> pregnant woman.
> Adrienne Regard

  Gordon Storga is not a pregnant woman.  I note you had no trouble with his
assertion, which, by the above logic, is just as flawed as mine.  Shall we
trot out the standard double-standard arguments for both sides at this point?

  Just between you and me and the the rest of the world, I'd vote for the
pregnant woman too.  She's a lot more likely to know--but there's no
guaruntee either.

  Any pregnant women who know the facts care to let us know before this gets
any more ugly?  I can only go on what the mothers I know have had to say.
Hardly comprehensive.  But then I've not seen anything better here, yet.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Wednesday, 19 Aug 1992 21:02:46 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Distribution: na
 <1992Aug17.173123.12120@ncsu.edu> <1992Aug18.143553.466@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
 <1992Aug18.194600.15777@ncsu.edu>

According to a doctor who was looking after a premature
infant born at 22 weeks in, I think, it was Atlanta,
only one other infant had survived such an early
birth in the US.  I saw this interview on CNN about
three weeks ago.  This corresponded with what a friend
of mine who worked for 19 years with Toronto's Hospital
for Sick Children's Neonatal Unit said.  In that time
only one child survived being born at 22 weeks.

The head of Toronto's Mount Sinai Neonatology unit, as
quoted in the Toronto Star, said that health care
providers should not be taking extrodinary measures
to try and save preemies born before 24 weeks of
gestation because the likelihood of survival is
poor and the complications severe.  Even with infants
born at 24 to 28 weeks the degree of handicap is high,
including respiratory problems,  blindness from
incubators, cerebral palsy and heart defects and
it was this doctor's opinion that funds should be
directed at lessening the physical disabilities of
children born prematurely instead of constantly
pushing the limits of survival to the detriment of
quality of life.

From what I have read, technology has achieved marginal
viability at the 24th week and in one or two cases the
22nd but no further and until about the 8th month most
preemies require mechanical life support in order to
survive outside of the womb.

If Mr. Holtsinger has documented cases of 21 or 22 week
premature infants surviving, even into childhood,
I would be interested in reading them.  I would also
be interested in the degree of disability these
children suffered.



Linda
--
They're complicated people leading complicated lives, and
he complicates their problems by telling complicated lies
     The Flag, Barenaked Ladies
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:27:57 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <23522@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>take care of it after that point. Before birth, the z/e/f relies entirely
>>upon a single woman for everything, 24 hours a day, causing her harm
>>and hardship. (for those who would say pregnancy is wonderful, I've
>>never heard a pregnant woman say that,

>How many pregnant women have you talked to, and at what stage?

Ummm, Ny, some of us here have done better then that.  Some of us here
have BEEN women in the late stages of pregnancy.  You didn't hear a lot
of US arguing his statement, did you?

>  Feeling
>the late-term baby move around inside can be a very meaningful experience.

Sure it can.  It can mean:
Oh no, not my bladder.  I hope I can get to the bathroom quick....
Huh?  What was that?  Oh no, please let me get SOME sleep...
OUCH!!!!!!!
Hey, you're supposed to come out the BOTTOM, not the TOP.....

>Even just feeling a faint "echo" by putting my hand on my wife's abdomen, 
>which is as close as I can get to this, was very rewarding.

Sure, because all you felt was a little flutter on your palm.  You
weren't the one getting your kidneys, ribs, bladder, stomach, diaphragm,
etc forcibly relocated.  Getting kicked from the INSIDE is not
unmitigated joy....

Face it, pregnancy is not the constant bliss you seem to be implying.

>Peter Ny.

                          -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:46:30 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  <1992Aug12.165743.23090@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> No. His ruling said that if the minor has a right to privacy, it means
> abortion rights _and_ it means the right to have sex with adults. The
> logic runs as follows:
>
> A- Privacy
> B- Adult/child sexual relations
> C- Abortion
>
> A->B
> A->C

And when you say
> >> ========================================================================
> >>             Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex!
> >> ========================================================================

you're claiming that C -> B, and we're saying "prove it".

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31758 alt.politics.bush:1616 co.politics:1337
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? (Re: Another ...)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 20:52:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <adams.713814406@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jhull@vulcan.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (   Joseph F. Hull) writes:

>>I'm a Republican and I do NOT support the Republican Party Platform statement 
>>on reproductive rights.

>Ditto.

Ditto again.

> -Steve

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion