HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Why is Pitt Sponsoring AntiChristian Dogma...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:42:31 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] In <1992Nov7.204709.23908@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
] >] In article <1992Nov5.160559.18197@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] >] |In article <73744@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) 
] >] |writes:
] >] |
] >] |}For THE Christ and His Kingdom,
] >] |}Richard Pitts
] >] |
] >] |Richard Pitts will kill you if you don't heed him.
] >] 
] >] Could you give your logic on how you arrived at this conclusion?
] >] Or is it your bias against my view.  Remember I don't think
] >] MURDERING THE UNBORN is a noble nor correct thing to do.
] >] Others, maybe even yourself, think this murdering is ok, but no I.
] 
] >why is it that you wish to make persons of the UnBorn
] >in opposition to scriptures?
] 
] Where do you see the opposition, drieux?
 

Well supporting the SATANIC KULT of AntiAbortionism,
and siding against the bible in Favor of the FetalIdolators
over and against clear scriptures....

But I guess that is a point that may be confusing to you...


ciao
drieux

ps: ready to accept that the 'commandment' does not
say 'thou shall not kill' - or are you still confused
about whether or not a circle is like a triangle in
having two sides, an inside and an outside....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
From: cschuldt@library.calpoly.edu (Carol Schuldt)
Newsgroups: alt.adoption,talk.abortion
Subject: How to search?
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:44:30 GMT
Organization: Kennedy Library, Cal Poly, SLO

This is the first time I've ever posted to a newsgroup, so please forgive
any errors I might make.

I've been waiting for a group like this to appear.  I've been trying to decide
whether and/or how to try to find out about my birthparents for many years.
I have medical problems that are probably inherited, and my doctors would very
much like me to tell them my family history, which I can't do.

There is so little I know about my birth.  My adoptive parents didn't go through
an adoption agency back in 1949, they just went to court with a lawyer.  They 
don't even have any adoption papers, because the law office kept them in their
files.

I was born in Pasadena, Calif. in a hospital that has since burned down.  The
doctor who delivered me worked in Tujunga, CA and when I asked him for info
he said that he didn't really remember anything (he is very elderly).

My adoptive mother says that she thinks my birth mother's name was Adeleide
(maybe) Tweedt (not sure of the spelling) and that she was in her 30's and
had other children.  That would make her in her 70's today, if she is still
living.  

In California, birth records for adoptees are sealed and rarely reopened, as
far as I know.  

Does anyone have any ideas that would help me get information?  I have to 
mention that I don't have a lot of money to spend to hire an investigator.

Thanks to anyone who might help.  If my birthdate would help, its 4-24-49.

My husband and I adopted our son in 1983, and his birth mother was kind
enough to write him a letter with a lot of information in it while she
was in labor.  Although we never met, I feel very close to her and know
how much love it took to give up her beautiful baby boy.  I wish I could
thank her!

Well, I hope it didn't write too much.

Carol Schuldt
cschuldt@library.calpoly.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:17:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.020517.12397@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.721945583@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>Show me the statement of which you speak.
>
>Maybe somebody who has archives could do it.  I don't do archives.

I love this crap. Cochran doesn't "do" archives. Except, of course, when he 
reposts stale old crap from 1990, wherein I allegedly support forced abortion 
(NOT!). Cochran doesn't "do" email, except of course when he wants to refer to 
anonymous, virtual people who support his positions via email. He doesn't "do" 
support of a legal restriction on abortion, except of course when he "does".

Does Cochran "do" character? Does he "do" honesty? Does he "do" integrity? 
Just what does he "do", except offering to fist or "fork" male participants in 
talk.abortion, and "do"ing references to Kevin Welch having sex with his 
father, and "do"ing lewd references to Suzanne Forgach's "vaginal mucus", and 
persistently "do"ing vulgar perversions of her name? Is _this_ all that 
Cochran "does", I wonder?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:49:55 CST
 <1992Nov16.185223.13128@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <1992Nov17.015251.605@jetsun.weitek.COM> <1992Nov17.140112.28381@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov17.140112.28381@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
> 
> A baby's life *will* come to an end if it is aborted.

No babies are aborted.
 
> I'm not asking you to stop eating, sleeping, etc.  I'm not even asking 
> you to stop having sex.  I'm asking *everyone* to stop killing babies.
> Can you understand that??  There *is* a big difference.

Should there be a CFD for talk.infanticide to be created?  This happens
to be talk.abortion.

> And yes, I consider the death penalty (one of) my defenses to crime
> (it is also punishment as well).

How many criminals with life imprisonment have truly been a threat to your
life?  Maybe you have a worry that the nasty serial killer will break out
and slay you, but what are the chances?  The death penalty conveniently
erases any worries you may have had, no matter how silly those worries were.
And what sort of punishment is death unless it's slow and painful?
Seems to me the only people punished by a dead convict are his/her
family and friends.  Is there a talk.capital-punishment?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 3
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:29:48 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32733@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)

>>Such difficulties are forseeable and parents are obligated to deal
>>with them.  The issue you raised is whether that obligation should
>>include a legally-enforceable obligation to be an organ donor if need
>>be.  I said I didn't have a very strong view on the subject, but since
>>organ donations (unlike pregnancy) haven't become part of the
>>universal pattern of life they seem less eligible as a matter for the
>>imposition of legal obligations.

>Are the difficulties foreseeable or not?  How does an event
>qualify as part of what you have called the universal pattern of life?
>Exactly what percentage of the population need to be affected?

It is forseeable that children may have health problems; it is not
forseeable that the child will turn out to need an organ transplant
for which a parent is the sole available donor.  Obviously it's not
possible to give exact percentages in these matters.  However, each of
us exists as a result of a pregnancy that in almost all cases resulted
from an act of sexual intercourse.  The considerable majority of us
also cause pregnancies to occur as a result of such acts and
thereafter become parents.  I am told that the majority of pregnancies
are not specifically intended.

These circumstances seem to justify considering sex and pregnancy,
including unintended pregnancy, to be part of the general pattern of
things that all of us can be expected to take into account in thinking
about our lives in a way that turning out to be the sole available
organ donor is not.  Since the demands it is fair to place on people
depend in part on how people grow up thinking about their lives, it
strikes me that a distinction between prohibiting abortion and
requiring organ donations is appropriate.

Of course, there are other distinctions -- organ donations where a
parent is the only possible donor are exceptional, while pregnancies
in which the mother is the only possible person to bear the z/e/f are
the rule.  In addition, I think people are stricter about acts of
commission than acts of omission, and abortion seems to be the former
while failure to donate an organ seems to be the latter.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: The Perfesser Recycles Flames
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:01:30 GMT

Once again attempting to direct readers' attention away from discussions
about his shortcomings, the Perfesser appends a flame written to me at
the end of an article concerning his lack of understanding of attributions.
I'm surprised that he did this because his flame demonstrated that he had
no response to my statements about M. Price's, S. Forgach's and G. Storga's
discussion of the white hot rages of Jesus and His sufferings.  For example:

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> I have deleted almost everything.

Of course; after I'd demonstrated the effectiveness of Price's comments
on several levels, the shallowness of Forgach's remarks, the non-magical
quality of Storga's atheism and the condescending and patronizing tone
the Perfesser used with Ms. Rothman and her aunt, why would he want to
do anything but delete everything that would impede his flaming?

> Chris Lyman has noticed that I will go to great lengths to document the
> mendacity of Gordon Storga and M. Price and wants me to waste a couple
> of hours posting hundreds of lines demonstrating the mendacity of Chris
> Lyman.

The Perfesser seems to suggest that I'm figuratively hopping up and down,
shouting "Me too!  Me too!  I want a mendacity thread named after me!"
Geez, Perfesser, could you get me on "Wheel of Fortune" while you're at it?

> Sorry, Chris, it won't work.

This doesn't either, but nothing you've tried has worked.

> I've saved your post in case you make some serious charges against me
> that I think have a chance of being believed by anyone but a clueless
> newbie, but since you are such a nonentity on talk.abortion I don't
> think that will ever happen.

I have to wonder how one can pursue a successful academic career while
simultaneously being obsessed with nonentities.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:34:11 GMT

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

>Hmm.  Psychoanalyzing?  Is that what you're doing, Sarah?  Not 
>to worry; I'm not supposed to question the posts of net.women 
>anymore, lest I appear to "condescend" to them.  

>It must be somewhat reassuring when, in the absence of a sound 
>argument, one can simply hide behind allegations of "Misogyny!".  
>But then again, I suppose crying "Wolf!" is politically expedient, 
>at least in the short term.

Well good grief Overpeck, if you had nothing to say in response to
her post, whyever did you bother following it up?

>Bill

                   -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48846 alt.abortion.inequity:5206 soc.women:20040 soc.men:19676 alt.feminism:4779
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Electronic Monitoring (Was: A Hopeful Sign)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:17:28 GMT

From article by rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker):
> 
> I have a modest proposal. Two and a half years jail time imposes a
> consider expenditure upon the folks of Massachussetts, and this in itself
> may tempt some activists to risk the jail term. What I have in mind is to
> use this new electronic bracelet to confine clinic burners to their homes.
> If they wander, then shoot'em.  This works out best for both sides. For
> the Christian Martyrs it is a way to be with De Lawd, and for the rest of
> us it is good riddance.


You're a bit behind the times, Robert.  Electronic Monitoring is what alot
of folks, including my husband, do for a living.  Yup.  He tags criminals like
bears.  Only it's not bracelet, it's an anklet.  And you are gravely mistaken
to assume breaking curfue while on EM would bring one capital punishment.
It only earns one a return to jail.   (Oh yeah.)

SF
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:46:37 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.004440.19764@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>Before invasive surgery became
>commonplace, before antibiotics and sterile technique,
>when C sections were very rare because they were very
>dangerous, this was not just a rhetorical question.  A
>fetus whose head was too large to pass through the
>vagina represented a very real threat to the life of
>the woman.  The medically indicated procedure was to behead
>the fetus and save the woman's life.  Some doctors refused
>to do it, based on their belief that the fetus was more
>valuable than the woman.  If someone who lived in an isolated
>area took this action today, believing it to be safer than
>performing major surgery undernon-sterile condition, I wouldn't want
>that person to be prosecuted for manslaughter.  I wonder
>if Fischer would.

I think to call a mature baby in the birth canal a foetus is stretching the
term.  This is a baby being born.  It is certainly offensive to say that the
baby is more important than the woman - but is it any less offensive to say
the woman is more important than the baby?  I, for one, am prepared to say
that they are equally important.  I would wish to see both being treated as
patients - and this is the normal medical attitude during birth.

Having said that, I can't offhand think of any related restrictions which
would be warranted and workable, and which wouldn't hinder the medical
profession, thereby putting women at risk.

>I would encourage people who support restrictions to
>think through their reasoning again, too.
>
>Susan

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 03:26:00 GMT


[followups to talk.abortion]

In article <Ef2zRZq00WBLE4rVkJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
|Boy do you have some messed up ideas!  
|You think abortions should be used as a source of birthcontrol if
|necessary?!?  

Why not?  If contraception fails, what else do you recommend to
a woman who wishes not to be pregnant?

|And that the practice of abstinence is a ridiculous
|solution?!?!!  Wow you're confused.  

Do you really think it's reasonable to ask all the married
couples in the world to refrain from having sex if they don't
want any more children?  Do you really think you will succeed in
convincing people not to have sex?  Or could it be that you're
recommending a course that is totally unworkable & unrealistic,
and therefore ridiculous?

|Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  

Think about it this way:  Abstinence is a remarkably bad method
of birth control if people find it so unpleasant they refuse to
use it.

|It's obviously the only 100% certain method.  

What happens when a woman is raped?  
And haven't you forgotten about surgical sterilization?  

