HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: LifeStyle Choices and Personal Responsibility
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:48:40 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct6.185636.9226@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>

>consent to 'live above ground with out clear AntiAircraft Defenses'
>implies consent to 'having aircraft fall on you.'

>The prudent person would have, of course, knowing that it
>is possible that aircraft might fall from the sky, decided
>to either:

>1. build a safe dwelling with 3 metres of earth on top of
>about a two metres of reinforced concrete, [1]

>OR

>2. Had an automated air defense battery active in the backyard.

>As Long as the Wimp Liberals will not allows us to set up
>Hawk, Nike, or Patriot batteries in our backyards, and people
>continue to live above ground, they just need to learn to
>be responsible for these things....

Don't forget, the Wimp Liberals are infringing our 2nd Amendment  
Right to Keep and Bear Militia Weapons. I want my F16 and I want it
yesterday. :-)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politcs.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Sure Made ME stop and wonder...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:33:04 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
] In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
]
] >Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
] 
] I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
] would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.


Thank god Christianity is Not a Religion,
or it too would complicate matters.....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:43:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom San Jose

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>	A member of the human species, if not killed and if given basic
>nutrition, will develop into an adult human being.  Nothing else will.  Not a
>sperm.  Not an egg.

Two mistakes.  First, an embryo _may_ grow into an adult human being.  Many
don't.  Many children don't.  Many zygotes don't.  Many eggs don't.  (notice
any similarities?)

Second, nutrition is not the only requirement as a suitable environment
is needed.  Adults need an appropriate environment, as do children,
fetuses, embryos, zygotes, and eggs.  (notice any similarities?)

Third (OK, _three_ mistakes).  An egg may also grow into an adult human 
being.  Yes, it's an obvious statement, but Mr. Arnold excluded this 
possibility.

>I don't why any "level of awareness" which you establish as the "defining
>point" of personhood should be accepted as valid while the level which I set
>would be rejected.  Why, fundamentally, do you have the right to establish the
>appropriate level whereas I do not?

The term is pro-CHOICE, git.  That means you get the choice to CHOOSE your
own course of action.  Why should you get the option of forcing other people's
behavior while I do not?

>	As for your last sentence, I have already replied to this.  I do not
>believe that we can justifiably set any age limits for the fundamental rights to
>life, liberty or property; but I do maintain that to best protect those rights
>for the benefit of the child, parents can and must hold those rights in trust for
>the child until he or she is able to use them without hurting himself and others.

What, you think that everyone is entitled to the same rights, but children
can't exercise their rights?  Doublespeak at its finest.

> A parent cannot kill their child, but they can corporally punish; they cannot
>enslave their child, but they can insist that the child learn necessary skills
>and generally develop into an adult who can cope in today's society.

Parents can't enslave their children, but they can make the kids do what
they want.  My my, Mr. Arnold.  You've been studying "1984", haven't you?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 20:07:01 GMT

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
: In article <Bv20t2.JEx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

[...]

: >	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
: >consent to sex.
: >
: This statement is not correct.

The statement is indeed correct.  I have posted some reasons why I 
believe this elsewhere in the group (not wishing to make it into 
hide and go seek, but I don't remember the name of the thread :-).

: 
: >>Anyway, contraception fails more often than we care to
: >>admit, and abortion can be a responsible way of dealing with that circumstance.
: >
: >	No - it is an irresponsible and cowardly acy. Killing a defenseless
: >child for convenience's sake is deplorable.
: >
: Some of us don't think that aborting an embryo is equivalent 
: to killing a born child.
: I'm not sure how you can classify an unwanted pregnancy as a mere
: inconvenience.  Have you ever been through one?  Even a _wanted_
: pregnancy can be more than inconvenient.  How do you figure that
: anyone besides the woman who has to deal with it should be passing
: judgement?

Some of us don't think prevention of the killing of a fetus (which we 
_do_ consider to be equivalent to a born child, incidentally) to be 
the same as 'enforced slavery'.  But it doesn't stop other people from 
saying that, does it?  I very often (not always, I'll admit) use the word 
'fetus' when I really wish to say 'child', or such, in order to avoid 
unnecessarily inflaming the debate, but I don't see the pro-choicers 
responding in kind, do you?

By the way, your point is fair about unwanted pregnancy being more than
'inconvenience'.  The quote above is not from me, but I have said this 
elsewhere, and will stop now.  

: 
: muriel
: standard disclaimer
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Reference Frame for Outlaw Fire NOW!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:55:00 GMT

steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
] In article <1992Sep28.203617.18727@wetware.com> drieux, drieux@wetware.com
] writes:
] >Robert Thank you for clarifying that we CLEARLY
] >have a NEED to outlaw FIRE as it is DANGEROUS!!!!
] >
] >Just Say NO! to Rapid Oxydation!!!!!
] 
] Oh come now. Obviously the correct solution is to impose a waiting
] period on anyone who wants to buy matches or lighters!

In Geological Terms, Rust is a Rapid Oxydation....

So I think that we should also consider a waiting
period for that too.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 02:36:53 GMT

In article <1a7mr3INNle@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>[does this really belong in that many newsgroups?]
>
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>|chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>|>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>|>|A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>|>|consent to sex.

>|>If a couple is using contraception, that indicates that they are explicitly NOT
>|>consenting to pregnancy.


>|If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
>|are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
>|protection does not mean they don't face the risk.

By that token, any woman who doesn't stay behind triple deadbolted doors
and barred windows has consented to be raped. (She knew what could happen
if she went outside...)


>Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
>to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
>a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
>automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
>to live with injury without medical redress.

We agree. See the above.

>People who use birth control are, by their actions,
>acknowledging the possibility of conception.  However, also by
>their actions, they are clearly NOT consenting to pregnancy.
>They are attempting to avoid it, by minimizing the risk.  (To
>continue the car analogy, by obeying traffic laws & wearing a
>seatbelt.)

Of course they are not consenting to pregnancy. That is what I just said.

Hi, CJ!

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: About The christian perspective...?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:03:44 GMT

emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes ...
>In article <f89n4aa.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Perhaps abortion was created by God for those women who were not strong
>>enough to bear the demands of motherhood?  Perhaps, rather than being
>>an excuse for hatred, abortion is an excuse for compassion, understanding,
>>and forgiveness?

>Also, if loves comes from God, could He not give the mother such a love
>for this child, that that love would be strength for her?  Remember that
>old song, "he ain't heavy, he's my brother"?  When you really love 
>someone, the burdens seem light.  Ever hear of mothers who lifted up
>cars with their bare hands to rescue a trapped child?  There is strength
>in love.

Although He could, he does not always.  Perhaps the lesson and
strength are destined not for her, but for us.

>Just out of curiousity, Ray, how is abortion an excuse for forgiveness?
>I guess I didn't understand what you meant by your last sentence.

If you consider abortion to be a sin, is not abortion an excuse for
forgiving those mothers who, for whatever reason, feel they cannot
continue with the pregnancy?  Perhaps a pregnancy is not God's way
of testing the mother's commitment to the potential life, but is
rather testing your commitment to forgiveness.

It is a poor measure of one's ability to forgive if one is never
tested by anything more substantial than a raised eyebrow.  

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,alt.flame
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: "I only want to hurt your for a little while" - "Prince"
Summary: Or should it be "More unsubstantied claims by Kebbie"??? 
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 15:07:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
>>If you press up against a woman without her permission, she doesn't have
>>the right to blow you away.  If you try to stick your dick in her without
>>her permission, she does.  
>
>Only in some states.
Please post the name of a state which has a law forbidding the use of lethal
force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

>
>Only as a recent innovation.
Please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder for
using lethal force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

>
>Only for deterrent effect, which doesn't apply to the abortion issue.
Um, if somebody comes up and tries to forcibly perform an abortion on a
woman, I think you could pretty much get away with "minimun force necessary"
to prevent them.

>
>Please stop citing this aberration as if it were a relevant, established 
>legal principle, Larry. I've corrected you multiple times now, you're starting 
>to border on intellectual dishonesty.

Please prove that this "aberration" is not a "relevant, established legal
principal".

And stop sucking up to Peter Nyikos.
--
=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=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 17:50:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <45qzd=q@rpi.edu>  keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
> ->Nothing's changed.  I was mildly curious, so I asked.  The effort to get
> ->answers has proven to be more than I feel is worth the satisfaction of
> ->seeing this answered.
>
> no surprise there. after all, you did direct all of
> your inquiries towards the target of the allegations
> rather than towards the maker of them.

I could be childish and ask you to support *your* allegation, but I'd
rather not waste any time on such foolishness.  You're wrong.  I did ask
cj.  She says that she can support it.  Do you have any objections to
her posting the email required to support it?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly and the Law (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:04:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.161248.25485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

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

>> Or are you saying that abortion laws would be ineffective
>> for reducing the number of abortions?  I think that would be 
>> difficult to prove or disprove.  

> You say that you suspect that the
> deterent effect would be difficult to prove or disprove.  Yet
> you still want a law for this effect.  Why do you think it might
> have your desired effect if you can't prove or disprove it?  

I also said that it would be difficult to prove that murder, rape, 
and robbery laws are effective.  Abortion laws would be no different
in this respect.  Does a lack of proof mean that these laws should
not be on the books?  

>> But if the issue is merely a question of formulating an abortion
>> policy which would reduce the number of abortions, then doesn't it 
>> follow that abortion could no longer be considered an unrestricted
>> right?  

> No.  It doesn't follow.  It is unrelated.

Why?  If our only consideration is to reduce the number of abortions
through an "effective" abortion policy, then we have clearly ignored
the issue of abortion rights.  This doesn't necessarily mean that
abortion must become illegal (as admittedly there are some undesirable 
side effects to such a law), but that simple restrictions like "informed
consent" and "waiting periods" could be enacted if they could be shown 
to be "effective" laws. 

 
>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:31:04 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
->>Poor Kevin.  Some guy posted something to the effect of
->>"If you want to talk about child abuse, I can tell you
->>about child abuse," and Kevin, a bonehead if ever there was
->>a bonehead, flamed the guy and called him a child molester

->CORRECTION #1: I didn't flame "the guy" [sic], I flamed "the gal".

and what a sick fuck you looked liked when you did.

->>when the man was speaking about his own experience of having
->>been abused.  

->CORRECTION #2: There was no clear indication in his original statements
->that he was speaking from the point of view of a victim.

poor kevin. how is it that you were the only one who
didn't understand?

->>Most people would just say they were sorry and
->>they were wrong, 

->CORRECTION #3: You seem to be implying that I didn't.

you posted some 25 additional flames before you posted
your so-called apology. then you posted about 25 more flames
blaming everyone else but yourself for your mistake.
From: gbernath@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Gregory Bernath)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feeding frenzy! CHOWabunga! (was Sonograms and the mother of all prejudicial pieces of crap
Keywords: Bean Dip.
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:55:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept,. Athens

In article <1992Sep30.215349.12360@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Mainly because legalizing abortion is the result of discrimination.
>Humanity and life mean personhood, and when that is contradicted, we have
>discrimination.

[stuff deleted]

From what I read of your article, I gather that the backbone (or at least
one of the backbones) of your position is "humanity and life mean
personhood".  Is this correct?

Why do humanity and life mean personhood?

I can certainly agree that life is a requirement for personhood, though
obviously life by itself does not imply personhood, since many living
things are definitely not persons.

By "humanity", I assume you mean "The quality of having a human genetic
pattern".  What is so special about human DNA that it leads to 
personhood?  In other words, say I compare a single celled human zygote
to a single celled animal zygote.  Why is one a person and not the 
other?

An irreparably brain dead accident victim on life support is certainly
human and alive.  Is he/she a person?  Why or why not?  In particular,
what is your definition of "person"?  I'm interested in how you
reason this.
-- 
Greg Bernath          gbernath@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:13:11 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1aa9hkINNq01@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#---
#smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
#|Why don't you add me to it now and spare yourself further
#|"boredom?"  I'm sure that I'll end up on the same side
#|of an argument as Keegan again someday.  
#
#Why would I want to do that?  You have interesting things 
#to say.   So what if I disagree with you about Overpeck?
#Reasonable adults will disagree now & then.  (Only the
#immature & insecure demand total agreement from others.)

Part of this reaction was due to my inability to read the
word "major", as I told Dean.  

It's not the disagreement that bothered me - it was my
belief that I was being flamed for being on the same
side as Keegan.

#And agreeing with Keegan is utterly immaterial to me-- after 
#all, I agree with him on many issues, though I find him 
#utterly unworthy of my respect.

Fine.  We disagree here, too.  I like Keegan and respect him.

#When you stop posting substantive articles about abortion, 
#then I will consider reading your stuff a waste of my time here.

The feeling is mutual.  

Shall we return to posting substantive articles about abortion, 
then?  (and flames and inane comments and whatever else we
feel like....)

Susan,
who hates being this formal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: A new development
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:51:50 GMT

From article <6358@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
> 
> The next news item I read had the following quotes from Pope
> John Paul II.  He was addressing a group of Irish bishops,
> speaking about the 14 year old rape victim who was finally allowed
> to go to England to have an abortion.  
> 
> 
> 	``The defense of life from the moment of conception until natural
> death is the defense of the human person in the dignity that is his or
> hers from the sole fact of existence, independently of whether that
> existence is planned or welcomed by the persons who give rise to it,''
> John Paul said.
> 	``Every reflection on this serious matter must begin from the clear
> premise that procured abortion is the taking of life of an already
> existing human being,'' he said.
> 	``To uphold this principle and to enshrine it democratically in the
> constitution and laws of the state does not imply insensitivity to the
> rights of others, including mothers in complex and difficult situations,
> '' the pope said.
> 	``The life of the mother and the life of her unborn child are equally
> precious and equally to be defended,'' he said. ``There can be no
> 'right' to kill an already existing, though yet unborn, human being.''


Hurray for the Pope! that his words finally impressed you enough that
you felt the need to repeat them to us!

But his words are nothing new.
 
> Susan

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion