HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:21:34 GMT

In <1992Oct6.042552.1085@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov 
   (Loren I. Petrich) writes: >
In article <1992Oct5.163708.18721@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <lcml1oINNmu6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
   (Eric Marsh) writes: >>>

>>>> Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>>>> 1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>>>> judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>>>> the deaths of millions?!
>
>>> Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.
> 
>>> I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.
>
>> One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously 
>> derogate the religious convictions of others.  If only we were
>> all Wiccans...
> 
> C'mon, give Eric Marsh a break. How would you like some
> half-baked religious argument thrown at _you_, Bill Overpeck?

It wouldn't be the first time, Loren Petrich.  For example...

  In <95586@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>,
  loren@dweasel.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) writes: 

  >     Mr. Overpeck, since you insist on being so snotty, consider
  >which would you rather look at:
  >
  >	A man dying a gruesome death, nailed to a cross.
  >
  >	Or:
  >
  >	A woman, standing up straight, and with her arms pointing
  >outward and bent upward. In each hand, she holds a snake. She is
  >wearing an oversized beret with a cat on it. She is also wearing a
  >long dress with the top open, exposing her breasts. The skirt part of
  >her dress is flounced, giving a terraced appearance.

Half baked, indeed.

>>> All it does is make them look like know-nothings.
>
>> Based on your comments, I suspect that there are those who've reached 
>> similar conclusions about the proponents of Wicca.  
>
> Give me a break. Eric Marsh used no "Wiccan" arguments here.

Obviously irrelevant.  Unless it's recently been demonstrated that 
the proponents of Wicca are not also dabbling in "superstitious crap",
how can he justify referring to someone else's beliefs in those terms?

Bill
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:13:24 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct16.233653.108190@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In  <1992Oct15.220103.11184@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
#sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
##
##Most of the users here would probably want me off the net,
#
#Why do you keep saying that?  Has anyone asked you to leave?  Or are
#you corresponding with a certain moronic propellor-head who told you
#that "pro-aborts" would try to flame you off the net?

That's "intimidate right off the net," Larry.  

It has come to my attention that Dennis and Petey Honey have succeeded
in embarassing someone who opposes abortion so badly that he quit
posting.  I've still not heard from anyone who claims to have been
flamed off the net.

##since my views are offensive to all.
#
#Most of what I've seen varies from laughable to pathetic.

Indeed.  Offensive would be an improvement.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:14:23 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 8-Oct-92 Re: No Human Worth in
Unbor.. by Larry Margolis@watson.ib 
> > So you think those human creatures who are postconceived but not yet
> > born have no human worth?
>  
> Bingo - they're not people, and so are not entitled to the valuation
> we give to people.  They might be *potential* people, but that doesn't
> entitle them to anything until they realize that potential.

I don't understand this argument of potential people. Someone else
tried to explain it to me. But I just don't get it. 

If a mother has problems with her pregnancy and the child comes early,
it's a child right? I mean it doesn't have to live 4 or 2 more months
out here before we're willing to call it a child. Sometimes pre-mature
children need help, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes children who
are born on time need help, and sometimes not. 

So if a fetus can survive outside the mother at 5 months of development
or 7 or 8, how can you say that it's not a child, but only a potential
child? It's already happened that children like this survive. They can't
possibly have only been potential before birth.

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Excuse Please, But who Be conservative?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:25:26 GMT

jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
] In article <1992Oct10.185634.5692@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
] >] In article <1992Oct9.155924.8972@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
] >] >
] >] >No guts, period.  No logic either.
] >] Such is the life of a conservative...
] > 
] >Excuse me, but as a Card Carrying Republican
] >Ever since I lived Under Franco I does Take
] >Umbrage at your proposition about 'conservative'
] >and their 'guts and logic.'
] 
] I am sorry to hear your political affiliation... (I do like your style,
] nonetheless).  I find most conservatives lack logic, they do have guts
] generally.  Most arguments that EXTREME to MODERATE conservatives/republicans
] give are without logic.
 

I am, equally, sorry to hear that you are NOT ANTI_FASCIST!

But I guess that its one of those difficult things 
to understand about why some of US oppose FASCISM[1]
and support a constitutional republic.

If I have not said it emough times, allow me to repeat:

"You Can HAVE MY CONSTITUTION,
When You Rip it from My COLD DEAD HANDS!"

Sorry If that is NOT a well reasoned argument....

But my family has been of that genral opinion since
the first one sucked up a Musket Ball at Lexington 
that fine spring morn....[2]

ciao
drieux


[1] Please NOTE - I do not mean it as so many americans
seem to presume the term to denote: 'that ikky yukky persons
who caught me smoking cigarettes in the bathroom....'


[2] did sort of screw up the chances of getting a seat in
the house of lords and all... they seem to not like folks
who 'demonstrate overseas against the government' as well....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:36:26 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = Bill Overpeck writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>> = Earlier Overpeckisms:
>>>> = Eric Marsh writes: 

>[...]
>>>> Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.

>>>> I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.

>>>One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously 
>>>derogate the religious convictions of others. 

>>Well, jeepers, Bill - I know this a real *stretch*, but...maybe it's not
>>the religious convictions.  Maybe, ju-u-u-ust maybe, it's those
>>religious fanatics who are trying to make everyone live their way by
>>force of law!

>I see.  Sort of like how Roe endorses the morality of choice.

You're lying.  Roe allows a woman to choose.  No one is FORCED into
anything, as my statement above clearly referred to.  No "morality" is
endorsed, merely the acceptance of a woman's right to choose what *she
feels best* concerning her bodily autonomy.

Cut the crap.  We have enough Chaneys and Holtsingers for one newsgroup.

>>Whaddya think, hmm?  Aren't those kinds of people rather ASKING for it,
>>Bill?  ...Or possibly you're too close to the same condition to
>>recognize what seems obvious?

>Oh, you bet.  They're asking for it.  So why not give it to them?

That's what I do with pleasure.  Do you think I should be SILENCED for
fighting back against what I perceive as dangerous fanatics?  

>After all, it's a free country.  I can choose to ridicule and malign
>people if I want to.  That's part of what choice is all about.  

TA DAH!  Bill's maybe starting to get it!

>>>If only we were all Wiccans...

>>Then no one would thump that bible anymore!  I like your wish.

>Right.  We can all thump Susan Faludi's "Backlash" instead.  I
>can't wait.

You're losing it.  Is Faludi's "Backlash" in danger of being encoded
into law?  C'mon, Overpeck.  You're sounding quite argumentatively
bankrupt.

>>>> All it does is make them look like know-nothings.

>>>Based on your comments, I suspect that there are those who've reached 
>>>similar conclusions about the proponents of Wicca.  

>>Bzzzt!  Pay attention, Bill.
>>
>>For example...when was the last time you saw a Wiccan waxing
>>fanatical and trying to enact laws based on his Wiccan-ism?  

>Listen closely.  One does not (as we've seen right here in 
>t.a) to profess any particular religious philosophy in order
>to recognize that human life is valuable and shouldn't be 
>subject to arbitrary termination.

That is YOUR unproveable *opinion*.  And if you're gonna start
pretending that most pro-lifers aren't religious to a fault, then you're
not even being honest with yourself, much less the readers of t.a.  And
the ones that are *not* religious sure as hell don't have any reason to
enforce their OPINION on those that don't share it.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41986 alt.abortion.inequity:4349 alt.birthright:534
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Fornication (Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!a)
Date: 11 Oct 1992 18:16:16 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
|A question. When does God tell us not to fornicate? He tells us not to
|commit adultery which is (dun dun DA da):
|voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other 
|than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her
|husband. pg 58 Web. 9th New Collegiate Dict. 1988

|As far as I've studied neither God nor Mary were married at the time
|of the divine encounter.

Oooh.  God gets off on a technicality; film at 11.
(And indeed, the only rantings against fornication
I can find are NT & mainly Pauline.)

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
'His sexual exploits, we were also told, would apparently make both
Don Juan and de Sade seem grossly overrated, and promotion women
called ahead with breathless descriptions of his magnetism and his
"intellect."' -- Rolling Stone, 12 Sept 74, on Brian Eno
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:38:31 GMT

In article <Bw457A.ELq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> 
tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

> However, bodily autonomy - despite its lack of inherent significance - 
> *is* used as a principal for making laws, and generally establishing
> what is and is not acceptable behaviour in our society.

So why doesn't the fetus possess the right to bodily autonomy?
The fetus's body gets ripped to pieces during most abortions.

> The "famous violinist" scenario is often used to highlight how most of us
> do agree that an unrestricted demand by one person on another persons
> body is not reasonable.

The "famous violinist" scenario is a strong argument for allowing
abortion in the case of rape/incest, but not for any other circumstance.  

> Personally I think that the foetus' demands on the mother *are* 
> reasonable.  But I must concede that I am treating the human foetus 
> as a priveleged class.

Your argument cuts both ways.  If you allow for unrestricted abortion, 
you would be treating some human beings as an underprivileged class, 
subject to arbitrary termination. You would be discriminating against
fetuses. 

> After all, rapist don't get to demand the use of a woman's body.
> Nor do "famous violinists".
> Nor do any other persons - except foetuses if an anti-abortion law was 
> made.  

Rape is an immoral act.  So is forcing somebody to be hooked up to
a famous violinist.  You can't ignore the circumstances of the situation. 

A woman who fails to take measures to protect her bodily autonomy 
faces the consequence of being forcibly hooked up to a "famous 
violinist".  It would be hard for anyone to hold her responsible 
for failing to protect her bodily autonomy, because somebody else 
committed an immoral act by forcibly hooking her up to the violinist.  

A couple who engage in consensual sexual intercourse face the
consequence of conceiving a child.  Nobody commits an immoral act
which forces that couple to conceive a child.

> I *have* to acknowledge that I am discriminating *against* women 
> *for* foetuses.

If you allow for unrestricted abortion, you would be discriminating
against fetuses.  

> In order for a foetus to be protected in the womb, it has to be treated
> differently from a rapist, or any other invader of the woman's body.  It 
> has to have special treatment.  It has to be treated differently from every 
> other "person".

Every other person was once a fetus.
 

>tommy


Doug Holtsinger
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And now another semantics nit
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:54:48 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >Mr. Guerrero, you seem to have a penchant for employing the phrase
# >`members of the species homo sapiens' (or contractions thereof).
# >
# >Question:
# >
# >	...where do I get my membership card?
# 
# You already have one from the time you began your existence as a
# human life.
# 
# I certainly believe that neither I, nor your mother, have a right
# to take away your existence as a special human life.
# 
# Be glad you were able to get your "membership card" before society 
# started taking them away from people.

Mr. Guerrero, are you intentionally dodging the point?  I made a
simple quip, and then *KNOWING* that intelligent people could fail to
understand me, I explicitly described my point in excruciating detail.
You then swept past the meat of my article and followed up with
mindless pap and righteous handwaving.

I am reposting the article.  Please answer the actual criticism in
your followup.


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mr. Guerrero, you seem to have a penchant for employing the phrase
| `members of the species homo sapiens' (or contractions thereof).
| 
| Question:
| 
| 	...where do I get my membership card?
| 
| 
| My point being -- you are specifically defining the set of `members of
| the species homo sapiens' so as to include that which you argue should
| be considered persons and to exclude that which you argue shouldn't, a
| definition which you then use when you argue that everything in the
| set of `members of the species homo sapiens' ought to be considered
| persons.
| 
| No doubt you'd also have the cheek to argue that the set of persons
| and the set of objects that conform to requirements for membership in
| the set of species homo sapiens are identical sets by a similar feat
| of cognition.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:19:57 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I'm not religious.

So you say. Yet you keep coming to the religious rescue of your pro-life
friends.


Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re:
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.145515.622@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.021610.26620@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
> >> In article <1992Sep25.185248.15614@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley
>> MG>  (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> MG> >We all want real change.
>> 
>> AR> Who's "we", white man?
>> 
>> White man?  ...  hardly warrants a flame based upon his race...
>
>Adrienne was obviously refering to an old joke involving Tonto
>and the Lone Ranger.  ...

Gosh, I guess this is the kind of thing that happens when people use their
"noses" to detect racist bigotry, instead of their brains, eh, Dean?

								- Kevin
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992 13:05:48 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
 <1bd4piInnf8@fido.asd.sgi.com>

In article <1bd4piINNnf8@fido.asd.sgi.com> CJ Silverio writes:
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>|It is ENTIRELY within the realm of possibility that CJ retracted it,
>|and you merely did not see it. Proving the nonexistence of an
>|object with an essentially infinite possible location space is
>|very close to impossible. CJ's potential retraction is such an object.
>
>Some would consider the email that Demitrio excerpted from
>to *be* a retraction.  Wriggling semanticists would not.

Silverio is obviously under the impression that
she can fool all of the people all of the time.
I doubt even the least discerning reader would
mistake "then I will retract" and the public
killfiling of the recipient with a retraction.
Frankly it should now be apparent to all, that the
only person doing the semantic samba is Silverio.

I particularly like the waltz where one is able to
predetermine the guilt of somone based on the sharing
of a newsgroup post with a private mailing list.  And
the little number "not a bone of contention at the time"
was catchy although the omission of the last refrain about
the email discussion between Ms. Demitrio, Mr. Keegan and
Silverio was distracting to any who knew the tune well.
All in all, lovely little dances of deception though.

>I won't bother arguing language & meaning with Keeganites.
>It's a total waste of time.

My, my, then all this has been a very clumsy attempt to
convince non-Keeganites that a copy of a t.a post was a
"request for support", that anyone who disagrees is doing
Keegan's "dirty work", and that email promises and public
killfiling are retractions?  I would suspect that no one,
Keeganite or not, could be fooled by such nonsense but one
never knows, as the old saying goes, there is a sucker born
every minute.




Linda
--
It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up them
  Alfred Adler
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: No Reply Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:06:21 GMT

In <1992Oct10.011344.152909@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <BvtBy8.Gs8@news.udel.edu>  roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>> I posted this article on Monday, now it's Thursday. 

Your post up there is dated Oct. 10, which was a Saturday.  What's going on
here?

>> Peter Nyikos has yet
>> to respond while responding to other posts.

Curiouser and curiouser.  Nothing of mine got posted in MY table of 
contents between October 6 and yesterday.  I wonder which posts of
mine this refers to.

>>  Just thought I'd post it again,
>> in case he might want to respond.

My netserver went down for a LONG time, and went down before I had ANY 
follow-ups to my original post arrive here.  Now it is Thursday, October 15.
I wonder when THIS post will be dated.

Roby's repost expired before I could get to it.  It's a good thing
Margolis followed up to it, again illustrating how pro-choicers
sometimes help the one they wish to hurt.

Lately posts seem to expire in four days on my screen, and two
days ago talk.abortion was still blocked, while yesterday I was
working my way through things earlier in the table of contents.

>I think that *not* responding is Peter's way of acknowledging that he
>was wrong.

And people wonder why I've threatened to put Larry in my de facto killfile.
Not a real killfile: I'd still be monitoring his posts, and this post of
his shows the wisdom of doing that.  Were he in my de facto killfile, I
would simply have taken advantage of the favor he unwittingly did me, 
replied to Scott Roby, and edited out of my reply anything Larry said.

And I STILL don't know what Scott Roby said in his original post!
Scott, if you are tuned in, and don't want to post for a third time, 
just e-mail me what you posted, and if I think it calls for a public
reply, I'll post it with my reply myself.

Peter Nyikos




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Mary and the angel (was Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.232040.1780@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}Hey, Mary was perfectly free to say "No", as has been pointed out to
}you before.  Anyone interested may read the first chapter of Luke. 
}She most specifically CHOSE to say "Yes!"

It seems to me we've discussed this before.  I have Luke open to the 
first chapter, and here's what I see:

An angel apears to Mary and says some stuff about how lucky she is.  At 
no time does Mary say either "yes" or "no," the only account is that she
was "troubled."  The angel continues to tell her that she is to become
pregnant and should name the child "Jesus."  Mary again responds with
neither a "yes" or a "no," but rather a question sort of like "How?
I'm a virgin."  The angel says that God will take care of the details.
There is no indication whatsoever that Mary had any choice at all, rather
the selection process and the subsequent events are sort of a done deed.
As a matter of fact, Mary says "be it unto me according to thy word" (KJV,
the quote may not be accurate, but I kind of doubt the translation would
mistake a "yes" or a "no" as a bunch of words.) then the angel splits.
Most of the rest of Luke either deals with John the Baptist.  There is 
no indication in Luke (or any other book that I have read, nor in any
other account that I have access to) that Mary was asked any question,
much less that she "most specifically CHOSE to say 'Yes!'."

I think the last time I concluded with the thought that you can believe
that if you want, Suzanne, but there is absolutely no indication in
any account that Mary was given a choice, nor is there any indication that
she said "yes."

I'll say again, Suzanne, that may be a nice thing for you to believe,
but there is absolutely no substantiation for it.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41210 alt.flame:13352 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:441