[...]
|Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 

A great recommendation.  Everybody be prepared to deal with
orgasm!  That's the #1 most likely consequence of sex, after
all.  (Especially when the participants use birth control, avoid
any penis/vagina contact, or are of the same sex.)  And sex
usually entails helping your partner(s) reach orgasm, too.
Everybody be prepared to help out!  Take responsibility for your
orgasms!

|Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
|will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
|result from sex, either.

Um, what horrible diseases result from sex?  What horrible havoc
will sex within a monogamous relationship wreak upon the
unfortunate couple?  You seem confused.  Some diseases are
*spread* by sex, but not *caused* by them.

|Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
|already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
|of you?

a) We've actually had sex.
	or
b) We've actually had adult relationships.
Take your pick.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"'Nonsense, errant nonsense, as ever was talked!' cried Knightley." 
						-- Jane Austen
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:04:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.113358.2759@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

}           What sense does it make to say you are bound by yourself?

I always thought it was pretty good advice to know your limitations
and your capabilities.  I guess you think that is nonsense to  
consider them "bounds"...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim's logic problems extend beyond mere equivalence.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:18:40 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32957@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>I don't know by what bizarre reasoning
>you have equated consensual sex and drunk driving, but by the same
>bizarre reasoning you seem to want to conclude that women who are
>forced to have sex should not be treated like criminals.

I don't understand the grounds for the assertions you make well enough
to continue the discussion.  You were the one who raised the analogy
between drunk driving and sex.  As I've pointed out repeatedly,
responsibility for one's acts is not necessarily punishment so
prohibiting abortion where the pregnancy is due to the voluntary act
of the woman is not necessarily treating the woman as a criminal.

I participate in talk.abortion to develop my own views by dealing with
the views of others.  There's a limit to how much I can get out of
dealing with an ill-tempered dogmatist who fails to respond to what is
said.  So I'm adding your name to my (very large) kill file for the
group.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48332 alt.abortion.inequity:5156
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:18:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <h=x1ctd@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
#->And this from our own Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos who *just* before this
#->article told James Keegan that he didn't lie about adrienne regard.
#
#hell, if he can lie about you and susan garvin, there's
#no reason why he can't lie to me.
#
#perhaps he's displaying misogyny when he lies about
#women and only lies to men. wait a minute! didn't he
#lie about dean? never mind.

I think that he's lied about a lot more people than just
Adrienne, Dean and I.  (And I really hope that Dean will
write a song about the three of us - I like the way that
sounded.)  I think that it's time for everyone else in
the group to step forward.  We can form one of the most
non-exclusive clubs in the world.

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:42:05 GMT

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
# I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
# 
#    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
#    authority that grants you this right?

Same authority that gives me the right to call you a buffoon.

Go ahead, Mr. Ceccarelli 602/621-9615, pull on that thread.  I wanna
see you face light up in horror when you realize just what's on the
other end.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Newsgroups: alt.adoption,talk.abortion
From: gix@mdd.comm.mot.com (Brian Gix)
Subject: Re: Adoption is an answer
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:45:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.162934.9510@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:
>
>|>I'm glad to see that alt.adoption was finally created. I just hope
>|>it doesn't turn into alt.dear-abby like some other groups |^).  
>|>
>Me too :-)
>
>|>For the last few years I have watched the anti-abortion factions
>                                               ^^^^^^^^
>Don't you mean Pro-Life or should we refer to Pro-Choice people as 
>anti-life. This is ridiculus...
>
Please keep talk.abortion OUT of alt.adoption....  The last thing we need
is another flame group...  Adoption is an emotional enough issue without
the added complications for bringing abortion into it.  I have a number
of friends involved somehow in adoptions, on both sides of the Choice/Life
issue, and we realize that the issues are completely seperate.

Adoption for many of us is a fact of life... The fact that an adoption
took place is real, and a choice made many years ago has already been
made and no longer matters.  I'd like alt.adoption to be a look toward
to future, and not dwelling over decisions already long past.

Please note the follow-up to talk.abortion.  This is simply to end the cross
posts, and not intended to be net-cop action.

--Brian

-- 
--Brian Gix                       Motorola
  gix@mdd.comm.mot.com            Mobile Data Division
  (206) 487-5894                  #include <disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion