HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Summary: It's just Nyikos foaming at the mouth, nothing more.
Organization: Something that's rumored to exist around here.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:40:46 GMT

In article <nyikos.718390470@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>><1992Oct2.002302.325@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> Gordon, Professional Atheist
>>>
>>>So what are they paying you?
>
>>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>>of us.
>
>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.
>
>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.

Boy, I'll bet *that* will show Gordon the error of his ways.  (What's the
matter, Petie, honey -- having trouble figuring out how to put someone's
name in a "de facto" killfile?)

>>The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
>>of whatever company you think I work for. 
>
>Nor those of an honest man.

As if you'd know what an honest man was in the first place...


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

               They never understood me at the Home, either...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Maybe, Maybe... (Was: Snapple...)
Summary: Maybe you're just like my mother, she's never satisified... 
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: Sun, 27 Sep 92 00:10:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.021319.9795@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Sep25.153603.20514@advtech.uswest.com>, by steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak):
>> Jeepers, Suzanne, then how come you responded to one of my
>> posts...*yesterday*?
>
>Well to tell you the truth, since he whole cut the article, I thought he
>was talking about Patrickkk.  But you may consider yourself ignored as well.

Suxanne sucking up to Chaney.  Shouldn't this be in alt.gross?

>
>> Jeeeeee-zus will slap you silly for lying like this!
>
>Novak, you're such a jerk.

Gee, such caring.  Such *compassion*.
--
=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???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: BIGNESS
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:45:08 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

Apologies.  I have no idea how this got on talk.abortion -- it was
intended for another group.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40091 alt.abortion.inequity:4207 alt.birthright:510
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Followup-To: misc.kids
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:03:03 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM writes:
|It is not uncommon for 6 month old babies to be kept alive!  

Well, the infant mortality rate in the US is not what it should
be for an industrialized nation, but yes.  Most 6 month old
babies do just fine and are normal infants.  My mother tells me
that I weaned myself at 6 months, for example.

What has this got to do with abortion?  Maybe you should
take it to misc.kids or misc.infants-n-toddlers or something.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It appeared to her that he did not excel in giving those clearer
insights, in making those things plain which he had before made
ambiguous."  -- Jane Austen
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:53:12 GMT

Martin writes:

>You can also say:
>   We have removed the rights of the innocent unborn.  Who is next?  The
>   sick and the elderly?  The deformed newborns?  The criminals?  Deformed
>   individuals?  The very very rich?  (For those who hate the rich)  The
>   poor? (for those who think the poor are great burdens to society)  
>   Your enemies?

I don't care if you're sick, elderly, deformed, criminal, rich, or
poor -- if you try to violate my body against my will, I'll do
everything I can to stop you.  If I have to kill you to stop you, then
I will.  It's all well and good to say, "well, Martin will die if I
don't contribute my body's resources to him," and it would be nice of
me to lend my body to you while you need it, but by no means should I
be coerced by law to do this.

If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:01:41 GMT

Another sterling example of a caring and compassionate pro-lifer.

mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes ...
>I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
>what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
>at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
>at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO THEIR
>FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

Maybe this jerk should visit the downtown streets of LA and see for
himself the young women forced out of their homes and into
prostitution for getting pregnant and tell _them_ they got what they 
deserved.  Maybe he should visit some parents in prison who killed 
their child and tell _them_ their children were special.  Maybe he
should tell the 17 year old mother living on welfare that she
shouldn't have gotten pregnant.

Put up or shut up, hypocrite.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:34:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.032847.27616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
> At the very least shouldn't a fetus be considered a potential life??

The fetuses we are discussing are alive.  I keep waiting for you
to show any consideration at all for the women involved (and to
include some text from those you are responding to so the
argument can be followed).  I see no such consideration.
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:57:27 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Sep30.172542.28189@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>...Your perspective on our laws is WRONG. NO CITIZEN HAS AN ABSOLUTE
>"RIGHT TO RESTRICT", NOR DOES ANY STATE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL
>OBLIGATION TO PREVENT PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING EACH OTHER!!!

No doubt Kevin.  I get fed up having to churn out the same rebuttal again
and again, but while I probably don't understand your legal system, I do
understand the gist of several "pro-choice" arguments that I hear again
and again.


As far as I can see - and I will be giving a talk on this area this very night -
the pro-life argument (legal restriction of abortion) has two potential
weaknesses:

1. There is something inherently bad about restricting choice,
2. There is something practically bad about restricting this particular
   choice.

Now my "whining" is an attempt to show that pro-choice also suffers from
problem 1 - or the relevant equivalent.

It isn't just constitutional arguments I am hearing from some pro-choicers.
Its deeper than that.  It comes from people who on the one hand reject
a religious basis for law, yet hang onto the Constitution like a religion.

Galen's demands for practical laws, and evidence are the only really valid
arguments I am hearing.  Your post is along the same lines.

But you two are not the norm.  I am repeatedly amazed at the lack of clarity
of many on this group - p-l and p-c.  That is what I am "whining" about.

You apparently see what I see - that our laws are based on fairly dubious
axioms - personal beliefs.  But a lot of folk don't.

I would like to have a subgroup called talk.abortion.cold-light-of-day, to deal
with exactly the questions that Galen asks.  But instead I keep seeing
freshmen (is that the term?) spewing up the same rubbish time and time again.
(pro-choice *and* pro-life).

>Sorry for getting a little intense there, but you've been irritating this
>point for month after month after month after month, and even my angelic 
>patience is starting to wear thin...

No problem son.  As I say, I get fed up too.  Why do you think I keep
taking a break (maybe giving you a break in the process :-)

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Why pro-lifers should continue to insist on fetal personhood, not doggiehood...
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 06:07:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>Actually, I did broach this subject to a limited extent in a follow-up 
>where I talked about plasma donations and punishing anyone who smashed
>an irreplaceable plasma-donation machine [the analogue of the abortionist].
>Since pro-choicers go on blithely arguing as though this follow-up had
>never existed, I plan to work it into an upcoming post, "Call for a 
>Moratorium on Kidney Analogies."

By now you must have a very long list of things that you're planning
to post at some point in the future.

>>See how we can talk all day about _potential_ threats to the life 
>>of the mother,
>>whereas the _potential_ life of a foetus is not up for discussion.  
>>If you were 
>>intellectually honest you would admit that at 5,10,24 weeks the threat to the 
>>woman's life is close to nil.  At ~9 months the threat is maximal.  But at ~9 
>>months, the fetus is in the eyes of most people already a person.  It is 
>>certainly now as _viable_ as it will ever be.   Are you ready to compare 
>>like with like?
>
>A powerful argument, and I am curious to see how the pro-choicers address
>it.

At conception the personhood of the zygote is nil.  This situation does
not change for at least several weeks.  Thus, the mother may do as she
wishes with her body as long as she doesn't infringe on the rights of
another person.

[my comments]
>>: However, it has some problems.  While it is true that killing a dog
>>: for no reason is not justified, a dog that attacks a person _is_ subject
>>: to immediate killing.  It can be similarly argued that since a embryo/fetus
>>: is using resources of the woman's against her wishes and putting her at
>>: some risk of death or injury, then it too may be killed.

>And intellectually dishonest, since we are comparing a case where
>there is an IMMINENT threat to life or a PAST HISTORY of threatening
>a life on the part of the SAME dog (I don't see anyone arguing for
>open season on pit bulls, for example) with one where there is
>a faraway one, just as you have pointed out above.

The risk of some injury from childbirth is nearly certain - it is 
not a remote possibility.  Even the risks of permanent injury or
death are hardly unknown.  Should a dog be as likely to inflict
a comparable injury as a fetus, its propects for getting dinner 
would be rather drastically limited.  (in other words, it would be
summarily dead)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:55:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

<*Sigh*>  It's only Monday, and already we have another fascist freshman
weenie saturated in hate and stupidity.

MS> = (Michael "I'm A Boy, But My Mom Won't Admit It" Stroucken) writes:
?> = ? - The little boy doesn't know how to leave in attributions yet.

?>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
?>  Abortion is not a crime.
?>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
?>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
?>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
?>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
?>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
?>
?>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely 
?>TRUE.
?>Are you getting it yet?

MS>Let's see if I can get this into your little head.
MS>	ABORTION IS MURDER

Uh, no.  There is no law equating abortion with murder, hence already
you're full of shit.

MS>	FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN

Fetuses are fetuses, Mikey.  They certainly have the potential to be human
children, as does that sperm you waste masturbating in your dorm room.

MS>	JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR CHILDREN INSIDE YOU, DOESN'T MEAN
MS>		THAT THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.

Wrong, Fuck o' Lux.  However, I (and probably most pro-choicers) do know
that, just because we can't see FETUSES inside pregnant women, doesn't
mean that they do not live there.

MS>	THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NINE MONTH OLD FETUS AND A NEWBORN BABY
MS>		IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY NOURISHING A NEWBORN.

Obviously, your pecan-sized brain forgot the WOMAN that you'd like to
enslave and force to give birth.

MS>	A FETUS IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER, IT ONLY RECEIVES FOOD AND OXYGEN
MS>		THROUGH THE UMBILICAL CORD.

Yeah, it's quite the parasite.  Hence, abortion will remain legal for
women, who can use this method if they desire to avoid having a child.

I'll bet *that* ties your Batman jockeys into a knot, eh :)?

MS>and
MS>	WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
MS>		BY LIMB, HAVING YOUR SKIN EATEN BY SALT SOLUTION, OR BEING
MS>		DUMPED INTO A CAN, AND SUFFOCATING TO DEATH BECAUSE YOUR
MS>		LUNGS WEREN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET???

Get a life, you screeching moron.  A mindless clump of cells doesn't
care *what* is done to it.   

MS>I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
MS>what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion.

I suggest you avail yourself of campus psychiatric services.  It's plain
it won't cut into your dating time.

MS>Take a look
MS>at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a 
MS>look at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK 
MS>INTO THEIR FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

I don't even have to look into your face, yet I'm now pro-retroactive
abortion.  Please have one done on yourself.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:58:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.222805.6815@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <6748@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> Do you criticize "pro-lifers" publicly, DOD?  You haven't,
>> for example, criticized Chaney for making some rather 
>> personal and insulting comments about people on t.a.  You
>> have publicly criticized Patrick for his comments.  Should we
>> all assume that you approve of Chaney's actions?

>Do you criticize "pro-choicers" publicly? 

Well, I have.  I have stated objections to statements by Mark K.
and Patrick H. in the past.  And I've even congratulated Chaney the 
one or two times he did something decent (like the time he wrote 
the calm,  rational piece and was "disappointed" in the scarcity 
of follow-ups).

Now quit beating around the bush and please answer Susan's question.
Thanks.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: CWA Membership (was: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:37:33 GMT


	I saw that ABC News "open house" in which the Concerned Women
for America spokeswoman claimed that her organization has 750,000
members as opposed to NOW's 250,000. She half-stumped the news-media
people on why CWA was supposedly ignored.

	I once saw a comment somewhere on how CWA had used some rather
broad criteria for determining membership -- they counted all those
they sent membership offers out to. In this same comment, it was
claimed that NOW's "membership" would be as high as 1.2 million, using
the same type of "count".

	To get an idea of what CWA is like check out Susan Faludi's
_Backlash_; its leader (Connie Marshner or Beverly LaHaye, I'm not
sure) comes off as a shameless career woman, just like Phyllis
Schlafly.

	I personally think that these and other such female activists
are nothing but hypocrites -- making a career out of trying to deny
other women their careers.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The fetus as a member of the human race (Ref: Ray)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:29:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <90615@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (ISBN 0851125840) writes:
> Larry
> >Kevin
> >> Larry
> >> >Kevin
>
> >> >> There is a grave difference, Larry, between a being that is human and a
> >> >> human being.
>
>
> >> Actually, the last term is incomplete in meaning.  Legally, it refers to a
> >> born Homo sapien.  Biologically, it refers to a Homo sapien, the correct
> >> designation of the word.
>
> >I wasn't aware that "person" was a biological term; can you point
> >me to a reference?
>
> Actually  I was referring to the last thing I said.  Sorry for being vague in
> my pointers.
>
> >> >> To call a sperm a human being is inappropriate because the
> >> >> term human being biologically, philosophically and legally connotes that t
> >> >> being is a borne human (member of Homo sapien)
> >>
> >> >Right, that's what human being means.
> >>
> >> To NOT tell the truth does not mean that one lies.  To NOT lie does not mean
> >> one has told the truth.  A being that is human is not a human being.
>
> >OK, so a zygote is not a human being.  Glad we finally cleared that up.
>
> No, that statement indicts a generality.  For example, a sperm is human in its
> origin; nonetheless, it is not a human being, only a being that is human in
> origin.

Right, just like a zygote.

> >> >> or is the result of the
> >> >> unification of a sperm and an egg, a fertilized ovum.
>
> >> >No, that's a being that is human.
>
> >> A sperm is a being that is human in origin.  Hold the difference to be that
> >> the creation of a zygote is a genetic human being...
> >
> >No, they're both beings that are human, but you just agreed that that does
> >*not* imply a human being.
>
> I said that a particle/object/whatever that is a being that is human (ie has
> human origins) is not necessarily a human being.  However, a human being is
> a being that is human.  It's biological equivalence with a ful grown human
> being establishes the z/e/f as a human being.

What about its biological equivalence with a single cell of the person?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:22:54 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->>You're
->>willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
->>hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?

->I'm glad to see that you've finally dropped the charade of being
->"pro-choice", Darcy.  It's a step towards being honest.

he still has a long way to go though.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:40:49 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In article <1992Oct1.201627.22487@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>>be dead?)
>>
>>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.
>>
>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>
>Are you going to take the 2 year old's right to life away?

Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.

>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc