HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Women have awareness! Do fetuses?
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:08:38 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct14.164346.20719@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.195505.14806@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>I'm clueless because I show concern for children??  That's interesting.
>
>You are clueless because you don't show a grasp of basic thinking skills.
>You are clueless because you include entire articles and fail to respond
>to them.  Many people show concern for children and it is not limited to
>pro-life/pro-illegal-abortion people.  And should you think that only
>people who agree with you show concern for children, you are even more
>clueless than I thought.  Of course, many don't consider the z/e/f to
>be a child but that does not lessen their concern for children.
>
>>I thought the goal here was to debate, not to make people look foolish.
>>That's the reason I keep my jokes to a minimum, and only when warranted.
>
>The goal is to debate - you show a lack of comprehension of debating.
>If you are to debate you would need to show how motion implies sentience.
>You've failed to do that and if you fail to respond then readers often
>assume that you are unable to debate.  Are you claiming it was a joke,
>now?  Maybe you should include some smileys until people understand your
>posting styles.
>
I *did* respond--twice.

You all will flame me anyway, no matter how I respond.

I don't have to info right here in front of me, but I have read that a
baby being aborted feels the pain of being aborted.  Now while that may
not constitute sentience, this must reinforce the idea that afetus is indeed
alive.

But if I say anything that is pro-life the you all tell me how stupid I am
am no matter what I say.  The jokes were in reference to a Presidential
candidate.  BTW, I am looking for better software to allow me to edit posts.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:21:20 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <1992Oct13.004852.26991@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> I recently posted an article about an abortion doctor who was convicted
>>> of federal income tax evasion. This doctor allegedly over-billed 
>>> insurance companies, over-estimated the gestational ages of fetuses 
>>> so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> to get up off the operating table to pay more money. 
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> I've been laughing at this line ever since DOD first posted it.  What
>> was he expecting?  That the "sedated" women would just run over to their
>> purses and pull out wads of cash?  That a sedated person is actually
>> coherent enough to write a check?  Maybe DOD thinks these women just
>> gave the doctor their credit cards, along with a signed note saying that
>> he was authorized to use them?
>
>A person who laughs when women are placed in such horrible circumstances
>might be accused of being a misogynist.  

And a person who comes up with implausable circumstances and then
attempts to attribute the resulting derision to misogyny is a first
class sleazoid.

Get a life.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:01:52 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes to
->>suzanne_lucia:
->>->It is ENTIRELY within the realm of possibility that CJ retracted it,
->>->and you merely did not see it. Proving the nonexistence of an
->>->object with an essentially infinite possible location space is
->>->very close to impossible. CJ's potential retraction is such an object.
->>
->>  "So... The way I see it, both you AND CJ have made
->>  substantive allegations which are unsubstantiated. I
->>  think you should substantiate that you did not write
->>  such a mailing and that she should substantiate that
->>  you did."
->> 	<1992Oct8.223947.28573@news.yale.edu>
->>
->>what a difference a few days make. or, perhaps, it's
->>something else.

->CJ didn't substantiate it. I have said so at least once. CJ has
->presented her evidence(such as it is) and it doesn't do the job
->of showing that you made a mailing that asked for help.

thank you for that admission.

   "Mr Keegan made the accusation publicly,
   he should support it publicly."
     <1992Sep30.144053.14798@cs.yale.edu>

    "I think you should support it publicly.  If you
    can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider
    retracting the accusation."
	<1992Sep30.010047.7477@cs.yale.edu>

do you still stand by these statements, mr. rescorla?

->What it does show, however, is that it was reasonable for her
->to BELIEVE that you had made such a mailing, seeing as you had
->admitted it, which means that your claim that she was LYING
->is ludicrous.

no, it was not reasonable for her to believe i had made
such a mailing. her false accusation was posted prior to
the private email which she posted to support her
original allegation.

have you discarded logic along with your intellectual
integrity?
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:33:32 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct7.184949.5694@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>Okay here goes.  I am not saying anything about where I stand on this
>"personhood thing." But would you say that a "person" begins at birht
>or after birth?  Would you be willing to protect "persons" from being
>killed?  Would you be willing to protect non-persons who are humans?
>(i.e.  the time from conception to the time you perceive to be the
>age when a human life becomes a person.)


In some religions "personhood" isn't optained until after 3 months
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of gestation.  For these religions that is when a soul is bestowed.  
For these religions abortion in the first trimester is fine as the   
z/e/f is still a non-human.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Nyikos the Super Genius (was: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey))
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:46:02 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct8.193950.24966@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com writes:
|One of the reasons I don't think very much of what our resident
|expert in set theory has to say is that so often his remarks are
|based on nothing but the most irrelevant of his own imaginings.

But, Dean!  He's an intellectual.  He says so himself.  Don't
you just feel so shallow and uneducated next to an expert in
set-theoretic topology?  After all, a degree or two in
mathematics makes one an UNASSAILABLE AUTHORITY in all areas.
And who are YOU & I, Dean?  Just some scum CS techwriters, who
clearly know less about sex & fetal development than a Bona Fide
Expert in Set-Theoretic Topology.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Most people are [idiots]," said Wimsey, gravely, "but it isn't kind to 
tell them so.  I expect you do tell them so."
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion doctor builds small empire through his practice
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:32:18 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

So.  A young doctor gets Koyaanisqatsi (Life Out of Balance), and becomes
greedy and dishonest.  I'm sure this wouldn't happen to a doctor in
any other line of work.

Right.

What's your point?

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Summary: Maybe Peter and Suxanne should meet? 
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: Sat, 10 Oct 92 18:38:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.001541.3046@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>> 
>> Appearing, maybe, but I think Occam's Razor cuts the other way.  I'm
>> told that Jesus was a very unusual kind of human being, as testified
>> by a lot of stories about him, and therefore I try not to assume that
>> he shared much with the rest of mankind.
>
>The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, including death,
>with the rest of mankind.

Unless you have some proof that Jesus ever had sex, he didn't share
"EVERYTHING".

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.  This Jesus fellow really should have read the
script better...
--
=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???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:03:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.161500.2511@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
}In article <9585@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
}> In <1992Oct13.052621.144287@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
}> 
}> In  <9568@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COMLM:  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
}> 
}> LM:Wrong.  It's a pleasure craft.  You didn't invite anyone else on board.
}> LM:If you left it at the dock, there wouldn't be any problem, but it's your
}> LM:boat and you decided to take it out for a little fun.  A passenger was
}> LM:neither invited nor welcome.
}> 
}> If the woman agreed to have sex, than the invitation was made.
}
}Where have I heard somebody say "consent to sex does NOT equal
}consent to pregnancy"?  If the woman agreed to have sex simply because
}she wants to have a baby, then the passenger was invited, as well as
}welcome.  
}
}Besides all this crap, there is no good analogy to make for pregnancy.
}Give it up.  Make your arguments in the real world.
}

Gee, I think we've had Sex Is Like Being In The Military
and Honey, I Wrote The Contract With My Penis and the like.  Is 
this a continuation of the thread in which we find out How Sex 
Is Like Sailing? When do we get to tell the joke about beer and a 
canoe?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Woodyat Wallows in Denial
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:28:40 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

] sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
] # Now when have I said that sex was evil??  Unless me saying that sex is ok
] # between two people in a monogamous relationship is somehow an attack on ll
] # sex.  Is their anything in what I said that specifically says to outlaw sex??
] # 
] # I think not.
] 
] Suppose for a moment that I were to post the following in all
] seriousness:
] 
] 	`...Unless me saying that sex is ok between two white
] 	Christians of opposite gender is somehow an attack on all
] 	sex... '
] 
] What would I be implying?

that you still do not understand that HeteroSexualityTheDeathKult
is a DangerousEvil and MUST be Stopped......


SEX IS BAD!

Fun is GOOD!!!!

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:26:10 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <81341@ut-emx.uucp>, andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
wrote:
> 
> Hmm...pardon me while I compare the relative entrance reqs for Rice and
> UCSC...

Hey!  The Chaney/Hall thing's at CSUS, _not_ UCSC!  _Big_ difference!  UCSC
is a _real_ school.  CSUS is a training ground for Egghead Software
salesdroid wannabes.  UCSC is the home of the "Fighting Banana Slugs". 
CSUS is the home of the "Bloated Borgian Buffoon".

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:28:59 GMT
     <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <92283.030621KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) says:
>>The Unknown Usenetters (hey, *I* didn't lose the attributions!) write:

>>>>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>>>>anything deeper, Grasshopper?

>>>Besides absolute right and wrong, no.

>>No kidding? So how are these absolutes determined?

>No thanks, I don't feel like a flame war over the Bible.  The Bible presents
>a code of right and wrong, which most people around here refuse to accept or
>consider.

I've considered it and rejected some of it.  Essentially, I feel that there
are very few absolutes in the world, but that a good guideline is to avoid
causing unnecessary pain.  Besides, significant parts of the Bible are
awfully dated.

>Of course, given the disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God, that's a good
>question; how CAN one determine what absloute right and wrong are?

Start by considering whether such things exist.  Then, if you feel they do,
you can work on what they are.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                Steve Chaney Memorial Anti-Roman Catholic .sig
        "Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' The Vatican Rag!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Answer to Woodyatt's 'jisms (syllogisms, that is)
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:25:01 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>	When you have sex, you know you might become pregnant.  If you do, you
>are responsible for the well-being of the person who you have CAUSED to be in
>your body.  You cannot wantonly kill that person; you must take every reasonable
>step within your power to protect the life and safety of the person you have
>endangered.

Nope.  She isn't responsible because she didn't cause the egg to be
fertilized.  _I_ did that.  Therefore, _I'm_ the one that should be
prohibited from getting an abortion.	:-)

>When a mother has sex, she consents to take every reasonable step within
>her power to protect the life and safety of the person her act creates. But she
>does not for that reason necessarily consent to abide any serious threat to her

By the way, did I tell you that by posting messages here you have
consented to transferring title of your first car to me?  When do I
get it?  (if you haven't bought it yet, make it a green car)

>life.  To offer an analogy frequently used on t.a, if I hit someone else's car, I
>must do everything within my power to save the people I injured, but this does
>not mean I must donate my kidneys.  If they die, I may owe something to their
>families (who also lost something due to my negligence).  But in the case of an
>unborn baby, the parents ARE the family; if they wish to sue themselves, fine,
>but it seems a bit odd.
>	On the other hand, if I simply left the people I had injured by the
>roadside, I'd be guilty of willful criminal negligence.  Worse yet, if I killed
>them to avoid the problem I'd be guilty of murder in the first degree.  I must do
>everything within my power to save the lives of the people I injured; but this
>does not mean I must substantially threaten my own life to do so.  Negligence is
>the key.  If I do everything I can short of substantially threatening my own life,
>then my duties to the injured person are discharged (though not necessarily my
>responsibility to the family).

The problem with this analogy (aside from having a line width >80
columns), is that it assumes that the point of abortion is to kill an
embryo/fetus first and remove it second.  This is exactly backwards.
The actual point of abortion is primarily to remove the embryo/fetus.
Killing it is just as unfortunate a consequence as your failure to
provide a kidney in the example above.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:40:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.212542.15227@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu talk.abortion:48357 talk.politics.misc:59093 alt.sex:40003 alt.rush-limbaugh:7367 alt.politics.elections:13340
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
>Message-ID: <1992Oct5.212542.15227@ncsu.edu>
>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
>Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>Organization: North Carolina State University
>References: <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com>
>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:25:42 GMT
>In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com> 
>p00056@psilink.com (Faustus) writes:
>
>> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will 
>> experience doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford 
>> an unwanted child..
>
>And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
>or his vaccum cleaner.  
>
>But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
>would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
>cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can?  Surely you
>wouldn't mind having the same thing done to you which you advocate
>for others.
>
>>Faustus
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>
What does any of this have to do with abortion, or politics?
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 01:45:33 GMT

In article <Bvv95M.JI6@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <7159@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>Beaver really should proofread his articles.  Soc.women
>>and soc.feminism aren't the same newsgroup.
>
>
>For your attention, Ms. Garvin, the following appeared on soc.feminism,
>not soc.women, and was approved by Cynthia Tittle.

I think this is what Garvin was referring to:

Article 31729 (50 more) in soc.women:
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Guilty?
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:49:59 GMT


Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.


The context was women as soldiers:

--------------------------------end------------------------------------

God forbid, Beaver, that you admit you made a mistake...
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:20:38 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Oct10.054823.10934@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
><1992Oct9.215426.3759@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>>>mg> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
...
>>You dipping to new depths of sleaze, jerk.  Nobody (nobody) wants to
>>kill embryos or fetuses, and to imply otherwise betrays your
>>prejudices.
>
>If nobody wants abortion, then why do so many people have abortions?

You aren't addressing his point.  No woman gets an abortion for the reason
of wanting to kill a fetus.  She gets and abortion to end a pregnancy, the
side-effect of which is the termination of the fetal tissue.

>>  The point of abortion is to terminate pregnancies; people
>>don't get pregnant just so they can kill fetuses.
>
>You can also terminate pregnancies by letting the unborn child be born.

You can try.  But please stop telling others how to live their lives.

>If you mean to terminate the pregnancy early, then abortion becomes the
>main means of doing so.  

Right.

>Now I know that women don't get pregnant to kill their fellow humans.
>However, the fact remains that they do so in record numbers.

Yeah?  So?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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