HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion discussion from Re: ""Snapple"" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:42:38 GMT

In article <5453@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>The point is that sex/coitus is the primary means of our species (heck
>most vertebrates anyway) to reproduce. 

Your logical implication is backwards, there, son:

	Pro-creative purpose => engaging in sex/coitus (usually)

but

	Engaging in sex/coitus =/=> (does not imply) pro-creative purpose

In fact, depending on the circumstances, procreation might not even be in
the top 10 purposes...

>Engaging in sexual activity involves some risk of getting pregnant; 

The very act of LIVING, day to day, entails countless risks of disease, 
dismemberment, physical or mental suffering, etc. Yet we do not generally 
prevent people from seeking cures or amelioration of such conditions,
simply because they had some degree of foreknowledge.

>that risk could be reduced by
>using birth control. However, there is always a risk in getting
>pregnant, which should be understood by those engaging in sexual
>activity. 

Is that what you're trying to legislate, then, "understanding"? Is your
primary concern simply that people give the appropriate weight and gravity to 
their potentially-procreative acts? Somehow, this strikes me as a 
rationalization, since to my knowledge no pre-RvW abortion restrictions ever 
attempted to make any distinction between couples who conceived out of 
irresponsibility or ignorance, on the one hand, and those who conceived purely 
accidentally, on the other...

Besides, if UNDERSTANDING were your primary focus, instead of punishment, why 
isn't there more attention paid to sex education in the pro-life agenda?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: using clinical terms (was Re: Attention!)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:41:48 GMT

In <1992Sep25.142027.778@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <+6czbh_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->> [bill's clinical questions re denial deleted]
->> 
->> i suggest, bill, that you can find the answers to your
->> questions in your old reference books. given some
->> of the things you've written in this and related threads,
->> you might really want to perform that exercise.

->Since you're unwilling to demonstrate that you know anything
->at all about the concept of denial

then you were pretty foolish to ask me, a lay
person, to tell you, presumably a professional,
about denial, weren't you?

it isn't up to me to demonstrate my knowledge of
your profession. you have clearly demonstrated that
you're not adverse to misrepresenting others, which
is, i think, a pretty fair reflection of how you
function in your profession.

->> i'd say i'm pretty comfortable expressing opinions
->> about my observations. 

->Are you equally as comfortable when informed that you've
->misinterpreted your observations? 

we'll have to see when that happens. the only posters
to this thread who commented on my impressions agreed
with my observations and they disagreed with your 
observations. wait, let me amend that. i believe chaney
has expressed some support for your position, and
perhaps darcy. i'm not at all uncomfortable with
either chaney or darcy disagreeing with me. in fact, if
either of them agreed with me, i'd probably rethink my
position. however, you fit quite nicely in the company
of those two.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re:
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.145515.622@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.021610.26620@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
> >> In article <1992Sep25.185248.15614@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley
>> MG>  (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> MG> >We all want real change.
>> 
>> AR> Who's "we", white man?
>> 
>> White man?  ...  hardly warrants a flame based upon his race...
>
>Adrienne was obviously refering to an old joke involving Tonto
>and the Lone Ranger.  It's a very well-known joke.  It was
>clearly not a flame based on race, and if one knows the joke,
>which I am sure most people reading this group do, there is a
>point to using the punch-line here.  One can only construe it
>as a racial remark if one is stretching pretty hard for an
>excuse to flame Adrienne.

I don't read misc.humor and I never heard the joke.
Would you publish it?


>  I haven't read any other follow-up
>articles to this one yet, but I won't be surprised to see a
>good deal of that stretching as soon as I send this article.

I'm not stretching, and I found it to be a reprehensible remark
not even worth a reply.  If indeed there is a common joke, then
I'd be "happy" to change my conclusion -- although there wasn't 
any context to suggest otherwise.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:48:38 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>> ...that is residing within her body.  Gosh, this whole debate is
>> so easy if you just ignore the pregnant woman.

>> Are these welfare folk you disdainfully refer to currently residing
>> within your body?

> The debate becomes even easier when the pro-aborts such as yourself 
> turn the woman into a mere physical container.  

The debate must be superhumanly difficult for you, then, DearOldDoug.
Can you point out where Ms. Cook turned "the woman into a mere physical
container?"

Oh, and can you show us how Ms. Cook is a "pro-abort?"

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When did human life begin??? Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:57:49 GMT

In article <mxpzwtb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep28.022043.6011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>Human life began millions, possibly billions of years ago.  Please subscribe
>>>to the newsgroup talk.origins for more details.
>
>>This gets my vote for the stalest, moldiest "joke" on Usenet.
>
>How precious, Darcy.  You do realize that most people would vote for
>_you_ as the "stalest, moldiest "joke" on Usenet".

"Most people" didn't even add their names to the "net.idiot" petition when
given the chance, Cathi. Don't make ridiculous, unsupportable assertions.

>>GET SOME NEW MATERIAL, FER CRISSAKES!!
>
>While I know that you're no friend of Roe v. Wade, 

Blatant assertion.

>I've rarely seen an anti-choice person ...

I hope you don't really think you're denoting ME in that, do you, Cathi? 
Here's a clue: I'm pro-choice.

>so bold as to call one of the legal arguments in the case a "joke".

To my knowledge, discussion of the time at which life appeared on planet 
Earth was never germane to the RvW ruling. Do you have a cite?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Summary: Patrick 42, Steve 0, 2:07 to go in the second quarter 
Organization: The EZ Tag lane on the Sam Houston Tollway 
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:06:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.171520.144202@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <Bv6wHK.FnG@rice.edu>  patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>> In article <vyfzky@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> >Sorry folks, but I think a lot of you who
>> >continue these apology demands are simply looking to give yourself
>> >brownie points for "making" Patrick "do the right thing".
>> >
>> A beautiful summation of it -- though I'd be tempted to say, in the cases of
>> Peter and Suzanne, that they're going after those brown-nose points...:-)
>
>Well, I'm glad you didn't succumb to that temptation.  :-)

I don't succumb to temptation on my weekends...:-)

-- 
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. 

      "God just THINKS he's David J. Rasmussen." -- me, on 1991 June 5th
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream in...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:01:21 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to Adrienne Regard:

> I won't even ask you to defend your unwarranted assumption that my wife had
> an episiotomy with our first child.  That's so trivial, it's hardly
> worth talking about.  But your claim that I would endanger the 
> lives of women, when my life is not threatened ("Pretty cheap rhetoric,
> Peter") might be not so insignificant as to be worthy of your attention,
> O Lady High Everything Else of talk.abortion.

Pure Ad Hominem.  Handsome is as handsome does, Mr. Nyikos.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Playing with numbers
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 08:07:59 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  <1992Sep27.002050.6727@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.020658.53539@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >No, I believe that's 12 weeks, not 24.  According to the numbers Keith
> >posted for 1991,
>
> Ahem.  It has come to my attention that these numbers may not actually
> represent 1991 figues.  I'm checking on what year they actually represent,
> but I would suggest that you assume these figures are for ~1985, and were
> *released* in 1991.

Well, they're within a couple of percentage points of the figures I have
for 1988.

> >   LESS THEN 100 ABORTIONS ARE PERFORMED EVERY YEAR AFTER THE 24TH WEEK OF
> >   PREGNANCY.

The 1988 figures say "about 100" per year.

> >I'm curious as to where Joe B. got his wacky numbers - did he just make
> >them up, or were they quoted from a pro-lie newsletter?

Still curious about this...  Was Joe just a "hit and run" poster, or
did he not expect anyone to question his erroneous assertions?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:32:26 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?

Freud would have a field day.

                  -rocker
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:50:44 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Not surprisingly, Nyikos posted more unsubstantiated stuff, again
about Becky Bell.  What's your source, Nyikos?  Do you have a
copy of the autopsy, or is yours "lost," too?

Stop and think, little man.  What purpose is served by repeating
vile, unsubstantiated rumor about a dead young woman?  I suspect
it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  ("It can't have happened
the way that her family and best friends described it, that would
ruin our argument that women don't resort to desperate measures.
I know, let's call her a drug-addicted slut and hire a teenager
and a few pet doctors to make some more innuendos.  The suckers
will believe us.  They believe everything.")

You're disgusting, Nyikos.  

Susan
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:14:57 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <19vn3aINNm00@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>Larry Margolis writes:
>||See the first part of what I quoted.  I think it's ridiculous
>||to consider a fertilized egg to be a person.
>
>Eric Gorr, who still hasn't proved that "1+1=2" is a true
>statement (or even told us what the symbols in that statement
>*mean*), writes:

Eric Gorr believes 1=3. god =father,son, and the spook.
father, son, and spook = 1.

:-)



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:24:42 GMT

In <15820@umd5.umd.edu> spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu 
   (J. Skorecki-Weiss) writes: >
In article <1992Sep30.211442.10398@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu  
   (Stephennis Chahallaney, ...) writes: >> 

>> Someone is missing a bunch of their marbles there, and whoever it is,  
>> needs help.
>
> Absolutely true, Stevennis, how true that is. It's a relief that you've  
> finally acknowledged what just about everyone from BOTH SIDES has been  
> saying for some time (with the exception of the NetClowns, Petey and  
> Cinder). Since you seem to have missed this vital bit in the past [and at  
> the risk of flames from Mr. Overpeck, defender of the medical profession  
> extraordinaire], lemme reiterate for ya: a person who thinks that he is 
> 1. a propeller aircraft
> 2. a jet aircraft
> 3. a fictional cyborg-type creature
>
> is most likely not dealing with a full deck. That is to say, there is a  
> strong possibility that the individual in question is coping with some  
> sort of mental deficit [Mr Overpeck: I spoke to Mother about this [didn't  
> mention names, just asked "hypothetically". She's a nurse who has worked  
> at not only St. Elizabeth's, but also several locked wards in local  
> hospitals. While she declined to diagnose you without further examination,  
> she did say that the behaviors described (paranoia, pretensions to  
> Borghood, etc)could well indicate the need for treatment of what is  
> generally known as a mental deficit.  

I asked my Mom, too, but she reminded me that those taking their first
abnormal psych class tend to see mental disorders everywhere.

BTW, a "mental deficit" generally refers to impaired intellectual func-
tioning, not affective or thought disorders as you've implied.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Ban Birth Control Pills
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:21:30 GMT

> = dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The logic is compelling, if you are right-to-life:
> Birth control pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting
> on the uterine wall.  A woman using the pill therefore a 
> "mini-abortion" every month.  The real hard-core anti-abortion 
> people want to ban the pill, [...]

Aborting a fertilized egg without regard to its feelings?
That's horrible.  
Think of all the pain that egg feels.
Think of all the mental anguish that egg feels.
Just think: is there any real difference between aborting that egg
and blowing off your neighbor's head with a shotgun?  Of course not!
Just ask the friendly anti-abortion zealot screaming in your face.
And you can believe me, because I'm always right and I never lie.

-whoever
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Summary: It's about time! 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:34:32 GMT

In article <vyfzky@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin) writes:
>
>   [deletions....I only have one comment]
>   [t.r.m relevance - last paragraph]
>
>>Patrick:  I think you know that what you have done and should apologize
>>	  to Chaney.  If you wish to continue to fight, please do so
>>	  over the mail.
>
>Well, I've watched this rage for weeks now, and I admit to being
>stumped by one thing.
>
>Why do people continue to think that it's ANY OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS
>whether Patrick apologizes to ChaHallney or not?

Needless to say, that's a question *I've* tried to figure out for the last
seven weeks or so, myself. :-)

>Patrick has already made a general apology to anyone else on this
>group he may have offended.  That's it, folks.  The only apology
>that matters to you has been given.  You have NO FURTHER INTEREST
>in any Patrick apology.

Thank you, Cathi.  I was hoping someone would stand up and put forth their
view in plain English.  I don't think DennisSteve, or Nyikos, or Conrat will
be able to understand it, but they'll have to wrestle with that problem
themselves.

>It reminds me of when I was taught to "witness" as a kid.  I "witnessed"
>to a friend of mine every day for months.  I'd usually end with "Why
>don't you pray with me right now?"  One day she looked at me and said
>"What's with you?  Do you give yourself brownie points for every soul
>you save?"  That's the moment I realized that the state of her soul
>was between her and God.  It was NONE OF MY BUSINESS unless she chose
>to share it with me.  Sorry folks, but I think a lot of you who 
>continue these apology demands are simply looking to give yourself
>brownie points for "making" Patrick "do the right thing".
>
A beautiful summation of it -- though I'd be tempted to say, in the cases of
Peter and Suzanne, that they're going after those brown-nose points...:-)


-- 
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. 
                       THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH!
                 (if that's all right with the rest of you...)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: George Bush's Happy China....
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:16:08 GMT

>] = bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>  = drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>] Note: there should be no doubt as to whether China has a policy of
>] `coerced abortion' -- distinct from `forced abortion' in that physical
>] force is not used to coerce.  [...]

>Given also the President's Strong support for the 
>AntiAbortion Plank in the GOP party Platform, and
>his deepest commitment to the sanctity of human life, one
>could not even begin to imagine that he would in
>anyway consider 'trading with the enemy' of so
>sacred a doctrine by frivilously seeking 
>'most favored trading status' for the People's Republic of China....

I recently asked pro-lifers "of the George Bush variety" how they
reconciled being against all abortions *except* in cases of rape, etc.
By "of the George Bush variety", I was referring to the position of
rape/incest exception.  But while there were several 
ExceptInCasesOfRape&Incest pro-lifers who responded, all were quick 
to distance themselves from those "of the George Bush variety".  
Perhaps George Bush's position is best known for hypocrisy, even
among pro-lifers.

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39789 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4810 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6164
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:17:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


If Chaney really wanted to put an end to this, he could simply
ask Dick Smith to post an article that said that the account
in question was not issued to Steve Chaney, but to Dennis
Hall.  This will not happen.  Mr. Smith has informed more than
one person that Chaney owned the account.  Chaney will
never suggest that people write to Mr. Smith, either.

Chaney lost posting privileges during the flap that ensued
when Scott Roby exposed his fraud.  PoorOldChaney has never
been able to explain why he was punished if the account, in
fact, belonged to someone else.  

Of course, there are a lot of things that Dennis can't explain.
He can't explain why he is alternately proud and ashamed of
his misogyny.  He can't explain why he is alternately 
proud and ashamed of his anti-Semitism.  He can't explain
why he posted that the 83 year old Margaret Sanger died
of an illegal abortion when no such story appeared anywhere.
He can't explain why he thinks "The Jews of New York" are
a location.  He can't explain why he continued to use the
gay pride .sig after knowing its origin and later claimed that
he wouldn't knowingly use it.  


PoorOldChaney will, of course, continue to lie and make a fool
out of himself.  Some of us wouldn't have it any other way.
He's not only amusing, he's also a living example of the
idiocy of his side.

Susan







Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: About The christian perspective...?
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:47:20 GMT

In article <f89n4aa.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes ...
>>>                And does not God also love mothers?
>>
>>I would say yes He does, very, very much.  But I don't think I fully
>>understand what you are trying to say here.
>
>Perhaps abortion was created by God for those women who were not strong
>enough to bear the demands of motherhood?  Perhaps, rather than being
>an excuse for hatred, abortion is an excuse for compassion, understanding,
>and forgiveness?
>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
>ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby

Thanks for your thoughts, Ray.  But could not God rather give strength
to those dear women who were not strong enough to bear the demands of
motherhood?  That's my perspective at least.  As a believer, I see this
as the alternative.  Our awesome God is one of compassion and strength
offering help to those who call upon Him:  "God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1).

Also, if loves comes from God, could He not give the mother such a love
for this child, that that love would be strength for her?  Remember that
old song, "he ain't heavy, he's my brother"?  When you really love 
someone, the burdens seem light.  Ever hear of mothers who lifted up
cars with their bare hands to rescue a trapped child?  There is strength
in love.

Just out of curiousity, Ray, how is abortion an excuse for forgiveness?
I guess I didn't understand what you meant by your last sentence.

God bless,
-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:15:24 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Pro-life should neither be Republican, nor Democrat, Conservative, nor
>Liberal.  It might be better to disassociate abortion from the political
>spectrum altogether.

Not to mention the legislative.

                          -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40416 alt.flame:13246