HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kevin and the "Moral High Ground" (was Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY)
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:15:17 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >(this about susan garvin):
-> >
-> >        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
-> >        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
-> >		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>
-> >
-> >did kevin ever support his comment about susan garvin? no!
-> 
-> Of *COURSE* I supported my statement, Jimmy! I always do, when
-> support is necessary. Specifically, I supported the statement
-> in article <1992Mar17.064101.22838@rotag.mi.org>. You want
-> more detail? Fine. Sue's original lie was made in article
-> <201230@unix.cis.pitt.edu>. The subsequent
-> apology/admission-of-lying was made in article
-> <1992Jan22.113421.209522@cs.cmu.edu>.
-> 
-> Why do you keep saying that my statement is "unsupported" when
-> you *KNOW* that isn't true at all? Look up the articles in
-> your archives. Read 'em and weep....

if anyone is interested, neither the articles referenced by
kevin, nor other, related articles support his lie about susan
garvin. i'm reasonably convinced that if kevin did have proof, he
would have posted it repeatedly, over and over. that he has not
done so is quite telling, given that he could have selected the
particular articles favoring his stand most (if they existed) and
posted them. given that kevin is the accuser, it's his
responsibility to support his allegations, if he can. no wonder
his brother said:

        "Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease
        with longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
		Jeff d'Arcy <jdarcy@encore.com> 
		<15249@encore.Encore.COM>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:07:40 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.111643.7793@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu

>> S.F.
>Coincidences always amaze me, especially between my two favorite fellow
>Catholic posters S.F. and S.F. - J.J.

   Sheesh... Will you grow up please? You could never aspire to post
with any authority because of crap like this. Unless you meant it to
be funny. Then I take back my request for you to grow up. I would then
like you to acquire a sense of humor...
   You see, the initials JJ aren't so great either... HOw abou;t this:
Jerk-off Jack-ass
^        ^
   Hmmm, maybe you've got a point about similarities with initials...
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
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:28:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>Thats what I like about you Ron.  A towering wall of logic.

Glad you concur.

Towering implies unsurmoutable, in this context, I presume.....:)

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:52:17 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>   The church does not defend the status of the fetus, and does not
>argue it. We believe that whether you feel it is human or not, the
>underlying potential of the child/fetus is already there. Conception
>has already occurred, and the deed is done (none of this sperm is
>sacred crap, conceptiohas ALREADY occurred).
>   I don't have to convince you, because there is no argument here. 

So basically you're saying that it is so because you believe it to be
so and because the church says so.

This would be a compelling argument only if you and your church's 
credibility were without question.  But in both cases this is hardly 
the case.

Consider first the credibility of the church.  At one point
or another Christian churches have condoned and demanded ...

1) Wholesale murder (the Crusades)
2) Torture (the Inquisition)
3) Belief in a Heliocentric universe (re: Galileo)
4) Illiteracy (during the Middle Ages being caught with a Bible could
   get you in serious trouble if you weren't affiliated with the Church)
5) Bribery (buying permission to sin was once common)

Note that this is only a rather abbreviated list.  Many more examples
exist.

So, given the rather questionable record of churches so far, why should
they be given any credibility now?  And given that you have apparently 
chosen to follow the official position of the church, why should I accept
your beliefs?  No, this is not a rhetorical question.  I would like an 
answer.

>Whether the fetus is human now or not does not matter... what it will
>be in 9 months DOES. (oh, did you want me to string a whole bunch of
>statistics on how a baby dreams at x months, sucks it's thumb at y weeks,etc?)

I might point out that I can build a machine that moves and sucks its
thumb.  These attributes would hardly make it human, however.  And if
I put a petri dish with some living tissue inside it, it would also
have some genetic material in it.  As for dreaming - how can you tell?

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:38:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.062848.283452@cs.cmu.edu>, Susan Garvin writes:
|I haven't been lucky enough to see C.J., but I'm willing to bet that
|she looks nothing like a first trimester fetus.  From what
|I've heard, her head is proportionate to her body, and
|she's fully developed.  I sincerely doubt that she has
|gills.  

Well, gosh, I could always repost that gif.  I have
one of Keegan, too.

Drieux has gills, though.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"All sorts of people who don't know me and my many fine personal qualities 
say absolutely dreadful things about me.  What can you do?  Have them 
killed, of course, but that's *so* expensive." --Jon Carroll
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 07:56:07 GMT

<73849@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President) said:
>Regard
>>Steve
>>>   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
>>>ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's, 
>>>abortions, or any concerns about that missed period. 
>
>>Wow, what a great Idea.  I'm just going to scurry on home and tell my partner
>>of 9 years that from now on, it's abstinence for us!  I'm sure he'll 
>>thank you for the wonderful tip.
>
>And bipity-bopity-booo.  

Put it together and what have you got...  Sorry, got carried away there.

...

>Get a grip, Ad.  Grab some down time.  Steve isn't forcing abstinence on you.
>But you cannot disagree that it is the best form of contraception and that
>it is 100% effective in preventing the spread of sexual diseases.

Kevin, you kinda have to agree that the best form of birth control is one
that is practical, applicable, and succesful.  While abstinence is
successful when practiced (how do you practice doing nothing?) it is not
practical when you are dealing with the way the entire world is geared.
We are a sexually driven world.  You may not like it, but look at our
advertising, look at other countries societies - every country in the
world has brothels (with perhaps the except of the more radical Islamic
nations) or whores.

>You know, not having sex does not mean isolation.  It just means not having
>intercourse.  Be as physical as you want.  Have sex if you want.  But realize
>and assume all the consequences of your actions.  Be abstinent if you want.
>But if you want a sure way to avoid pregnancy and the spread of disease, 
>abstinence is the best method.

I agree with all you've said in this paragraph - it is each person's
choice.  I disagree with the probability of abstinence ever becoming the
preferred method of birth control.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject:  Oh!  Oh!  I just don't know how.. (Was: Implications)
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: Sun, 12 Apr 92 18:17:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.020819.7670@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>Why do you value a fetus so much?  I mean, what makes it so important to
>>you?  I personally think it's some sort of conditioning that results in
>>this 'fetus worship'.
>
>What makes you value your wife so much?  After all, she's simply a mass
>of nourished "fetal tissue", dipshit.  "Conditioning"?  I conditioned
>myself to care for human life?  Or was it YOU conditioned by society to
>disdain children?

Kevin, go take a look at a photo of Gordon's wife (pant, pant).  Now, go look
at an ultrasound of a 16 week old fetus (or even a 20 or 30 week old fetus).

Notice the difference?  I certainly do!

>
>>>                              In any case, I apologize for my slip.
>>>I am not yet used to these odds of 10 to 1 in a political and ethical
>>>discussion. 

Kevin, you'd be outnumbered arguing with a doorknob.

>
>>Kinda makes you wonder why the pro-life side keeps claiming numerical
>>superiority, doesn't it.  The abortion rallys tend to be 5 to 1 in favor
>>of pro-choice (at least, from what has been posted here), and the postings
>>here at at least 2 to 1 if not more.
>
>Pro-Lifers claim majority because it is exactly correct.  The abortion

You have some proof of this, or it just more truth-by-blatant-lying, leader
of the Anti-Choice-Pro-Slavery movement?

>rally statement is outright fraud.  Last years march in DC had the Pro-
>Death faction outnumbered almost 2 to 1 (and the pro-death clowns still
>claimed a majority because they were relying on their own guesstimates
>instead of the park service's official count).  So you believe this
>system represents a perfect scientific cross-section of society?  Wake
>up buddy boy.  There is more to society than your computer.

Yea, there's things like...Wives.  And Lives.  You definitly don't have one,
and I'd be willing to bet that you'll never get the other.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do men support abortion?
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:22:18 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr15.233556.11377@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
:
:Why are there so few women supporting legal abortion?

	One would NEVER know it from this newsgroup.

	There is only ONE woman who regularly opposes abortion here.
All the rest of the "regular" opponents are male. The pro-choice side
is about evenly divided between the sexes. 

	Steve Kellmeyer clearly has not noticed the sex of the people
who post here on one side or the other.

:The nation's largest pro-choice organization, NARAL, had 121,000
:female members in 1986.  NOW had 250,000 members.
:
:The National Right to Life Committee had 7.5 million women.

	Are they counting all the women they have sent out offers to
join them to? If one counts all those, then NARAL and NOW's membership
figures would jump also. I'm mentioning this because the same is
suspected for the right-wing group Concerned Women for America.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 04:53:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.142107.13166@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.160950.8203@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>You seem to conveniently forget that conception is ALSO a physical aspect of 
>>pregnancy. And as long as we are going to look beyond conception for a
>>"rights stream" (for the woman), then parity demands we also look beyond
>>conception for any "responsibility stream" (for the man). To do less would
>>be to hold a double-standard.
>
>What the hell does this mean?  Presumably, expecting children to be supported
>by their parents kinda sort of DOES 'look beyond conception for any responsi-
>biloity stream (for the man)'.

No, his responsibility is conditioned only on genealogy. Nothing that a man 
does after conception changes his liability.

>Have you gone completely nutty?  BTW, that's a rhetorical question (-:.

You're so funny when you are, Adrienne.

>>>>Who's talking about specific performance? We're talking about child support
>>>>liability here (read: $$$) not specific performance....
>>>WRT child support liability, BOTH parents have it.
>>I assume from the non sequitur that you have dropped your line of reasoning
>>wrt "specific performance" then??
>
>
>Kevin, Kevin, you dimwit.  

Name-calling now? Tsk tsk.

>Think about these lines here.  You say that 
>we are NOT talking about specific performance.  

Which was *YOUR* previous claim. One which you have now apparently dropped 
like a hot rock.

>You say we ARE talking about $$$.  

Of course we are. There was never a doubt in MY mind about that. Can you 
say the same?

>I respond, obligingly, to what you _just_ _said_ and you
>say that's a "non sequitur"?

Why don't you just admit you were wrong when you were babbling about
"specific performance" a little while back? Why are you trying to divert
attention from your mistake?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:52:27 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <16595@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:

>**<sound of tires squealing>**  Whoa!!  Time out!!
>*WHAT* observation that a fetus is a human life???  You have not established
>this.  No hand-waving argument is gonna fly past me.

>No one disagrees that IF a fetus is human that abortion is an immoral thing.

Well speaking of tires squealing and all, you are wrong.  Not that I make
any judgements about morals of any action, but I don't much care what
the fetus is.  I am pro-choice because I believe the women must retain
the right to control over her body and reproduction regardless of the
status of the fetus.  Call the fetus children, tell me when they have
brains, heartbeat, toes, fingernails or lose their gills.  None of this
makes any difference to why I am pro-choice.  The fetus needs to use
a womans body to survive.  If the fetus needs to do this against the
woman's desire, then the woman has the right to remove it.

>The thing is that not all people (myself included) buys the "fetus is a
>human, just accept it" argument.  PROVE this assertion is valid and there
>will be no need for this newsgroup.  (HINT:  You can't prove this
>assertion.  That's the source of the whole disagreement.  You can hold this
>opinion and live your life according to it, but you can't get a majority of
>people to follow you.  No way.  Uh-uh.  Forget it, mano.)

The status of the fetus is not the whole disagreement.  The woman is
involved in the issue and should never be ignored.

>Curtis M. Compton                                    compton@plains.NoDak.edu

Dan King
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:11:39 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr9.161716.24602@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>> Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>>            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>>            morals on others. 

>(1) Since you fail to specify, "human-life" means anything that is "human"
>    and "alive".  

Yes, that is correct. Let's remember that parts of the same human
still constitute one human.  

>    So premise (A) uses the unstated assumption that *any* 
>    "human-life" has the ABILITY to "determine its own set of morals".  

No, premise (A) does not assume anything about the ability, or lack 
of ability, of a human to determine its own set of morals.

>    Since a plasma is human life, and clearly cannot determine anything, 
>    its ABSURD to state that it "should have the right to determine its 
>    own set of morals" 

I assume you mean blood plasma. Yes, mere human tissue cannot determine 
its own set of morals. My appendix cannot determine its own set of morals. 
Premise (A) says that any other human (other than myself) should not be 
allowed to force their morals on me, or parts of me. I know that may 
sound silly, but it is consistent. 

For example, other humans should not be allowed to harm or kill my 
appendix without my permission, since those humans would be forcing
their morals on me (that it is acceptable to harm an appendix). 
I can harm my own appendix, since it is part of me, and not part 
of some other human. Premise (A) applies regardless of the location
of my appendix -- inside or outside of body.

>(2) Since you fail to specify, "fetus" means anything from fertilized-egg 
>    to mintues-before-birth-fetus.  Premise (B) & (C) both use the unstated 
>    assumption that *any* "fetus" has the ABILITY to "determine its own set 
>    of morals".  Since a fertilized-egg clearly cannot determine anything, 
>    its ABSURD to state that it "should have the right to determine its own 
>    set of morals".  In fact, I'm doubt a (real) baby could even determine 
>    its own set of morals.

No, premises (B) and (C) make no assumption about the ability of the
fetus to determine its own set of morals, and it does not depend on
the age of the fetus. Premise (A) says that a fertilized egg should 
have the right to determine its own set of morals. That does NOT mean 
that other humans should be _required_ to support the egg's existence, 
so that it may eventually develop to have the _ability_ to determine its 
own set of morals. But, other humans cannot kill the egg -- they cannot 
_force_ their morals on the egg (their morals being that it is acceptable 
to kill a fertilized egg). It sounds a little silly, but it is very
consistent. 

> On the plus side, your argument was unusually easy to follow, a pleasant
> suprise.
>
>-Brian

Thanks.

Doug Holtsinger
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:01:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr5.154836.13043@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
><1992Apr5.040848.29681@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>><1992Apr2.032145.12367@rigel.econ.uga.edu> Mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu writes:
>>[a bunch of fairly impressive and earned flames, then]
>>
...

>>Watch it, Kathi. There are other analogies you could use, that'd work
>>just as well without emotionally assaulting a whole bunch of people who
>>didn't hurt you and aren't who you're trying for. Please, don't bring
>>the Holocaust into debates where it does not belong.
>>
>Let me second this. Analogies to the H________ have no place here.
>They bother Nora, and they irritate Susan's ex-boyfiend, Dean.
>
>There are lots of good names to call each other without resorting
>to the 'N' word.

I find it somewhat amusing that many pro-lifers use N***'s and the
H******** when refering to pro-choicers too.  Usually we'll hear about the
guiding Christian influence that established this great country, and how
the evil pro-choicers are practicing a genocide of the "unborn".
Conveniently they forget what their guiding Christian influence did to the
American Indian, as in - near complete genocide of the indigenous
population on the basis of "heathenism".  The plight of the American
Indian is swept under the rug while these "caring folk" go off to Romania
to adopt children, send millions of dollars to Ethiopia, send millions fo
dollars to Israel, send food and clothing to Russia, etc.

David Rasmussin once had the gall to claim that there were never any mass
geneocides carried out by a western democracy.  How soon we forget...

No offense to Nora, Monica, Dean, and many others of the Jewish
faith/race, but at least you have a country to fight for.  At least the
rest of the world came to your rescue when you were being slaughtered by
the millions.  Ah well, I've gone on too long about this.  Sorry for the
diatribe.


Gordon
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.peeves,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Desperately Seeking a Domain Mapping function for Sex
Date: 12 Apr 92 08:19:58 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr11.213403.9540@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> Is ForePlay a part of 'sex' - and is ForePlay strictly a 'physical'
> event_structure?

Yes, and hands-on interaction is definitely a big plus.

> If ForePlay is a part of 'sex' does this invalidate
> the notion that 'sex causes pregnancy'

Well, I've done sex lots of times (definitely more than twice), and it's
almost *never* caused pregnancy...

> - or was that broad sweeping
> generalization invalid to begin with as it merely referred to a
> specific subset of Sex?????

Well, it clearly refers to the subset of Sex that actually *does*
cause pregnancy.

> If ForePlay is not directly in the Domain of Sex, does there exist
> a function f() that will advise one, "here we ain't foreplaying,
> but have clearly driven the ball down the fairway towards to the
> sand trap and most likely sliced it off into the rough." { to use
> a 'sports' metaphour so as to avoid being pornographical. }
>
> eg: should one shout "FORE!" when one has finished ForePlay so
> that one's partner knows that one wishes to 'play on through?'
>
> ciao
> drieux
>
> ps: Do we NEED a partner to have 'Sex'????
> is 'Sex' a simple binary operator or will it resolve
> polynomial progressions?

drieux, I really think you need to adgust your grip and do a few practice
strokes...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)