HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:12:01 GMT

> = (Mark Wilson) writes:
>> = (Michael Polen) writes:

>>Mark Wilson) writes:
>>So if we redefine the fetus as someone who steals nutrients, sucks blood,
>>assaults the bladder, causes illness, blocks access to the work place,
>>denies travel, etc.  will it make you happy.

>You still have to get past the fact that except in cases of rape or
>incest, you are dealing with an invited guest.

(Wearily...) No, and I'm sick of this lie.  Failed birth control, for
example, is NOT inviting a child or pregnancy, Mr.
I-really-want-to-punish-women-for-sex-the-hell-with-the-fetus.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41118 alt.sex:32193 alt.politics.homosexuality:6354 soc.singles:27159
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Wednesday, 7 Oct 1992 11:47:51 PST
From: <JMH@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this Picture....
 <PETRI.WESSMAN.92Oct4225923@hydroman.hut.fi>

< Petri tries to make some sense out of Drieux" post. >
Ah Petri, havent you heard of Dri(eu)vel?
Perhaps you have heard of 'k' as a remedy?
                       Jim
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-life NRL symbolism and terminology
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:01:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: You expect me to keep your keywords line?

In article <1992Oct12.012711.19168@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

[Suzanne's blather about "Our Lady of Guadalupe" deleted]

#Jesus was born in South America?
#
#Huh?

Large numbers of extremist Roman Catholics seem to be worshipping
this particular incarnation of the Virgin Mary these days.  The
protesters from Steubie U. all wear little OLoG buttons as they
harass, and at least one outsized portrait appears with each
group.  They pass out some pamphlets about her - evidently the
woman speaks perfect English and is obsessed with abortion.

I heard that Mary was supposed to appear at a gay bookstore
in NYC last month.  I don't know if she did or not.

Susan



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41381 alt.politics.bush:8199
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 1992 18:07:53 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Bvrz74.7yt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
>bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I always wonder about this.  You know, like how often has Bruce really heard
about women's rights?  Like how often has he actually considered the facts
and the arguments presented in women's rights 'shit'?

I usually find that people who are 'sick and fucking tired' of an argument
are merely using that convenient language to ignore an argument they cannot
refute.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Useful Delimiters of the Debate
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:33:52 GMT

In <1992Oct11.175920.7192@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>There's a lot of difference.  Before birth, you can't see the "WarmCuteFuzzy
>UnbornChild" without the use of a lot of sophisticated electronic equipment.

>After birth, it's easy to see the child with your own two eyes.

Sounds like an argument for killing in the dark.

"On these grounds is sentence pronounced: that though the
light has come into the world, men have shown they prefer 
darkness to the light because their deeds were evil." --John 3:19

>Birth (to me) defines a _natural_ point where personhood begins.  Before
>birth, the z/e/f is completly encased inside a pregnant woman.  It is
>completly dependent upon a single entity for nourishment, maintenance
>of environment, disposal of waste materials, etc etc etc.  After birth,
>it's not.

Unless the woman is Stranded on a Desert Island...[I tuned in too late
to see what that thread was really about, but this seems like a good 
guess.]

>There is a fundemental difference between the "before/after birth" concept,
>and the concept of "being a member of the MasterRace[tm!]".  The entire
>concept of human worth is something that humans thought of.

Cochran is right for once.  Even Adrienne Regard will use the word
"human" for a zygote (as in her argument about "dehumanize" vs. 
"depersonalize") but the concept of relative worth of various humans along the
time scale is something humans thought of, and in very many different
ways at various times in history.

>  Nature (or
>God, the Goddess, TheCrapDiceThatRuleTheUniverse, or whatever) came up
>with the birthing process.

Along with conception and all other stages of human development.  
Cochran's point eludes me.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:11:00 GMT

In article <26128@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <26081@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>
>>Einstein thought he was correct.  Heisenberg thought he was correct.
>>Martin Luther King thought he was correct.  Gandhi thought he was correct.
>>Thomas Jefferson thought he was correct.  You think you are correct.
>
>>They must be pompus too, right.
>
>The first two proposed theories. 
They wouldn't propose a theory they knew was not correct.

>MLK worked for equality, which is what
>the law demanded, Ghandi I'm not too familiar with, so I pass. Hawkings
>thinks he's correct too, but he also provides a theory.
>
>All miss the "damn the rest" portion that would make this type of thinking
>pompous.
>
I don't entirely have a "damn the rest" view.  True, I may dislike certain 
actions, but that doesn't necessarily mean damn the rest.  Some of my 
language isn't that firm.   'Might' is used, as well as 'can,' 'hoping,' 
'wishing,' 'saddened' etc.  

>>>ignorant (have an obvious lack of information)
>
>>Very debatable.  Think what you like.
>
>Is it? It has been posted using numerous references by several posters
>that your information was incorrect. 

If so, then maybe they should reteach some of the things I learned in
school and some of the things I learned by reading, going to other
informational topics, etc.  

>You have not altered your statements
>of that initial information.

There is at least one "scientist" who claims that the AIDS virus is
not caused or brought about by HIV.  He even threatened to inject
himself to make his point.  Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong.  But
just because one person or a few people have another study out contradicting
the painstaking and long and arduous work into studying this phenomenon 
doesn't make the other scientists who ahve studied this and researched this
take back their statements.  Sometimes, it isn't necessary.

>
>I do think what I like, and I aim to continue doing so. Unlike you,
>however, I can admit that I might be wrong occassionally, and have done
>so here when it was so pointed out. I have yet to see you evidence the
>same grace. Oaf.
>
If something is wrong, it is not judicious to make it appear right.  If
something is right, there is no reason to claim that it is wrong.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41084 talk.politics.guns:21810 alt.conspiracy:11032 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5021 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6380 talk.bizarre:33137
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:48:50 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:

>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.

Right.  Reagan and Bush have overseen one of the largest increases
in the size of government in the history of the country, and
80% of the new jobs created by Bush have been in *government*.

For Christ's sake, think for yourself, man!

Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
and *you* talk about big spender liberals?

Gimme a break.

Clinton/Gore in '92.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:33:17 GMT

In <26094@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>Recently she denied ever saying that she said gay men hate women, she
>>tried to back-pedal out of it until people posted her own words which make
>>her a liar. She's been strangely quiet since then.

>Perhaps she just gets too flustered of late. It tends to cause hot flashes
>when consistent adrenaline rushes for an extended period of time keep
>coursing through your brain, you know. Maybe she just can't take it
>anymore. Maybe her doctor told her to stop posting when her husband 
>drove her into the office because she was ranting and raving continuously
>and it scared him. :)

I think this ad hominem, baseless speculation is way out of line, your
smiley notwithstanding. 

I wouldn't bother telling this to the likes of Gordon, but I expected
better of you, Ron.

Peter Ny.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:46:51 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1b4pu3INNg6k@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
>   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >

>>Bill, in what material way was your life affected by the decisions in
>>Roe?  What belief was imposed upon you?  What did you have to stop doing?
>>Start doing?

>Your last two questions are valid criticisms, the answers being
>"nothing" and "nothing", respectively.  

>At any rate, the Roe decision is a legal endorsement of a set of values/
>beliefs. ... depending on the personal morals of the individual woman.

Bill, you're not making sense here. On the one hand you're saying that
Roe is an endorsement of a set of values/beliefs, and on the other you
say that those values beliefs depend on the personal morals of the individual
woman. Now which is it? A legal set of beliefs? Or what ever set of
beliefs an individual may have?

Note that this is akin to saying that the first amendment endorses a
religion...depending on the religious views of the individual. At this
point I'll assume that you've not thought this through to its conclusion
yet, instead of assuming that you'll twist anything into your personal
agenda and belief system.

>I believe in maximizing individual freedom within broad
>limits; I simply think that (unregulated) abortion exceeds the
>limits of what is reasonable and good for the culture as a whole.

So Bill, you don't belive in individual freedom? Or are you saying individual
freedom is restricted when an abortion is done? How about we give the
little munchkin a choice, get out or we'll remove you? And how is this
bad for society as a whole? (Or is this merely your opinion, and as
such has no real basis in reality besides what you believe?)

>Roe, on the other hand, sets standard for how we as a society
>should think about abortion.

This is your opinion, and it can be shown as flawed. The Amish would
probably say the same about the first amendment, if they were that type 
of folk. Roe is similar to the freedom of religion (or was that freedom
from religion?:) in that it allows for individual choice. You can choose
or not choose it. You can think what you want about another choice,
and even say so. The first amendment prevents some from forcing others
to think like they think. Roe, until now, has followed a similar path.

Every objection you've had to this point only sounds liike an opinion
that you wish to force onto others under the guise that Roe forces others
to think in any certain way. You are completely, 100% wrong. Is this
a first for you?

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  A Point Almost Well Made....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:43:52 GMT

z_glasgowme@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
] In article <1992Oct9.225452.8670@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
] 
] > Slavery is no longer legal at all, but even when it was I doubt that
] > slave owners were free to kill their slaves.  They were certainly
] > obligated (if not required) to care for them.
] 
] You're point about children not having any rights is well-taken, but I 
] think you're way off base with the comparisons to slavery.  Slave owners WERE
] free to kill their slaves, rape them, torture them, whatever.  They were 
] not obligated (nor required) to care for them any more than you are 
] obligated to care for your own car.  Most slaves were only treated well 
] because they cost $$$$ to be replaced.
] 
] Study your history.


You might also expand upon your education by noting
that if YOU read your bible You would Find Clear
Guide Lines about the Obligations of a Slave Owner
to his Slaves......


Now Let us review the Bidding, for a Christian America?


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts raising the issue of religion AGAIN (was Re: Authority
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:02:27 GMT

<92156@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
><1992Oct8.061020.25114@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>The fact is, most pro-lifers see anti-abortion in their bibles.  It's not
>>there, but they see it there anyway.
>
>Most pro-lifers who use the Bible as their witness to the abortion issue
>do so because in the Bible, God/Jesus/Whoever talks to individuals
>about the "fruits of their mothers' wombs" and how God knew them
>before they were born, etc.  The Bible is taken to be the authority and
>what is stated in that is taken to apply to all.

It also describes god/Jesus/whoever ordering the slaughter of the men,
women AND CHILDREN of opposing tribes.  It also describes the god-ordered
drowning of every man, woman (including, one imagines, any pregnant woman),
and child (except for eight people).  Any implied importance of fetuses
are, IMHO, negated by the brutal and careless disregard for pregnant women,
their fetuses, and their children.

>However, you are right in saying that there is no SPECIFIC reference
>saying aboriton is wrong.

Thank you.


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: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Forced abortion in China and reflection on coerced abortion.
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:25:15 GMT

From article <5kxzq+p@rpi.edu>, by keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.):
> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> ->I work with a young married woman who is also a Chinese national. 
> ->She states that among people of lower socio-economic status who
> ->(as you indicate) live in smaller towns and villages, forced or
> ->coerced abortion does indeed occur.  Those who have advanced edu-
> ->cations and/or money generally have nothing to worry about, unless
> ->they appear to be reproducing indiscriminantly (my paraphrase), at
> ->which time they might receive a friendly visit designed to politely
> ->deter such behavior.  
> 
> i play tennis with a young woman who is a chinese
> national. she tells me that forced or coerced abortion
> does not occur in china.


Yeah?  Well I had a Chinese officemate who told me matter of factly that
yes, people ARE forced to have abortions in China.   She has one son now
and has since gone back to China, but not before telling me with much sorrow
in her face that she would LOVE to have more children herself.


> you seem to be expressing some of djr's old
> ideas. as i recall, his "source," a fellow named mosher,
> was discredited.
> 
> although that was no surprise.


I'll pit my Chinese friend, who lives the horror of China, against your
Chinese friend, playing the U.S. tennis circuit, any time, Keegan.


S. Forgach
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Violence From Pro-Lifers (formerly: Walking down...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:42:11 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct12.101843.15262@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- absorbs 5x its weight in excess verbage) writes:

[text deleted]

#Speaking of Michael Bray, the number of new people here might justify
#running the article I have in which he says that abortion providers
#should be killed.  Any interest in this?

Yes.  I've already seen one "it's a *peaceful* movement" post
today.  Please repost it.

Susan
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:54:46 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = cj@sgi.com writes:
>| = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:

>|The only "wave of biblical exegesis" which I've seen recently
>|is coming from a single person -- "The Rink" -- who is responding
>|to Steve Adam's claims that the bible supports abortion.  So once
>|again, it is the pro-aborts who are the first to raise the issue
>|of religion. 

>So you *do* throw hissy fits when Christians like Steve Adams
>talk about their religion.  What's the matter with you?  Can't
>you let other people practice their religion?  Or must everyone
>walk & talk like the atheist you claim to be?

I knew an atheist.  I am an atheist.  I grew up as an atheist, and I'm
proud to know other atheists.

Doug Holtsmussen, you're no atheist.

>And by the way, Steve Adams is pro-choice.  You should call
>him that, if you don't want to be called pro-death, anti-choice
>and pro-forced-birth in turn.

Not to mention dense-as-a-log, lies-like-a-rug and cries-like-a-baby.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:03:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.160837.9971@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1992Oct7.131833.20451@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}> And Jesus said:
}
}And here's yet another data point to support the observation
}that the pro-aborts are usually the first ones to raise the
}issue of religion.
}
}
}Doug Holtsinger
}

And here's yet another data point to support the observation 
that the communist Chinese don't have a clue who they are
talking about.

--
       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,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: pjm@isis (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Why Keith reads Drieux
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:07:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.221742.13417@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Oct10.230432.13152@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> In article <BvsFow.IyB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>>>
>>>	So, drieux, why do you post?
>>>Ray Swartz
>> 
>> Becuase, while we mere mortals fail to comphrend the majority of the wisdom
>> in Druiex's posts, there is an occasional glimmer of awareness.
>> 
>> Because, while we are but earthworms who have not the right to move upon
>> the same earth as Druiex, he continues to give us the Truth[tm].  He
>> continues to show us the errors of our ways.
>
>The joke's on you, Keith.  
>Drieux posts for laughs, just to see who takes him seriously.
>

Could someone compile a Drieux Lexicon, together with a
Beginner's Guide to Reading Drieux? it could possibly evolve into
the official Usenet Posting Language (UPL), with Standard
Dictionary and Library of Standard Idioms. 

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41664 talk.politics.misc:50602 alt.rush-limbaugh:6980
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:35:01 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

This post is in response to the person I have been debating as to whether
pregnancy is trespass.

I lost your post but I wanted to respond anyway.

[Comment about having to wait 36 weeks before trespasser leaves missing.]

This analogy is getting a little silly, but in the interest of getting
the last word.  I will extend it a little further.

Suppose your house is a boat.  You invite someone onboard.  You go for a 
sail.  After a while you get tired of this person, so you ask him to leave.
The problem is that you are now miles from shore.  To leave the boat is
to die.

It has been mentioned that when you ask a guest to leave and he doesn't
this constitutes tresspass.  This is probably correct.

In the above scenario, forcing the trespasser to leave will kill him.
Do you have the right to kill this trespasser?

I think not.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:36:04 GMT


This is posted for Peter Nyikos, whose netserver is down today.