HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Oh, no, not again - the snake in the grass is back (was Re: The fundamental question of abortion)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:35:11 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.214115.22475@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717186973@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep20.183313.26829@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>>In  <nyikos.716939622@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> In <25192@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>>>
>>
>>>Would NFP be mandatory under your system?
>>
>>No, not at all.  However, I would like very much for sex education
>>courses to teach NFP alongside the other methods of birth control.
>>In fact, since it helps women to get in touch with their bodies, it
>>would make sex education a lot more meaningful than what passes for
>>sex education in most schools now.
>
>What is it with anti-choice men that they have this silly obsession
>with women 'getting in touch with their bodies?' Do they assume that
>most women park their body in a closet and come visit it once a week
>or something?

Obsession? All he was doing was talking about the purpose of NFP, Nadja. I
really think you're stoned today.


>I suggest that they get in touch with their own for a change. Balancing
>this natural new age mysticism morality crap on the backs of women 
>reminds me of the Iranian Revolution's fixation with making women,
>but not men, wear clothing defined by Islamic law.

Okay, I agree.
Use condoms. Since men are always fertile, we simply use condoms. Then NFP
might not even be necessary.

Then again, NFP is an option. But of course you don't want to see it
taught, right?

Are you one of those feminists who believe that every woman who has sex,
is actually being raped? (We'll have more documentation on this when the
9-25-92 edition of the Rush Limbaugh summary comes out on a.f.r-l.)


>Perhaps the anti-choice men are afraid that if we don't spend our time
>getting in touch with our bodies that we'll get in touch with our minds? :-)

Then put a big net in the toilet so you can catch your mind as it falls
out.

=============================================================================
-----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: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:32:21 GMT

In article <adams.718058718@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Before Roe v. Wade, there was never any Constitutional right for 
>>an individual to kill a human being.
>Self defense.
While every murder law I know of makes an exception for self defense,
I know of no case law which suggests that this is a Constitutional right.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:13:26 GMT

In article <3821@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>... 2) Men who impregnate women should be held
>to the same level of responsibility by law.  

Oh? What if the impregnation and subsequent childbirth was effected by the 
woman's fraud, deception, coercion, or just plain negligence? Do we reward 
this behavior by artificially limiting her child support liability? Is this 
wise social policy? What if the parents freely and voluntarily entered into a 
contract specifying child support liabilities, should such a contract be 
honored as other kinds of contracts are? Isn't there a Constitutional right 
to contract? Would you forbid the practice of anonymous sperm donorship?

Please consider the issue and all of its facets carefully before you make
sweeping generalizations such as the above...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: CWA Membership (was: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:19:59 GMT

In article <1050@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <JYM.92Sep22101720@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>=x= But even if the claims about CWA's membership are uncharac-
>>teristically accurate, their relevance escapes me.  Polls of the
>>American public -- and most especially American women -- shows
>>that the views of NOW and NARAL have much, much greater support.
>
>Nonsense!  As near as I can tell, the public is almost evenly split on the
>issue, as evidenced by the vote in Washington.*  A majority is Pro-Choice,
>but a majority is also against any government funding of abortion or using
>abortion for birth control or sex selection.  As NOW and NARAL are for
>abortion on demand and for government funding of abortion, it is fair to
>say that they are just as extreme as those who would outlaw it.

That would amount to the fact that America holds a compromise
position: legal for rape/incest/deformity, illegal for birth control.

If you look at the stats: 
rape/incest/deformity = 7%
birth control = 93%

If put to a vote nationally, we would indeed have an abortion law that
would ban 93% of all abortions. Not to mention banning funding and
instituting parental consent. 

Pro-lifers on the extreme would not like that compromise, but I
guarantee you, the pro-choicers would be the biggest losers of all.


And one extra note:
The NOW packs about 250,000 members. The CWA packs about
700,000-750,000 members. How is it that if abortion is a woman's
issue, and CWA > NOW, someone can somehow justify that most women side
with the NOW? It is brutally contradicted by the fact that more women
are joining the CWA than the NOW, and the NOW is highly publicized and
the CWA is utterly ignored by the media. 

Which brings up one more question: How is it that the media
concentrates so much on the MOUSE (the NOW) when the TIGER (the CWA)
overshadows it?


-----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: a glimpse of chaney hall's veracity
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.173308.8090@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Here are a few instances:
>1) "I have DOCUMENTATION."
>2) "Chaney poses as Conrad Vincent."
>3) "I never said Chaney posts as Conrad Vincent."
>4) "Chaney is not at Nextnet." 
>5) "Steve Chaney likes Randall Terry." 
>6) "I am not a Klansman." 
>
>At least six lies right there have come out of PatricKKK Humphrey's
>mouth. 
You'd have to prove that Patrick said any of these. And that they
are untrue. You have article numbers?

I, myself, strongly suspect that Patrick is NOT a Klandman.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40705 talk.religion.misc:17690 alt.atheism:18411
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:23:54 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<nyikos.718162206@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Sep30.072730.14377@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
...
>>You know, I threw a couple of pieces of bacon in a hot frying pan once.
>>They sizzled and popped, writhed and curled up, they even changed color.
>
>>I never thought at any time that they were aware and feeling pain.  Do you?
>
>You're a sick man, Gordon.

Oh, and I suppose you eat your bacon raw.  BTW, when you throw an egg in a
hot frying pan it does pretty much the same thing.  Do you think it means
it's alive?  I never tried sperm-in-the-pan (YECH!) but it would seem to
me that the same sort of thing would happen.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and 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: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:46:41 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
->James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> why would anyone care if a person like you, who has
->> lied about people who considered you a friend, respected
->> someone or not? you've demonstrated that your respect is
->> as worthless as your word.

->You can, no doubt, document this?

sure can. i'm surprised you missed it when it was posted months
ago. as i said to eric yesterday, feel free to send me email on
it. or if you'd prefer send email to suzanne_lucia who was one
of the victims, or to rocker.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.peeves,soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Another Answer from Miss Drieux
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:27:46 GMT
Organization: A Suffusion of Yellow

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes: 
| 
| but the criterion for these are completely different.

"the criterion for these are completely different"?  Geez, Drieux, your
stuff is hard *enough* to read when your grammar is proper.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran, Data General Corporation, RTP, NC   |
|cochran@dg-rtp.dg.com                             |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|Dr. Pavlov's distinguished career came to an      |
|abrupt end one day when the doorbell rang and the |
|dog ate the Avon lady.                            |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:43:10 GMT

From article <1992Sep27.024749.11342@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> from the archives .......
> 
>         "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.)


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politcs,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Does George Know that HeteroSexuality is a DeathKult?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:08:26 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

] Clever logic!  I wonder if this is what Mrs. Bush meant when she said,
] "Sex is death!"

or is this just one of those braCallythings....

ciao
drieux

ps: we old guard members of the GOP do 
not make reference to that Vile Vegetation,
as it is offensive to our President....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:31:26 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Sep30.161227.1760@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

   In article <SCOTTS.92Sep24223636@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (A member of the TSAKC Communus Brigade, Borg designation Communus 3rd of 5) who calls himself Scott Safier, writes:

Oh, where to begin:

1) I am deeply honored that Chaney not only named me after a borg, but
one that showed humanity instead of just automaton-like thinking.  Did
you choose to name me after a borg to imply some kinship with me,
perhaps as an attempt to come out and come to terms with your latent
homosexuality?

2) Chaney even invented a new word "communus".  At first I thought he
might mean "communis", which is the parent word of modern day
"commune", "community", etc..., but we all know that Chaney is never
wrong.  Just ask him.

3) Why this attribute is here when his post is in reply to Susan's
post, I don't know.  I guess Chaney/Hall does quote later in his post
some things I wrote, but his "rebuttal" to Susan comes between this
attribution and anything I wrote.

   >   >   3) That I am Dennis Hall. 
   >   >
   >   >Prove that you are Steve Chaney.
   >
   >   I really think that we should have a contest to see who could
   >   produce the most convincing Chaney post.
   >
   >Well, stay awake for about 150 hours, have several sessions of
   >electro-shock therapy, forget how to spell and forget your name, and I
   >bet you could write a pretty good Chaney post.

   Hell, to do a good Scott Safier post, all I have to do is shove my brain
   where the sun don't shine and read the Second Amendment to the US
   Constitution while smoking Bill Clinton cigarettes with crossed eyes after
   downing 2 full kegs of Bud Light. Under bad lighting, of course.

I would never drink Bud Light. :-)

   >Well Susan, you are a "mouth".  Bet you thought you would never get
   >Chaney/Hall, did you?

   Bogus can't get anybody. 

Then why did you decide to now broadcast your sexual-orienation to
net-land?  Susan is the person that pointed it out, after all.

   And you're probably attracted to her, Scott. What else needs to be said
   about Bogus?

Susan is a righteous babe, and any man on the net would be proud to be
associated with her.  As for attracted, don't worry Stevie-poo, I'm
still a meat-eater.  I haven't become a vagitarian yet.

   >Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
    ^^^^^^^^
   Yeah, just as we thought: another computer virus on USENET.

Mr. Chaney/Hall, what are you talking about now?  Do you know what a
computer virus is?

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I love my son and I think this shows we don't hate anybody."
Phyllis Schlafly on homosexuality, San Francisco Examiner (9/28/92) 

PS.  See Chaney, Phyllis will still love you even though you are gay.
From: spinoza@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (J. Skorecki-Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:48:37 GMT

In article <15820@umd5.umd.edu> spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (J.  
Skorecki-Weiss) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.211442.10398@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu  
> (Stephennis Chahallaney, the Borgoid Propeller Idiot) blathers on a bit  
> with drivel about how Patrick is a Klansman, etc. then actually says  
> something that would seem to apply to reality, and himself:
> > Someone is missing a bunch of their marbles there, and whoever it is,  
> needs
> > help.
> 
> Absolutely true, Stevennis, how true that is. It's a relief that you've  
> finally acknowledged what just about everyone from BOTH SIDES has been  
> saying for some time (with the exception of the NetClowns, Petey and  
> Cinder). Since you seem to have missed this vital bit in the past [and  
at  
> the risk of flames from Mr. Overpeck, defender of the medical profession  
> extraordinaire], lemme reiterate for ya: a person who thinks that he is 
> 1. a propeller aircraft
> 2. a jet aircraft
> 3. a fictional cyborg-type creature
> 
> is most likely not dealing with a full deck. That is to say, there is a  
> strong possibility that the individual in question is coping with some  
> sort of mental deficit [Mr Overpeck: I spoke to Mother about this  
[didn't  
> mention names, just asked "hypothetically". She's a nurse who has worked  
> at not only St. Elizabeth's, but also several locked wards in local  
> hospitals. While she declined to diagnose you without further  
examination, 
Sorry about the "you" in previous sentence, Mr. Overpeck. Was meant to be  
for Mr. Chaney. Please accept humble apology. 
 
cordially,
j skorecki-weiss
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40862 talk.religion.misc:17755 alt.atheism:18448
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Date: 6 Oct 1992 20:40:27 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct6.181357.7014@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu writes:
|nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|>I believe (I may be wrong) that the
|>last vestige of organized Gnosticism became extinct with the 
|>completion of the crusade against the Albigensians.
|Got me.
|It certainly is true that Gnostic Christianity was ultimately driven
|out of existence by what is now referred to as Orthodox Christianity
|(not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox church).

I would think Gnosticism got wiped out much, much earlier than
the Albigensians did.  They were, ur, 13th century or so, and
the Gnostics were very early.  Any modern Gnostics would be
participating in a revival.  I have no idea whether the same is
true of Wicca.

Not sure what this has to do with talk.abortion, so I'm
getting followups to t.r.m.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The only thing more foolish & wasteful than having a bunch of engineers 
avoiding user testing by sitting around arguing about what users will 
or will not do is to have the same bunch of engineers spend their 
nights and weekends drawing icons that look like bugs."
    --"Tog on Interface" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:53:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <5696@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Taken from an article by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
>?mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>?>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

>?>Try this on for size.
>?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

>How about replacing "responsible" with "convienient"?

Naw...

>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
>I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
>ggod enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.

How much ggod does one need to be?

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:36:59 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>->>->Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
->>->>->of he who propounds them.
->>->>that being the case, there was absolutely no
->>->>reason for you to blatently assert that my answer
->>->>was not an answer, ws there?
->>->Sure. To point out the vacuity of your argument.
->>
->>then you're withdrawing your statement above, "Arguments
->>stand and fall ...." i take it?
->Nope. Why would I be?

to avoid posting a statement and then contradicting
it in your next post on the same thread.

->> i'm not at all
->>surprised. i didn't think you meant it when you
->>wrote it.
->Then you were wrong.

aha. a double reverse. do you have any idea of what
you meant?

->> no need for you to apologize.
->Why would I apologize?

now that i consider this further, you wouldn't.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:21:49 GMT

In <1992Sep27.205914.6734@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>In article <p90nwq+.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>Kendig) writes:
>Eric writes:
>> Brian writes:
>> Eric writes:
>> >Brian writes:
>> >>Eric writes:

{I thought this dialogue could use a third opinion.}

>> >> Ah, okay, then.  So you're saying that if a fertilized egg divides
>> >> into three individual developing humans, then only one of them is a
>> >> 'person'.  After all, there was only one 'person' to start with, and
>> >> since there was only one conception between one egg and one sperm,
>> >> there was never the opportunity to bring more 'people' into the
>> >> situation.
>> >
>> >No.  You would have three persons...but unless and until it splits, you
>> >only have one.
>> 
>> Huh?  Okay, so where do the other two 'persons' come from?  

>They came as a result of the split.

This borders on inconsistency, which is why I place the beginning of
personhood where there is some consciousness, no matter how fragmentary,
because then we can speak of there being "somebody home," in the apt
words of Elizabeth Bartley. [I just think she is way off-base in thinking
this only can occur at mylenation.]

>>  You said
>> 'personhood' starts at conception, so obviously there's only one
>> 'person' involved here.  

>Another way one may be able to think about it would be that if the split
>did in fact occur, there there in reality two people involved from the
>start.  Just because we didn't detect that, doesn't mean that they both
>weren't there.

This is an interesting possibility, calling to mind "The Three Faces of
Eve," "Sybil," etc. -- multiple persons in the same body, if that is
really what was occurring, and not just one person undergoing radically
altered states of consciousness.

>But at the moment of the split, there are now two persons involved.

>> Or are you adding more qualifications on when
>> 'personhood' begins? 

>If you think I am being silly, please explain in a rational, logical
>fashion, why this is so.  I'll be
>waiting...

Well, you are leaving out at least one possibility, which is that 
(in at least many cases) personhood comes after the splits and not 
immediately after, nor before.

Of course, legally speaking, we have to deal with empirically
verifiable criteria, so that I tend to place personhood right
about where brain waves can be detected, which is well after the
overwhelming majority of "twinnings," if not all.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40674 alt.abortion.inequity:4255