HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:57:54 GMT

<1992Sep3.161641.27096@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>In article <_3kn9!-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>In article <1992Sep1.183441.9858@wdl.loral.com> 
>>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>
>>Abortion comes down to some fairly straightforward questions.  To wit:
>>
>>Do people have the right to control their own bodies? (that's a yes/no
>>question.  Not a "yes/no, except when ..." question).
>
>Wrong.  It is NOT a yes/no question.

I agree that in general it is not a yes/no question (for example: I think
the right to throw your own body off a tall building can endanger others
below you).  But in the context of abortion it is clearly a yes/no
question.

>>When should legal personhood begin?  And if it's before birth, does the
>>z/e/f have more rights to the mother's body than does the mother?
>
>If it's before birth, does the z/e/f have more, equal or less rights to
>IT'S own body than does the mother?

I think I see the crux of your problem here.  If it's the fetus alone that
you are concerned with then let's work toward a method of fetal removal
that leaves the fetus intact and alive.  It's too bad that most abortions
occur at 8 weeks and the fetus will shrivel and die shortly after it's
placed in the man's palm.  But heck, that's his problem, and his fault.
If he can't provide for his own children that's not the woman's fault.  I
have it on good authority that at this stage caring for a fetus is only a
"small part of parenting".


...
>>Not to say the fetus shouldn't have some protection, just that consequences
>>of pre-birth personhood are likely to be rather worse than the benefits.
>
>Not necesarily.  Pre-birth personhood could drastically decrease the number
>of children born with problems due to maternal neglect.

Praytell, how?  Forced birthing doesn't seem like the optimum method of
cultivating a lasting love.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:51:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.172004.12634@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:


[Nyikos' boo-boo deleted]

#I love you, Susan.  Let's run away and have 2.4 kids together.  I'll bring
#the cat.


I love you, too, Keith.  I'm all packed.  I'll bring the garage
door opener.

(I guess Suzanne won't see this article, will she?)

Susan
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: EVIDENCE??  HELLO??!?!!(was: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman)
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:30:58 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715383104@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <92243.112736ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>>Do the rules of evidence apply at these meetings?
>>Did anyone verify or ask the clinic to "testify"
>>regarding these allegations?

>My only source of information to date is the issue of _The Forerunner_
>where portions of testimonies are printed, and it does not go into such
>detail.  But I can borrow a copy of the tapes, and those might hold more
>information.  

Uh huh.  Let us know about ACTUAL EVIDENCE, honey.  If these
violations are going on, then why aren't these shocked clinic workers quietly
gathering information for a legitimate malpractice case?  Are they truly
interested in protecting women for this abuse (which would be best served
by slapping the villians in jail and with heavy fines), or are they letting
it go because it makes great press for The Cause?  Could it be that
they've found a neat way to get strokes and a spot in the limelight by
making up a few white lies for The Cause?  Surely, The Cause is so 
overwhelmingly Important that God forgives a little bending of the facts, wot?

WHERE THE BEEF, DUDE?  Got ANY EVIDENCE *AT* *ALL*?  Put up or shut up.

>[...more bogus "testimony" by more shocked clinic staff about more illegal
> and inethical behavior, and still no evidence...]

How dare you respond to a request for evidence with more unsubstantiated
hearsay.  Your regard for the truth is shockingly low.  Shame on you.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Hey, Mr. Chaney!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:11:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.160819.18049@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>Steve Chaney wrote:
># So that's why you're making all the retractions and I'm the one
># pounding them out of you, one at a time? 
>
>You are overusing the violence metaphor.  In a major way.
>
>Stop it.  Now.

Plan to MAKE me stop it? 

>I mean it.

Whoopity do, asshole. What you mean, doesn't mean a thing. 

Now, do something about it. 

=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:49:25 GMT

In article <dbznpq.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep10.034942.12697@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>><1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Aug31.144116.12258@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>>><BtK044.IG4@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>>>><1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>>>In the case of abortion at least one, and depending on your beliefs, two
>>>>other people are directly affected by a woman's UNILATERAL decision to
>>>>have an abortion, the father and the child.
>>>
>>>I'd say that the man in this case is minimally inconvenienced or affected
>>>by the abortion.
[...]
>>>At least, he has *no* health risks either way.
>>
>>Wrong.  He has fewer health risks during the pregnancy than the woman,
>>but has more health risks during the next 18 years.  Check the stats
>>on stress related illnesses in men.
>
>The man has *no* health risks from being pregnant because a man *cannot*
>be pregnant.  Sheesh!  Next you'll be telling us that a goldfish can get a
>sprained ankle.


Only if it falls off its bicycle.               :-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:20:01 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.223559.16902@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
>> 
>>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
> 
> 
> ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.

Pro-choicers don't (necesarily) cannibalize.  Not even the abortionist
eats the aborted z/e/f/b/c.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Summary: In which the leader of the FFL supports abortion rights... 
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 03:19:04 GMT

[Note:  Deletions not marked...]

In article <nyikos.715893475@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Not all women think the way Susan Garvin does.  Here are the words
>of Frederica Mathewes-Green, president of Feminists for Life of America:
>
>  "A ... disparaging of pregnancy itself also has an unhealthy ring.
>Harping on the discomforts of pregnancy treats woman as weak, incompetent;
>yet we are uniquely equipped for this role and strong enough to do much
>harder things than this.  Every woman need not bear a child, but
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>every woman should feel proud kinship in the earthy, elemental beauty
>of birth.  To hold it in contempt is to reject our distinctive power,
>our bodies, ourselves."

Gee, so the leader of the FFL supports abortion rights?

(Personally, with a name like yours, I'm not suprised that you have womb
envy...)
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:17:48 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

] rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
] >forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
] >>scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier):
] >>> Suzie, we've been through this before. Gay men do not hate women.
] >>> We are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
] >>Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so 
] >>harmful to respect for women and for mothers, (not to mention 
] >>also physically harmful to them), a case can be made that 
] >>generally as a group, they do hate women.    There is only the
] >>occasional exception.

I assume Suzanne is only referring to gay MEN here - I
can't believe she things Lesbians (gay WOMEN) hate women...

] >Unbelievable. Let's examine the logic here:
] >1) So many gays are pro-abortion. (Unsubstantiated premise).
] >2) Abortion is harmful to respect for women and for mothers. 
] >(Unsubstantiated premise.)
] >3) Abortion is physically harmful to women. (Unsubstantiated premise)
] >4) Therefore gays as a group hate women.(non sequiter)
] >
] >If this logic were true, we would be forced to conclude that 
] >anyone who is pro-abortion hates women. I'm not sure who SF 
] >considers to be pro-abortion.
] >Conservatively, we would conclude that Gordon Storga hates women.
] 
] And how wrong that conclusion would be.  I can't really think of any
] person I *hate*.  Heck, I don't even hate Suzanne and she's basically
] called my wife a prostitute.  See how benevolent I am.
] 
Funny - I can't think of anyone I hate either.  Or anyTHING
I hate - some actions of some people, maybe - or maybe the
carrots that stayed in the 'fridge too long and got soggy.
Certainly no women I can think of.

I've known some gay men who were rather apprehensive about
women (but then, I've known some straight guys who were
apprehensive about women also).  I've also known some who
were, as my dad once put it, "allergic" to women - but
they didn't *HATE* them.

Diana
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Tin Turbine Once Again Engages Thrust Reverser at Takeoff
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:36:25 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Propeller Pinhead
>> Patrick
>>> Borgie Boy

>>>This is very much a carpet-bomb attack 

>>Well, little fella, you missed.  Guess that comes from too much flapping 
>>your wings around the computer room going "vroom! vroom!"...

>What, I missed by 5 feet with a 5000 lb. bomb? 

You know, Crash, you really ought to go to the bathroom more often.

About this Borg thing, I see only three similarities between you and the Borg:

1.  You are both boring.
2.  Neither can think independently.
3.  Both always get trounced in the end.

Can anyonne add anything else?

-- 
I feel like a gay man trapped inside a woman's body.

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:30:08 GMT

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

>In <1992Sep3.213620.21098@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>>From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>>>> 
>>>> 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>>>> rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>>>> and Pharisees suffered.

>>>Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
>>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
>>agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!

>>                                                     MP.

>You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
>see you are being sarcastic.

>Peter Nyikos

I don't really care if he *is* being sarcastic.  I do know that there
are many Christians who would react in exactly the same way to Suzanne's
"joke".  Actually, I believe that if anyone of the avowed Wiccans/Jews/
Atheists had made this comment Suzanne would responded with a very
similar indignation.  Personally, I found Suzanne comment in highly
questionable taste.

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

standard disclaimers 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 22:46:37 GMT

In <1992Sep05.031508.38241@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <nyikos.715643263@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> That is why I suggested sending names and/or locations [I know of one
>> such abortionist who did not want to be identified by name, but the
>> city was mentioned in the article I have] to a neutral third party, who
>> could compile them and then tell who is correct.  I suggested "Jammer
>> Jim" Miller but if he is not acceptable, I am open to other suggestions
>> (to save time, let me say that Will Steeves and Elizabeth Bartley would
>> also be acceptable to me).

>Will Steves?  The individual who said in <1992Sep3.025255.4014@zooid.guild.org>
>>And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
>>situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
>>but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
>>or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
>>stood.

Sorry, I missed that one.  And it seems so out of character, I find it
hard to believe he wasn't being satirical.  Which thread was it on, so
I can see the context?

>That's the guy you think is a neutral third party, who you want to tell
>where to find doctors performing third-trimester abortions?  Umm, I don't
>think that's all that hot an idea...

OK, suggest someone else.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:45:54 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715650036@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Aug31.201542.26881@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
#
##Act of 1989, has an ERA in its state constitution.  So
##much for the ERA protecting abortion rights.
#
#
#On the other hand, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled, citing that
#state's ERA, 
#"Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy
#by not funding abortion...is sex-oriented discrimination."

That's nice, Nyikos.  I applaud the Connecticut Superior Court.

Of course, I was responding to a claim that an ERA would guarantee
abortion rights, so all I needed was one counterexample.  (Are
you really hoping to convince us that you're a mathematician?)

(Now I see that you were aware that PA had passed anti-abortion
legislation after the law overturned in Thornburgh.)

[bizarre comments deleted]

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: She was a California Angel... (Was: Legal Questions)
Summary: I didn't see this the first time around.  Sorry. 
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 16:34:48 GMT

In article <7ymnw8h.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes ...
>
>>>>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>>>>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>>>>- and my wife has said the same thing...
>
>>>Abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal deformity would, of course,
>>>be prohibited.
>
>>Not of course.  Exceptions could be made for rape or incest, just as there
>>are exceptions in other types of murder.

But not for fetal deformity?  That's odd.  I guess you've lost the points for
"consistancy" that I gave you earlier.
>
>So the fetus is a person, but doesn't share the same rights to a trial
>that all other people do.  Apparently you believe that it can be killed
>because of a crime somebody _else_ committed.
>
>Any wonder I have no respect at all for this self-righteous hyposcrisy?

Here's an interesting question.  Can anybody show me a court case in RECENT
American (or world) history where person "A" commits a crime, so person "B"
gets the death penalty?

Another question:  Parents today have the right to withdraw life-support from
their brain dead children, and parents today have the right to prevent a
hospital from using "heroic measures" to sustain the life of their PVS, and
other "corpse-like" children.  Would it be inconsistant for a pro-lifer to
maintain that:

1)  A z/e/f is a person at conception, and cannot be killed.
2)  If said z/e/f is grossly malformed, an abortion would be acceptable under
    the same "thought" that allows a parent to withdraw life support?
3)  No exceptions for rape, incest, or circumstance beyond that.
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:17:47 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep03.195602.27562@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>om> writes:

>He was also "poisoning the wells" by using the term "pro-lie" for
>"pro-life", indicating non-acceptance of pro-life sources.  Like
>Susan Garvin saying all my sources are "propaganda", even (I suppose)
>an article from the Miami Herald about an actual police arrest.

So maybe I was, and maybe their track record gives them that kind of
'credibility', Peter. I wouldn't falsely malign them, therefore there
must be a good reason for me to post in that fashion. What do you think?

>Trouble is, if Doug came up with his own list of three doctors who
>do 3rd trimester abortions, y'all could say, "that's right, those
>are the three, give that man a seegar" all the time heaving a sigh
>of relief that he missed someone YOU know about.  Hence my suggestion
>to submit names and locations to a neutral third party.

And why should we give you names of people you don't have (you meaning
pro-lifers in general) so that you may go harass them into not doing
anymore? IMO, any doctor who refuses a treatment (perhaps the only one)
to save a life should seriously be considered for disciplinary action
up to, and preferably, the loss of his liscence to practice. He did
after all swear to help others, which included not hurting an individual,
which is in effect what he is doing by refusing treatment. (regardless
of his personal views, a fetus is not regarded as an individual by the
world at large.)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion