HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:04:30 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Nyikos
>> Ferrari
>>> Nyikos
>>>> Adrienne Regard

>>Not misleading.  I believe Adrienne realizes that beinng alive is more than
>>simply having a heartbeat.

>Now you seem to be misstating my views.  I never said anything about a 
>heartbeat being necessary or sufficient for being alive.  

As for a hearbeat being "necessary" to be connsidered alive, you would be
absurd to claim otherwise.  As for a heartbeat being "sufficient for being
alive," you may not have claimed this outright, but it is strongly implied
in your conntinued insistence that abortion should be restricted to the point
of virtual illegality, while at the same time REFUSING to advocate any
relief to the woman of this burden you have laid upon her: government-
finnanced prenatal care, government-mandated maternnity leave, food stamps
and education vouchers for all pregnant women and mothers, government-
financed day care, and thousands of dollars to each pregnant woman or
mother for maternnity clothes and baby items, among other things.  

>Also, you seem to miss Adrienne's point.  She accuses me of feeling quite
>free to stake a woman's life on a continued pregnancy.  But I do make
>exception for conditions endangering a woman's life, and Adrienne knows
>that by now, or should.

Quite the contrary.  The POINT is:

You would allow abortion if the life of the mother is at stake.  You would
not, however, have any qualms about dooming her to a life of abject poverty
due to loss of job or education, and the many miseries that accompany such
a scenario.  In other words, you suffer from the delusionn that "life" can
be defined as a mere heartbeat, not as the whole set of experiences that it
is.  "Life" transcends the physical.  I for one know that if you had deprived
me of my college education, you would have deprived me of my LIFE: the
reasonably worry-free life that I subsequently earned and now enjoy.
-- 
"We have seen pictures, where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If 
there's water, that means there's oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can 
breathe." - Dan Quayle, talking about Mars.
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Date: 10 Sep 1992 13:08:52 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <4efqWEC00iUx42F1NT@andrew.cmu.edu>, ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
> Notes on a few disingenuous arguments from Mark Ira Kaufman:
> 
> 1.  The woman with limited financial resources should have spent them on
> contraception.  A condom costs 25 cents, maybe 50 at an expensive gas
> station.

Oh, c'mon... I don't even think those things work... Most of the
labels say "For Use as a novelty item only..."

And besides, would you actually USE something from a gas station
bathroom?

> 2.  Okay, you guessed it.  The Pennsylvania legislature just wanted to
> get poor women.  That's the goal of all of us in life.  COME ON!  The
> intent of the law, and the effect of the law, is to place restrictions
> on abortion.

Which we don't need anyhow.

> 
> 3.  All the picture tell how far through the pregnancy the fetus was.  A
> woman knows how far in her own pregnancy she was and can make her own
> assumptions.  The pictures show that there really is something alive
> inside of her, and give her an idea of what it is.

I remember news reports from way back about how pro-lifers use
pictures of 8-month-old fetuses, and say that they are only 3
or 4 months old, to scare the potential mothers. (This was on
the local news here in Washington, DC about 2 yrs. ago.).

> The simple fact
> is, nobody has to have an abortion.  There are alternatives all along
> the way, starting even before conception with the purchase of a condom
> or a spermicidal jelly or anything else.

Again, that's not true. Contraceptives fail. Even sterilization
operations fail. Women get raped. There are many good reasons for
BOTH RU-486, and abortion. I hope you never have to find that out
firsthand, though...

-- Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion, not my employer's
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Should Victims of Hard Drug Abuse Be allowed to Post?
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:18:31 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <1992Sep9.130306.25619@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>I take great offence at this.  It has not been shown, nor is there 
>any evidence that abusers of hard drugs are in any way impaired to 
>be moderators...

However, it's an entirely different matter when choosing an abortionist.

Beware of old Dr. Shakey who likes to do up a speedball, and then chase
the patient around the room with a Dustbuster.

>In article <1992Sep9.105507.3574@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com 
>(drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>}ps: now watch some pinhead whine about how I might
>}be maligning hard drug abusers as not being the same
>}sort of competent persons as all the rest of us.....
>
>didn't want to let you down...

People who abuse Seconal make good moderators, as they don't get in
the way.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:43:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.181406.7829@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.004317.17482@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
># >##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
># >##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
># >##  we want to be precise)..."
># >##    -- Gloria Feldt,
># >##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
># 
># >##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
># >##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
>
># Quiz: How would you respond to: 
># "My logic is based on... a religious perspective that life begins at
># conception." - Catholic priest. 
>
>In fact,  I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement,
>for the exactly the same reasons I see nothing extreme or
>reprehensible about Ms. Feldt's statement.
>
>There -- you may now add me to the list.

Add me too.

Vickie (katefans@chinet.chi.il.us)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 19:29:48 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sf>In article <1992Sep11.201248.23414@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
ph>article by patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
 
ph> Just not to Chaney, though, because he wouldn't accept
ph> anything from me in anything but bad faith, anyway.  Watch and see how
ph> Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up -- mainly so he can *brag*
ph> about it...

sf>Humphrey, you did not insult me, so I don't want your apology.  You insulted
sf>Chaney, so I want you to apologize to _him_.   Chaney is NOT the only one
sf>who brings it up.  He IS the only one you slung your insult at though, and
sf>the only one you owe your apology to.  Because you apologized to a bunch of
sf>other people you didn't owe an apology to anyway, doesn't count for beans.

I don't believe if Patrick apologizes to Challney is really any of my
business.  But I do have a wee bit of a problem bringing myself to
feel a whole bunch of sympathy to the little guy for the racial slur
against him.  

Just a few examples of the official virus's slurs at others follow.  I'd say
they deserve an apology just as much as Challney.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1992Aug3.203538.12050@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
[This is directed toward Patrick Humphrey and game prior to Patrick's
racial slur]

Oh, I wish you were right up in my face, punk. I'd say it to your face
just as soon as look at you. And I'll tell you to your face that your
mother works for the sperm bank collecting donations. And then I'll
recognize you as Humphrey the Humpback Whale who keeps wandering up
California rivers, lost again during his trip in the ocean. And then
I'll remind you of all the _lies_ you've been spouting off about me on
USENET.  

Mad yet, asshole? 

In article <1992Aug5.003112.4914@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
[In a response to Don Porter]

Go ahead, asshole. See how badly your stupid self gets pounced on when
you try to weasel out of this!  

Mainly because they keep pushing dead points that I keep thrashing,
and when I do it, I smash their fragile ego's after having taken more
attacks from them than you could count on a mainframe. Get this
straight, punk: no one attacks me on this newsgroup without me getting
vicious, right back. No one.

You want to feel the heat from me, asshole, then fine. I'll char you
right out of this world and _STILL_ prove you wrong. I don't play
games. I play cut-throat on this newsgroup - one slip and I'll tear
you to little shreds and toss you out with the next day's garbage.
That seems to be how you guys treat me, so that's how I treat you

In article <1992Sep10.004317.17482@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

Class over. 
This is how you put a complete and total end to a complete and total
asshole like Susan Garvin.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: for bill overpeck
Keywords: is therapy needed?
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:10:05 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.


        "I haven't noticed any behavior from either
        Chaney or Holtsinger that would indicate a need
        for psychiatric evaluation."
		<1992Sep2.191938.5951@acd4.acd.com>

might i refer you to the following articles. if you
don't have them, i'll be happy to email them to you.

	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151356.9274@csus.edu>
	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151810.9463@csus.edu>
	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152330.9676@csus.edu>
	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152723.9942@csus.edu>

after you read them, i wonder if you might not want to
amend your statement.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:41:24 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[re: will steeves]
-> In fact, I wrote of him in soc.men that he is
-> exactly the kind of person I am glad is involved in
-> the abortion debate.  I feel the same way about
-> "Jammer Jim" Miller and Elizabeth Bartley.

of course you do, silly. they're all anti-choicers who
agree with you.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Keywords: National Abortion Federation = Pro-abortion??  
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:33:13 GMT

In article <nyikos.715648645@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <8yxyyyd@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> I didn't expect you to rely on what appears to be a pro-abortion 
>>> organization for your claims.  

>> Ummmmm, you're demanding "unbiased" (according to _your_ criteria)
>> sources now?

>> Why don't we see these same demands when Nyikos quotes clearly
>> ANTI-abortion organizations?

> You see them all the time, from Larry Margolis, Susan Garvin,
> Adrienne Regard.....  

Oh no, Mr. Nyikos, Margolis doesn't demand unbiased sources,
he merely labels sources as "speculation" when they don't
agree with his opinion!  But it's a funny thing how the 
"speculation" appears in prestigious law journals like the 
Harvard Law Review. 


>Peter Ny.


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:22:28 GMT


In article <1992Sep5.221714.17348@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>Summary: Don isn't just PC-Challenged, he's a stupid idiot.
>Keywords: idiot, asshole, shit-for-brains, moron.  Did I leave out anything?

>"We're sorry.  Wacker The K is unavalable to take calls from idiotic assholes
>such as yourself at the moment.  If you'll leave your name, address, and a
>brief message, he'll get back to you after he gets done ensuring that his
>wife knows he loves her, regardless of the circumstances.  This is a
>recording."

When you've returned to (or first achieved) a reasonable emotional level,
I'd be happy to discuss these issues further.  Until then, don't take
a lack of response to be any sort of agreement with your flames.  And if 
we don't "correspond" again, I doubt the world will be any the worse.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: The Society for Putting Things On Top Of Other Things
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:28:13 GMT

[Conrad's completely clueless re-post of Chaney's ravings -- to add one
mindless line of his own at the bottom -- deleted]

We don't have "newsfeed problems", Conrad.  Thanks for wasting your time
and accomplishing nothing, though -- it's something you're good at...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
+1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. (No more Hermann -- Dale Ann's OUT!) 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
  (Except for this one:  BEAT THE *&^%$#@! OUTTA TEXAS!!! We both share that.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:18:00 GMT

In article <BuDJzy.CEs@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>
>"Your honor, my religion requires that I shoot Ronald Bense 
> in the head.  Am I free to practice freedom of religion?"

<Fit of Laughter> 

Absolutely right, Don. 

>Freedom of religion does not give anyone free reign to harm
>other people.

That's why they hurried up and made the z/e/f a "non-person." 

As a person, abortion would be highly illegal. 


-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:29:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.230934.26108@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> We eat other people??? How nauseating! :) (depending on what other people:)

>Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
>a form of cannibalism.
I would suggest that this is dubious at best. Typically, cannibalism
is viewed as EATING human flesh.

However, if we extend it this far, we've clearly included organ transplantation
and I think arguably blood transfusions. To do so effectively robs
the term "cannibal" of any shock value.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:14:15 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


Steve,
 
When you start to pretend your important, do you stick out your
chest as far as you can and talk in the whiny, excited Rush Limbaugh
voice?  I'm just kind of curious how much of Rush's radio persona
are you trying to use.  Dennis, the man is joking.  He is getting
filthy rich of you little pimply faced pre-adolescent boys, but 
its all a joke that you all seem to fail to get. I'm sure he is 
surprised as anyone that so many of you little boys are taking 
him so seriously.  All you Rush wannabes are making the man 
filthy rich.  And I'll guarantee to you little guy, that he is
laughing at you all the way to the bank.  Perhaps when you grow
up and get a wee bit closer to adulthood, you will finally get
the joke he is playing on you.
 
Since you have been pushing for truth from others, I'm sure I 
missed your apology and retraction for lying about me.  Remember
where you were making the bogus claim that I had communicated 
with your parents system administrator, Mr. Smith.  You lied 
when you said that, and I haven't seen the apology. If it
was Mr. Smith that lied to you about me, then I guess I should
contact him to find out why he would perpetuate such lies.
 
Keep them posting coming.  The last batch were great.  You 
are the champion of the pro-life movement.  I'm sure they are 
all deafly quite because they are just plain in awe of the
superior quality of your writing.
 
Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36487 alt.abortion.inequity:3728
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:18:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Just me.  Isn't that enough?

In article <3arnw4#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
>>># have babies without the kindness of a man.
>>>
>>>You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
>>
>>Yes, I did.  What do you think, my fingers slipped? :-)
>>
>>>I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
>>
>>Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?
>
>Many women (and men) would (and do) find deeply offensive your apparent 
>belief that rape could in any way be considered "the kindness of a man."

I'll pay YOU the $5.00 dollars if you can find ANY posting of mine that
EVER says that 'rape could in any way be considered "the kindness of a man."'

You won't collect, though, as you (and another person who leaped before
they read) have only the above statement to refer to and anybody (except
you, obviously) can see that rape is not mentioned at all in that statement.

>Were you to post such a viewpoint on talk.rape, I don't doubt for a moment 
>that your would hear from many who disagreed rather strongly with your 
>claim.  And yes, this is a fairly massive understatement.

If I posted such a viewpoint on talk.rape, I would have to be honest and
attribute it to you.  As it is your idea, not mine.

>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 17:13:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Never on Monday!

In article <1992Sep14.144941.4743@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <Bu43LD.71q.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>... Many men are feminists.  You can recognize them
>>by their actions - they treat women as equals, and work to
>>guarantee that no one is discriminated against because of
>>their gender.  They don't refer to women as "bitches," ...
>
>Oh, you mean sensitive, WarmAndFuzzy, co-nurturing types like Keith
>"I can't be a homophobe 'cuz I'm gay" Cochran, perchance?
>
>---
>
>"Gee, Suxanne the Bitch is back, ..."
>
>"Fuck off and die, bitch."
>
>		Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran
>		Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:05:51 GMT
>		<1992Sep1.000551.6171@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>
>---
>
>Oh, wait! I almost forgot: since Ms. Forgach is a member of a minority
>political viewpoint, we're all supposed to look the other way when men
>shower her with demeaning insults and/or vulgarities, right?
>
>Gotta love that unity. Gotta love that solidarity. Gotta love that double-
>delicious double-standard...
>
>Ptui.

Gotta love that blind faith in the maxim, "the enemy of my enemy is
my friend"...


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

(at least I'm not living on the southwest side of Ann Arbor and working all the
way on the opposite side of Detroit...I like getting from home to work in less
than 30 minutes.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:10:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.150225.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

}                What finally made it clear to me was this: 

He backs up, one day at a time, then:

}                I backed it up all the way to two cells--two distinctly human
}cells that in just 9 short months will be ...

Why stop there?  Why not back it up before then?  Why not back it up
to the lustful gleams?

}Then I decided that abortion is wrong.

Good for you.  You did not, however, explain why it should be illegal.

}There.  I tried to give my reasoning for being pro-life without going into the
}Biblical side of it.  

But are you in favor of making abortion illegal?  I understand that you
are pro-life, but are you also pro-choice?  There is no conflict with
being both unless you happen to spell "life" as "legislation," something
fairly common around here...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: In the Headlines...
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:24:25 GMT

I'm still not reading t.a. regularly, so please respond via email...

This morning's paper contained a front page story telling of plans
in the US Senate to pass a measure to overturn the "gag rule".  The
measure was described as one which would permit discussion of
abortions at federally funded family planning clinics.  However,
it was also noted that federally funded family planning clinics
would not be required to provide abortion counseling if that went
against the moral or religious convictions of the clinic.  Such
clinics would have to refer those asking about abortion to other
programs where they could get the desired information.

My question:  Does anyone out there have the language of the
Senate's measure?  I want to know if the Senate is trying to 
completely repeal Section 1008 of Title X (which bans Title X
funds from being "used in programs where abortion is a method of
family planning.") or is it just passing some measure clarifying 
the meaning of Section 1008 as allowing abortion counseling?

How narrowly or broadly is the Senate acting in its attempt to
overturn the gag rule?

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion