HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:56:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.125042.202723@uctvax.uct.ac.za> wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> Rubbish!  Most medical doctors in the U.S. agree with the ex (~1986) U.S.
> surgeon general- C.Everret Koop - there is a new human being from conception.

And four out of five dentists recommend you use Crest.
Do you have anything to support your statement about "most
doctors," or is that just what you like to think most doctors
think?

> Sure; the baby is dependent on the mother for 9 months for nourishment and a
> protective environment.  Does this make it sub-human?!  Most people who choose to
> kill their pre-born children do so because it makes life easier for them.  Life
> would certainly be easier if we could kill everyone who makes it difficult for
> us - but then some people might not agree to being murdered without some sort
> of fight!

I support the right of any human, male or female, rich or poor,
sporting a lot of melanin or a little, young or old, to remove
any human being living inside of them if they so desire, even
if it means the death of that human.  If you were to take up
residence inside of me, I would see to it that you were
removed.

I know you would like to make it seem as if pregnancy were no big
deal, but that just isn't so.  Funny how some folks make a huge
fuss over pregnancy when the woman wants to carry to term, but
they drag out the "it's just an inconvenience" argument when
a woman seeks an abortion.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:33:21 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>If it is a person at conception, do we charge the woman with involuntary
>manslaughter if it fails to implant?  Just for your information, about 1/3
>of all products of conception fail to implant and get washed out during
>menstration. 

Do we charge mothers and fathers with involuntary manslaughter if their
children die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?  Of course not and there
is no reason to bring charges against a mother whose embryo failed to
implant.  A charge of involuntary manslaughter requires not merely a lack
of ordinary care but a wanton and reckless disregard for the life of the
victim.  In addition, the prosecution would have to prove that the death
of the embryo resulted from the negligent act or failure to act on the
part of the mother rather than from natural causes.

> Just a little reality check here...

Glad to provide it.  Now can we put this strawman to rest once and for
all?

>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
>they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush

Roger Williams
roger@access.digex.com
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:00:35 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep10.212006.17194@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep9.154329.24055@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >

-> > perhaps. i suggest that we wait for you to take a
-> > further peek at the data before you jump to any
-> > conclusions. you wouldn't want to appear
-> > capricious, would you?
-> 
-> I am not the one who has jumped to any conclusion at
-> all.

did you not speculate, wrongly, i might add, about my
motivations and then criticize them in this and related
threads? did you not argue my motivations with others?
perhaps this just slipped your mind.

-> My contention remains that there is too little
-> available information upon which to base any
-> reasonable inference of psychopathology.

and mine is that therapy might help the lad(s).

-> > if, after you do that, you still think that
-> > neither chaney, DODie or the others could be
-> > helped by therapy, well that's ok.
-> 
-> Many people use therapy as a vehicle for
-> facilitating personal growth, even in the absence of
-> any identifiable pathology.  Your comments (re
-> denial) suggest that Doug suffers from some type of
-> disorder, though.  I hope you see the difference.

yes, i do. demonstrating one (denial) might cause one
to suggests that the other (therapy) might be of help.
if DODie's posts suggest that he might suffer from some
type of disorder, why have you been debating this point
for so long

-> > several people posted to explain DODie to you. and i
-> > provided a list of chaney articles and even offered to
-> > email them. they contain all the information i need to
-> > form my opinion.
-> 
-> I see.  What symptoms seemed most prominent to you?

you're the professional, bill. why don't you tell me.

-> > why are you so opposed to therapy, bill?
-> 
-> An odd question to ask of a practicing
-> psychotherapist, but your assumption is incorrect.

then you'd be better of making your point clearly
instead of arguing against my sussestionthat therapy
might be of help, wouldn't you?

so what is your point, bill?





-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:34:28 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.716333895@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>and thinking and discussing about.

>I know, for example, that crucifixion was a common method of execution
>in Roman times.  Right with Jesus there were crucified two thieves,
>and to one of them he said he would be that day in paradise, but he
>said no such thing to the other thief.  Only someone who knows little 
>about Christianity thinks it glorifies crucifixion to the point that
>joking about it is blasphemous.  

    Actually, Petie sweetie, my point was that the fact that Suzanne
used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
Father. Glorification of crucifixion is hardly the issue. Let me
guess--you were going to read the Bible, but you're anxious in case it's
a piece of "hack writing"? :-)


>Some of them might very well take the comment about "white hot rages" to
>be blasphemous, calling into question the divinity of Christ by the
>implication that he was out of control. 

    Christ's divinity does not preclude His humanity, and to suggest ot
does again negates His suffering. His response in the temple was both
human and divine--in righteous anger He drove out those who sold and
overturned the tables of the money lenders, just as God himself burned
with righteous anger at the sins and iniquities of His people.

 M. Price's failure to comment
>on this really gives him away.

Nyikos's attempt to comment on this _really_ gives him away.


>But M. Price's statement and concomitant silence are simply 
>beyond the pale. 

    This is my second response.
 
                                                                   MP
From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:22:16 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>If the mother gave Dalton up for adoption, why did she still have the baby
>to hand to you five weeks later?

It was the ADOPTED mother who handed the baby to me.

Don
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 23:14:58 GMT

In <1992Sep05.081218.12140@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.715652202@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <vvyyfw@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>
>> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> >>In <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU
>>
>> >>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.e
>> >>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> >>>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...
>>
>> >>>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
>> >>>where do you suppose those little buggers are?
>>
>> >>You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.
>>
>> >[An inflammatory paragraph deleted.]
>>
>> >>>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu
>>
>> >>Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?
>>
>> >Is his hang gliding harness using his body?
>>
>> No. His body is using the hang gliding harness.  Can't you follow
>> a simple analogy?

>Let's see...  You're saying that if the hang glider was a person, it
>would have the right to kill Galen if it wanted him out and that was
>the only way to get him out?  I don't think the analogy holds, since
>it's possible to just unbuckle some straps and get Galen out alive
>and well without causing any trauma to the hang glider.  Did I miss
>something?

You're putting in a lot of implied restrictions to abortion.  Some
pro-choicers in this group, assuming they can follow the analogy this far,
might want to rake you over the coals for that.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:26:31 GMT

In article <nyikos.715888864@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <Bu42ME.5y2.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##In article <nyikos.715655719@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
###In <1992Sep3.213620.21098@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
####
####In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
###
#####From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov#, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
###### 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
###### rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
###### and Pharisees suffered.
###
#####Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
###
####     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
####agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!
###
###You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
###see you are being sarcastic.
#
##Why would you say that, Nyikos?  Do you think that no Christians
##support legal abortion?
#
#Who said anything about abortion above?  Of course lots of Christians
#support legal abortion.  What I'm saying is that M. Price's "disgust"
#about "blasphemy" is phony.  I've known Christians of all shades and
#stripes, and from everything I've ever heard from them, M. Price's
#statement sounds as phony as a $3 bill.  

Is DOD's outrage at statements which he thinks denigrate Christianity
"phony"?  DOD claims not to be a Christian, by the way.

#And that's even without taking into account his silence about Loren's
#talk about the "white-hot rages."  With that, the statement becomes
#as phony as a $3.50 bill.

Indeed?  Do you define Christianity, now, too?

##  Any other stereotypes that you subscribe
##to that you'd like to tell us about?
#
#Do you subscribe to M. Price's stereotype of how a Christian would 
#respond to Suzanne's statement?

A single statement does not a stereotype make.  You seem to
believe that all Christians respond in the same way.  I
wonder why.

##I note that you didn't make a similar response the last time DOD
##got all self righteous about a religion he claims not to believe
##in.  I'm not surprised.
#
#Before I answer this question, could you please tell me what DOD
#stands for?  Dear Old Doug, maybe?

I thought that was fairly obvious - Drieux does spell it out on
a regular basis.

Care to answer my question now?

Susan
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: adopting females
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:02:41 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <79494@ut-emx.uucp>, andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>  
> The original poster seemed to think that aborting female fetuses because
> the parents wanted boys is somehow wrong.  What if the parents are adopting
> instead?  What if they turn down several perfectly fine young girls 
> because they wanted to adopt a boy?  Is this a different situation, and 
> if so, how?

Well, for one thing, the female, although passed up, is not killed.
Is that different enough?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:15:56 GMT

In <1992Sep10.214356.17609@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <nyikos.716074092@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Elizabeth thought the umbilical cord was a part of the mother's body.

>Wrong.  I thought that the umbilical cord *connected* to the mother's
>body, and if the part of the mother's body it connects to was
>surgically removed, the fetus would die.

For the benefit of readers who might miss the import of the word 
"thought", let me point out that the umbilical cord connects to
the placenta, which is still not a part of the mother's body, coming
as it does from the original fertilized ovum, along with the cord,
fetus, and bag of waters.

>-- 
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Peter Ny.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35836 alt.abortion.inequity:3663
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:39:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep10.010130.6534@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
><1992Sep9.125404.202724@uctvax.uct.ac.za>wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>That is so true!  It is a question of whose morals will be legislated. 
>>Pro-aborts want their morals legislated; making murder nice and antiseptic -
>>removing all feelings of guilt.
>
>Gordon, do you want to legislate your morals?  Catwoman, do you want
>to legislate yours?  Um, who's the third pro-abortion person on t.a.?

Sure, it'd be nice if my morals were legislated - there'd be less crime,
less violence, less population problems.  Am I trying to get my morals
legislated??  Nope.

I think the Constitution does a nice job all on it's own, without any
interference from you, me, or the religious right.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
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: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:09:34 GMT

From article by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.
> 
> We eat other people??? How nauseating! :) (depending on what other people:)


Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
a form of cannibalism.



S. Forgach
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:26:19 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Bu9KMy.72I@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>In article <hbrng9+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>As evidence that 9/10 of women who get abortion suffer from 
>>abortion-induced traumas, this is pretty poor.  While I'm going to reserve
>>judgement on this, this "evidence" is some third party _claiming_ that PP
>>has admitted that _as_many_ as 9 out of 10 women _may_ suffer "trauma."
>>It is riddled with weasel-words and includes at least one erroneous
>>interpretation.  Hardly a sterling reference.
>
>One would expect Planned Parenthood to weasel as much as possible.
>After all they have a buck to make, and god forbid that the truth
>get in the way.

Don't they ever? 

That bit about saying that report was forged, was the biggest Planned
Parenthood weasel job I've ever seen. 

>Don


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Date: 9 Sep 92 04:55:54 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <SCOTTS.92Sep8173613@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
#In any article (Stephen A Total Idiot Chaney) writes:
#
#A 25 line sig!?!

Maybe he's decided that .sig size, rather than killfile size, determines
manhood.  (And he's obviously very concerned about his manhood, or
as he says, "manlihood".)


#[misc. quotes deleted for brevity]

Chaney seems not to recognize that the anti-Semitism he displays
contradicts his claims in the next part of his .sig.  Of course,
he doesn't seem to realize that his repeated references to "feminazis"
and bra burning contradict his "feminist" self-description.
#   =============================================================================
#   |Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation  
#                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#                                               who does he think he's kidding?

The same people he thinks he's kidding with the rest of his rants.
(I wish you'd saved that e-mail.)

#   |Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice   Registered Democrat
#                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
#Borgie-boy has really blown his propeller now!

Now, Scott, he is obviously "pro-freedom-of-choice-in-posting-personality."

#   |			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          
#   |           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn           
#
#Civil rights for the unborn?  Like equal housing, equal employment opportunity 
#and voting rights?

He doesn't seem to know what civil rights are.  

Maybe his mommy and daddy should buy him more picture books on
the subject.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:05:15 CDT

In article <nyikos.716336156@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep10.214356.17609@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.716074092@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>>Elizabeth thought the umbilical cord was a part of the mother's body.
>
>>Wrong.  I thought that the umbilical cord *connected* to the mother's
>>body, and if the part of the mother's body it connects to was
>>surgically removed, the fetus would die.
>
>For the benefit of readers who might miss the import of the word 
>"thought", let me point out that the umbilical cord connects to
>the placenta, which is still not a part of the mother's body, coming
>as it does from the original fertilized ovum, along with the cord,
>fetus, and bag of waters.
>
Your trivialization of the contribution of resources from the
woman's body for the construction of these items is not surprising, 
but still disgusting.  

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: What is a "person"?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 18:39:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

bmc@mayo.edu writes ...
>In article ray@netcom.com, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Q: What's the difference between animals & people?
>>A: Animals only feel.  People feel and _think_.

>Do you have some information/documentation to back this
>assertion up?

Nope.  But then definitions of "person" and "animal" are rather notably
absent from the above, aren't they?

Consider intellegent animals such as apes (chimps, gorillas) and cetaceans
(porpoises, whales).  They can apparently learn [human] language and think.
On the other hand, we have numerous examples of people who _don't_ think, 
only blindly repeating what they've been told.  This disproves the 
universality of the original statement in the literal sense.

But isn't it the ability to _think_ that makes some animals more like 
people?  And isn't it the inability (or unwillingness) of some people to 
think that makes then seem more like animals?  It has long been the 
common perception that humanity is related to intellegence - those humans
least able to think have commonly been treated like animals, and those
animals that are most intellegent earn the most respect.  So isn't thinking
the attribute most important to a definition of "person?"

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion