HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:38:58 GMT

From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>
>>She had her own identity.  Her parents even agreed with that premise enough
>>that they named her.  She was never "Baby XYZ", "Baby 978", or even
>>"Baby Doe".
> 
> I bet you forgot that even ships and planes are named.

Well, if you want to be absurd, you forgot hurricanes and cartoon
characters too.  Ah, but none of these had human parents, but Baby
Theresa did.

 
>>She was "Baby Theresa" and she was a human being.
> 
> I think they missed a great opportunity to perform a human brain
> transplant.  What a chance for research.

Can we count on you to donate your brain to the next anacephalic baby
to catch the media's attention, then?    (Surely it would fit in that
shrunken skull.......     sorry, I just couldn't resist that one   Da
Devil made me do it :-)  )

> Gordon

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 18:52:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>In article vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>>>I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>>> 
>>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>>> 
>>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".

[deletions]

>Because if he'd said the opposite, that pregnancy takes 2, I guarantee that
>Garvin, or somebody of like political persuasion, would have claimed that
>_that_ statement was "idiocy".
>
By juxtaposing these two comments of Suzzie Forgasm, we see the true
meaning of her words. She is now claiming that Ms. Garvin is a
lesbian. Now, I don't know if this is true, since (contrary to what
PHoney claims) I don't know Ms. Garvin at all, except from her posts
here. But if it's not, I'd say we've got a fine case of libel going on
here...

>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>
>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.
>
Why shuld it bother him or anybody else Suzzie? Some of us do not base
our opinions of anothers worth solely on their ability to prove
virginity, nor on their ability to function as a brood mare.
The fact that you do merely demonstrate how shallow and hatefilled you
really are.

BTW mucus brain, "I hope it drives you crazy" is yet another fine
example of how well you follow the tenets of the religion you claim as
"the one true religion". Better go say a few rosaries.
And call roto-rooter about that mucus. It's draining out your ears
now.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:35:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.203429.12642@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
writes oodlesof stuff, and then winds up with:

}Your opinion of me has been conditioned at virtually every step by a 
}constant barrage of smear tactics implemented by expert practitioners of 
}the art. Do you deny that? 

Well, yes, Kevin, as a matter of fact, I do deny  it. When a number of
people suggested that you were more stupid and idiotic than anyone, my
reaction was one of disbelief if anything.  I read a number of your
posts in various newsgroups and came to the conclusion that you are
the ultimate fool all by myself.  The fact that I agree with people
you assert are "expert practitioners of the art" is simply confirmation.
Kevin, I am not the result of a clever conspiracy to smear you.  Such
a conspiracy may or may not exist, but it certainly had no bearing on
my thinking that there is no one on the net that is more stupid, foolish
or idiotic than you.  I think your paranoia is showing, Kevin...


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:02:38 GMT

In <1993Jan12.041116.6449@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726772250@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan10.161604.3155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <markp.726627079@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>>>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>>>>
>>>>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>>>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>>>>
>>>>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
>>>>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>>>>
>>>>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death
>>>>
>>>>which is perfectly true.
>>>>
>>>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
>>>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
>>>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?
>>
>>No -- because medical intervention into the effects of an auto
>>accident doesn't violate anyone else's right to life.
>>
>Then you are either a hypocrite for exempting yourself from the
>restrictions you place on others, or just too stupid to realise that
>you will need to prove a fetus is a person before your rationale for
>seeking medical treatment is valid.
>Are you going to attempt this feat?

Pro-choicers have argued in t.a that the humanity of the fetus is
irrelevant to the abortion debate, since the mother is free to
evict unwanted occupants -- human or not -- from her womb. If you'll
concede that that pro-choice argument is horseapples, I'll gladly
turn to the question of the fetus' right to life.

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:00:47 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1993Jan7.041723.25696@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.025534.26006@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>> A bunch of lamentable but I guess true stories about children being
>> killed.  It doesn't have much to do with abortion at all, but it 
>> rather nicely underscores that illegality doesn't offer much protection.
>> It was illegal to kill those kids, I presume...
>
>As Ms. Forgach said to you once, "the law teaches".  Have you
>thought about what she said? 
>

Dougie, If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you
should use sources a bit more reputable than Forgach.

>
>>Galen Hekhuis 
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:50:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.211703.20856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

[Lots of deletions, since I'm not goin to comment on it all.]

>Our 7-week-old son Joseph is quite a noisemaker
>but seems largely incapable of "meaningful communication".  

You have not yet learned how to tell if he is using a "feed me" cry,
or a "change me" cry, or a "hold me" cry, or a "damn, that hurt" cry?
Take a vacation and play with the kid. I consider that meaningful
communication. :)

[More deletions]

>Death is a reasonable end
>to personhood.  Can we accept others?  Are we really prepared to live
>with the logical consequences?
>
Let me guess. You've never had to pull the plug on a ventilator have
you?

>> And since when do only
>> people's lives deserve respect?  If I run a live cat through a wood
>> chipper, I'm breaking the law against cruelty to animals.
>
>How about if you anesthetize it first?
>
Or at least hit it on the head with a hammer...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:02:33 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Still Frustrated Oilers Fans
	<1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:36:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

   In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
   >In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
   >>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
   >>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
   >>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
   >>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  
   >>
   >>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
   >>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
   >>race to Patrick.
   >>
   >Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
   >like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
   >his own fantasies.
   >Who'sz the scorekeeper?

   Galen is, of course.

Cool.  I couldn't have made a better choice if I'd been making the
assignation myself.

   I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
   now...

If he does, he'll be giggled at by at least the two other members of my
immediate family -- as if anyone with functional eyes could mistake me for
Dale Ann the Devious *or* her daughter...:-)

--PLH, who wouldn't mind being paid like he was a group, anyway
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:53:58 GMT

In <1993Jan12.024642.23403@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726793936@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:

>>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so
>>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.

>Nuh-uh. Sex=some or all of the following, depending on the mindset
>of the participants: touching, cuddling, sexy underwear, moaning,
>licking, body-butter, 

I've been using "=" as loosely as everyone else in t.a . 
Since there's no "includes as a subset" symbol on my keyboard, the
statement will have to read

Sex = possibility of pregnancy, among other things

>and a million and one other things of which
>"possibility of pregnancy" may or may not be part of the plans.

If you step out a tenth-story window, being splattered on the pavement
"may or may not be part of the plans" -- but it will happen.

>But to humor you, I'll add the following tidbit:

>Use of contraceptive = Actively expressed desire not to procreate.

>Simple enough for ya?

Purchase of a lottery ticket = actively expressed desire for megabucks

Where's my check?

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:10:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>>In article <1h0f1hINN232@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Pe
>i) writes:
>>>You want to talk about nature?

>>so if the woman, given a State of
>>Nature, doesn't wish to support the child after birth, she just walks away
>>from it. *POOF*! No child support.

>Followed shortly thereafter by the death of the child.
>I don't consider that progress.

Oh, but the death happened *BY CHOICE* of the parents.  So I ask, what
difference does one hour *before* birth and one hour *after* birth really
matter in terms of whether the child should be respected?

Indeed, the logic that believes that an unborn child isn't only not a
child, but a clump of cells, and isn't worth squat until birth, doesn't
much sound like "progress," either.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * If it MOVES so slow, why is it called Rush hour?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Nyikos smears everyone pointlessly
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:12:27 GMT

patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>You're about as credible as Joe Isuzu, numbnuts.

Oh dear, NOW you've done it, Patrick.  Watch this space for "Nyikos" to
begin whining incessantly about sexual harassment, yet again demonstrating
that he has no clue as to what the term means.

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 06:04:54 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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: The Village Waterbed

In <72842@cup.portal.com> Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:
>Well, Larry, if "just because a man slept with a woman does not give him the
>right to control her body", then why does just because a man slept with a
>woman and she chooses to HAVE the baby, she get the right to receive money
>from him to support her baby?

Gee, I don't know - maybe society doesn't like to see children starving?
Anyway, that's unrelated to what I said (and, in fact, unrelated to the
purpose of this news group - see alt.child-support or alt.abortion.inequity).
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What The Supreme Court Said
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:21:28 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
-> Several replies to my posting indicate that the posters misunderstood
-> the point.  I quoted from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to show that
-> the Supreme Court LEGALIZED abortion on demand for the full nine
-> months of pregnancy.

that opinion has been demonstrated to be false.

-> Incidentally, after I posted my original statement someone sent me
-> directly some documentation supporting what I said. Because of a
-> glitch while I was reading my mail, the message was lost.  If that
-> person would send me the material again, I would
-> be grateful.

that person, doug holtsinger, often referred to as
dodie, sent you the same documentation he has posted
here; that is, the opinion of one person, and a
non-expert at that. that specific opinion is what
has been debunked repeatedly in t.a.

to give you some idea of what's going on here, i
suggest you post some questions to this newsgroup
asking if people consider dodie to be credible.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:41:41 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>I guess I have a problem with your use of the term "wrong".
>You seem to be saying that abortion is "wrong" from a 
>religious perspective, but abortion is not "wrong" from
>a secular perspective.   I am assuming that you believe
>abortion is not "wrong" on secular grounds since you
>appear to have no secular reasons for being opposed to 
>abortion.  Is that correct? 
Correct.  In fact, I believe that soley based on a secular view, and
within the ramifications of individual liberty (one of the major trains of
though of our founding fathers) there are no good reasons.

>I understand that you do not wish to impose your religious
>beliefs on society, but that is besides the point.  And your
>duty to God is also besides the point.  Abortion may be wrong
>for you personally, but that's not what I'm interested in.
>I want to know whether abortion is "wrong" for others. 

As I have repeatedly said, IT'S NOT UP TO ME.  It's up to each person to
decide for themselves.  Period.  And given my view of how rights and
liberties are applied to the case, the woman has absolute control up to the
point of viability.  After that, the conflicting liberties must be
resolved.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54339 alt.dads-rights:3173 alt.feminism:6861
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 6 Jan 1993 08:31:35 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0FtDD.1oE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1idavcINN5dp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

I'll repeat, in this particular instance of your...hmm...original editing, Don.

For a third time.

I know the conclusion *I* am coming to....

Are you looking for an answer, or just a brangle?

>>I also note that you deleted your own "AND/OR"s that appeared between
>>the three questions which would seem to imply that one or all could be
>>answered and would thus satisfy your query.  I wonder why you did that?
>>Hmmmm.
>Hmmmm.  Perhaps they're not crucial, and the bandwidth can be saved?

Ah.  I see.  AND/OR doesn't really MEAN anything with regard to three 
separately enumerated questions.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

>The AND/OR's were to give you the opportunity to come up
>with a *positive* response that defines AA in *your* feminist view.

Oh.  They do mean something.  Not what any native english speaker would
think they mean, but still, they mean something.  
 
OH! I see!  An Opportunity, to answer two out of three questions
directly, and the third what you consider indirect, and still be 
told I'm not answering your question!

Then, when asking for a second time for CLARIFICATION of your question
(i.e., a DEFINITION of AA), and not getting it for a second time, sitting
through your petty insults about not answering the questions again!
I'm beginning to see how the game is played!!!

>Perhaps you could come up with your *own* definition of AA,
>as I requested, since it was YOU who implied you're a feminist 
>in favor of AA (in order to flame Karl as much as you could).

1.  I certainly didn't flame Karl as much as I could.  Trust me. (-:

2.  My definition of AA is the equitable standards I've used so far in
answering these questions.  I know you've deleted those portions, but I
trust you can go back and find it again.  

Done.

>(By the way, I'm not sure why this should be posted to talk.abortion,
>especially since it was you who objected to multi-groups.)

talk.abortion is the only group I read of those in the header.  If you'd
care to tell me which group you are reading, we can spare the others this
bandwidth, which I *know* is of great concern to you.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:09:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan13.014745.17019@sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca> mch@sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson) writes:
>In article <C0MyzH.Bxv@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>
>>Further, if abortion is not a medical issue, why should the taxpayer, whose
>>religious morals disagree with abortion have to pay through the state for
>>abortions?
>Are you proposing that we as taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anything
>we find morally offensive?
>
>Say personally I find the military morally offensive.
>Then should I get a x% discount on my tax bill.

I find the private automobile morally offensive.  For most people, cars
are mere luxuries, toys.  So why should I have to "pay through the
state" to allow others to enjoy their toys?  (And the "medical issues"
of cars don't bear thinking about:  pollution, accidents, lack of
exercise . . .)

You don't believe cars are toys?  Listen to the car ads:  "The pleasure
of driving nowhere fast", etc . . .  You think GM and Chrysler don't know
what cars are for?

This is written partly tongue-in-cheek.  I do believe what I write, but
won't seek to impose my views on others by force of law.

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: talk.abortion