HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:30:23 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <wiuNRB1w165w@monsoon.com> sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:

>If someone constantly attacks my values, I know that person is
>my enemy. Simple, nicht whar?

 Which one of your values is under attack and who is attacking it ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Sex->pregnancy->must carry to term??
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:25:04 GMT

Clever logic!  I wonder if this is what Mrs. Bush meant when she said,
"Sex is death!"

-- 
_/_/_/  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: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:14:51 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# People who have publically expressed their clear and unequivocal
# objection to Patrick Humphrey's use of term "fat black ass": 
# 
#    Steve Chaney
#    Doug Holtsinger
#    Scott Roby
#    Suzanne Forgach
#    Galen Hekhuis
#    Will Steeves
#    JH Woodyatt
#    Peter Nyikos
#    Elizabeth Bartley
#    A. Werling
#    Ren and Stimpy's Love Child
#    Stephen J. Mezias

Now look here, Mr. Holtsinger -- I've seen you post this list before,
and I have condoned it in the past because I hoped that this tempest in
a virtual teapot would lose steam and go away.  But I can't condone
this distortion of the truth any longer.

Mr. Holtsinger, *I* did not *EVER* express my `clear and unequivocal
objection' to Patrick Humphrey's use of the term "fat black ass."  I
expressed a very vague and certainly very equivocal objection.  My
concern was, and still is, that this silliness over Patrick's faux pas
contributes to the obfuscation of the real problems of institutional
racism.  Any reaction I may have to Patrick's trivial mistake is, in
my view, just as trivial as the mistake.  I am much more appalled by
Steve Chaney's reaction, *YOUR* reaction, and the reactions of various
other posters as well.

Unless you intend to rephrase the preable to your list, I respectfully
request that you remove my name from it.


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Feel Free to jump in for me
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:35:28 GMT

For at least this week, I may want to stay away from t.a. as much as possible.
If you see me posting within the week, please email me and remind me to stay
out.

As for my posts and people's responses, feel free to either take it over
or comment about it.

Thanks
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:28:34 GMT

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?

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.

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".

>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

                          -rocker
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:09:18 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who cares

In article <1aj0p5INNbii@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bs508@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John
D Plumitis) says:

>Who Cares.  Yes, I am pro-life, but are you people really
>going to solve this issue on a computer.  If you so much think
>that you actually can solve this problem before the end of this
>worlds life, let me know how.  I am willing to bet you can't!!!!

Who claimed anyone was -trying- to?  It's just some people discussing the
issue, which is always a good thing.  Also involved are some people screaming
at each other, which is bad.  But discussion is good.  I don't think anyone
is really trying to find a complete -solution- to the problem, though if
someone had one it would really be nice...  except this group wouldn't be
much fun anymore :)

>Good Bye!!!!!!!
Later.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:30:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.193957.23284@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>(Followups set to talk.abortion)
>
>In article <Bv9LIx.qt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>
>>Once a woman has consented to the possibility of pregnancy, and a child
>>is conceived, that child has the same rights that anyone else does.
>
>This is known on talk.abortion as "Truth by Blatant Assertion."  I
>don't recollect seeing any proof of this; do you care to try *proving*
>that mindless humans have rights instead of asserting it?
>
>-- 
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
>
>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

	Ok, Bartlett, what characterizes the 'mind' for you miss Bartlet?
Is it a bunch of cells organized and working in a corrdinated way, in the
sense that the whole is doing something like screwing or reading a book?
Is it being conscious? Because if it is, then by your logic there is
absolutely nothing wrong with me first whopping you over the head-
driving you unconcious, and then decapitating you.  The most I could be
charged with is whopping someone unconscious.  Maybe I have a mind
only if I can spell the English 'potato.'  Maybe I don't have a mind
(I can see you making a joke along these lines) because you think I am
'Republican.'  You are no more, as you have said before, than a collection
of highly organized cells.  In the fetus that organization has not yet
reached the level of organization for what you and yours, in you vanity,
would call 'rational, conscious' thought.  Also, there is no reason, beyond
your fear of pain, that murder should be prevented. Why? Because you
do not live on hope but on fear.

				John Peter Wagner

P.S. Bite me weenies


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40569 alt.abortion.inequity:4244 alt.birthright:517
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: And Unto Them an Answer Came....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:37:22 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] In article <1992Sep29.180408.6438@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric
] Gorr) writes:
] }Matt 22:21:  
] }
] }"...Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to
] }God what belongs to God."
] }
] }Granted, Jesus was specifically speaking about Taxes in this passage, but
] }Jesus is noted for speaking in symbolic terms also.  As is the case here. 

Hence also that Jesus Support Roe V. Wade....

QED.

] }Jesus says here (and in other places) that we are to obey the laws of the
] }state where they do not conflict with what he preaches.  Murder laws are
] }still valid. 

Thank you for drawing out the rest of the implication...

] Uh, Mr. Gorr, that seems more like an argument about secular law vis-a-vis
] those who follow the teachings of Jesus.  Unless you would like to argue
] that murder belongs to the "Emperor" and not to "God."


Now the Important Question,
Since Jesus Supports Roe V. Wade,
then it follows that Those who
Oppose Roe v. Wade, are Opposing Jesus,

Hence that.....

Hum.....

Didn't Mr. Gorr ask about the biblical basis of abortion....

Or is this just another one of those -1 is a positive number sort of things...


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:04:54 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Martin writes:
>Brian writes:
>>Martin writes:
>>>BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.
>>
>>I disagree with your assertion.  Can you provide a reference to back it up?
>>
>My source is the
>  U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control.
>They also mention that 772,800 abortions are done each year in America
>after this point in pregnancy.

The number of abortions done after nine weeks is irrelevant to the
question of whether or not a nine-week fetus can feel pain.

>This point, of course, refers to the period when the unborn is able
>to feel pain.

This is the assertion that I still disagree with.  Can you provide
relevant support for it?

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:15:54 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.050829.27458@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

> 
> If you don't understand why I consider declaring human life to be not human
> life, then I don't think I can explain it to you.

Try.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:09:04 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.195902.23980@noao.edu>):
>Not only does Adrienne's arrogance make her think she is above everyone
>else in the net, but it makes her think she has to the right to kill
>other human beings who simply get in her way.

Do you honestly believe that every abortion can be boiled down to just
a case of a fetus "getting in a woman's way"?

>You know, even women with long complicated labors and deliveries manage 
>to get over it emotionally and even go on to have MORE children!   WHY?
>Because the overall outcome -- a beautiful child they quickly fall in love
>with -- is POSITIVE!

Suzanne, your opinion, at least as I've read it here on the net over
the past few weeks, seems to be that if any woman just allowed herself
to carry her fetus to term and give birth to it, it would be a
beautiful child and the mother would quickly fall in love with it, and
that it's always a positive experience for everyone involved.

However, if you would try to justify your pro-life stand even in cases
where the child isn't 'beautiful' or the mother doesn't love it, then
perhaps you could discuss your reasoning with us and persuade some of
us to agree with you.

Right now, your assertion that a human fetus must be kept alive at all
costs leads me to believe that you really haven't thought about the
costs involved.  If you even would take just a moment to express your
opinions about how a woman should _want_ to avoid an abortion even
when the situation's not as rosy as you've been painting it, then I'd
feel that your opinion is worth discussing; otherwise, it just appears
to me that you're speaking in ideals, not practical terms that could
apply to real life.

You feel strongly about abortion.  So do I, and I honestly want to
know why you feel the way you do, in terms that I can understand.  I'm
not out to 'convert' you or to belittle your beliefs.

-- 
_/_/_/  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: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:16:27 GMT

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?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Please Post this Moral Filth Where it Belongs
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:08:40 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] In article <6673@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] >In article <nyikos.717906130@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] >
] >#Cochran, I have been looking at some of your past posts, and a most
] >#uncompassionate person is taking shape from them.  So what I said to Larry
] >#(in the line you quote above) goes for you too. 
] >
] >Ooohhhh.  Be careful, Keith.  He might threaten to spank you next.
] 
] That's fine by me.  But he'll have to bring his own handcuffs. :]


OH! I am Just SHOCKED!!!!!

this is talk.abortion where we talk about moral purity,
and the relationship of Armed forces services to enfranchisement,
not to mention why Close Air Support is the Final Arbitor
of whether or not someone is ProLife....

Please take this Ikky Yukky Sex Stuff where it Belongs....

Its, Well, Its Just TOOOO Embarrasing.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40658 alt.abortion.inequity:4254
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:13:20 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: Yeaw, Dave Butler!
: 
: What you said!
: 
: Adrienne Regard

What, this:

>Ad Hominem is a classic Red Herring argument, and should be given no credence 
>or respect whatsoever. 

I take it you will be following his advice then?
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "There are no unborn people, there are fetuses,
                                 or people not yet born (and hence not real)." 
				   - Ron Bense '92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Have you herd about the ram?
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:38:16 GMT

In <Bv5s9r.3nn.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
In article <1992Sep23.201837.21608@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

[text deleted, before and after]

>> I think your egocentrism justifies current speculation 
>> that you're the "ram of the herd"!  You obviously think 
>> so!
>
> Would you care to elaborate on this comment, Overpeck?
> I'd like to know who you are calling a herd, for one
> thing.  

Seems like it was this very sort of situation in which you 
last decided to become incensed with me i.e., in the context 
of a joke.  At any rate, my comment is a reference to the post
of another who seemed to capture the essence of a remark made
by Keegan.  You decide, I've included it below.

> I'd like to know who other than you indulges
> in such sexist speculation, 

That you infer some non-existent sexism in my comment is not my
problem.

> but I doubt that you'll
> admit who your correspondent is.  

I don't know John Robinson, nor have I ever corresponded with
him.  But I laughed for 15 minutes after reading the following:

   Newsgroups: alt.flame
   From: robinson@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu (John G. Robinson)
   Subject: Re: Tales From the Crypt
   Message-ID: <robinson-090992081411@psy7.psy.utexas.edu>

   In article <1992Sep8.210920.21098@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
   > 
   > robinson@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu (John G. Robinson) writes:

   > -> Allow me to clue you in on a little secret: Trish is
   > -> _not_ going to make a road trip to jump your bones
   > -> simply because you come in on her behalf in a
   > -> side-thread in alt.flame.
   > 
   > of course she wouldn't. were she to do that, she'd have
   > much more substantial reasons.  

   "Blaaat!  I am the Raaaam of the Herd!"  You are about as readable 
   as a book, Jimmy-boy.

I think it's hilarious.  Must be a flaw in my character...

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: And now another semantics nit
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:57:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.182548.28229@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
># You do know that you cannot call a sperm/egg members of homo
># sapiens. 
>
>Mr. Guerrero, you seem to have a penchant for employing the phrase
>`members of the species homo sapiens' (or contractions thereof).
>
>Question:
>
>	...where do I get my membership card?

You already have one from the time you began your existence as a human life.

I certainly believe that neither I, nor your mother, have a right to take away
your existence as a special human life.

Be glad you were able to get your "membership card" before society 
started taking them away from people.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:16:29 GMT

In article <BvBqzM.67w.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the
>> term of pregnancy.  

> Holtsinger is well aware that this is not true.  

It's true -- Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
the term of pregnancy. Here's a quote to prove it:

  "The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the
   fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate
   or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate
   medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman.
   This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's
   decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement
   ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional,
   psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the
   well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed
   the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently
   limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way
   that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians
   are willing to perform them."

   [4] 410 U.S. at 163-164
   [5] 410 U.S. 179 (1973)

   Mark Tushnet, "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey",
   Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986, 
   pp. 162

Mark Tushnet is a professor of law at Georgetown University.
I have supporting evidence from 5 other independent sources,
and many of them are from prestigious law journals. Send 
me e-mail if you're interested in seeing them.
 
> The following is from Roe v. Wade.  When read in its 
> entirety, it is obvious that Roe does not protect
> "unrestricted abortion-on-demand."
> [.. quote deleted to save space ..]

That quote is entirely consistent with the quote which
I provided above. It basically says that a woman's
ability to obtain an abortion is dependent on the
availability of a physician who's willing to perform
the abortion -- which is essentially abortion-on-demand.


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 23:38:54 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <8tlzdzq@rpi.edu>  cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>
> >There were 2nd trimester babies in that NCU at the hospital.
>
> Please provide some evidence for this statement.

Including, at how many weeks of development?  And did they survive?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: On the subject of clinical diagnosis...
Summary: You can lead a mathematician to class, but you can't make him think... 
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, 4 Oct 92 16:34:05 GMT

In article <nyikos.718162206@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep30.072730.14377@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>You're a sick man, Gordon.

Mr. Overpeck, would you care to give us your opinion of "Dr Nyikos", a
mathematician, giving a diagnosis on Gordon's physical or mental health?

--
=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???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=