HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep24.202455.27917@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <00960F88.B42215E0@BORN.PHYS.VIRGINIA.EDU>
>kara@BORN.phys.virginia.edu (Kara Jayne Keeter) writes:

>>So, if the two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals have unlocked their
>>horns, does that mean the rest of us can't reply to this thread any
>>longer?

>You'd better if you disagree on any parts. Remember what they did to
>Siren? (She was one of their smarter pro-choicers.) 

Siren asked me to post this once.  I am repeating the post on my own
initiative.

--- --- ---
	Also, would you post the following for me in t.a.:

Mr. Chaney:

	Please stop throwing my name at people as I have been told
that you are doing.  I have enjoyed most of my stay, even though some
of it is less than savory.  To most people who have any impression of
me, I am sure they will be perfectly capable of judging my virtues and
shortcomings without your constant harping about it.
	I have disagreed with people, sometimes even vituperic and
acrimonious people, during my year-long fling with t.a., but I try to
forgive and forget, and assume that other people will of their own
benevolence-- as James Steerforth said to David Copperfield:

"Remember me at my best."

	There are honorable adversaries and friends that I will not
forget, and bitter enemies who I have yet to forgive or forget, but I
sincerely hope that I have provided an example of someone who is not
afraid to be true to her own self and fostered some decent discussion
in my time.  Using my name the way I think you are serves no
constructive purpose and violates what I think I stood for, and I
beseech you to stop doing so.

	And to the rest of the people, may I offer some very humble
opinion with trepidation:

	The problem of abortion choice is so complex and intricately
related to many other facets of the society that it is possible that a
"correct" answer may never be arrived at, and will never be as long as
people stick to the absolutist approach of "this is the supreme and
immovable truth regardless of circumstances".

	Don't try to argue absolutes.  It is like arguing infinities--
it simply will never hang together logically.  It is also, oh, so
flame-inducing, all the time!

--- --- ---

I am reminding the group of Siren's wishes.  Whether or not any
attention is paid to them is of course the poster's own decision.

-- 
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.
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:06:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   This is the most clangy pile of pseudo-logic that I've read in
a long time.  Stupid.  Patently assumptive.  But amusing.  I give
it a 6.2!
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:35:46 GMT

In <=7fzhm_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>->chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>->>Whoooooo! I'm Scaaaa~~~~red! Elizabeth Bartley calls me a HYPOCRITE!
>-><chortle>  <snicker>

>->Gosh, how characteristic this unconcern with intellectual 
>->honesty seems.

Steve's statement is off in another dimension.  Why do you talk about it
in these terms, Elizabeth?

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

>does this mean you no longer want to legislate against
>some abortions and imprison/punish the women who have
>the abortions you want to legislate against?

>"intellectual honesty" indeed!!!!

Is Keegan being intellectually honest himself?  Does not Elizabeth
want to punish the abortionists, not the women?

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:25:52 GMT

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: >
>
@ > Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
@ 
@ > 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?

	Like,

	You will get bad karma if you keep this up and you will be
reincarnated as a frog, so if you get in trouble, don't come hopping
and croaking to me.

@  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.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:13:57 GMT

In article <nyikos.718390032@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Analogy: I saw a TV special a few years ago about a woman "priestess"
>who was helping revive the religion of Gnosticism, or at least set up
>something called Gnosticism.
Probably the latter. Gnostic Christianity was not priest or service
oriented.

>I believe (I may be wrong) that the
>last vestige of organized Gnosticism became extinct with the 
>completion of the crusade against the Albigensians.
Got me.
It certainly is true that Gnostic Christianity was ultimately driven
out of existence by what is now referred to as Orthodox Christianity
(not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox church).
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:20:48 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


pb>In article <1992Oct6.141936.10746@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
F>In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com>, "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com> writes:

F> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will experience
F> doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford an unwanted child..
F> Your smug all-knowing attitude turns my stomach..I WANT TO SPEW! 

pb>Catholic Social Services will gladly find a family pay for all 
pb>medical expenses occured during the pregnancy provided they can adopt the child.

Why must they put such conditions on their offer to help?  You would 
think just saving the fetus from the abortionist would be reason enough
to help.

Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40818 talk.religion.misc:17737 alt.atheism:18436
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: PRO "LIFE" IS BULLSHIT!
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:00:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   While the anti-abortion zealots and the pro choice folks fight
over the nature of that period of time between the moment a sperm
busts through the wall of an egg and the moment of birth, none of
us disagree that from birth to death IS life.  And yet the anti's
obsess on pregnancy and don't seem to give a shit as to what type
of world these children will be forced into.  The indifference of
the anti-abortion zealots to war, hunger, poverty, birth defects,
and a host of other calamities to be suffered is proof that their
having taken the label 'pro-life' is just a bit spurious.  If the
quality of life takes a back seat to the quantity of birth, their
label of pro-life is a lie.  When these zealots show more concern
about human suffering, they might not appear so hypocritical.  It
would certainly add a bit of credibility to their name, which has
no validity so far.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Eric Gorr, eternal college freshman and all around geek
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:22:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep29.161412.12396@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>Hey, Eric,
>
>I'm pretty tired of you saying things like "what happens when medical
>technology makes..." and following up with "They're working on that,
>you know".  Tell me, knowledgeable college boy, just WHERE is all this
>wonderful scientific research happening?  in WHAT publications have 
>these things been reported?  Please cite me each publication and report--
>and something concrete, please, not "some movie somewhere" as that
>means absolutely nothing to me.
>
>Oh, and I can afford your mere pittance of $8/hour.  I pay my babysitter
>more.

Wonderful...I let you know how many hours I spend doing the
research and once I receive payment, I give you the
references.  

By the way, How does it feel to have some much rage towards another
person building up inside?  I am curious....

(You may also consult your near-by university library...there are
people there waiting, and willing to help you)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:50:04 GMT

In article <h90nxg+.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep25.212201.16603@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
> >I would hope that you are aware of research
> >that is attempting to make all fertilizations successful.
> 
> Huh?  What's an "unsuccessful fertilization"?
> 
> If you mean that scientists are trying to make all fertilized eggs
> implant successfully, then can you give me a source where you heard
> this, or are you just making it up?  And can you even imagine the
> social implications of this?  (Yes, when a girl is twelve, she faces a
> mandatory operation to implant a device in her uterus...)
> 
> You're using utter nonsense to support your point.

I can find references if you desire.  But I should have said, "that is
attempting to make all _wanted_ fertilizations successful."

Sorry for the confusion.  Please don't automatically assume that I am some
sort of crazy bastard (as you did in this case) who is trying to argue
something totally stupid.

If I may suggest a better and more constructive way you could have phrased
part of your responce it would be:

Are you saying that laws will be passed to force people to be successfully
fertilized? 

It gets the point across and makes you look must more reasonable, rather
then some crazy bastard who doesn't care about understanding  where people
are comming from.

I also believe that I did say many time to you that I would never support
any laws relating to this topic that would make abortion illegal.  If I
didn't direct it specifically to you, then it was to others.  Sorry for the
confusion.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:33:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <25830@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
#In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#]> This was once again validated in a medical tape I watched recently of
#]> women who'd just delivered newborns.   The black woman's baby was, you
#]> guessed it, white.   (Yes, her husband was black.  The baby did have
#]> black facial features, so of course it turned black later on.)
#
##You can't be serious here.  I've seen pictures of black women
##who have just given birth (holding the infant) and those
##babies were black.  I can't believe you could make such a
##statement.
#
#DOD finally gets a glimmer.

We'll see if he did or not.

I'm wondering when Suzanne will tell us what "black facial
features" are.  Does she mean that the baby had white skin
everywhere other than its nose, ears, and mouth, or does she
imagine that all black people look alike?

(And where are all those references to fetal development
texts?)

Susan
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Date: 5 Oct 1992 16:53:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
Keywords: philosophy, ignorance

In article <nyikos.718154974@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I am amazed at how much bandwidth has gone into an in-joke about
>SAT's.  The whole thing began in a way that seems almost
>unrecognizable now.  Eric Marsh had been arrogantly going on about
>how most pro-lifers start from an irrational and un-philosophical foundation,
>and I tried to tell him (it would take a great many posts to SHOW him)
>that the pro-life position can be given a philosophical foundation:

I had to chuckle when I saw this.

Apparently Mr. Nyikos considers me "arrogant" because I stated that after
considerable debate of the abortion issue I have never seen any pro-life
arguments with any philosophical integrety, based on current scientific
knowedge of the facts involved. When I prodded Mr. Nyikos to see if he
can do any better, he simply stopped responding to my posts. NOW he claims
that it would take too much effort to show me that that I'm wrong.

Right.

I think that Mr. Nyikos stopped responding to my posts because he is 
unwilling to subject his claims to a little testing.

Can't say that I blame him though, from what I've seen of his arguments.
At least he's smart enough to choose his fights.

Eric
From: grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 1992 02:37:13 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University, Dept. of Computing and Information Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

In article <!y+pwv=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>[...]
>And, by the way, a zygote doesn't exist in the same form for very long
>either.  Neither does a newborn.
>

Hmmm... physiologists will tell you that you don't exit this life with 
many of the cells you started out with... good grounds for euthenasia...

-Stephen


-- 

Stephen Spencer		grendel@cis.ksu.edu		sdstpk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Kansas State Univ.
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:09:48 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 by rocker@aix.rpi.edu

>> Do we show people pictures of murdered adults to convince them
>> that murder is wrong?  It seems that if you need that kind of
>> thing to make your point, your point must not have been very 
>> strong to begin with.

> That's an interesting statement. Maybe if murderers were forced to
> really see the suffering they were causing, about to cause, or
> previously caused, we would have fewer repeat murders.

They _do_ really see it, Andrea.  Do you think they commit murder
with their eyes closed?

> Interesting.

Indeed.

> I prefer to think of the abortion films this way. Some people
> (not all or most) think that the child isn't even a living being.
> Showing them something like this shows them their wrong. 

Here's what I wrote yesterday:
Do you mean Golden Turkey candidates like "The Silent Scream?"  If that
little critter in there is a person and abortion is murder, doesn't that
make "The Silent Scream" a prime example of snuff porn?

> Some people think abortion is a painless procedure. Showing them
> something like this shows it's not a painless procedure. And it
> is not a painless procedure for the mother either.

When I saw it, I thought I was looking at weather radar.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS BULLSHIT!
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:56:58 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1a8re8INNs3p@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
|> 
|>    While the anti-abortion zealots and the pro choice folks fight
|> over the nature of that period of time between the moment a sperm
|> busts through the wall of an egg and the moment of birth, none of
|> us disagree that from birth to death IS life.  And yet the anti's
|> obsess on pregnancy and don't seem to give a shit as to what type
|> of world these children will be forced into.  The indifference of
|> the anti-abortion zealots to war, hunger, poverty, birth defects,
|> and a host of other calamities to be suffered is proof that their
|> having taken the label 'pro-life' is just a bit spurious.

	You're right, actually:  I'm not "pro-life," I'm pro-right-to-life.  I
don't favor keeping everything alive at all costs, but I do favor protecting and
respecting the RIGHT to life of every human being on earth, regardless of age.
	BTW, I'm NOT indifferent to hunger, poverty, etc.  I just think we ought
to work PRIVATELY to stop these things; I DON'T think that taking money from one
group to help another is any different from ordinary theft; it is outside the
domain of just government.

|>  If the
|> quality of life takes a back seat to the quantity of birth, their
|> label of pro-life is a lie.

	Now, just how do you get this?
	BTW, quality of life is relative and subjective.  Who gets to decide how
much "quality" is enough?  You?!

|>  When these zealots show more concern
|> about human suffering, they might not appear so hypocritical.  It
|> would certainly add a bit of credibility to their name, which has
|> no validity so far.

	Non-sequitur.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: The Dumb-Off is over...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:48:30 GMT


It seems that Peter, Doug and Steve are still competing in the Dumb-Off
Contest.  While you three have contributed some admirable and certainly
worthy entries (each being dumber than the other) I regret to inform
you folks that the deadline for entries has passed, while I would hate
to discourage your fine talents, I am duty bound to tell you that your
recent efforts cannot be considered.

Oh, and Kevin Darcy, in much the same way that professional gamblers are 
often barred from casinos, you are barred from entering...

--
       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!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:27:30 GMT

<nyikos.717792761@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <10880@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>><nyikos.717627005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
...
>>>>>Oh, yeah, you mean like the way unborn babies "fake" their suffering when
>>>>>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.
>
>>No, I don't mean like that way.  I don't think unborn babies scream or
>>wringle when ripped limb by limb, so they don't show suffering, fake
>>or genuine. 
>
>"Wringle"? do you mean "wriggle," by any chance?
>
>"...the hub of the needle in the woman's belly has jerked.  First to
>one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wiggles, is *tugged*,
>like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish.  It is the fetus that 
>worries thus."  --R. Selzer, "What I saw in Abortion."

You know, I threw a couple of pieces of bacon in a hot frying pan once.
They sizzled and popped, writhed and curled up, they even changed color.

I never thought at any time that they were aware and feeling pain.  Do you?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:16:59 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
->>Kibble, you are an extraordinary ass, and you are too
->>pompous and boring for me to read your assinine excuse
->>fest through to the end.  But one of your idiotic "points"
->>gave me a chuckle, so I thought I'd address it.  The
->>rest of your nonsense speaks for its own stupidity.  After
->>this I am done with you.  I know you love nothing more
->>than to spend weeks making a fool of yourself, but I
->>don't have the time to play with your pointy little
->>head anymore.

->Translation: Dean is too much of a wimp to address 
->the rest of my post.

which is a good example of why this was once written:

'Mr. Darcy may I suggest that you enroll yourself posthaste in a
remedial english programme, your lack of reading comprehension is
astounding.  However, until you are able to secure such a class,
I recommend that in the future you read very slowly, saying each
word out loud as you come to it.  It is possible that this
method will help to override your megalomaniacal, paranoid,
"there's a sychophant behind every bush", thought process and
maybe, just maybe, you will stop presenting yourself as such a
complete and utter imbecile.'
						 Linda Birmingham 
						 <91147.150725ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>

now that i've finished laughing, why don't you
explain why you felt the need to translate what
dean wrote. don't you think readers understood
what he said as he posted it?