HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:33:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>The Jews were killed because they were greedy and thieves and because
>>they were clearly subhuman.  The Bosnians are being killed because the 
>>Serbs are defending themselves.  And black South Africans were not
>>being discriminated against any more than cows are discriminated
>>against.  In none of these cases did people believe they were doing
>>anything but the most noble actions.  Just like you.
>>
>>(and no, I don't hold any of these beliefs personally)
>>
>The "noble" actions of these people often involved killing.  Those who
>supported the specialness of human life no matter what age, form, color
>or creed, wanted them to stop killing even if those who killed thought
>that they wanted to produce only "wanted" people.  These people recognized
>the humanity of all humans even if certain people wanted to take away
>their rights, most important amongst them, the right to life.  Many 
>justifications were made, as you said, humans were more like cows, or
>that these individuals were greedy and like thieves.  But nonetheless, the
>Nazis and the Serbs continued to do ethnic purging because they removed
>humanity and a human's right to life away.

Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  I'm
sure you have many justifications for doing so, citing the value of
the fetus and the sancitity of life.  But you are still trading the
lives of some women for some fetuses/embryos.

The Serbs believe that they are defending the lives of themselves and 
their people from the Bosnians and the Croats.  They don't think they 
are doing what you've called "ethnic purging", they think they are 
removing hostile enemies from their land in order to protect 
themselves.

You can't even claim you're protecting yourself, since abortion is 
very unlikely to affect you personally.  But where you share a common
trait with such people is that you are both certain you are right.
Such arrogance is often dangerous and always wrong.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:11:09 GMT
Followup-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <Bw4oG1.MH3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:

<flaming drieux for his, ahem, *unique* style>>

>	Not that it's relevant, but you've underestimated my acedemic
                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>credentials.  But let's get back to the point.
>	Your paragraph above seems to imply that you can't understand it
>either, and you use the old "solution left as an exercioose for the reader"
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>dodge.  Way are you pulling a Clinton?  Just tell the truth (quoting a certain
         ^^^
>VP).
>
>	Exactly, in FRENCH and GERMAN.  My post said that what he was doing was
>not English.  I'm glad to see you agree with me.  If the language of use here
>were German, it would be acceptable.  Since we are using english, though, it is
                                                          ^
>babble.

If you're going to post a spelling/grammar/style flame worldwide, it would be
prudent to proofread it first.

'Nuff said.

Steve

PS> Just out of curiosity, is "acedemic" a compound of "anemic" and "academic"?
    Sorry...couldn't resist ;-).
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41860 talk.politics.misc:50774 alt.sex:32563 alt.rush-limbaugh:7048 alt.politics.elections:16025 alt.politics.clinton:9624 alt.politics.bush:8565
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Excuse Please, But who Be conservative?
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:56:34 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
] In article <1992Oct9.155924.8972@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
] >> = (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
] >>> = (Bruce Varney) writes:
] >>>> = (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
] >
] >>>abortion murder? Tough shit. Truth hurts, doesn't it??
] >
] >>No guts to post this on soc.women, soc.feminism and alt.feminism eh?
] >
] >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.'

Or are you confusing the 'lunatic fringe' on
the right with 'conservative'?

When the RushLimBerDroids and their Other
ProtoFascists invaded the GOP it was worth
noting that Barry Goldwater became a 
'main stream moderate conservative.'


So Please do Clarify who be who,
that you be talking to.

ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Here's a clue.  Take two, they're small.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:49:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.080459.1392@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>To paraphrase your comments: You said that my attitudes seemed "callous"
>towards the woman involved--actually I am not.  I never said anything against
>a woman's right to decide for herself.  I am against abortion being discussed
>as the only option.

So what?  It never *has* been discussed as the only option.  Keep
backpedaling.  You're almost as fun to watch as Forgach...

--PLH (against stupidity on the net, the sysadmins themselves struggle in
vain...)

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: How about creating alt.stupid.statements?
Summary: In honor of the Steve Arnold and Steve Chaney, of course... 
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 deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:25:10 GMT

In article <Oct12.020255.8315@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>	No, you can't.  And you can't rule out the possibility that a pre-born
>child is somehow aware, either.  Non-brain does not necessarily imply non-thought.
>

Of course, we're going to be seeing the earthworm's spaceships any day now...
--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Small Moment for American History
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:34:18 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
] 
] >The government very definitely does allow abortions to take place.  Certain 
] >politicians even want to make the right of an abortion to be law and even

I will presume that you are still NEW to the USA,
but when the Supreme Court MAKES a ruling on a matter.
Trust me, IT IS THE LAW.

Its a part of the distribution of power in a federal republic.

NOVEL thought that....

] >have abortions funded by our tax dollars.  Not only are we allowed to have
] >abortions, we can get funded by other people's money through gov't.  
] 
] The government definitely does allow war to take place.  Certain
] politicians even want to make a legal declaration of war and even
] have wars funded by our tax dollars.  Not only are we allowed to have
] war, we can get funded by other people's money through gov't.
] 
] And I would venture to bet that there are people FAR more opposed
] to war than you are to abortion.


For those Slow on the Uptake...

let me just point out that in the wonderful world of
"OPTIONS" - being on the 'beach' in a liberty status,
and providing the 'petite morte' to the "indigenous
population" ranks HIGHER up the ladder than being 
on the 'beach' in a COMBAT STATUS, and providing
the 'coup d' grace' to the "indigenous
population" - Trust me on this one....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:52:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you

What was forced upon you?

>to decide what constitutes "irrational beliefs"?  Your opinion may

Irrational in the sense that you wish to force a belief and moral system
on others through law. It hasn't worked in any society at anytime in
the world, as it always leads to its downfall.

>carry as much weight as the next guy's, but that has little to do
>with objective reality.

Granted, it may be my opinion, but one that is more difficult to refute
than the first one.

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: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:09:16 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  <1992Oct10.174820.28264@netcom.com>  bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> Martin writes:
> >Ray writes:
> >>Nobody (nobody) wants to
> >>kill embryos or fetuses, and to imply otherwise betrays your
> >>prejudices.
> >
> >If nobody wants abortion, then why do so many people have abortions?
>
> You're missing a crucial point here, Martin.

Oh, he's missing a *lot* of points.

> There's a difference between "wanting to cut off bodily support to
> the fetus" and "wanting to kill the fetus".

That's one good point.  What about,
   "If nobody wants open heart surgery, then why do so many people
   have bypasses?"

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:30:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <Bw4s3A.Izw.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>
>Patrick "I love cats" Humphrey said:
>#So who said having children made people unhappy?  Susan didn't.  I can see
>#why you think you're writing a novel -- you certainly have an active
>#imagination...
>
>I guess that's one of the occupational hazards of believing that
>a z/e/f is a child - they can't tell the difference between spending
>eternity pregnant and spending eternity with children.
>
>
>#--PLH, not exactly anticipating a signing at Bookstop any time soon
>
>Susan, who wonders if Booth will be able to read his own book
>
Read my last postings, ok?? That should explain everything.  Now, I wonder
why it's cool to insult another user but it's wrong to tell jokes about
a certain Presidential candidate who is pro-choice??
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: a glimmer of reality, perhaps?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:34:31 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Then again, maybe it's just me.

it is, kebbie, it is.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:04:56 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: na
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Doug Holtsinger) posts:
|> 
|>    Mark Tushnet, "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey",
|>    Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986, 
|>    pp. 162
|> 
|>   "The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the
|>    fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate
|>    or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate
|>    medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman.
|>    This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's
|>    decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement
|>    ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional,
|>    psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the
|>    well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed
|>    the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently
|>    limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way
|>    that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians
|>    are willing to perform them."
|> 
Actually, what this says is that the state can't prohibit an abortion
that a physician thinks is necessary for the health of his patient.  Of
course, what do physicians know.  Most of them are Republicans.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42949 talk.religion.misc:18467
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:47:20 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <14OCT92.18003626@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>In <1992Oct1.064201.767@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>[stuff deleted] 
>>Anyway, I question your competence to make judgments as to what is and
>>is not the "actual translation" of Exodus 20:13.
>> 
>>In my Hungarian (Magyar) bible, a 1972 translation (20 years ago, like
>>the one you allege up there), this verse reads, literally, Don't kill.
>>[Ne o"lj.  The " should go over the  o  and be two dots.]  If it had
>>been translated to the equivalent of "Don't murder," it would have
>>read "Ne gyilkolj".  "Thou shalt not commit murder" would be translated,
>>Ne ko"vess el gyilkossa'got.
>> 
>>I am curious to know how it has been translated into other languages.
>>I have a sneaking suspicion that "Thou shalt not commit murder"
>>is ideologically motivated.

>Give me a break.  Why should I care how it has been translated into other 
>languages?  I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding the text in 
>it's original Hebrew.  The commandment is "Lo Tirtzach", which means do not 
>murder.  If the original authors had wanted to say do not kill, it would have 
>been "Lo Taharog", but that is not what they wrote.  

>Or do you think you know something the original authors did not?

Do you?  How much has Hebrew changed over the last three thousand years?
Are you sure you know more about ancient Hebrew than innumerable Biblical
translators?

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:42:36 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# Abortions are never ok, in my opinion.

Need you be told once more?

		DON'T HAVE ONE!


-- 
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: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: I'm back, the VP debate.
Keywords: One more pro-choice voice on the net!
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:38:38 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Hi everyone,

After a prolonged absence due largely to technical difficulties
associated with the move of computers belonging to the Graduate School
of Business to our new location at Washington Square I have returned.

Can you believe Dan Quayle going after Gore on the 24 hour waiting
period?  Why didn't Gore point out that if the Republican platform is
enacted, there won't be any waiting periods?  In fact there won't be
any legal abortions that would require waiting periods of any length.
There would only be back alley abortions that women would anticipate
with terror, not wait 24 hours to have.  Geesh.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Fornication (Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!a)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:30:14 GMT

In article <1b9r1gINNsdc@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>Oooh.  God gets off on a technicality; film at 11.
>(And indeed, the only rantings against fornication
>I can find are NT & mainly Pauline.)
And technically, they are rantings against "sexual immorality".
Of course, one really expects better behavior out of God.
-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
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:56:15 GMT

<1astrjINNj4s@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
>|gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>||nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>||>1. The original statement of M. Price, which Storga cunningly deleted,
>
>||I would prefer to be called a cunning linguist that a cunning
>||deletist.  If you don't get the joke I suggest you grab a
>||dictionary and start looking just before 'cunning'.
>
>|I get it, and it all fits in with what I have learned about you.
>
>Yeah-- it's just another piece fitting into the sweet puzzle
>that is Gordon.  What a gentleman!  No wonder he has so many
>satisfied ex-g.f.'s!  Women prefer cunning linguists.  Just ask
>Cynthia Heimel.

CJ, you are so transparent.  I'll have to talk to my wife of course (;-b
but if nothing else I'll buy you a drink at the next get-together.


Gordon
-- 
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: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Atheist for Christ  (WAS Re: Biblical Authority for Law)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:41:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.210029.2132@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>P.S. - Hey, Dougerama: are you afraid to answer what you think of Bush's
>statement that atheists aren't patriots and *shouldn't even be
>considered citizens* because this is "one nation under God"?  

Not to endorse a Theocracy, but...

We, by citing the Pledge of Allegiance in school, are forcing Atheists
to endorse a God...
Atheists, in order to buy anything, must use MONEY with "In God We
Trust" written on it. 

What do you think about that? 
If you're consistent, you will push hard to eliminate the Pledge of
Allegiance (as it was revised by Roosevelt - a DEMOCRAT who put God
into the Pledge), and you'll have the Dollar Bill changed to eliminate
"In God We Trust." 

To say nothing of the Billions of $$$ necessary to take "God" off of
all the monuments and government buildings, including Mount Rushmore.

Otherwise, your point has no consistently. 


>Lightweight.

What? Your brain? Oh, well. Go to school. They're opening pre-school
in January, I hear. And if you're lucky you'll get a free condom if
you don't get a high school diploma.. 


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Hungarian? was Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: n~uk, n~uk, n~uk
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:46:21 GMT

In <BvvB49.Dv4@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <nyikos.718487778@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In my Hungarian (Magyar) bible, a 1972 translation (20 years ago, like
>>the one you allege up there), this verse reads, literally, Don't kill.
>>[Ne o"lj.  The " should go over the  o  and be two dots.]  If it had
>>been translated to the equivalent of "Don't murder," it would have
>>read "Ne gyilkolj".  "Thou shalt not commit murder" would be translated,
>>Ne ko"vess el gyilkossa'got.
>>I am curious to know how it has been translated into other languages.
>>I have a sneaking suspicion that "Thou shalt not commit murder"
>>is ideologically motivated.
>>In the original post I suggested an intermediate reading, "You must
>>not commit unjustifiable homicide."  The idea is in part that 
>>often abortion was classified under manslaughter, not murder.

>Hint: The Mosaic Law was originally written in HEBREW! The commandment is
>you shall not murder, since if it was you shall not kill, then you couldn't
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>even eat or walk on the ground for fear of crushing soil life!

What about my intermediate reading?  What you wrote illustrates the fallacy of
*tertium non datur*.

 What are you,
>a closet Jain or something? Clearly "Thou shalt not kill" is ideologically
>motivated, but I doubt you are able to see that.

"Thou shalt not kill" goes back quite a few centuries, before most modern
ideologies existed.  How far back does your translation go?

> What did you say your SAT
>scores were again, Dr. Nyukos? n~uk, n~uk, n~uk ::::B^}

High enough to keep me from falling into such a blatant *tertium non datur* 
fallacy as you.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42372 talk.politics.misc:51482 alt.rush-limbaugh:7288 alt.politics.elections:16544 alt.politics.clinton:10192 alt.politics.bush:8988 alt.war.vietnam:277 alt.conspiracy:11235