HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:05:46 GMT
 <Bw2Dts.Gpz@rice.edu> <1992Oct13.203037.16169@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <lefty-131092180440@lefty.apple.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <lefty-131092180440@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.203037.16169@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
> 
> Get your stories straight, Simon.  And stop comparing yourself to Orwell. 
> Based on what you've presented here, you couldn't write your way out of a
> pay toilet.

Hey, anybody could do that!  Start writing on the walls, and keep going
until some security dude(ette) comes along and hauls your sorry-ass
vandal butt downtown.  Shouldn't ought to underestimate your oponents.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:58:28 GMT

In <1992Oct13.222023.20251@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:

>In article <BD.92Oct13083951@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>>
>>>I keep repeating it but it gets
>>>misconstrued, if liberal ideas and policies are so great, why does Governor
>>>Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?
>>
>>It doesn't get misconstrued, it gets ignored (for the most part)
>>because it's such a silly question.
>>
>>Why does Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?  Two easons
>>that I can think of:
>>
>>1)  He is one.
>>
>>2)  Because he's a politician, and he needs lots of votes to win.
>>
>>An idea's popularity is not an accurate indicator of its greatness.
>>
>>Slavery was popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>>Facism was popular (in Germany), but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>>Gay bashing is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>>Not reading is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>>Watching 6 hours of TV/day is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>>The second amendment is in disrepute these days, but it's still a great idea.
>>
>>Catch my drift?
>consider your drift caught problem is I have to throw it back.  In the first
>place I never meant to imply that popularity makes an Idea great what I was t
>trying to point out is intellectual dishonesty.  Clinton is about as moderate
>as Mario Cuomo or Ted Kennedy, he just has to wear his moderate face when he
>is seen by the voters.  The truth of your second statement is obvious...he'll
>say anything to get votes.  Problem here is you cant keep up with which story
>is the current one.

It's a simple question, but goody goody I get to ask it.  Can you give some
concrete evidence that Clinton is not a moderate?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Defying Physics (Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:10:51 GMT

> = c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In response to the sperm/egg debate again:
>
>Is it possible to have two humans in you? (I mean exactly the same human
>being one with another human in exactly the same space.  Thus, a pregnant
>woman and her unborn child, since they are not occupying the exact same
>space, are not one human entity).  I don't think so.
>
>So let us assume that the assertion that eggs/sperm = human life (members
>of homo sapiens) with the added assumption that the eggs and the sperm
>are two different human lives.  Since this is true, then at conception,
>two different human lives come together.  But the problem is, you are
>exactly one human entity.  So how can two separate human lives produce
>exactly one human entity?  Didn't we say that it is not possible to 
>be exactly two humans at one exact time?  From two human lives, there
>results only one human life.  This cannot be.  How can Joe Blow merge
>with Susan Parker (random name) to produce Joe Parker only?
>
>Thus, since a human cannot exist as exactly two humans, we have a 
>contradiction.  We can safely say that the assertion that eggs/sperm
>are human life (members of homo sapiens) is false.

Furthermore, following this line of reasoning, since a *single* fertilized 
egg may very well develope into *two* or more distinct human beings, we can 
safely assert that a fertilized egg is *not* a human being.

After all, the twins John & Jack Doe are obviously not the same human being!

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: sussman@cs.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Sussman)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:45:20 GMT

robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:


>In article <BvtEHB.B9y@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.215715.12363@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>latarra@buhub.bradley.edu (Lisa Ehren) writes:
>>>
>>>As has already been clearly Established,
>>>If there is NO POTENTIAL FOR GESTATION
>>>there can be NO SEX.
>>
>>So, there is no such thing as homosexual sex.


>  That's correct.

Hmmm ... you're on shaky ground here.  If a guy wears a well-made condom there
is no possibilty of gestation either, yet most people would have no trouble 
calling it sex ...

-Steve-
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:47:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct8.003210.3373@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article <1992Oct2.020800.22401@ncsu.edu>, by dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
## In article <1992Oct2.004310.953@noao.edu> 
## forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
## 
###keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
##  
####         "All fetuses _are_ white.  "White" means lack
####         of pigment.  Black newborns are born white, and
####         turn black shortly thereafter."
#### 		Suzanne Forgach <1991Jun13.232919.9128@noao.edu>
## 
### This was once again validated in a medical tape I watched recently of
### women who'd just delivered newborns.   The black woman's baby was, you
### guessed it, white.   (Yes, her husband was black.  The baby did have
### black facial features, so of course it turned black later on.)
## 
## You can't be serious here.  I've seen pictures of black women
## who have just given birth (holding the infant) and those 
## babies were black.  I can't believe you could make such a 
## statement.
#
#When the subject first came up a couple of years ago, it was in
#reference to the little plastic "young ones" model of 10-11 week
#fetuses that a group of pro-lifers were handing to women as they
#walked into an abortion clinic.  (I know you've seen them, Doug.)
#Anyway, one of the women going in was black.  When one of the
#pro-lifers said, "Here, see what your unborn child looks like!",
#the woman said, "That sure don't look like MY child.  My child's
#black!"

Well, no, Suzanne, as it happens, the woman didn't use the
quaint dialect that you assume she did.  She spoke standard
English.  (I won't even ask why you felt moved to alter
the story.)

The sidewalk hassler said, "This is what your baby looks like."
The patient replied, "That's why I'm having an abortion."

#To which I originally pointed out that all fetuses ARE "white",
#"white" simply meaning "lack of pigment".   Surely you will not
#claim that any fetuses at 10-11 weeks, have well developed
#pigment yet, do you?

I have no idea, myself.  Pigmentation isn't as important to
me as it is to some people.  (I note that you didn't comment
on "black features" this time.  You're limiting yourself to
one bigotted comment per article, is that it?)

#If you have seen black newborns that were already black, then I
#take back my statement that all blacks are born white.  However,
#I still hold that MANY are born white, because I've seen them
#myself.  And I still hold that ALL first trimester fetuses are
#white.

Is that why you want to save them, Suzanne?

#Perhaps our resident African-American, Steve Chaney, could
#contribute to this discussion.

Your assumptions are telling, Suzanne.

(Do you imagine that Dennis has given birth?)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:33:34 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In article <1992Oct6.204011.8370@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>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?
>>
>>Sure.  Just add one sperm, nutrients, waste removal, water,
>>temperature regulation, chemistry, shelter, a little luck, and 
>>viola!
>
>The existence of a human life has nothing to do with the circumstances
>around it.  A human life exists because it is there.  Sure it may die
>when not given the right surroundings.  But nonetheless, it still exists.

Hard to say if this is true since you haven't defined "a human life"
(which I'll assume you mean to be synonymous with "person").

Question (rather hypothetical but presumably illuminating):  Suppose 
medical technology is able to freeze people for eventual resurrection.
Is a frozen person (with no pulse and no brain waves) still a person?
If, after 5 years of being frozen said person has a 50/50 chance of
being successfully revived, is this person still a person?  Or 50% a
person?  If you wait 100 years and there's only a 1% chance is the
person still a person?  What if there's a 0.00001% chance of a
successful revival?

>Also, you cannot call a sperm or egg in isolation a member of homo sapiens.

Yup.  But then I can't call a zygote a member of homo sapiens either.

>>>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.
>>
>>Because you say so?
>
>Because it makes sense.  Science says it makes sense too.

In other words, because you say so (no, science does _not_ say it
makes sense).

I say otherwise.  And I'm right, too.   :-)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:39:00 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>That's right, Susan, we are the bad guys and you are the good guys.
>You have the high moral ground and we are the harbingers of hate 
>and evil.  Isn't it wonderful to be involved in such an altruistic 
>movement?  

Isn't it wonderful to be able to post by computer so that you
can be as nasty and condescending to women as you want without 
running the risk of being slapped?  Looks like these broads are
really pissing you off, eh Overpeck?  Perhaps we should all
swear off our computers and go settle down with a good man?
But of course, _you_ would never be one to mutter "all she 
needs..."

                   -rocker
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: No Human Worth in Unborn (was Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an a
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:55:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.083059.23986@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.181822.7837@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>>But how can someone say that human worth is given because of a location
>>>of that person?  The unborn one hour before birth is not much different
>>>from the newborn one hour after birth, but where did its worth change?
>>>Did the "initiation" of birth give that child the privilege of life?
>>
>>The difference is that one is inhabiting the mother's body, and the
>>other isn't.
>
>Why should "personhood" depend on the circumstances.  Existence of the
>human life, not the circumstances.
>
Martin, you are really being obtuse.
A woman is not just a 'location'.
A woman is not just 'circumstances'.
Treat us otherwise at your own risk.
I wouldn't let one of my daughters go out with someone like you.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: No Reply  Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:13:44 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  <BvtBy8.Gs8@news.udel.edu>  roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> I posted this article on Monday, now it's Thursday.  Peter Nyikos has yet
> to respond while responding to other posts.  Just thought I'd post it again,
> in case he might want to respond.

I think that *not* responding is Peter's way of acknowledging that he
was wrong.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.test
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:13:25 GMT

In <7170@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

I wonder--was it Susan Garvin that made misc.test and nothing else appear
in the newsgroups line above?  Anyway, I have added the group I am in and
my own favorite group, and left misc.test in because my netserver has been
down for five days and is still not all the way back up.

>In article <Bvv95M.JI6@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>#In article <7159@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>#If you object to the "cross-posting," you should note that the discussion
>#of spousal notification and so-called threats appeared extensively
>#on soc.women.

>Perhaps in the world in which you live, Beaver. 

Which happens to be the real world, where real accusations against
Will Steeves appear to be taken seriously.  Susan Garvin's snide
remark makes a real statement about just how self-centered she is.

How much do the accusations against Steeves really mean to her?

Do you really think this is all one big lark, Susan?  a game with
no application to the real world?

> I read the
>threads on talk.abortion.  I don't feel a need to crosspost
>to four groups, two of which I rarely read.   Feel free to
>indulge yourself.

>[included article deleted]

>I'll answer your other article, as well.  You did some nice
>creative editing, but you still don't seem to understand
>the difference between defending or avenging a loved one
>and killing for spite.  

You win the prize for creative editing, Susan, with your entry
where you compared me to "pro-life loonies," I countered (hyperbolically)
that I had been lowering myself to the level of pro-choice loonies,
and you edited out the -choice when you followed up.

>(I read Steeves' comments as they originally appeared, btw.
>His present backpedaling is beside the point.)

>I have no desire to continue this, Beaver.  You don't seem capable
>of rational discussion.  If you believe your entire sex is
>evil, as you said, you should really get some help.

The above takes the prize for "most irrational comment by Susan Garvin",
although it has some serious competitors.  Susan apparently wants to
get on Don Beaver's killfile, not just mine.  But, as I told her in a
private message, I have some evidence that she is capable of better
things, so I am not about to put her in mine.

I hope Will is listening.  He told me he still has some residual
respect for Susan.  A month or so he said he had a great deal of
respect for her.  At this rate...

Peter Nyikos

PS  I'm taking no chances.  I'm mailing a copy of this to Will.  I
wonder whether that is why all the traditional newsgroups were missing
from the top when I first saw this.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:12:11 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  <1992Oct13.044641.9165@samba.oit.unc.edu>  Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
> As the Net probes ever deeper into the question of Jim Keegan's private
> e-mail, I have another -- what business is it of yours to ask?
>
> Last May, C.J. posted a public allegation (never mind its untruth) about
> what other people were discussing in private.  Those other people -- Jim
> Keegan and myself -- chose not to make their private affairs public, and
> responded only through e-mail.
>
> Five months later, she's still at it.

Actually, I believe that it was Keegan that brought it up; I *know* that cj
wasn't involved until asked (first in the newsgroup, then via email) to
respond.

> C.J. lied.

I don't believe this has been shown.  She made a statement regarding Keegan
with which he agreed; she speculated as to whether this was your reason
for posting.

> Her vulgar and invasive breach of privacy is a lot more
> troubling than the injustice of her smears.

She only posted the email in order to disprove Keegan's accusations.
C.J., Eric and myself all asked Keegan if it would be OK to post the
email.  C.J. also indicated that she'd feel forced to post the email
in order to defend herself if permission wasn't forthcoming but more
accusations were.  It wasn't; they were; so she did.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:30:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <5806@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.200611.15344@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>No, just a proposed work of "futuristic" fiction.  Not reality, although
>>I get the feeling that some people here think it is real.

>Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really that stupid?  Look,
>honey.

In case you missed it, I consider this use of the word "honey" to
be sexual harrassment when preceded by "Petey".  Got that, tanj@catnip?

>  This thing you're writing-- are you describing a *utopia* or a
>*dystopia*?  Here, let me explain it to you in words of one syllable so
>you can understand.

>Utopia -- is a world you would like to live in.
>Dystopia -- is a world you would NOT like to live in.

>If, in fact, you are writing a utopia (which is what you have previously led
>us to believe, and we have the posts from you to prove it) then you are a
>Fascist with a capital F.  And if you can't understand why that is, 
>there's no hope for you.

I tuned in late.  Are you saying the very act of writing a utopia
is a sign of fascism, or what?

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:57:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.195357.7630@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>
>>lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>>
>>>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least

>>Right.  Reagan and Bush have overseen one of the largest increases

>What is Clinton going to do differently?

    A. Equalize the tax burden so low and middle-income people are no
       longer supporting the wealthy.

    B. Downsize the military and pass the savings on to businesses that
       will create non-defense jobs.

    C. Reform the health-care "system" so that our (highest in the world)
       expenditures will result in better health for all, rather than richer
       malpractice lawyers, richer doctors, richer insurance companies, and
       poorer families who must choose between a visit to the doctor and a
       visit to the grocery store.

    D. Lead rather than just follow the way the winds blows in such important
       areas as infrastructure rebuilding.

    E. Look more closely at free-trade agreements to insure that American
       business has an incentive to keep jobs here, and that foreign
       businesses are not given an advantage.

    F. Reverse the trend to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing lackeys.

    G. Balance the budget and reduce the deficit by 50% in the first term.

    H. Create an alliance between government and business to make US companies
       competitive in a market dominated by Japanese and German companies
       that work closely with their national governments.

    I. In all likelihood, propose and have passed a series of measures to
       (the probably Democratically-controlled Congress) that will be as
       encomapssing as the New Deal.


Clinton/Gore 92
-- 
Gary Benson   -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-inc@sisu.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Nobody can be exactly like me. Even I have trouble doing it. -Tallulah Bankhead
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Hearsay:  the RTL'ers rubber sword (Re: psychological effects[...])
Keywords: forced childbirth
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:49:23 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <Bw0FA6.ut@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>>	That's interesting; I hadn't heard it that way.  Could 
>>	you please quote that part of the letter (I assume this
>>	is first-hand knowledge)?

>Information presented at public lecture at the University of Illinois,
>Urbana-Champaign, Lincoln Hall Theatre, October 4, 2:00 p.m. by the founder
>of Project Rachel, who's subject of talk was "Psychological Sequelae of
>Abortion".  Dr. Koop also commented about this during a private
>conversation with the speaker shortly after the report came out. 

"Well, my friend told me that Koop told her..."  Priceless.  I haven't heard
evidence like this since high school: "Well, Kimmie told my boyfriend's
sister's boyfriend who told Jeff who told me, so it's just *gotta* be true."

Try again when you grow up.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism