HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:54:46 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

In article <1993Jan25.050534.28445@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.212831.10859@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.164230.23254@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan24.052258.14213@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan24.012006.20871@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>>>>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>>>>>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside 
>>>>>>>her that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>>>>>>made such a statement. Or retract it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
>>>>>abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
>>>>>cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.
>>>>>
>>>>No Kebbin. Work on your reading skills. He quite specifically is
>>>>talking about an abortion performed during a full term labor.
>>>
>>>That falls under "at any time", does it not?
>>>
>>Back to living ini your fantasy world again, aren't you Kebbin? or is
>>this just another attempt by you to argue in favor of abortion
>>restrictions? Certainly, at any time means exactly that. 
>
>Okay, so by logical deduction,
>If
>	Pro-choicer X supports the right of a woman to abort "at any time"
>And
>	"During labor" qualifies under "at any time"
>Then
>	Pro-choicer X supports the right of a woman to abort during labor
>Correct?
>A "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.
[Whitespace deleted. What a waste]

It's a cute theory, and in theory, yes, Kebbin. In practice you're
going to have a hard time pretending that the situation has ever
come up. We *are* talking about reality here, aren't we Kebbin?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:40:12 GMT

In <1993Jan26.234749.12467@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.222122.26394@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan26.152124.8182@seachg.uucp> 
>>chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>>> No one is "pro-abortion".  
>>
>>There are several self-described "pro-abortionists" on the net,
>Quite true.

>>along with a few pro-choicers who believe that infanticide and
>>abortion are not immoral. 
>Don't know to which you're referring. If you're referring to
>me, you should really note that I don't believe that there exists
>any act X of which one could truthfully say that X is immoral.
>Therefore, it follows that I do not believe that infanticide
>or abortion is immoral.

What if X = "prevent a mother from having an abortion"?

>-Ekr

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 22:06:23 GMT

In article <C17ys0.3IF@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.011738.26418@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>
>>How would you offer "life assistance" to someone who is terminally ill
>>with cancer, wracked with constant pain, and is living a hell on earth
>>s/he cannot escape? "Would you like some more heroin?"
>
>It depends on the situation.  It is certainly better to give medicine to 
>someone than to kill them.  I certainly don't think that I could ever
>kill anyone in this condition.  Their life is not mine to take.
>God has healed people in worse circumstances.  
>
What medicine do you have in mind Link? Keep in mind that end-stage
cancer patients are basically losing the function of all their organs.
The narcotics used to control pain (specifically morphine sulfate, IV)
are metabolized in the liver. The doses needed to control the pain
would kill any normal, healthy person. Of course, since their livers
aren't working, the drugs build up in their systems, and will
eventually push them into a coma. If the dosages are reduced, they
will moan and cry out form the pain even while unconcious.
When concious, and competant, why should they not be able to choose to
end their own lives? It is, after all theirs, not yours. All you are
*really* advocating is forcing them to endure needless suffering. If
they want to suffer, they should be given every effort medicine can
provide. If they don't, they should be allowed to die in a dignified
manner, if thet is their desire.
Perhaps you should go sit with a few dying cancer patients. Try bone
cancer, for starters. Then you can graduate to some of the nastier
varieties.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57856 talk.religion.misc:27517
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Where Opposites Meet
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:55:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <C1DzJx.FLt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>P.S. Anyone hear anything about a group of pro-life and pro-choice (tried to 
>give them both the most positive names) people getting together to work for 
>children's rights?  If so, please send info.  Thanks!

In my negotiation class 6 months ago the instructor mentioned a show called
"Common Ground" where people with WILDLY different viewpoints were brought
together and were required to find something in common (with an extremely
patient moderator).  Apparently on one show Molly Yard and Jerry Falwell
were brought together to talk about the abortion issue.  The upshot was
that the two ended up working together to abolish a law in some southern
state (don't recall which) that required a pregnant girl to drop out of
school.

I have heard mumblings and rumblings of a *group* since then called "Common
Ground" that does a number of things including joint projects to help
orphanages and sensitivity retreats that bring pro-lifers and pro-choicers
together.

Someone would do me a large favor if they found them and posted info.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58156 talk.politics.misc:70039 talk.religion.misc:27673 alt.politics.homosexuality:10350
From: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S. Bond)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Letting gays into the military and Pres. Clinton
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:39:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Dear President Clinton:


	After the election you promised to focus in on the economy "like a 
laser beam."  So far, you have been in office for almost a week and the things
you appear to be focusing on are controversial issues such as abortion and
letting homosexuals into the military.  Perhaps it would be wiser to spend
your great political capital on something we all can agree on which is 
improving on the economy.  When that job is done then you can concern yourself
with the other issues.


					Sincerely,


					Robert Bond



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bond - University of Pennsylvania
Department of Chemical Engineering
Reply to: bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu		
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A new lie from PHoney
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:21:02 GMT

In article <2569@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <nyikos.728076896@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>[everything else deleted - PHoney is obviously going to continue to
>lie about what I said, and I'm enjoying watching him]
>
>>Susan, for the benefit of readers, is at CMU just as Scott Safier is.
>
>This statement is not correct.
>
Of course not, but why should this statement be any different from the
rest of the bilge he posts? Hell, he probably thinks we're all at CMU.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:23:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.165017.6703@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.134202.14357@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
> >Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
> >: In article <1993Jan17.163155.20964@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
........
> 
> Women seeking to go on welfare are currently forced to reveal the paternity
> of their children, unless there is a real danger that the father may commit
> violence if his identity is revealed. The civil liberties organizations have
> already fought that battle, and pretty much lost it. This Tax would require
......

     The statement that mothers requesting welfare are required to
reveal paternity is only true in two or three states.  For the other
fifty-one or fifty-two jurisdictions MOTHERS requesting WELFARE are
NOT, repeat NOT, required to name the father.
     I lobbied in Indiana in february and march 1992 to get such a
requirement into law and was out-lobbied by the feminists in the
Indiana Dept of Health and Human Services.  I was amazed at the negative
response to a measure which was intended to reduce welfare cost to
the state.  (Of course, I think the child support enforcement division
did not want to see a work-load increase!)

David Garrod



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:06:28 GMT

Warning: I get wacky in this one.  Fire "n" keys at will.

In <C0wt7o.CsM@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>I read in todays Boston Globe (1/15/92) the story of an 8 (yes 8) year old
>Mexican female who birthed a health 7.04 point boy by Cesarian Section.
>This little factoid is one of the best arguments not only for abortion,
>but for sterilization.

"point"?  was the female a dog, or cat, or what?

If she was a "woman" [just when does it become politically incorrect
to call them girls?] then...well, I just don't get your logic.

For instance, sterilization of whom?  8 year olds?  Anyone who could
conceivably impregnate them?

PJN

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: 75 freaking articles!!! 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:16:43 GMT

In <1993Jan17.044949.17324@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1993Jan15.150755.23854@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>Recently, Mark Cochran had the privilege of being on 
>>the top 10 list for the total number of articles 
>>submitted--180 or so articles in 2 weeks gave him 
>>the number #5 position.  He outranked that 'Sergar'
>>character (at #7) who cross-posts all that propaganda
>>about the Turks and the Armenians. 
>>
>Yup, I sure did. I just can't pass up the opportunity to publically
>laugh at twits like you and PHoney.

And laugh is mostly what you did.  One other thing you did: you
e-mailed me that you would let my postmaster know I am a coward if
I continued to e-mail you instead of letting my "tripe" be seen
in public.

This was in response to me sending you copies of many of the very posts
Chris Lyman flamed me for.  Not a single private e-mail message among
them.

Thank you for the glimpse into the workings of your nefarious mind.

BTW you forgot that you told me, back in December:

"I have said nothing in mail that I would not say on the net."

>Of course, my articles aren't generally 1000 lines long, like PHoneys,
>so if bandwidth is a concern we know who to blame.

Mine are usually not longer than the ones in your long exchange with
Steve Matheson, which Chris gave fulsome praise for.  Of course, the
person deserving praise is Matheson, who avoids such medically 
misleading stuff as implying a person with a 3-chambered heart has
zero chance of survival.

I have an 8 year old nephew with that condition, as I explained 
in greater detail earlier in the thread.

>>It is funny to watch a pro-choicer post stupid bandwidth
>>flames only to have them re-directed at another pro-choicer.
>>
>What re-direction DODie? There's been no such re-direction here...

Just like a little brat caught stealing cookies: "Cookies? what
cookies?"

[Cochran "stole", i.e. deleted Chris Lyman's flames]

"You sent me copies of posts? what posts?"

>>Doug Holtsinger
>>'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
>>Mark Cochran is a pathological liar.

>I've fixed your errors in the .sig again DODie.

You left one error in, which I have replaced with what I believe
Doug intended all along.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:01:31 GMT

In article <nyikos.727661771@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <v31kmic@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
>
>>In article <nyikos.727394039@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
>>|Oh, I have been assured that Darcy has made a bad joke about someone
>>|being a child molester, and that he later made a feeble apology for it,
>>|but having seen neither the joke nor the apology, I continue to withhold
>>|judgment.  [...]
>
>>I saw both.  You can feel free to judge Darcy as a squirming
>>slug who would rather lie & compound an error than admit he was
>>wrong.  Perhaps, though, knowing this will help you identify
>>with Darcy.  After all, I've seen the same behavior from you
>>here, though not on any issues as personally painful to others
>>as Darcy's.  Darcy, after all, accused a victim of sexual abuse
>>of being a child molester, and then refused to apologize.  You
>>just play games with your news server and blame other people
>>for your flaming habits.
>
>Seeing how you have just judged me, I feel safe in *not* believing
>what you say about Darcy until you show me what he said.

Let me save you the trouble, Peter. Based on a vague, general statement
from Susie Garvin's SO "knowing all about child sexual abuse", I joked,
in alt.flame, about her supposed poor choice of SO, i.e. implying that the
SO was a (former) child molester. Then, in the very next article in the 
thread, once it was clarified that Susie's SO was a victim, rather than a
(former) perpetrator of child sexual abuse, I clearly indicated that I had 
been suffering from a dearth of context (this was an admission of error, 
though no-one saw fit to recognize it as such). Somewhat later, after a 
protracted, disgusting charade of self-righteousness had washed over into 
t.a, I posted an apology. None of the parties guilty for the charade have 
ever apologized for unnecessarily exposing t.a to it. As usual, I hold the 
moral high ground.

Let this be an object lesson to you, Peter: even when one DOES capitulate to 
TSAKC's blustery demands for apologies, one will still get criticized for not
apologizing (or not apologizing "soon enough", or "well enough", or whatever). 
So why bother? What good does it do?

							- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIE
---------------

"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
 himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
				    Susie Garvin
				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57819 talk.politics.misc:69645 talk.religion.misc:27493 misc.legal:23259
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:03:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <22JAN199316125435@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> The Presidential candidate in question happens to be Michael Dukakis,
>> and I'm proud to say that I helped shout him down -- because he
>> happened to be saying lies at the time, and I happen to disagree with
>> lies. . . .

> Lies?  What lies?

He claimed that he was qualified to be President of the U.S., for one.

> Fortunately for Mr. Kaldis, if he cannot come up with substantiation,
> Michael Dukakis is a public figure.

The above is the result of a lawyer's mindset: that the answer to
every disagreement lies in a lawsuit.  From _The_Doctor_:

Q:  What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?

A:  One is a slimy, scum-sucking bottom dweller, and other is ... a
    fish.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:30:14 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan26.002031.13994@ncsu.edu>,
by dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):

> The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
> the pro-life position.  The label implies that pro-lifers are
> opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy", which is false.
> They are opposed to an action which results in the death of an
> innocent human being.  If it were possible to transfer the child
> to another person's care without killing the child, then few
> pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".

Are you sure?  For whom do you speak?  For my part, the only
reason I'm not anti-choice (i.e., actively opposed to the continued
legality of abortion) is because I've come to realize that limiting
choice is a "solution" that: 1) will not work; and 2) will not
happen.

If the "choice" is to dismember an unborn child and toss his or
her remains in a scrap bucket, then I am decidedly "anti-choice"
whether or not the choice is legal.

> The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
> pro-choice position.

Bull.  You must get off on starting flame wars.

> Pro-choicers not only want the right to
> choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
> to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
> mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 

With a little stretch, I could agree that you have described a
"pro-abortion" individual.  I reject your contention that this is
a "correct characterization of the pro-choice position."  I argue
that, by definition, it is nothing of the sort.

I think you like getting flamed.  Adios.  Have fun.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: control
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:21:26 GMT

In article <lm96bvINNh4d@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>Doug Holtsinger:
>
>>Mark Cochran is no medical expert.  He _pretends_ to be one.
>>Just recently, he's been caught distorting the truth about 
>>cancer patient pain.  He's also manufactured a lie about the
>>existence of organ donor recipients for Baby Theresa.  Peter
>>Nyikos documented his confusion over the meaning of digitalis. 
>>
>>> To be truthful, I subscribed to this newsgroup mainly
>>> to sharpen my debating skills, but maybe I ought to look in this a bit
>>> more.  
>>
>>You should also _question_ people more thoroughly about their
>>alleged expertise in a field and the "facts" they present.  Don't
>>accept anything at face value, even it appears to be common sense.
>
>Well said, Doug.  I'll remember that.  To start, I will invite Mark
>to defend himself against your claims.  If he doesn't wish to reply,
>I will simply treat this as a typical case with evidence for one side.
>
>Paul Brinkley
>brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
>Pro-Thought Advocate
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Sorry to say this Paul, but if you take anything Doug says as the truth,
your thought has just flown out the window. Doug's rantings about Mark
are merely the results of his slighted ego, and have no basis in fact.
Both Doug, and Nyikos, who Doug sites, have credibility ratings of zero.
Their rantings are merely those of children upset that the rest of the
world does not share their delusional fantasies.

Robert Johnston









Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism