HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 19:22:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.184253.4103@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.182606.8078@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.155924.18093@cs.yale.edu>,
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>Ok, I am willing to try again.  Cut my body into a million pieces. 
>>Distribute
>>those pieces to a million different cities.  Cremate those pieces and wait
>>for the ashes to disolve into the earth.  I will be dead at the end of this
>>process.
>Nope. Nonzero probability that those molecules might spontaneously
>reassemble into you. Agreed, it's not high, but certainty is generally
>not available in physics.
>
>I pointed this out to you in Email, Mr. Gorr. Physical properties
>are predicted by QM to at least appear to be nondeterministic.
>Therefore any method of death you choose has some nonzero probability
>of you not dying. These probabilities are so close to zero as to be
>uninteresting practically, but you claimed certainty and that is
>unavailable.

Ok, how about this, you believe that there is a nonzero probability
that my death will occur.  I think this is wrong.  You disagree.

I know this absolutly, unless, you are saying that you were lying
above...

(Note, I might agree with you if some outside technology was 
applied...but without it, there is zero-chance...any theory
that says there is a chance (without outside technology),
is wrong...of course, I cannot prove this, but oh well...)


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 22:50:46 GMT

In article <adams.717464976@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.717449100@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>[speculation about removing ectopic pregnancy and saving fetus]
>
>>You are, of course, aware of research happening right now that relates to
>>this.  It will happen.  
>
>Perhaps it will.  I expect that at some point it will be.  I may not live
>to see it, but then again, I might.

So, what's your point?

>>No, if the mothers life is in danger, that would be one case where abortion
>>would be ok.  Did you expect me to give a different answer?
>No, but one never knows.  It's dangerous to assume ANYTHING around here.

So, what's your point?

>>One other thing you should understand is that I feel core beliefs should be
>>based upon something so solid that advancing technology could never upset 
>>them. 
>
>>By saying, "when science gets to that point, then we'll worry about it" 
>>only goes to demonstrate how arbitrary your beliefs really are.
>Not at all.  My beliefs are rock solid.  I oppose abortion.  But, I also
>refuse to impose *my personal beliefs* on anyone else.  See the difference.
>So long as someone wants an abortion, I can't interfere.  If and when
>science makes abortion uncessesary, then I won't have to worry about it.

How am I imposing my personal beliefs on anyone else?

If and when science makes it unecessary, there still may be cases where it is
ok?

Also, why do you oppose abortion?
 
>There is a difference between personal morals and political views.  I keep
>a wide road between mine.  And I would ask everyone else to do the same.

So do I.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:32:45 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
-> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu writes:
-> |CJ, I know you've stayed out of this so far, but I think it is
-> |time for you to support what you said about Mr. Keegan.
-> 
-> I've got an email from Keegan.  I will wait until I have
-> permission to post it.  It specifically shows that Keegan lied
-> in this statement:

first, your little minions have been wailing about a
post to a mailing list, not some trumped up email.
second, i do not control your conduct. it is your
decision whether or not you again break the trust of
people who invited you to participate in a mailing list.
third, since no such post to the mailing list exists,
you lied (or erred) when you first made your
allegation. you have been lying since then by not
simply admitting what you did.

-> |>what follows is a post by cj, complete and unedited. in
-> |>this post, cj states "I know that Keegan used the
-> |>mailing list to try to get people to post in support of
-> |>him." this is the specific item i have been referring
-> |>to as cj's lie about me.
-> 
-> So I can support the allegation.  If Keegan persists in lying in
-> this way, I'll support it without permission.  (I find it
-> distasteful that I should require Keegan's permission to
-> demonstrate that Keegan is lying.)  

you might put some kind of forgery together to support
your claim but since no post to the mailing list exists
which will do so, it will be interesting to see how you
cope with the call from your kiddies to post the
mailing to the mailing list, complete and unedited, of
course.

-> If Eric & Larry are
-> interested, I will email it to them.  (I don't consider this to
-> be a violation of the netiquette.) 

i wonder if the others on your list share your view,
and your possible decision to break their trust.

-> Other than this action, I'll stay out of this.

perhaps you should have considered that in the first
place.

-> I am amused that this is the bone of contention now, months
-> later, while it was not at the time of the original squabble.

that's the problem with lying cj. one lie leads to
another. several people contested your actions when
they occured. among them were suzanne_lucia, rocker,
linda birmingham and galen, i believe. i'm appending
suzanne_lucia's entire post and the relevant portions
of galen's

=====suzanne_lucia's post=======


>From rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU!GB0012 Sun Jun 28 08:28:42 EDT 1992
Article: 12134 of talk.abortion
From: GB0012@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU ("Suzanne Lucia Demitrio")
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is murder!
Date: 28 Jun 92 04:10:39 GMT

rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes to Jim Keegan:

| You mean the way you went and canvassed your friends through a
| private mailing list, asking that they support your position?

Where did you get this tidbit, Nora?  From CJ?

Did she also tell you that *no* other member of that mailing
list (and there are about a dozen of them) supported her version
of the story?

Isn't that a bit strange?  Considering that they all presumably
witnessed this 'canvassing'?

And considering that they seem not to have fallen for it?

Can you, or CJ, point to *one* mailing list member who was brain-
washed into taking Keegan's side in the defining-pro-choice thread?

Can you support the quite nasty smear on Keegan's character that
you made above?  Don't bother asking CJ for help; she couldn't either.

| That disgusted CJ so much that she dropped the list, according
| to Elizabeth Bartley, to whom she wrote explaining the
|  situation.

Dear, dear, dear.  This is what happens when we play 'telephone'.

However CJ may have 'explained' the situation to Ms. Bartley or
to anyone else, the fact is that *Keegan* resigned from the mailing
list in protest against CJ's unretracted public lies about him.

He did this in a letter cc'ed to everyone who then was, or recently had
been, on the list.  I have a copy, as do several people on this group.

Including CJ.  She even responded.

Whether CJ then disbanded the list in despondent mourning after Keegan's
departure is beyond my ken.  But she hadn't 'dropped' it at the time of
his resignation.

Maybe you need to be careful about who you listen to, Nora ... maybe you
should even start (gasp!) checking quotes ...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Suzanne Lucia                                     gb0012@siucvmb.siu.edu

============galen's comment


	Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
	Message-ID: <1992May28.201037.17340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	Date: 28 May 92 20:10:37 GMT

        }       I know that Keegan used the mailing
        }list to try to get people to post in support
        }of him.

        Mr. Keegan has never emailed me requesting I
        "support" him.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
X-To: SUSAN GARVIN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:12:00 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes...
SG> In article <1992Aug29.032249.28218@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid
SG> ld.org> writes:
SG> #You misquoted me slightly...I *do* read Doug's posts, and yours, but I tend
SG> #to skin through Doug's, because they are somewhat more verbose than yours,
SG> #indeed, more verbose than they even need to be!

SG> Sorry.  I thought that you might have missed the reference since
SG> you skim rather than read him in painful detail.


SG> #(For Pete's sakes, Susan, I was *complimenting* you, you ingrate!  :-)   Wh
SG> #we don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, at least take a compliment for
SG> #what it is! ... regardless of who originates it.)

SG> Why, thank you, Will.  (Happy now?)

Okay, I guess that I'm happy now.  :-)


SG> #If you two MUST insult each other, could you please do it in alt.flame or i
SG> #private e-mail?  Thank you.

SG> No.  Sorry, but I don't tailor my articles to suit other people.  If
SG> Holtsinger lies, or if he makes bigotted remarks, I will point it
SG> out publicly.


Obviously, if someone misquotes you or says something which you consider to be
bigoted, I'd *expect* you to point it out!  I wouldn't think of doing
otherwise myself, but I would draw the line at insulting them.  Still, try as
I might to avoid it, I have taken the verbal axe to a few people myself, so
I'm hardly going to attempt to try to force my ethics upon you or anyone else.
Sorry if I made it seem that way.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "This is a warrior's drink!"- Worf (Prune Juice)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:32:47 GMT

This is a response to a response to my rather long pro-life posting.  Brian
said he tried to respond to it point by point, and then issue by issue, and
failed both times.  The posting ended up being this sloppy assortment of
long words that basically said, "Nuh-uhhhh," with NO support NO arguments
NO nothing.  I illustrate:

--

>I give up.  The article is full of blatant assertions, inaccurate
>figures, heavily biased opinions, and emotional ploys.

Blatant assertions:  I think the reason you didn't respond to this point by
			point was because you couldn't find enough to support
			this comment.
Inaccurate figures:  Yeah, right.  I didn't see any corrected figures from
			you.  Why?  Perhaps you call them inaccurate because
			you didn't like them?
Heavily biased opinions:  Of course it was biased.  It was a posting that
			CLAIMED in the SUBJECT LINE to refute pro-choice
			arguments.  You are just as biased, refuting those.
Emotional ploys:  Abortion is an emotional subject.  And you use the SAME
			METHODS.  See below.

>It insults
>women by seeming to assume that if we just keep them from having
>abortions, they'll thank us someday for it.

Not.  Read the post again.

>It cleverly avoids
>bringing up any good reason to want an abortion, instead trying to
>reduce the issue to a battle between loving, caring people who want
>women to have as many babies as possible and love them all versus the
>evil babykilling murderers.

#1:  EVERY COMMON REASON THERE IS to want an abortion WAS ADDRESSED.
	Did you read this with your eyes closed?  Or did you just read the
	subject line and post a flame?
#2:  THE POSTING DID NOT IMPLY that women should have as many babies as
	possible.  In fact, I believe people are having TOO MANY.  Why don't
	we quit messing around with "abortion" and start talking about a
	BIGGER problem:  premarital sex -- the number one (though granted,
	not the only), reason abortion has to be such an issue.
#3:  FINALLY, YES -- THOSE WHO HAVE ABORTIONS *ARE* EVIL BABYKILLING
	MURDERERS.

>If this is the sort of muleheaded opposition the pro-choice movement
>has faced all along, then I'm surprised we've gotten as far as we have.

Folks like you posting responses to things you haven't read -- just merely
scanned -- is the reason why half the world is so deluded.
-- 
//================================================================\\
||  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:  ||
||      no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  John 14:6      ||
\\================================================================//
           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
//================================================================\\
||         ss1@kepler.unh.edu       ss_cs611@unhh.unh.edu         ||
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39336 talk.politics.misc:48548 alt.sex:31287 alt.rush-limbaugh:6172
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:18:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep29.202254.27444@col.hp.com> pml@col.hp.com (Patrick M Landry) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >    Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> Simple.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the above 'fact' is true,
> it means that even if it CAN be a responsible solution, it rarely is.
> 
> 93% of the time it is an irresponsible 'solution' to irresponsible
> behaviour.

A curious number.  Actually, 99.6453% of the time abortion is
an absolutely responsible decision.  Assuming, for the sake of
argument, that what you claim is true, which I do not agree with,
who is better suited to decide  what is responsible use of a
particular woman's womb when she finds herself pregnant, you
or her?


I wish I were so wise and wonderful that I knew what everyone else
ought to be doing with their bodies and time.  Unfortunately, I'm
just a mere human, so I spend my time trying to look after my
own behavior and not passing jedgement on how others' behave
when it doesn't affect me.
Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Unequal women (was Re: Observations) 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:25:04 GMT

In article <BuuLIJ.IzJ@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
>
>
>Women are not equal.  They should not be considered equal.  They cannot
>defend our country then why should they be considered equal??  
>With todays laws women are second class citizens
>
>-- 
> |   Rich Lee     |   Richard Lee               |                         |
> | My Power is    |   1711 Whipple Dr.          | rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu  |
> | Beyond Your    |   Apt 11                    | or                      |
> | Understanding  |   Blacksburg,Va 24060       | rlee@earth.tjhsst.edu   |



Rich is right. If men and women were truly equal, we'd all be women. If
God would have wanted all people to be equal, she would have made us
all women, right?


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:11:06 GMT

In article <25709@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>In article <9365@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Ma
>>rk Wilson) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brin
>>dle) writes:
>
>>>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>>>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>
>How about spelling it "burden" if you're going to repeat it three times?
>
>Her point, if I may be so bold, Jennifer, was to indicate that abortion
>can be a responsible solution, in response to many who seem to think
>that abortion is an "easy" and/or "quick" and/or "irresponsible" solution
>to pregnancy.
>

Are you talking to me?  I'm the one who made the statement in the first place.
You got the credit lines correct, so I assume you just inserted the wrong
name.  No problem, I just wanted to make sure that no one confuses me with
the other person.

>>Unfortunately, here in california we have a legalized euthanasia initiative
>>on the ballot in November.
>

I don't see what's so unfortunate in giving people a chance to vote their
views.  I see it as democratic and extremely fair.  Would you rather I set
up a kingdom where only MY views are allowed, you don't get a say?  You'll
get your chance to vote (assuming you're registered in California--if you're
not, then you have nothing to complain about.)

>Looks like Ca is trying to lead the rest of the nation again. May it
>succeed. Anyone who thinks that a terminally ill patient in a lot of
>pain should be *forced* to suffer should have an enlightening experience
>on the rack. (JMHO, of course, but completely applicable and appropriate)
>
Sounds good to me ;)

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:24:29 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>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.

Under the 9th and 10th Amendments....whether or not the Supremes think so.
(Limited powers & retained rights)

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Meaningless between 1600 Friday and 0730 Monday.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:24:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
>>If you press up against a woman without her permission, she doesn't have
>>the right to blow you away.  If you try to stick your dick in her without
>>her permission, she does.  
>
>Only in some states.
>
>Only as a recent innovation.
>
>Only for deterrent effect, which doesn't apply to the abortion issue.
>
>Please stop citing this aberration as if it were a relevant, established 
>legal principle, Larry. I've corrected you multiple times now, you're starting 
                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to border on intellectual dishonesty.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This gets my vote as the funniest of Kebbin's articles of the week...


--PLH, who has work to do, dammit.  I can't afford to spend this time rolling
about the floor laughing at Darcy's latest antics...:-)

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39805 talk.religion.misc:17522 alt.atheism:18280
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:04:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <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?
>

  All the abortion rhetoric aside, do you really intend to imply
  that a human fetus doesn't have the capability to feel pain?  What
  gestational age are we talking about?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Oct 92 16:54:30 GMT

In <1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Oct2.002302.325@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>> Gordon, Professional Atheist
>>
>>So what are they paying you?

>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>of us.

>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.

I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.

>-- 
>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>of whatever company you think I work for. 

Nor those of an honest man.

Peter Nyikos

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)
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:38:23 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
->And agreeing with Keegan is utterly immaterial to me-- after 
->all, I agree with him on many issues, though I find him 
->utterly unworthy of my respect.

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.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc