HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why is Dan King a Revisionist Toady????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:11:59 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
] dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
] #                  ... Should women who are fertile and sexually active be
] # forbidden from high stress jobs, strenuous exercise, poor diet, or heavy
] # drinking and drug intake?  There is no way of knowing how many zygote
] # needlessly died during the women's events at the recent Olympics. ...
] 
] Oh no -- now you've given them Yet Another Excuse to forbid women in
] combat roles in the armed forces.

Knowing Dan, as I do, it does NOT
surprise me at all that his Knee Jerk
Wimp Liberalisms would lead him to
any conclusion that enhances his fundamental
position of weakening the Fighting Forces of Freedom,
and thus preparing America for Invasion by the
GodLess Communist Atheistic Asiatic HORDES!!!!!!

I say that Until the Geneva Convention OutLaws PMS[1]
as an InHumane Fighting Ehancement, women deserve
the right to serve in combat units....


ciao
drieux

[1] horrorfying thought for the day:

an assault battalion formed solely with women during PMS....


ps: ok, so setting 'H' Hour does get a little tricky,
and it would also make certain data:

"Essential Elements of Friendly Intelligence"

BUT! we can get around that by simply establishing
that certain cyclical behavioral implication data
needs to be covered by National Level Security Protections.


"Loose Tampons Sink Ships...."

	A Modern Slogan for a Mondern Era.....



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There is no bottom to this pit -- is there?
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:54:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep14.223237.28501@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
># bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

># Oh hee. Oh ha.
># Mucho funny there.  Is it strange to congratulate someone for being
># pregnant?  Is this an alien concept to you?

>Pardon me whilst I put on my Miss Manners outfit...

>When receiving news that a woman is pregnant, it is not impolite to
>assume that the pregnancy was planned and desired (unless otherwise
>told), and, as with all such news, congratulations are not appropriate
>unless the woman has confided in you that she has had difficulty
>becoming pregnant.
>
>It is regrettable, but there is still a stigma attached to fertility
>problems, and etiquette demands that we not make rash assumptions that
>lead to injured feelings.

By all means.  I'm not claiming that I say congrats to every pregnant woman
who walks the streets.

I realize that there are many circumstances that surround pregnancy.  I
do have jugment, you know.


>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
kcw



--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:31:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.171407.4378@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

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

>> I don't know if she's attempting to make her religious beliefs
>> into the law of the land, because I don't know whether or not she 
>> supports the Freedom of Choice Act.  But I think it's likely that 
>> she does support passage of the FOCA, as do most other pro-choicers. 

> Huh?  So are you trying to tell us that the FOCA is a religion-
> based piece of legislation?  If not, then Ms Feldt's religious
> views are irrelevant.  If yes, then I would myself oppose
> the establishment of a solely religious law.

You claimed that Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her personal
religious views the law of the land.  Whether the FOCA is based
upon on religious beliefs is not relevant to that claim. 

> Also, I am glad you admit that you have no information about
> whether Ms Feldt is attempting to establish her religious
> beliefs as law.  I rather doubt that she is.

I said that I don't know if she's attempting to make her religious 
beliefs into the law of the land, because I don't know whether or 
not she supports the Freedom of Choice Act.  I think it would be
extremely illogical for a pro-choicer such as Ms. Feldt to oppose 
the passage of the FOCA, but I'm hesitant to assume that she does
support the FOCA.

>>> Also, note that the earlier quote of yours, now that you provide
>>> more of the quote, demonstrates nicely how you take quotes
>>> out of context and change their meaning.  

>> I think a person would have to be rather naive to assume that
>> Ms. Feldt's views towards abortion could be based solely on 
>> religion, given that she's a Planned Parenthood executive. 

> Clearly, and counter to your deceptive claim, anyone reading the
> statement below could easily be deceived into thinking that
> Ms Feldt was saying her logic was based solely on a religious
> perspective.

I seriously doubt that Gloria Feldt became a Planned Parenthood 
executive solely on the basis of her religious views towards 
abortion.  But that's not even relevant to your original claim.
Let's not stray off the topic, shall we?  
 

>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

      "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>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 06:33:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes ...
>To be "divisive debate" you need two things.  You need to be "divisive"
>and you need to be "debate".  A war is not "divisive debate".  It is
>merely "divisive".  Like a brawl, only bigger.
>
>I'm not exactly knowledgeable about American history (even though
>there's so little of it:-)) - so do you really say that the slavery 
>issue was *debated* in America, with reasonable arguments on both 
>sides??  

Actually, yes.  The debate about slavery started a hundred years before
the civil war and was settled only after the civil war.  And as an aside,
the war was not directly about the issue of slavery.  The southern states
went to war over the right to secede from the United States, evem though
they were seceding in large part because of the slavery issue.  And the 
northern states fought to preserve the union, rather than to free the slaves.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES, NFP SUCCESS RATES
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:27:47 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <xbnng8=.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>>   As you may recall, the method effectiveness of the model was 99.6 percent
>>in the Creighton-St. John's Mercy study conducted in 1980 (559 couples;
>>4,957 couple months of use) (see Table 1).  In 1985, Joanne Doud published
>>the results of her study at St. Francis Hospital of Wichita, Kansas.  The
>>method effectiveness was 99.1 percent (376 couples; 2,463 months of use).
>>In the most recent study, the largest to date, the method effectiveness is
>>99.9 percent (697 couples; 7,238 couple months of use).
> 
> Very interesting numbers indeed!  Few questions though.  I'm not sure 
> what they mean by "effectiveness" or how they  are measuring it.  With
> "conventional" contraceptives effectiveness generally refers to how often
> the woman can expect to not get pregnant each time she has intercourse.
> (that is, if my memory is correct).  The information you posted doesn't
> include any information about just what the numbers _mean_.  I'd appreciate
> more data, as it could be useful.


I've posted for you all I have on the matter, but I can tell you this, that
the _expectations_ of a couple using NFP do _change_ during the course of a
month as to whether participating in an act of intercourse will produce a
pregnancy.   Certain times of the month they expect they will not get pregnant
if they have sex, and certain other times of the month they fully expect they
_will_ get pregnant if they have sex.

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 21:37:12 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  <1992Sep4.181130.8070@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.113450.7336@hemlock.cray.com>
> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
> >In (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> I'd be quite happy to overturn the "government fiat" known as
> >> Roe v. Wade and have the abortion issue returned to the states
> >> where it rightfully belongs.  Let the people decide the issue.
>
> > I take it this means Doug opposes the Republican platform's call
> > for a constitutional amendment banning abortion because it would
> > prohibit individual states from deciding the abortion issue.
>
> At the present time, yes.  The Democratic platform of unrestricted
> abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy

Dougie be lyin' again - the Democratic platform supports Roe v. Wade,
which permits states to regulate abortions after the first trimester,
and virtually ban third-trimester abortions.

> the Republican platform
> on abortion are currently minority-held positions in this country.

This is certainly true - the Republican platform allows for no exceptions
for rape or incest.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:48:27 GMT

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

>In <1992Sep05.072518.28382@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>>Didn't you just post that you believe that the fact that a single lawyer
>>reports seeing more rape cases than incest gave you reason to believe
>>that doctors who perform abortions are learning of incest and failing
>>to report it?  

>This lawyer has been around for a long time, and knows what is going
>on even if he "sees" little of it.  

You seem to have been operating on a false assumption here.  You
keep citing a lawyer in reference to a doctor's report.

The only time a lawyer would ever KNOW that the report had been
made is if enough evidence were found to warrant an investigation,
and the investigation found enough evidence to support an
indictment.  I imagine there are any number of "I suspect" doctor's
reports languishing on the desks of detectives.  And while I think
that it's a rotten idea to see evidence of abuse and not do anything
about it, I think it's an equally rotten idea to MANDATE by law
that every individual doctor must follow a PARTICULAR course of
action.  At the very very least, it's a violation of confidentiality.
At worst, it could lead to harassment of the patient and her family,
and a bunch of ruined reputations. ("Hey Jenny, heard you've been
doing the old horizontal bop with Daddy....")

>Also, I have not heard of a single abortionist turning in someone
>for incest.  It takes a while to find out whether any such cases
>have actually occurred, though.  Stay tuned.

The only way YOU would find out is if enough evidence were gathered
which led to a publicized trial.  Many many charges these days lead
to plea bargains, which are unlikely to be well-publicized.

Another thing you've neglected to mention is just what your friend
"the lawyer" DOES.  There are many many branches of law.  If he
specialized in, say, corporate takeovers, he's no more likely to
have heard about anything like this than you or I.

>Peter Nyikos

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 21:04:07 GMT

In <1992Sep5.102619.11915@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>>Nyikos
>>> Ferrari

>>  I am against banning contraception,
>>morning-after pills, IUD's (except those things in all three categories
>>that are significantly more dangerous than what else is available, like
>>DES and the Dalkon Shield), and even abortion prior to the end of the
>>5th week.  

>CONTRACEPTIONN IS BESIDE THE POINT!! Abortion "prior to the end of the 5th
>week" is basically beside the point also, since paltry few women know
>that they are pregnant by that time,

If so, sex education has done a lousy job of teaching about menstrual
cycles and pregnancy tests, and about the desirability of EARLY abortions.

> much LESS have time to make up their
>minds about it (abortion is NOT a snap decision),

I would expect a lot of women have made their minds up, even before
having intercourse, that if they get pregnant, they'll abort.

> AND get to the abortion
>clinic, when antis keep passing abortion restrictions and generally making
>it extremely difficult to get to a clinic. 

This is a bogus argument.  What's a 24 hour waiting period compared to 
5 weeks?

> This 5-week abortion grace
>period you so generously bestow upon us is nothinng but a mirage.  What
>makes a 5-week fetus different from a 6-week onne anyway?

Well, I can't know when sentience occurs, but there seems to be a 
prima facie case for it beginning some time between the end of the
5th week and the end of the 8th.  Like I said, I am open to moving
up the cutoff point to the 8-week point.

>>> Contraceptionn is NOT ann
>>>alternnative to abortion.

>>It's too bad so many people literally believe this, like the teenagers
>>on a recent Oprah Winfrey show who (so I'm told, correct me if I'm 
>>wrong) were asked why they did not use (more?) birth control, and replied
>>that it was because they knew they could always get an abortion.

>Let me try this one more time, inn nice, short, sentences: Conntraception
>is NNOT an alternative to abortionn.  (Pause while you look up that big
>word "contraception.")  Contraception prevennts abortionn.

>Got it?

Sorry, repeating a statement is not the same thing as explaining it.
Contraception does not prevent abortion, otherwise people would not
be talking about "contraceptive failure."  So what did you mean?

>Let's summarize in case you don't.

>Contraception prevents pregnancy.  Contraception does not STOP a pregnancy.

I know that.  What's your point?

Peter Ny.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:36:47 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <fdjngwa.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>You are now aware of why Doug has such a "sterling" reputation in this
>group.  Patrick didn't call Chaney a "fat black ass".  He told him to get
>his "fat black ass" over to Houston if he wanted to see him.

Eyuuuiilllk.  Still pretty racist if you ask me.  Apologise and get it over
with.  Sheesh.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 15:11:35 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
: In <1992Sep4.153752.1234@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:
: > So to say that abortion is always immoral is to call this woman and countless 
: > others liars, or to deny the existence of conscience.  Any bible-thumpers 
: > care to comment?
: 
:   I'm no "thumper" (hard to read that way), but lots of "evil" acts are 
: performed without any moral qualms whatsoever on the parts of those committing 
: them.  Does this somehow make the act or the person less evil?  Was Hitler less
:   Can you say "eye of the beholder"?  I don't think she's lying, nor do I
: deny the existence of conscience.

You just have.   You've said that evil acts can be committed without
any moral qualms whatsoever.  A believer in conscience would say
that an act is *not* evil if the one who does it suffers no moral
qualms.

: > You see, this is what I cannot understand - that everyone seems
: > to "know" that (say) murder is wrong, because their conscience tells
: > them so.  If abortion is supposed to be in some way equivalent to 
: > murder, then why is a similar consensus missing from the abortion
: > issue?  
: 
:   This is in fact not a "new" question.  See below.

Well, tell me an old answer...

: 
: > How could something which is supposed to be so *very* wrong produce 
: > such divisive debate?    And how could something which is *not at all* 
: > wrong produce such divisive debate? 
: 
:   Ever hear of slavery?  The American Civil War?  A lot of people thought
: slavery was right and good.  A lot thought it was evil and immoral.  The latter
: group won (I'm oversimplifying, but that was the net effect).  So now almost
: all of us agree that slavery is evil and immoral.

To be "divisive debate" you need two things.  You need to be "divisive"
and you need to be "debate".  A war is not "divisive debate".  It is
merely "divisive".  Like a brawl, only bigger.

I'm not exactly knowledgeable about American history (even though
there's so little of it:-)) - so do you really say that the slavery 
issue was *debated* in America, with reasonable arguments on both 
sides??  
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why the 5 week sentience point?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:33:22 GMT

In <1992Sep15.001513.24417@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <nyikos.716337853@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep12.001151.13966@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>>>Peter:

>>>>> The first is sheer speculation.  Which part of the plant is the seat
>>>>> of sentience?  With humans, you will hear it asserted that sentience
>>>>> is only associated with the neocortex, which is lacking in most
>>>>> animals.   

>>>>> I was safe-siding with my 5 week figure.  Somewhere in the 6th week, 
>>>>> simple reflexes can be elicited.  Whether that is enough for sentience
>>>>> is a deep and abiding mystery, but again, I am giving the embryo the
>>>>> benefit of the doubt.

>>>My biology books are in Chicago and I'm in New York (telnetting to my
>>>U of Chicago account), but if I recall correctly, reflexes are handled
>>>by the medula, which is sometimes considered the most "primitive" part
>>>of the brain and sometimes considered a part of the spinal cord.
>>>Certainly they are not handled by the parts of the brain considered
>>>the seats of sentient/sapient thought.

>>Descartes thought the pineal gland was the seat of the "somebody home".
>>Subsequent philosophers generally have been of the opinion
>> that it was a mistake to 
>>locate that "somebody" in too small a place.  I wonder how
>>many so-called neuroscientists are really aware of what these
>>old debates were all about.  

>Peter, what are your criteria for deciding what scientific evidence to
>accept and what scientific evidence to reject?

I accept all scientific evidence for what it is.  When scientists get
to talking about whether or not there is "somebody home," they are 
getting into some pretty deep philosophy, like the Soviet cosmonauts
who said they could not find God in outer space, or, to take a somewhat
less frivolous example, the many people who say that modern cosmology
has made all talk of a Creator superfluous.  [This has a long history, like
Laplace telling Napoleon, "I had no need of that hypothesis."]

Have you ever read John Locke's _An Essay Concerning Human Understanding_?
Here was a man who lived only a little after Descartes, yet he wrote 
a great many things there that I could have sworn were the product of
19th and 20th century science. 

Peter Nyikos
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:37:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <nyikos.716335245@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I'm beginning to hatch a bit of speculation, not backed up yet by any solid
>facts, mind you, that just as Dennis Hall is alleged to be a fictional name
>of Steve Chaney, just so   Adrienne Regard      is a fictional name for
>                            drieux
>or vice versa.  
>
>So maybe I should cross one of you off my list of people, never mind the
>`compassionate' bit.
>
>Peter Nyikos

This is possibly the most amusing thing I've seen on the net in a *long*
time!  Hey drieux, does the ProblemOlderWoman know that you are really
Adrienne?  Is this where the War on Heterosexuality came from?

Adrienne, how does it feel to be male who has borne children?

Can't figure out how to reconcile the writing styles, either...

-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+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:41:05 GMT

In article <d2wnh!=.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
> > gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> >>  mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> >> }        I backed it up all the way to two cells--two distinctly human
> >> }cells that in just 9 short months will be ...
> >> 
> >> Why stop there?  Why not back it up before then?  Why not back it up
> >> to the lustful gleams?
> >> 
> >Get serious.

Why not back it up to the lustful gleams?  This answer should be clear.

Before the egg and sperm join, there exists nothing that could be
considered
a person.  


> >If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is 
> >killing (by torture) an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter.


There do exist several cases where killing a person can be considered
morally ok, IMHO.  For example, euthanasia (in very specific instances
which I can go into if necessary), self-defence and accidental death.

Do you agree?  

If not, why?

If so, then I have another question for you.  How would these three cases
be considered when making abortion illegal.

In addition, and if this applies, what biblical support, specifically, do
you use to support your idea that abortion should be made illegal.