HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:40:00 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug31.232146.4158@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu writes:

> In article <czbna2q.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
> >> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
> >>>                  Think, people!  Take a hard look at these loving
> >>> parents that you call baby killers.  Do they really look like the
> >>> kind of people that like to murder children?
> >>
> >>
> >>  Why of course not, Mark.  And as long as they have apologists like you to
> >>salve their conscience about those destroyed potential lives, and to convince
> >>them "that it really isn't a person --yet" they won't have to think about it
> >>like that, either.
> >
> >I've seen the term "potential" life used several times and I'm still not
> >sure what it is supposed to mean.  Could you please explain what a potential 
> >life is and its relevence?
> 
> It means that Ovum and Sperm are LIVING HUMAN ENTITIES AND WE MUST STOP
> THE SLAUGHTER OF THESE "WARMCUTEFUZZYSOONTOBEUNBORNCHILDREN".
> 
> We must BAN MENSTRUATION!
> 
> We must BAN MASTURBATION!
> 
> We must BAN SEX!
> 
> EVERY SPERM MUST BE MATED WITH AN EGG!  ANYTHING LESS IS THE DESTRUCTION OF
> HUMANS!

  Is this reductio ad absurdum or extensio ad absurdum?

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 		               *
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: 26 Aug 1992 20:01:08 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <1992Aug25.004530.25661@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug24.202720.837@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
|> 
|> > A person who does not believe in governing on the basis
|> > of religion might very well leave the abortion issue to each person's
|> > concience as a personal moral religious issue.  
|> 
|> Abortion is NOT a religious issue.  Abortion is a legal and moral issue.
|> Homicide and robbery are morally wrong.  We don't leave homicide and 
|> robbery to each person's moral conscience. 
|> 
Homicide and robbery are not victimless crimes.  Abortion us UNLESS your
religious beliefs suggest that an early term fetus is a fully franchised
human being.

Mine don't.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: More Bigots! (was Re: Mark Russell (was: Re: Another good reason...)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 00:11:19 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sc>In article <1992Aug24.235407.9723@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
R&S>In article <5692@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

R&S>"First you get down on your knees
R&S> Fiddle with your rosaries
R&S> Bow your head with great respect, and
R&S> Genuflect!  Genuflect!  Genuflect!"
R&S>i-Tom Lehrer "Vatican Rag"

sc> The last time someone said something this ugly about Jews, it was
sc>called Anti Semitism. 

You wouldn't by any chance be talking about your own post about the
hostile Jews of Manhattan, would you be inturdgent?

Dan King

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking of Tax Horror Stories....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:46:16 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
] dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] >In article <1992Aug19.214911.10266@Cadence.COM> 
] >phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
] 
] >> Yes, but the pro-choice position allows pro-life women not to have abortions.
] 
] >But apparently the pro-choice position (as espoused by the Democratic party)
] >forces pro-life women to pay for someone else's abortion.  
] 
] Any government policy forces people to pay for it.  No matter whether you
] agree or not.  Just as Harel Barzlai has to pay taxes that support the
] military, I have to pay taxes that support welfare.  We don't like
] everything, but we still pay for it.


Then there is the Other Horrors like part of our Tax Dollars goes to 

1. that FountainHead of ModernSeXularHumanism: PBS.

2. the Suppression of Our God Given Right to Own Slaves.....

3. Cocaine Price Supports through the War On Drugs

4. Bank Bail outs, so that the Nice Folks who run
   JunkBondFundsInc will not have to be held responsible.

5. FCC: which ruled that showing 'Child Pornography' - also
	known as 'aborted fetuses' pictures - HAD to be aired on TV

6. The harrassment of Parents under the guiese of 'Child Welfare' statues.

7. The Maintenance of Security for Ex_Presidents.

8. the suppression of our constituional right to bear arms.

9. The printing of government documents.

10. Federal Campaign Funding......


ciao
drieux





-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: eris@tc.fluke.COM (Chris Beckmeyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:32:13 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <nyikos.715384664@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>None, and that's part of my point: very few people are allowed to see
>what goes on.  I asked whether Judge Kelly of Wichita, who was so 
>zealous in guarding Tiller's right to carry on business as usual,
>ever got to see the inside of Tiller's clinic.  I asked whether any
>of the federal marshals who so zealously carried out Kelly's orders,
>ever saw an abortion being performed in Tiller's clinic.  I'm still
>waiting for the answers.
>
TILLER IS DOING NOTHING ILLEGAL!  the judge has no need to observe the pro-
ceedings in that clinic any more than in any surgical amphitheater in any
hospital.  even if there were a case, marshalls are neither judge nor jury.
why would they need to observe?  NO, any old body can't go waltzing in to
any hospital or clinic and observe ANYTHING other than the lobby, business
office or hallways.

>if any pro-lifer had cared enough about her to talk to her outside
>the clinic before she went in, she would not have had any of her three
>abortions.  She was that starved for meaningful human contact, and the
			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this is why she got pregnant three times.  she needed some kind of
professional help, NOT the hearts-and-flowers crap from a pro-lifer and
god forbid someone this messed up become a mother!

>
>The other is the woman who had the abortion forced on her while 
>screaming "Let me go!" and "Don't kill my baby!" as described in
>more detail on my COERCED ABORTION post of July.
>
the GLOBE? STAR? NATIONAL ENQUIRER?  maybe PEOPLE? some such legitimate
journal, no doubt.

>
>>I wonder: does a non-lethal dose of xtianity induce permannent stupidity?
>>Actually, I don't wonder.
>
neither do i.

>Ah, so you were offended by Nita's "giving her life to the Lord".  I'll
>have to tell Linda about you.

and WHAT, pray tell, does linda do?

chris

...sometimes i think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere
   in the universe is that none of it has ever tried to contact us....

						     bill watterson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:02:44 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual nonsense:

>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

Many of us who are pro-choice believe that the anti-choice position is
fundamentally misogynistic because it places restrictions on the
rights of women that are not equivalent to any placed on men.  The
premise is simple: Men are not required to use their bodies to support
their children.  For example, if you had a child that needed a kidney
transplant, you would not be required to donate that kidney.  Why do
you support forcing women to do for a z/e/f what neither parent is
required to do for a born child?  The conclusion we come to is that
your interest is in restricting the rights of women; hence, you are a
misogynist.

Nyikos also makes the ridiculous implication that a pro-choice
position is equivalent to defending a Florida physician who performed
an abortion on his handcuffed wife against her will.  This suggests to
me that he is a liar as well as a misognyist.  To my mind it is a
willful misrepresentation  to suggest that supporting laws
to guarantee a woman's reproductive choices is the same as defending
the right of some lunatic to force a woman to have an abortion.  Lest
there be any confusion: Mr. Nyikos, I think you are both a liar and a
misogynist.    

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:43:14 GMT

sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
>> 
>> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?

> That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
> think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion

If it is a person at conception, do we charge the woman with involuntary
manslaughter if it fails to implant?  Just for your information, about 1/3
of all products of conception fail to implant and get washed out during
menstration.  Just a little reality check here...

> - and my wife has said the same thing...

Bully for her.  You might ask her if a pregnant woman should be charged with
child endangerment for smoking, drinking or sitting in a sauna.



-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 22:13:06 GMT

In <182pdpINN16q@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>>
>>
>>Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
>>an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
>>say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
>>womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
>>about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>>Plain and simple.

>OK...

>(Rule number 1: No religious theology, morality. Cold scientific
>facts to support your argument only, please).

Scientists and doctors were near unanimity about human life beginning
at conception until it became politically convenient to claim that
it began some other time.

>Why does a human life have more precedence than that of a bovine?

Butchers in slaughterhouses are not prosecuted for murder.  Serial
killers are.  Do you sense injustice in this?

>Since you seem so concerned with the rhythyms of nature,
>is it wrong to interfere with nature's course when a human
>life hangs in the balance (ie: saving a heart attack victim)?

Saving lives and ending them--do you see no difference?

>I just want to hear ONE scientific reason why we should con-
>tinue to overpopulate the earth.

Well, talk.abortion is primarily about USA laws, and the main reason
I spoke of China in my "Mirror" post was to set the stage for what 
a woman might go through if she is threatened with a cutoff of welfare
if she does not submit to Norplant after, say, two children.  A scenario
we are not too far from here.

But to get back to your question: there is something to be said for making
abortion more freely available in some third world countries than the USA.
But the USA has been far BELOW zero population growth in every year
since Roe v. Wade, and the only reason you don't notice it is that there 
is still a big bulge of people ("baby boomers") not yet past childbearing
age.  But if women keep having children at the rate they do now, and there
is not a much bigger influx of immigrants than at present, the population
will begin to decline while most of us networkers are still alive.

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33090 alt.abortion.inequity:3231 alt.birthright:421
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:37:54 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


jg>In article <sz_n2!c.jeffgus@netcom.com> jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson) writes:

jg>	I would like to know your reference.  Here's a response to the
jg>one I thing you are using from Focus On The Family, Citizen:
jg>	"Gleason Archer, professor emeritus of Old Testament at
jg>Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ill., points out that
jg>a miscarriage does not necessarily mean the death of the preborn.  A
jg>premature infant can survive early expulsion from the mother's womb.
jg>Exodus 21:22-25 says that if the incident results in a premature
jg>birth, the perpatrator should be fined.  However, if 'harm follows'
jg>(i.e., if either the mother or the child is injured or killed), the
jg>same should be inflicted on the perpetrator."

Did you by chance hear Gleason say this in person or did you read it
second hand?  I'm kind of curious if he managed to say this with a 
straight face.  By any chance was he giggling while saying the above?  

I would think you could really hurt yourself stretching that far. 
But what the heck, why not pretend the bible says what ever you want
it to say.  I guess if lightning doesn't strike you, then your
interpretation is as good as any.

Dan King
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 19:47:29 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  <nyikos.715469156@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> You have a perfect right to post the coroner's account of what happened,
> and also why he considers Willke's judgment to be fantasy.  Let the
> readers judge for themselves who has the stronger case.

You're asking us to judge who has a stronger case:  the coroner who performed
the autopsy, or the person who is not a pathologist and never saw the body?
Are you serious?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:39:25 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
-> #Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr.
-> #Nyiko's point of view and perhaps your folks did
-> #not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand his point
-> #of view conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and
-> #ask Mr. Nyiko himself.
-> 
-> I don't need to - I read Nyikos' article when it
-> appeared.  You should, too.  You'd look like much
-> less of an idiot if you refrained from commenting
-> until you had done so.

i don't think that's true, susan. mr. dick has posted
to t.a. in the past and always looked just as much of
an idiot as he did here.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:12:26 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  <1992Aug31.175638.6745@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.025135.10239@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

(Susan already responded to this, so I won't bother duplicating what she
said.  I just wanted to point out the following: )

> > The fact that Colautti v. Franklin
> > struck down a law requiring this because the law did not clearly
> > indicate that the woman was more important than the fetus in no
> > way invalidates this.
>
> That's not the reason why the law was struck down.  It was struck
> down because the law was vague.

What's the difference between "not clear" and "vague"?

One of the reasons given in the opinion was:
  The statute does not clearly specify, as appellants imply, that the
  woman's life and health must always prevail over the fetus' life and
  health when they conflict.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Inturdgent whines about media bias (Was: King/Astro Boy?)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:37:58 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Sep1.202240.11972@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

My guess is that this post came from Inturdgent himself.  
Notice once again he fails to be able to spell intelligence:

>The debate is
>because of the many intellegence bugs within the Astro_Boy AI
>program...
 
I have never denied that the media is biased against pro-lifers.
I just said I enjoy to hear your whining about it, as if you should
have fair representation.  For a bunch of raving fetus fanatics,
I personally think the media gives you much more attention than
your cause warrants.  I'm sure groups such as the KKK and the 
American Nazi party are unhappy with their media coverage.  But 
thats the price you pay when you support crazed fringe movements.
You have every right to say what you want, you have no right to an
audience to preach to.

You are also confused Inturdgent, it is you that lost the challenge.
I have told you on a number of occasions not to worry about the
100 bucks you owe.  I am aware how long it would take to save up that
kind of money on your paper route and if you go to your parents for
the money, who knows, they may cut you out of that inheritance that
is so important to you.  You got any little brothers or sisters who
would get thrilled to tears if your parents cut you out?  Kind of 
heart warming and all to see you get so thrilled your brother and
parents don't get along, cause that means more inheritance for you.
Is that what your republican cronies meant by family values?
 
I actually admire the Rush-man.  He took what was a one note joke 
and turned it into an enterprise.  He took his joke and convinced a
bunch of pre-adolescent little boys to follow him.  Listening to him
lately, he seems to have forgotten its a joke though.  It sounds
like all his little followers have convinced him to lead.  I 
guess you didn't realize Rush is a joke.  
 
So you took me out of your kill file.  What happened to your claim
that you only run and hide from the strongest?  Are you now
retracting that claim, or are there others stronger than me that
you wanted to put in your kill file?
 
Speaking of retractions, I notice you are no longer lying about 
your parents system administrator, Mr. Smith, contacting me.  How
come you stopped lying about that?
 
Dan King
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Doug, this one's for you! (Re: Question for Larry Margolis)
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:27:48 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Why should anyone accept your pro-abortion sources, like the Alan
>Guttmacher Institute and the National Abortion Federation, if
>you're unwilling to accept unbiased sources from anyone who
>disagrees with you?

Doug, I've asked once, now I'm asking again, what sources? Or will you
continue whining and not answer, for what ever perversion that may satisfy
for you.

Of course, I might have made your killfile, or iritated you to the point
of ignoring me, but others will see this request (I know Larry has,
whom you read) and perhaps repost it for your perusal. I'm not sorry
that I blasted your whining misquotations. Just to clariify things.
:)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cut to the Quick
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:30:17 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

>Narlen growls:

>...for those of you who support abortion: You are all _wrong_!

>One-time abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson (?) did over 55,000
>abortions, before he realized he was _wrong_; so it is very obvious
>that all you pro-choice (murder) individuals will not heed the Truth
>through this thread; ...too bad.

Oh, I get it.  Just because one person had a mental breakdown, we all
should.  

>There is much work to be done to stop abortion but you all are the
>wasting your lives defending a _lie_. Please get a life, and help
>save some, let's all stand together against this open season on
>babies.

What about the open season on women?  Where were you when my life was
at risk from a pregnancy?  Gee, life's not so simple, is it?
(Unless you really are the misogynist you appear to be, and you would
have simply preferred there to be one less pesky woman around).

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity