HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:54:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <r5tn-6j.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>In article <BuBuHz.8w4@rice.edu> 
>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>> Watch and see how
>>> Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up 
>>
>>I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.
>
>In the past year or so, I've seen the official virus lie, insult everybody
>who disagreed with him, and goad people with his childish taunts in 98%
>of what he posts.  What I have _not_ seen him do is apologize for anything
>or admit he has ever made a mistake.

When the official virus made a comment about Kate Michelman acting in
a PMS rage or some such thing, and I pointed it out, he immediately
retracted it.  I have no idea what prompted this lone moment of grace
during the past 6 months, but it did happen.  Perhaps it was the
exception to prove the rule that he is total vermin.

>I would like to see several apologies from borgyboy; I don't expect to
>get any.  While Patrick's comment was inappropriate and probably regretted,
>propeller boy's reponse has not been deserving of an apology.

Regardless of the obvious fact that the object of the insult deserves
no apology, I *personally* would have apologized.  I would have done
it as a demonstration that, although the official virus had somehow
gotten me so pissed off that I had temporarily sunk to something even
approaching his level, at least I regretted it.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: I *WISH* they'd keep their stories straight... (Was: People...)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:37:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.214142.23410@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>In fact, if you read the coroner's report itself, which I have a copy of at
>home somewhere, you learn that Becky Bell never had an abortion at all.  She
>died of the same pneumonia that caused her miscarriage the week before.
>Yet pro-abort propoganda keeps insisting she died of an abortion she crossed
>state lines to get.  Nothing illegal.  She just crossed state lines.  So
>I simply used this bit of propoganda where it was most effective -- against
>a pro-abort.
Please, Ms. Forgach, I would appreciate a copy of this report. If you
will send me email, I will give you addressing information.
I am quite willing to cover all costs for duplication and/or postage,
and will do so either in advance or following receipt.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35735 alt.abortion.inequity:3652
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:47:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep14.183808.24827@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> # gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> # |> Pretty close.  I agree pretty much with Jennifer here.  If you are going
|> # |> to legislate that the state controls a woman's womb then you had better be
|> # |> prepared to have your testicles controlled by the state too.
|> # 
|> # 	Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of) proposes to enact
|> # state controls over the womb.  We're merely proposing that a woman not
|> # be allowed to kill the child for whose existence and presence in her
|> # womb she is responsible. That the creation and development of the
|> # child occurs in her womb is incidental. I would not object to a woman
|> # removing the child from her womb so long as she did not kill it in the
|> # process.
|> 
|> Great.  Suppose I come up with an early abortion system that
|> guarantees that the embryo does not die until after it is completely
|> removed from the uterus?
|> 
|> Your sophistry is unimpressive.

	As are your cheap answers.
	The woman, as the child's parent, is responsible to do everything within
her power to preserve the child's life.  She cannot kill it or neglect it to
death.  She cannot recklessly endanger its life.  If the child dies because the
mother takes an unneccessary risk, she is guilty, at least, of reckless
endangerment; at most, of willful endangerment.  And if she deliberately kills
the child, if killing the child was her intent, then she is guilty of murder in
the first degree.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computers,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: zhu_z@romeo.caltech.edu (Zhu, Zehua)
Subject: Re:  Sex Sacrifices and MultiProcessing Computers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:13:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.102931.7292@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
>regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> 
>] In article <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>] >ec>Then why are they still having sex if there are things in their lives
>] >ec>that obviously have a higher priority?
>] >Hopefully some day in the future you will have the opportunity to
>] >find this kind if information out on your own.
>] 
>] Can't imagine anybody hiring this person for a job that required
>] "multi-tasking", can you?
>] 
>] Adrienne Regard
>] 
> 
> 
>Folks, Lets Watch Where we POST thing...
> 
>If folks need to know about Sex, they can try alt.sex, or
>soc.singles, where there are many knowledgeable persons
>willing to clarify the technical complications of engaging
>in various Sexual Depravities like heterosexuality, and like perversions.
> 
>As for Multitasking, I think that alt.religion.computers would
>be an excellent place to clarify why the CRAY is obviously
>God's Personal Choice in High Performance Floating Point Optimised
>Technology, and should NOT be confused with lowly toys spawned
>by worshipers of the DEVIL!!!!!
> 
>Adrienne I am Just SHOCKED that you would be so CALLOUS [1]
>in your posting style!!!! 
> 
>ciao
>drieux
> 
> 
>[1] it is a shame there is no alt.palm.problems.....
> 
> 
> 
>-- 
>If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
>To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
>Put them back in the Refrigerator.
>This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Summary: It's the 12-12-12 that does it...
Date: 9 Sep 1992 19:02:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <24780@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, patrick@is.rice.edu (That's MISTER Patrick L. Humphrey to you, Steve.) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep8.151810.9463@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Stev
>>e Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
>
>]>Quite obviously, PatricKKK, I am seriously superior to you, and am way
>
>superior fertilizer, maybe, since Patrick is a human being.

Yeah, it's a shame my father doesn't need any for his greenhouse up in
Kentucky -- ol' Propeller Boy could grow some pretty big tomatoes, I'd
think...

>]>above your league. It is better for you and your pro-abort contingent that
>
>as far as leagues go, are you in one? (Besides manure pushers, unl.?)

Of course -- didn't you know?  He plays for the NASL's Oakland
Stompers.  (Don't upset him by telling him that the NASL went out of
business seven years ago, though...:-)

>]>you just leave me the hell alone, and just stick to the facts as well as
>
>leave me alone, leave me alone, leave me alone
>crying for mommy yet, steve?

Nah -- he wouldn't want to take any chances with that inheritance of
his...:-)

>]>your feeble mind can comprehend them, because your lies sure as hell are
>]>not blowing over. When you try to tackle me, you're pissing into the wind,
>
>something you've had a lot of experience with? So those aren't tears
>after all....

This guy would have been entertaining if he'd been in Miami when Andrew came
in...:-)

>>(Of course, brain surgery *would* be a waste of time, in your case...:-)
>
>Patrick, I have to disagree, I think brain surgery would be a boon for
>Steve. They might be able to find the single nueron that connects to
>his speech center and shut him up forever.

Or they could replace what little bit Dale Ann lost -- on second thought,
it'd probably be rejected at a fair fraction of c...:-)

>]>Someone can bash my ego in this post, because it does look quite inflated
>
>If it was anything other than hot air, and I could find it, yeah, I
>guess I might be able to bash it, provided I could hit it with my pinkie.
>
>>                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
>
>Just enough to hang themselves with....

...and I'm having a good time watching him dangle in the breeze.  (Upwind,
of course. :)


-- 
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 U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Germany Abortion Law and (was: Observations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:45:19 GMT

In article <24685@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <24588@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>>tes:
>>>In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>>>Try Germany, for example.  The zygote is a person at implantation,
>>>>legally defined as 14 days after conception, and is then entitled
>>>>to protection under the German constitution.  The debate has been
>>>>over whether the mother has rights superior to the unborn child's,
>>>>not whether the zygote is a person or not.
>
>>>This statement is incorrect.  The German law was changed about two months
>>>ago to reflect its new constituency.
>
>>Have you read the text of the new law?  I'm not so sure it states
>>that the fetus is not a person; rather, it would be consistent
>>with the West German constitution to continue to regard the fetus
>>as a person, but now to say that the woman's rights supercede the fetus's.
>
>I have not read the text, only others interpretation of it, and the
>brou-ha-ha that has followed it. Whatever else it says, it basically
>allows a woman access to abortion, should she so desire. The religiously
>mired folk, who, if I happen to remember correctly were primarily from
>the southern Bavaria region, are the same folk who were the primary
>section of that favorite group the SS. I don't know about you, but anything
>that curtailed their influence, I would be in favor of.

Hitler built the Autobahn, but I enjoy driving on it, and I enjoy
driving on US highways.  Yes, the S.Bavarians are kind of a "moral
majority" and I'm not fond of their attitudes in general, but what
I have liked very much about the German system is that it stipulates
that the fetus is a person (ending religious debate) and +then+ says,
whose rights prevail?

That balance seems to have swung in favor of the voter.   ;-)

The death of a fetus then becomes something that can be decreed,
like the death of a convict (well, not in Germany) or the death
of a soldier.  It seems more consistent with the rest of our
bodies of legal principles.

Interestingly, the Nazis would have admired Margaret Sanger: 
abortion permits the inferior to eliminate themselves.


>>Germany also provides extensive, constitutionally-guaranteed support
>>for mothers (can you say, "bounty"?), as well as extremely female-oriented
>>custody laws, to discourage abortions and encourage ("Aryan") population
>
>Some of this I think is actually good, as I don't believe a mother should
>be forced into poverty because she had a child. 

On the face of it, it's fine.  Unfortunately it costs fathers
their "custody" rights in a very extreme and biased manner.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:42:29 GMT

In article <29500@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#In article <1992Sep4.154103.21633@nas.nasa.gov>
#dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes: 
#
##I got to wondering, if I were to run for Congress supporting free love,
##should I be allowed to show love making on my commercials?
#
#Yeah, run, Dan, run!  Isn't this how the Ross Perot thing started?

I don't think Dan can run for congress.  After all, he's the
monarch of a different country.  Can people simultaneously
rule Canada, Coyote California, most of Pennsylvania and
Texas and other states and also be elected to congress?

Speaking of that, when Scott and I were in Houston last month,
we saw lots of billboards for "Microsurgical Vasectomy
Reversal," which made us start thinking about reversible
sterilization again, and made me realize that I'm still in
prison.  I want out.

##Even though I strongly disagree with the content of the Bailey adds,
##I would defend his right to show his adds.
#
#Amen, bro.  If commercials are allowed to distort the facts with
#regularity, why shouldn't the pro-LIE folks be allowed to show a one
#inch fetus looking like a prawn and taking up the whole screen?  

I keep thinking about a man who works out at a health club
next door to one of our clinics.  He brings his kids with
him to the club.  Two years ago, he spent a bit of time
arguing with the protestors about the appropriateness of
them shoving bloody fetus pictures in his children's faces,
saying that he shared their opinion that abortion should
be illegal.  He eventually told us that their insistence
on forcing their views on him made him reconsider his 
forcing his views on anyone - he now opposes criminalizing
abortion.

I hope they keep showing the ads.  

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:18:34 GMT

In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# ... But you see, I feel discriminated against
# by not having the possibility of being pregnant.
# 
# 	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
# 				--Pro-abortion slogan
# 	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
# 				--Peter Nyikos

I think I'm seeing a case of uterus envy that defies belief.  Someone
pour cold water on me.


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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: il57@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Re: Wow, isn't Miss----- just....
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:01:14 GMT

First of all, i think we should be able to rise above namecalling.
Second, it is her choice, and no male has any business telling her other-wise
because we are incapable of really knowing what they're going through.
The laws of most states are so lenient toward males, that our part can
literally be a quick 15 min. and a thank-you ma'am.
just my opinions.
il57@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:26:09 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep11.052927.33007@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes: 

>> >The term was used to refer to a portion of anatomy.  That some people
>> >are unable to distinguish between "Get your ass over here" and "Get
>> >over here, you ass" is unfortunate, but should not reflect on the
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >speaker.
>>
>> Our disagreement is minor, but proof positive that those of us on the
>> pro-choice side do occasionally disagree.
>
>*Are* we in disagreement?  Do you not see the semantic difference between
>the two statements?  At no point did I claim that what Patrick said was
>*right*; I just pointed out that those saying he referred to Chaney *as*
>a fat black ass are incorrect.

I have highlighted the point of disagreement; it is not about a
semantic difference.  Rather, it concerns an interpretation of the
actual statement.  Despite my different interpretation, I think the
decision of whether to apologize is Patrick's to make; I merely
speculate that I might have acted differently.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: GHWB and atheism
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:54:11 GMT

I've been getting a lot of email from people asking, "did George Bush
_really_ say what you quote in your .sig?"  The answer is yes.  Here's
the relevant section from the alt.atheism FAQ:

------ begin excerpt --------------------------------------------------------

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1988. 
The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal
disaster relief for Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential
primary:

	RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

	GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
	    God is important to me."
 
	RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
	    Americans who are atheists?"

	GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
	    nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
	    God."

	RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation
	    of state and church?"

	GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not
	    very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were
still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27,
1989.  It can also be found in "Free Enquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue,
Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

------ end excerpt ----------------------------------------------------------

DearOldDoug and other pro-Bush atheists still haven't commented on Bush's
comments.  Hmmmm.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: Texas law, etc.
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:18:33 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

Could someone explain what this thread about TX law, deadly force, etc.......
is doing on talk.abortion?
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:14:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):

>> I would suggest that this is dubious at best. Typically, cannibalism
>> is viewed as EATING human flesh.

>Mere consumption is an acceptable definition to me.

Consumption is the using up of an item. Evidently eating qualifies as
this, or anything else that renders the item talked about unusable.
Consumption of transplanted organs is complete when the person has been
dead for a couple of hours (not sure about the latest time after death
organs can still be transplanted) as will all other organs, etc. Until
then they are not consumed.

>With organ transplantation and blood transfusions, you have willing or
>dead doners (who've already indicated they want to donate anyway).

>With fetal tissue, it's killing, stealing, and consuming, and that's all.

The gaurdian has obviously given permision, as is doen with children
up to the age of majority. Or is this also stealing, and would you rob
people of any consolation they might receive out of this selfless act?
Your living up to your reputation.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 02:17:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
>In <k6tn!_p.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:
>[very premature baby survives and goes home after long time in hospital]
>
>> And at $300/day for 4 months, it probably cost at least $40,000 (and note
>> that I'm using _extremely_ conservative cost estimates).  How many lives
>> were lost to save this one person?  How do you justify spending this kind
>> of money on a regular basis to "save lives" when it means trading one 
>> life for hundreds?
>
>  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all?  "It'll cost too much to save
>this guy.  Ditch him."  This can happen when there are too many casualties to
>treat (say after a battle, or a major urban disaster).  Then the deciding factor
>is usually time and medical resources.  Time spent on saving 1 person could
>cost several others their lives.

So then, you have no qualms about letting a thousand die to save one infant?

While I agree that this is a simplistic approach to the issue, it does 
rather discount the common assertion that the pro-life crew are trying
to save lives, doesn't it?  Perhaps it _is_ a matter of being anti-abortion?

Perhaps preventing abortions _won't_ save lives.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com