HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BuDuF8.C30.2@cs.cmu.edu>
	<SCOTTS.92Sep11131610@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<BuHLJH.JKB.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:35:03 GMT

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

   Your puppy is undeniably cute.  

She tried to run around unattended outside today, again.  She is cute,
but she doesn't take discipline well.  Probably because she was abused
when she was smaller.  Hey, that's another thing that she and Chaney
have in common, they both seem to have been abused when they were
small.  I wonder if Chaney is paper trained?

   #Well, that was nice of you to point out one of Chaney's virtues --
   #that he very politely keeps reminding us that he is a bigot.

   It's the only virtue that he seems to have.  If you can think of any,
   please let me know.

I didn't think of that virtue.  You or your Hero did.

   #With his flair for "personalities", it wouldn't surprise me to see
   #John Wilke or Randall Terry post from CSUS.

   Really.  Now he seems to believe that his little teacher's college
   is, in fact, the world.  (For some reason, he seems to be confusing
   "neutral on abortion" with "against abortion.")

Are you referring to his last incomprehensible post?  Not being
involved in outside political activities has nothing to do with being
pro-choice or not.  You can still be pro-choice and not participate in
any electorial/legislative program.  In fact, most pro-choice people
agree that the government (through its elected officials and
legislative bodies) should not be involved in this personal decision
at all.

   #   #   [Chaney on civil rights]
   #   #   He doesn't seem to know what civil rights are.  
   #   #
   #   #Chaney has a lot of problems with many concepts.  Fetus/baby,
   #   #liberty/slavery, sectarian/secular,...
   #
   #   Don't forget right/wrong.
   #
   #Of course.

   He's also recently demonstrated his complete ignorance of economic
   systems.  He seems to believe that the U.S. has a capitalist
   economy.  I guess those econ courses proved much too difficult
   for him and he didn't stay for the second week of Principles.

Do you really think he has passed any of his courses?

   #   #   Maybe his mommy and daddy should buy him more picture books on
   #   #   the subject.  
   #   #
   #   #I don't think they'd do it.  Would you admit it if he was your child?
   #
   #   Sure I would.  I'd even go visit him in the home.  
   #
   #But you would also have to admit giving birth to him.

   Of course.  I'd have to.  There's no shame in giving birth
   to a mutant.

Do you think he has a shell and says "Cowabonga man"?

   Oh, and Scott, dear?  Lose the .gif threat.  Think "Tim."

Peaches.

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:33:36 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715652639@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Sep01.184825.34350@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

##The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
##law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
##were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
##but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
##and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
##abortions were *not* struck down.
#
#They were in Thornburgh v. Coll. of OB/Gyn.  To the best of my knowledge,
#no such law was upheld until Webster v. Repro.

I hate to break this to you, Nyikos, but this is 1992.  Thornburgh was
decided in 1986.  Larry is referring to the Pennsylvania Abortion
Control Act of 1989.  PA has passed many anti-abortion bills.

Your statements are technically correct, I'll grant you that.  They
weren't, of course, at all relevant.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 17:17:48 GMT

In <1992Sep6.204246.28271@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
>>body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
>>to controlling it.   

>You are being unrealistic and possibly hypocritical here.

I don't think I've ever called you possibly hypocritical.  Please wait
till you hear me out next time.

>A woman doesn't absolutely *have* to control a fetus in order to kill
>it.  If she has surgery to remove a tiny bit of her *own* body, right
>where the umbilical cord connects, the fetus will die in very short
>order.

WRONG!!! The fetus, umbilical cord, placenta, and bag of waters all
come from the original fertilized ovum.  [Can't blame you for not
knowing this, I didn't know it a month and a half ago either.  It was
only established well after the start of this century, and most books
and articles on fetal development don't make it at all clear.]

I'd 
wager less than 10% of all PRO-LIFERS know this much, which is why
they are so uncomprehending when women say that a fetus looks like
a "clot," "clump of cells", and "mass of tissue," when only contact
of these latter women with
embryology might be a miscarriage where the chorionic sac is expelled
whole, with the embryo/fetus hidden inside.

>  Presumably it can then be removed.  On the flip side, unless
>the woman has the right to control the fetus's body (whether directly
>as in a modern-day abortion, or indirectly by controlling her own body
>as above), she loses the right to control her own body to avoid the
>effort and effects of being pregnant.

This is a rather pointless tautology that you have just made.  Of course
I wouldn't give absolute rights to control over a person's body, just
as I wouldn't give a fetus (or anyone else) an absolute right to life.
The right to self-defense sometimes involves abrogating that right.  But
the right to self-defense is not absolute either.  Despite what a lot of
people think, one does not have the right to kill any old intruder in 
one's home; one must have real reasons for thinking that intruder poses
a threat of grave bodily harm to one or more people living in one's home. 

>In the *real* world, either the woman can control both her own body
>and the fetus's during pregnancy, or she can't control either.

True to a degree.  She does not abdicate all, or even most, control to
her body.  

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

>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35642 alt.abortion.inequity:3633
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:27:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>In article <marnr1r.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>The clearest case of pro-life mysogyny is the exception in case of rape 
>>or incest to a general ban on all abortion except in the case of rape or 
>>incest.  This appears to mean that the so-called pro-lifers are interested
>>in little more that punishing women for having sex; since the fetus is not
>>responsible for the crimes of its parent, why should there be an exception?
>
>Perhaps they think that the added burden of living with the fact
>that the child was a result of a degrading and violent experience
>would be an extremly cruel circumstance, and they are willing to
>defer to the well-being of the mother.

Ah, so then, if your death would prevent me from suffering equally
cruel circumstances, then it would be alright for me to kill you?

And if the answer is no, is it because you're a person and a fetus isn't?

> In other words, to ban abortion
>after rape/incest could be regarded as punishment (hence misogynistic),
>whereas banning it after consensual sex would merely be enforcing a 
>responsibility he and she voluntarily risked (hence not misogynistic).

And we hear the tired old responsibility line again.  It didn't fly
the first time I heard it, and it doesn't fly now.  When you accept 
all the possible consequences of your actions, then I'll take you more
seriously.  As long as you expect hospitals to fix you up should you
get in a car accident, I'll continue to regard you as being hypocritical.

>I don't know why you insist that everything be either-or.  One can
>certainly claim without contradiction or misogyny that:
>
>. the fetus has a right to life;

Unless it's mother remained virtuous and had sex against her will.

>. the "burden" a woman (or man) has is not a punishment but a natural 
>  consequence of the risk in sex (hence no right that overcomes fetal rights); 

But you get to avoid the natural consequences of travelling in car at 60mph.

>. the extra burden from rape/incest would, however, amount to punishment
>  (creating a conflict of rights -- so fetal rights are overridden).

But no conflict of rights exists or punishment occurs if the women 
consented to sex (but not pregnancy) and faces being disabled should
the pregnancy continues.

>The bottom line being that there need be nothing inconsistent
>in believing abortion should be banned because of fetal rights
>while permitting exceptions for rape/incest.  

Yeah, right.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Epitaph: He didn't dodge the bomb... (was Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:21:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.011244.18565@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>The fetus was a person before Roe vs. Wade. And of course, it is Roe
>vs. Wade that we're challenging. 
This is purest bullshit. The fetus has never been a person under
US law.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: I love the smell of napalm in the morning... (Was: Abortion)
Summary: At least Peter doesn't post 500+ line articles... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletion?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 15:35:19 GMT

In article <nyikos.715729698@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Of course, you can all go on believing Tiller had nothing embarrassing
>to hide.  But his activities, while perhaps legal under Kansas law, 
>were still of a sort that most ordinary people find repugnant.  Perhaps
>some pro-choicers here would too, if they saw them, but they never get
>the chance.
Peter, is the sky blue where you live?

I find _all_ abortions disgusting.  I hate the fact that women have them, I
hate the fact that some women who want to have kids have to have them to save
their lives.  I hate the fact that some women have to use them as the last line
of defense in BC.  I hate the fact that some women have them becuase of rape.

What I hate even more is idiots who want to legislate away women's rights.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35586 alt.zines:76
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 8 Sep 1992 08:05:37 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep7.193052.22166@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>Wrong.  If it can be proved in a court of law that the father refuses to
>work and pay child support payments, that father can be found guilty of
>contempt of court and either jailed or forced to work.

We would be interested in support for this statement.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:04:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.215328.23775@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article <Bu1Dxw.ABu.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
## 
## While I'm glad that the child survived, and hope that she truly
## has no ill effects, I feel that I do need to point out that it
## is possible to misjudge gestational age by up to four weeks.
## (That was the justification for allowing mandatory viability
## testing at 20 weeks in the Webster decision.)
# 
#While teams of medical doctors working on a premie in the neonatal intensive
#care ward could ~conceivably~ get a child's gestational age wrong, they sure
#as heck will get her weight right.  

Your point wasn't that she was tiny, though, Suzanne, it
was that she was of an earlier gestational age than was
previously thought to be viable.  

I join the rest of t.a. in awaiting your comments on the 
gestational age estimated by the doctors who attended her.
Could you also provide us with the source of your erroneous
estimate?

#** 15 ounces **    As human and thriving as the rest of us.

This is hardly the first case of an infant that small surviving.
While weight is used to estimate gestational age, it is not
the only factor.

## Could you elaborate on the "lung treatment," Suzanne?
#
#From what my officemate told me of they what treated her nephew with, it's a
#synthetic lung secretion to make up for the one lacking in such young premies,
#without which many have terrible lung problems.

Thanks.  Nyikos has elaborated a bit, too.  I'll look it up.

Susan
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 20:08:00 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<Sep12.072322.84133@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
><xbnnk4=.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> Pretty close.  I agree pretty much with Jennifer here.  If you are going
>|> to legislate that the state controls a woman's womb then you had better be
>|> prepared to have your testicles controlled by the state too.
>
>	Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of) proposes to enact state
>controls over the womb.  

So a woman can choose to empty out the contents of her womb and you
won't mind?  Why do I find this hard to believe?  Gee, if the state
gives you control over your car, as long as you don't drive it
anywhere, do you still feel like you have control over it?

>                         We're merely proposing that a woman not be allowed to
>kill the child for whose existence and presence in her womb she is responsible.

There is no child in a woman's womb.  I can pretty much gaurentee that if
a woman had a child in her womb she's either one big woman, or she's dead
from blood loss.

>That the creation and development of the child occurs in her womb is incidental. 

So many pregnant women would be surprised to hear this.

>I would not object to a woman removing the child from her womb so long as she did
>not kill it in the process.

So if there was a way to remove the 8 week fetus from the lining and hand
it to you still alive, then you would approve of abortion?  Of course,
the fetus would die shortly after removal, but heck, as long as it was
removed alive it's ok.  Right?

BTW, please set your right margins such that a few responses don't cause
the ugly line wrap you see above.  If you need help with this let me
know.


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.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Sex Selective Impregnation
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:10:55 GMT

From article <1992Sep6.151616.2236@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:

>      In reference to the "aborting females" thread, I saw on the
> news the other night that a doctor was opening up a clinic in Toronto
> and a clinic in Vancouver for sex-selective pregnancies.  They said
> his method was 80% effective (no guarantees I guess, eh?).

He is probably one of those doctors who puts the contribution from
the husband in a centrifuge, to sort the sperm into male and female,
and then artificially inseminates the wife.  This method takes
advantage of the different masses of the two types of sperm.


>      I was just wondering whatch'all may think about the concept,
> seeing how so many people think the sex selective abortions are
> disgusting...  Is it ok to "play God?"

I think it is a waste of time, since NFP can be used to sway the
odds with the same 80% effectiveness.   It's all in the timing -
exploiting the facts that boy sperm swim faster but girl sperm
live longer.   You may read up on it in the book "How to Choose
the Sex of Your Baby", available in the pregnancy section of all
fine B. Dalton Booksellers and Waldenbooks.   In fact, my NFP
instructor has confirmed that they see the same statistics when
looking at the charts of client couples.


> Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
> 
> PS.  oh yeah, forgot to say that I think it's fine and dandy, but
>      can only take the magic out of random sex selection!  Not for me.

Well, we might consider attempting sex selection via NFP someday,
although we haven't in the past.  Just depends on what the future
brings.  It's not important enough to us to really worry about what
sex we get though, and the book is very explicit that if you cannot
live with the 20% "failure" rate (if a healthy baby of either sex 
can be called a "failure"), then do not begin a pregnancy at this
time in your life.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Sex, Sacrifice and the U.S.A. (Was: Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:45:53 GMT

From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> 
> Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
> pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
> reliable.


This, Mr. King, is garbage.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:18:10 GMT

I give up, Mr. Margolis.  Until you stop labeling my sources as
"speculation" (including several sources which appeared in prestigious 
law journals), I won't feel inclined to accept your pro-abortion
sources.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Why the 5 week sentience point?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:18:05 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Again posted by Peter's request:

In article <brandonu.ca mcbeanb.mail.abortion:12>, nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> 
>>      I forgot to ask why you choose the onset of sentience as
>> the cutoff point.
> 
> Well, to use the colorful words I picked up from one of the networkers
> (Elizabeth Bartley, I think) that's when you can say that "somebody's
> home."
> 
>>  Plants are sentient, so are animals...
> 
> 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.   
> 
> Plants often reproduce by budding, and you can graft parts of plants
> to other plants.  Do the grafts possess sentience?  (Or, if sentience
> means something different to you than to me, let me put it this way:
> is there "anybody home" in the grafts?)
> 
>> How does sentience set a 5 week old fetus apart from a 4 week?
> 
> 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.
> 
>> Brian
>
> Peter
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:16:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Summary: Nyikos goes for a place on the net.council.of.idiots

One of the classic idiotic statements from Nyikos follows.
Follow-ups to talk.abortion.
In article <nyikos.715613094@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> However, I do believe the whole thread is relevant to talk.rape.  Like
> rape, forced abortion is a violent intrusion into the victim's genital 
> opening, and South Carolina law now subsumes rape under the heading of
> such intrusions.

It is exactly the same sort of "rape" as an average gynecological
exam in that a doctor, and with the exception of the one instance
you cited (you can be a moron and act like the one doctor who
forced an abortion on his wife physically is common or somehow
representative, but it only makes you look stupid to do so),
with the willing permission of the patient, uses instruments
to perform a medical procedure via the woman's vagina.  With the
exception of the one instance you cited, which is certainly
criminal, abortion is not forced on a woman.  Perhaps you would
like to change the meanings of all words now?  Perhaps when
doctors perform heart surgery we should start calling it
"assault with a deadly weapon" and charge those doctors for
using sharp and deadly instruments to cut into people's hearts?

Dean Kaflowitz