HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:25:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.004458.642@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.171633.8055@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
>>just like sentient humans. 
>
>1) Name a sentient animal.

Well, I think "sentient" in the sense that most people use it means
"self-aware".  I think dogs and cats are sentient, for the most part.  As
someone else mentioned, I think most people are using "sentient" when they
actually mean "sapient".  I think gorillas, chimps and dolphins are probably
sapient.

Note that I am using a more liberal definition of "sapient" than "wise" as
meaning "both sentient and able to understand actions with respect to future
consequences to a degree that approaches that of an adult human being".  The
problem, though, is that I think *some* dogs are sapient to this degree, and
*some* people *aren't*.  So it still isn't a good way to separate other
animals from humans.

I *don't* think first-trimester embryos are sentient.  I don't know whether
second-trimester fetuses are sentient, but I'm pretty sure they aren't
sapient.  I think it is possible that third-trimester fetuses are sentient,
but I don't know whether they are sapient.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Actor:	So what do you do for a living?
Doris:	I work for a company that makes deceptively shallow serving
	dishes for Chinese restaurants.
		-- Woody Allen, "Without Feathers"
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32929 alt.abortion.inequity:3214
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:59:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com
(Mike Serafin) wrote:
> 
>  You seem intent to make this a religious argument.  Whether or not 
>  you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
>  that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
>  is based solely on emotional responses of humans.

OK.  Now you've covered the testicles and ovaries.  They are, in fact,
reproductive organs.  The penis and vagina, on the other hand, are sexual
organs.  Useful in a wide variety of ways.

>  Yes, I believe abortion is wrong.

I sensed that.

>  I do not think it is right to take a potential life because you were not 
>  prepared to deal with that life.

I hope someone reminds you of this the next time you come down with amoebic
dysentery.
 
>  Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does 
>  not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
>  that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my 
>  unwanted, illegal or immoral actions from a man.

How about unwanted, illegal or immoral actions from a fetus?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:40:20 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Denver

In article <5688@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.224500.25686@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>But do not ever expect an organization devoted to providing
>>alternatives to abortion to _ever_ aid someone in _obtaining_ an abortion.
>>That's just garbage.
>
>Which is why everyone should go to Planned Parenthood, which provides pre-natal
>care as well as abortion (as well as a host of gynecological services) :-).

Gee, my sister-in-law will be interested to hear this.  She must have
heard this one when she called her local PP office to seek some
pre-natal advise when she was pregnant.  Unfortunately, the office
hadn't gotten the word, and informed her that they were in the business
of helping her get rid of the little bugger, not making sure it would be
born healthy.  Maybe they've changed their stance since then????

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand"
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:08:22 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <Bszq1o.J55.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin. 
>> In case you forgot, here it is again:

--------------
In article <1992Aug09.021608.58582@cs.cmu.edu> 
 garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I have more sources which I shall post shortly. 

> (As soon as he makes them up.)

Substantiate this accusation or retract it.

-------------


> I saw it, Holtsinger.  I also saw you provide the proof by fabricating 
> evidence yet again

Note the date of your post Ms. Garvin: August 9, 1992.

At that time, you had accused me of making up sources for
a post that you had never seen.  Where's your proof?  

And I have never fabricated evidence. 

> Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:31:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <nyikos.713884299@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Oh, so if parents refuse to feed their children, they cannot be made to do
>so by the state even if the children die of starvation otherwise?  Tell me
>another one, Ms. Regard!

I'm not Ms. Regard, but I thought I'd butt in anyway...
If parents refuse to feed their children, they cannot be made to do so by
the state, but the state can take the children away from these parents
through legal procedures.

-Kristy

-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31923 alt.birthright:403 alt.flame:12105
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.flame
Subject: newbie excuse #1 - a replay (was Re: Keegan and other idiots (was Re: newbie excuse #1 (Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting))
Date: 16 Aug 92 01:50:35 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.newbie-excuses
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

continuing to deny that which has been proven as true,
the hallchaney person posting as:
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >after being exposed in another lie, the hallchaney
-> >person posting as:
-> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> >-> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
-> >-> >Chaney, you are insinuating that I, Steve Novak,
-> >-> >sent something to your sysadmin.  I've never sent
-> >-> >anything to anyone's sysadmin, much less a colon
-> >-> >amongst t.a. text like you.
-> >-> 
-> >-> It was a joke, kid. 
-> >
-> >no. it was another lie.
-> 
-> "Insinuating?" It was a joke, asshole. 

no, hallchaney. it was another lie. and you got caught
again.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More character assassination
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:11:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug20.171548.2772@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.124614.6376@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>  
> >>> DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
> >>> is challenged.  
> 
> >> Pro-aborts are pursuing the strategy of character assassination. 
> 
> > When you lie, 
> 
> Name one instance.
> 
> > quote out of context, 
> 
> Name one instance.
> 
> > or edit quotes in a deceptive fashion
> 
> Name one instance.
> 
> 
> Once and for all, put up or shut up.

Just so you didn't miss it, Chris Lyman provided the material that
"puts up" today already.

But I don't expect or want you to shut up, Dougie.  I want
you to keep on lying in your articles.  It's what makes you
you.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Did Bill Clinton embrace the Bush campaign?
Summary: I say, it's a joke, son. -- Foghorn Leghorn
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:41:08 GMT

"... We're against family values, we're against work, we're going to
tax and spend to death."

			-- Governor Bill Clinton addressing a rally at 
                           Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 8/10/92

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:30:20 CDT


In article <1992Aug13.202758.18277@csrd.uiuc.edu>, saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
> 
> Why not give (or keep) the choice there? If someone wishes to have
> an abortion then let her have it and if someone does not want an
> abortion, then she won't have one? Outlaw forced abortions (makes everyone 
> happy)! What's wrong with that? 

Forced abortions are constitutionally prohibited in the Roe v. Wade decision.

From PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc. (91-744)

ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc., PETITIONERS v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. (91-902)
              [June 29, 1992]

From the majority opinion (O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter):

"If indeed the woman's interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a 
child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might as readily 
restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to 
terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, 
or eugenics, for example."

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:25:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.231659.5447@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>
>>>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?
>
>>> All human females would have the right to life.
>
>> This does not answer the question asked.
>
>It does answer the question if one believes that all human females
>should possess the right to life.
	Since you're apparently such a big fan of the Bushman, let me ask you:
does your group of "human females" include the ones Bush's bombers wiped out
in that Iraqui bomb shelter?  Does it include the Nicaraguan ones that the
Contras (much-beloved of Bush and that other *fine* pro-life advocate, Ronald
Reagan) wiped out during their many terrorist raids?  Does it include the
Chinese women murdered by their own government (you know, the one on whose
behalf Bush spoke so strongly when those nasty liberals tried to remove it's
Most Favored Nation trading status)?  Does it include the ones from Haiti
that Bush wants to send right back to the tender mercies of the secret police?
	Bush "pro-life"?  He's in favor of the death penalty and hates all
forms of gun control.  Pro-life, my ass.

>
>>Larry Margolis
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>

Chuck


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:08:34 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com>  serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> We have the pro-choicers, who feel abortion is right

This is not correct.  Many pro-choicers feel abortion is wrong.  "Pro-choice"
means that the decision should be left up to the woman.

>      I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
> of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their
> actions.

Abortion can be a responsible decision.

> Abortion is NOT a valid method of birth control.

It is, however, a valid way of dealing with birth control failure.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:59:55 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Aug12.163616.22514@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.182641.23717@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.164656.7056@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>Uh, no. Scorn, amusement.
>
>And a memorial service for Dan Bredy's Internet access, no doubt. 
Yes, I don't think that worked out as well as it should have.

>We'll remember that whining you personally did about Dan Bredy being
>lawfully reported for his violation of Kodak's rules, and then your
>roaring silence when people were reporting me for what I *didn't* do..
Uh, Chaney...
You have been accused of forging postings. It's not the same as
being censored for what you wrote.

>>>He will also think for food. It'll be his greatest feat. 
>>This would make more sense if you included `
>>"I will hack Unix for food." which is the last line of my .sig.
>>
>>As I've just graduated from the .edu ranks myself(I.e. I no longer
>>attend Yale. They just let me use their machines) I'm a little
>>reluctant to make fun of those who still are. However, allow me
>>to point out that I, unlike you, seem to have convinced someone
>>that I can think enough that they will hire me. (Here's a clue:
>>It's a joke, son. I AM paid to hack Unix.)

>NOT. I can move on from where I work now (which means you're doubly
>wrong because I am already hired, selling and working with CPU's), to
>Egghead Software, a local store, and begin selling for higher wages &
>komish.
So you're a salesdroid. Man, you sure know how to impress a guy.
I'm impressed. Aren't you, CJ?

> And I'm months away from being a viable $35/hr computer
>consultant.
Geez. Impress me more.

> I could do that already if all I did was help people with
>UNIX. I may not be as good at it as you, but I already write workable
>and worthwhile programs on UNIX (BSD). Heck, I already help people
>with it, so who knows? In a year or so, I, too, might be getting paid
>to hack Unix. And MS-DOS.  
Steve, I don't not respect you for being a student. I don't care
whether you're a programmer or not(though being a salesdroid
doesn't impress me.) I don't respect you because you make a fool of
yourself on a daily basis. This is just one more case where you tried
to insult someone when you didn't have a fucking clue what you
were talking about. And then you botched that because you didn't
include the necessary tag line for the insult.

It's not even insulting. It's just pathetic.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: How do I put this guy in my KILL file? 
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:53:44 GMT

I use trn. 

Vickie
Anti-abortion, pro-adoption, pro-birth control, pro-sex education, pro-life

     *** PRO-COICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***


>===============================================================================
>===============================================================================
>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. 
>
>Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
>scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? I do..
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:04:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.141246.29150@advtech.uswest.com> ron@eatdust (Ron Schweikert) writes:
>I'm a Republican and believe in the sanctity of life.  I heartily support
>the Republican platform.

I know I should stay out of this, but at least I will keep it short. Here is
my take on the abortion question.

It seems quite clear to me that there is *no consensus* among us as a society
as to whether abortion is murder, which is the heart of Ron's arguments.
The heat with which this issue is debated should be proof enough that
there is no consensus for anyone who is not totally blind and can still
think rationally. Note that I am not speaking of the rightness or wrongness
of the idea that abortion is murder, just that there is no consensus on
whether this is true or not. Given that there is no consensus, this boils
down to one group who wants to force *everybody* to see it their way.
No one on the pro-choice side, to my knowledge, has ever tried to force
anyone who believes that abortion is murder to have an abortion anyway.
But the pro-lifers *are* trying to force their point of view on everybody.
This is a significant difference between the two sides that goes beyond
the usual "I'm right", "No, I'm right" argument. I am not "for" abortions,
but I am definitely AGAINST having Ron, the government, the church, Bill
McCartney, or anyone else decide a debatable moral issue for EVERYONE. 
That is why I am pro-choice.

--Greg
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is *not* "abortion on demand"
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:38:09 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug14.151939.28848@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <Bsz9nx.41y.1@cs.cmu.edu>
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>
> I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin.

She did.  You just edited it out.  That's why there's nothing after the
string "(Susan Garvin) writes:".  In case you didn't read it before deleting
it, she said:

  I did.  I knew that Holtsinger wouldn't be able to resist the
  temptation to fabricate evidence even though he'd made the sort
  of self-righteous post that you included.  He came through, as usual,
  by citing a court case and lying about the decision.

Did you forget already?  In article <1992Aug13.201417.12795@newstand.syr.edu>
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) wrote:
> And I note that you have conveniently left out the portions of the Colautti
> opinion (also written by Blackmun) that *explicitly* reject your argument
> that the Roe and Doe require states to provide abortion-on-demand to any
> woman at any time.

Typical "Dear Old Doug" dishonesty.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: politics
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:38:21 GMT

In article <onv3s2k@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

> I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
> pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
> adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
> and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.  

And the Democrats aren't extremists on abortion?  The Democratic 
platform plank on abortion indicates that they support government
funding for abortions, and unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
the term of pregnancy.  Clinton has said that he wouldn't veto
Medicaid funding of abortions for poor women.  Nobody has to get
an abortion that they don't want, but the Democrats would force
people to pay for somebody else's abortion. 



Doug Holtsinger

"Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
 -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: How do I put this guy in my KILL file?
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:04:47 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs


katefans@chinet.chi.il.us writes:
|I use trn. 

Trn is threaded rn, right?  I think all the rn variants work the
same way rn does.  What you can do is edit the KILL file, either
by typing control-K at the article prompt (inside talk.abortion)
or by invoking your favorite editor on the file
	~/News/talk/abortion/KILL

Add this line to the file:
	/chaneysa@/h:j

You can also kill by hand, by typing in that line at the
article prompt:

End of article 3286 (of 3286)--what next? [npq] /chaneysa@/h:j

To kill Joe Random Asshole, use "/login@/h:j".

The trn man page should have details.  (Actually, if I remember
right, the trn man page is very short, and points to the rn man
page.)

nn is very different.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Usenet is like standing up in the middle of a crowded movie theater 
and yelling, "CAR FOR SALE!" --Peter Honeyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc.alt.politics.bush