HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves?
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:44:53 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|Not in this case. I simply didn't notice that she had done it.

And, of course, you've yelled at me about this before.
My opinion differs from yours on this one-- I think any
clued-in person will notice.  It only gets knee-jerkers
too impatient to pay attention.  And it gave me a BEAUTIFUL
moment of pleasure when Kellmeyer posted a long homophobic
frothing to misc.test.  (I do hope he enjoyed getting all
those lovely email copies.)

Eric, baby, you are most consistent.
But I sat on a Yamaha Seca II in the showroom today,
and I am a lost woman.  No matter what you say.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Humans are nearly panmictic (randomly breeding) -- there is a certain 
amount of assortative mating [...]" --Chris Colby, in talk.origins
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39200 alt.abortion.inequity:4119 alt.usage.english:7582
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.usage.english
Subject: Clarifying a social ambiguity
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:05:15 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
] In article <1992Sep25.221118.22087@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
] c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote:
] > In article <19vpe9INN2bv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] > >Who's "we", white man?
] > 
] > Please explain once again.  This can be easily be construed to be
] > both racist and sexist.
] 
] Whereby Martin proves that he probably has no sense of humor and certainly
] doesn't know any jokes.

There is the other possibility that Martin simply does not
UNDERSTAND that there are larger socio_cultural context 
than the Great Monolithic White Christian Culture, and 
that certain persons of Ethic Pride and Integrity find
this absurd habit of others to lump all persons of a
low mellenin count into one aggregate group to be a
nonoperable approach to cultural diversity and the
significant influence of polyculturalism.

Therefore it is important to be able to understand that
not all persons of a low mellenin count are 'white' and
that there is a great cultural distinction between 
persons of european ancestry. Hence Adrienne's editorial
declaration that this RACIST tendency of others to lump
those from the Aryan Master Race in with their genetic
Inferiors, and other untermensch is morrosely perverse.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: This Christian "Thing"
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:00:19 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> = (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:

>>> I certainly enjoy how discussions about abortion seem to revolve around
>>> the "Christian" perspective.

>>But have you noticed that it's usually the pro-aborts who 
>>raise the issue of religion?  Your post provides another  
>>data point to support that observation. 

Doug, you lying sack: here's your chance to make me look foolish.

Kindly regale us with why you're SUPPOSEDLY an atheist (I don't believe
you), why religion turns you off (though you defend xtianity
constantly...) and just _what_ your anti-abortionism is based on.  What
_scientific, factual_ information do you possess that makes you so
doggedly pro-"life".                  

Thnx muchly.

>>> I am not Christian, but in very many ways this majority runs all over my
>>> minority religion. 

>>What does this have to do with abortion?  

What else is anti-abortionism all about, Dougie-poo?  And why are you
pretending to be so dense you don't see your*self* the obvious religious
connection?

>Simple, they're trying to stomp all over my rights again.

Yup.  They'd LOVE some prisoners to justify their petty holy war.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: To Eric Gorr, eternal college freshman and all around geek
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa 
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:05:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.182259.17823@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>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.  

You mean you HAVEN'T researched all the wild claims you've been making?
You don't have any idea at all what they are about and yet you've been
saying all these things?  You obviously aren't in a science-related major.
That is entirely bad form, there.

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

Rage?  Where do you get rage?  Frustration, yes.  Contempt, yes. 
but rage?  no.  Let me tell you a lesson I learned about anger...

Anger can be healthy.  Anger can be wonderful.  However, acting on
anger or when your angry is neither healthy nor wonderful.  Any anger
that I have toward you, a political process, my burning dinner, etc
I dissapate long before I act.  You see, I believe in this axion:
"Be angry, but do not sin."

So any feelings that I might feel toward you would not include anger,
at least not when I'm typing.

>
>(You may also consult your near-by university library...there are
>people there waiting, and willing to help you)

No I won't.  My time is infinitely more valuable that researching topics
you should have already researched before writing about them.  If you
haven't researched any of these wild claims you've been making, then
you aren't worth listening to.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: getting to the heart of things (was Re: Attention!)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:02:08 GMT

In <1992Sep25.142650.931@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <v6cznq_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->>>>> You know, the three most important attributes of an
->>>>> effective therapist are 1) the ability to empathize,
->>>>> 2) authenticity/genuineness, and 3) non-possessive
->>>>> warmth/unconditional positive regard.
->>
->>>> no wonder you don't do it fulltime!
->>
->>> As you've never been to me for therapy, you're hardly
->>> in a position to speculate about my skills (not that 
->>> that's stopped you in other areas).
->>
->> on the contrary, bill, i think it's a good idea
->> to investigate any professional before seeking service
->> from that professional. don't you agree? 

->Absolutely.  But given our recent conflict, I'm afraid you'll
->have to find someone else to provide such services (if that's
->your intent).

then i take it you're admitting your mistake in
suggesting that i shouldn't have speculated about
your skills?

->> i also think you've displayed in this thread some of the 
->> characteristics which enter into your professional behavior.

->Given that we've never had a therapeutic relationship, your
->comment is incredibly presumptuous.  You know nothing about
->my skills.

oh i think i've seen quite a lot, as has everyone else
who might have been following these threads.

->>>> what about you?
->>
->>> I have two careers.  
->>
->> perhaps this is something you should reevaluate.

->I regularly do so.  The others in our psychology practice 
->would like to see me do it full time, but I prefer the
->current arrangement for now.

i think that was a wise decision on your part.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:03:45 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  article <1992Sep28.195929.16359@spectrum.xerox.com>,
rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
> However, you must realize that one out of every two people entering an
> abortion clinic doesn't make it out alive.

Shocking, if true - but it's not.  A fetus is not a person.

> Abortion is legal (in NY state) throughout an entire pregnancy!
> That means the day before birth, a baby can be legally killed.

Highly doubtful.  There are only three doctors in the entire country
who perform third-trimester abortions, and then only for serious
health reasons.

> One might argue that because the baby can't live on it's
> own, that it is not a human yet.  BULL!  A one year old baby can't
> live on it's own!  Where do we draw the line?

How about - when it's no longer inside a person.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Dyer's in Trouble!!  (WAS Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:23:39 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (M. Price) writes:

>From the September 1992 issue of _The Body Politic_:
>
>     Snapple Beverage Corporation has sent a letter to Planned
>Parenthood NYC emphatically denying Snapple supports Operation Rescue.

Hey, everybody!  Nolte, Switzer and Green are having a Snapple yard
sale.

>They are asking help in stopping the rumor and any information about
>where it came from. 

Ssh!  Don't let on that it was *JYM DYER* :).

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:48:28 GMT

#    margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>   bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
%%%  ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

-----

>> I would like to check Mx. Rink's references.  However, some of them
>> are not noted.  I am posting my request rather than mailing it to
>> him/her personally because I'd like help checking them.  When Mx. Rink
>> provides me with references to check ...
# 
# How likely do you think that will be?

Quite unlikely, but I did save the article as I intend to follow up on
my expressed intent to check Mx. Rink's references -- especially for
the more outlandish claims.

-----

%%% Abortion is itself the ultimate form of child abuse and dehumanization, and
%%% contrary to what many Americans assume, children from unplanned pregnancies
%%% represent only 10% or fewer of abuse cases annually in America.  Following
%%% Roe vs. Wade in 1973, the cases of child abuse in America rose 500% by 1982.
# 
# Following Roe vs. Wade in 1973, the Berlin wall was torn down, and
# Communism collapsed in Russia.

Well yes, but I still wanted to see if Mx. Rink has done his/her homework.
After all, my suspicion is that s/he posted copyrighted material to the
net without obtaining permission and misrepresented it as his/her own.

-----

%%% The evidence tells a different story.  In her research article, "The Myth:
%%% Unplanned Pregnancies Lead to Child Abuse," Dr. Wanda Franz wrote:  "In every
%%% major child-abuse center, the data collected on families who have been
%%% identified as abusers indicate that the vast majority `wanted' their children
%%% before they were born.  The percentages of `wantedness' ranged from 91 percent
%%% to 96 percent, depending on the study."
>>
>> Where and when was this published?
# 
# Note that this is backwards.  She's looking at the percentage of abusers who
# wanted their children, while the question is as to the percentage of
# unwanted children who are abused.

And I'm not surprised by this logical inconsistency -- Mx. Rink's
article was positively rife with them.

-----

%%% 12.  Abortion is safer than childbirth.
%%%
%%% Medical research considers abortion to be serious surgery (research of Linger,
%%% Cavanaugh, Slumsky, Goodlin, Stipal, McDonald, and Auro, Wright Richardson &
%%% Dickson -- each a separate study).
>>
>> Where and when were these published?
>>
>> [...]
# 
# Hey - not so fast with the elision!  You skipped over:
#  In the early stages of pregnancy (first three months), childbirth is more than
#  twice as safe as abortion, not to mention emotional suffering.  After the
#  first trimester, risk of injury from abortion increases monthly.
# 
# I want to see some references on childbirth in the first three months!  :-)

Horrors!  The dangers of speed reading.  Remember: 55 wpm -- it's not
just a good idea...


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Anti-Abortion
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:51:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In article <l0!prfa.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...

>>>The unborn is a member of homo sapiens.  I don't believe any other
>>>animal is capable of claming that.  
>>>Why don't members of homo sapiens deserve the right to life?
>>
>>An egg is as much a member of homo sapiens as is a zygote.  Notice
>>any problems so far?
>
>Now tell me whether the egg is a member of homo sapiens.  (in other
>words, is an egg a human life?).

Dunno.  What metrics shall I use to determine whether something is
"a human life?"  How do I measure this?  Or are you asking for my
own (largely irrelevent) opinion?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39840 alt.abortion.inequity:4180 alt.birthright:497
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:50:15 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct1.025021.26567@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.231911.28243@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
>(Nadja Adolf) writes:
>
>}                             So who was screwing Mary?
>
>God.  Honest.   But he had an angel ask first.  That made it ok.  Ask
>Suzanne Forgash.

I get it. The Angel was pimping Mary to God. I always wondered what that
was about...


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:59:55 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Muriel, you have some good points, but this leaves me in a quandary.

I feel that a third-trimester fetus is physically too similar to an
infant to decide that one deserves legal protection but the other
doesn't.  Even thought a third-trimester fetus isn't born yet, it can
still feel pain, and it has a brain that's wired up to handle thought.
I can't say with certainty that a third-trimester fetus doesn't
possess consciousness, so I can't say that killing it would be
permissible.

On the other hand, I don't want to infringe on the woman's rights to
her own body.  If something happens to damage the fetus, then I think
she should have the right to abort it even at this late stage.  And
even if she undergoes some personal tragedy or hardship that would
really make her want to abort the fetus because she couldn't deal with
a baby, I think we ought to grant her the right to abort it for this
reason, too.

But I don't want to allow a woman to say, "Oh gee, seven months
pregnant... you know, I really don't feel like having a baby at all."
with no better reason than this.  This just wouldn't be fair to the
person within her; she should have made up her mind before the fetus
had a mind.  ;)

So what's the solution?  Is there some way to construct a law that
would prohibit third-trimester abortions without a "good reason"?
Who's to say what a "good reason" would be?  Or should we deny all
requests to perform abortions during the third trimester?  Or should
we allow them all?  And if you support either of the two extremes, why?

I honestly don't know, and I'd like to hear what other people think.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 04:03:27 GMT


Feel free to comment on Sanger's racism 60 or 70 years ago.
I'll feel free to quote from an anti-abortion publication,
_The Human Life Review_, from the winter of 1992.

     "Even if we were to discount racial conflicts and the
growth of criminality, the new arrivals create enormous
problems.  These problems are unlikely to go away, particularly
because Arabs and Blacks are prolific, and alos used to less
comfort and smaller dwelling-places than whites.  There is
no reason why their numbers should not continue to grow.
     We thus come to the second shock, the sharp drop
in natality among the white population, powerfully encouraged
by 'liberal' abortion laws.  In other words, simultaneously
with a veritable invasion from North Africa and South Asia,
the original stock was to be further weakened by the widespread
practice of abortion.
     Why bring up the issue of 'foreign workers' and
depopulation by abortion?  Because the Western world
may be about to witness the largest mass migration
the world has ever seen, next to which the so-called
'Barbarian' invasions shortly after the time of Christ
will be like an off-Broadway theatre compared to
Barnum's circus."

- Thomas Molnar, "The Coming Mass Migration"

Aren't you proud of him?

Susan
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:48:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <1992Oct2.003026.4694@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM
(Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <3803@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>In article <25756@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
writes:
> 
>>> In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>>> >This is in essence the crux of the problem.  Implicit in an anti-abortion
>>> >position is that women have different responsibilities than men because
>>> >of their biology.  To the 'old guard' women's movement this is heresy.
>
>How nice. How sexist. How thoroughly predictable.

Predictable?  I don't think you have enough data about me or my beliefs to
predict much of anything.  I will modify my statement somewhat however. 1) I
should have said 'pregnant' women.  2) Men who impregnate women should be held
to the same level of responsibility by law.  These are probably irrelevant to
you,  I won't pretend to argue with dogma. 

Name calling can be cathartic.  Hope you feel better. 


>
>>Wow!  You know my inner sole Ron!  Name calling only detracts from your
>>position, not mine.  .....To use and "old guard" abreviation, you
>>must really take me for an MCP.  
>
>So do I. So do almost all the pro-choice posters in here. 

All of them? I'm only smart enough to speak for myself. I'm not in your league,
obviously. 



>
>The sexist, romantic Victoriana so implicit in "women have different
>responsibilities than men because of their biology" speaks for itself.
>
>I'm sorry. That one ranks right up their with one of the Papal Bull's
>
>"women view the world through the prism of the home" and
>
>"woman's sphere and man's sphere are defined by biology" and
>
>"a man's biology has designed him to be a leader and a thinker. A woman
>lives for the emotional life; her mind is not as quick, but is just big
>enough for love."

Why stop there?  "Implicit" is a great word.  Kind of like a garbage compactor.
 You can cram as much subjective stuff as you can imagine into my sentence as
long as you preface it as being "implicit".
>
>
>Thank you for sharing.

I realize you are being sarcastic.  You seem to have only two pigeonholes for
people: those who agree completely with you and those who don't.  I don't envy
your passage through life.
 
>-- 
>The Earth Pig Bourne....

Where does this come from?  (Just curious).

Paul


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:28:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.153959.3058@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <BvAnLI.AvL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> The essence is this:  rape/incest may alter the balance of rights
>> between woman and fetus, because it nullifies a "voluntary" acceptance
>> of obligations and because it may represent an extra burden to the woman
>> not present in the case of voluntary sex.
>
>Why is a woman, in your view, "obligated" to carry a pregnancy
>to term if she had sex voluntarily?


I have never stated that a woman is, in my view, "obligated" 
to carry a pregnancy to term if she had sex voluntarily.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:21:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.183202.2979@coopsol.com>
gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>PS: I think there's a little room left in my .sig, if you wouldn't mind.:-)

Sure; why not.  I'd be proud to have such an interesting ex-boyfriend....

-- 
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.