HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream in...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:16:55 GMT

In <19v7rmINNpc4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.014815.3762@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.001639.1193@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>But Keith, Eric is a busy man, and supporting his statements is not high on
>his priority list right now.

>Of course, unsupported assertions appear to be right up there at the top,  but
>not proofs.  Also, of course, *promising* supporting information *later* is
>also right up there at the top, but not actually posting it.  It must be
>an awful thing to be so busy that one can only post empty foolishness. 

Like your allegations of women screaming at doctors to stop delivering
their babies?  I quite agree.

> I
>hate it when that happens.

Then do something about it. Said allegation may be a good place to
start.

Or perhaps you would prefer to begin with your claim that Will
Steeves has threatened to kill women who do not show him enough respect?

I won't even ask you to defend your unwarranted assumption that my wife had
an episiotomy with our first child.  That's so trivial, it's hardly
worth talking about.  But your claim that I would endanger the 
lives of women, when my life is not threatened ("Pretty cheap rhetoric,
Peter") might be not so insignificant as to be worthy of your attention,
O Lady High Everything Else of talk.abortion.

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: pml@col.hp.com (Patrick M Landry)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:22:54 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <5638@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> >
> > Okay, to make it "fair," take 93% of 1.5M, removing the instances of
> > rape, incest, mother's health, or even fetal health.
> 
> What does that have to do with the fact that:
>    Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Simple.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the above 'fact' is true,
it means that even if it CAN be a responsible solution, it rarely is.

93% of the time it is an irresponsible 'solution' to irresponsible
behaviour.

--
Patrick Landry
pml@col.hp.com
Tel (719) 590-2585
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:18:59 GMT

In article <#00nsq-.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> Eric writes;
> >Ray writes;
> >>Eric writes;
> >>>What happens when medical technology is capable of preventing the zygote
> >>>from not implanting?
> >> 
> >> We don't want to do that.  Many miscarries and failures to implant
> >> are because that zygote/embryo/fetus is so damaged or defective
> >> as to be not viable.  It can't survive.
> >
> >So, this would then be a case where euthanasia would come into effect and
> >abortion would be morally ok.
> 
> The only way I can think of to achieve what you're suggesting would be to:
> [three problems listed]


I will grant you that given the current state of technology there are
serious
problems with doing what I truly believe must be done...and maybe the
problems
are to serious to be overcome any time soon.  But would that necessarly
mean
that we should just stop looking for the solutions that I know will exist
so long as we don't destroy ourselves first.

> >Did you expect me to give a different answer?
> 
> I kinda hoped you would, yeah.

Oh, well, I guess we must all face some disappointment in our lives... ;-)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 20:16:18 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Sep30.214655.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> lzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>For the sake of someone coming in late, what did Will say, and under what
>circumstances?

I have saved his original article because I believe it is a very good
argument against sspousal notification laws.  Here it is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1992Sep3.025255.4014@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes...
JK>  I don't think the man has a right to know if the woman feels the best
JK>  action for her situation is to abort.


Well, as my good friend, Locutus of Borg :-), might say : "Feelings are
Irrelevant".  Indeed, if someone were to say "The man has the right to have
his child," you might say "Irrelevant!  It involves her body".  And in this
case, I, err Locutus :-) would that the woman does *not* have the right to
"decide" to deny the father the right to know the full truth of what he is
about to face.

However, I agree with Don Beaver that such notification *should* be after the
fact, although I believe this VERY grudgingly, because it is bad enough that
the man feels totally powerless in a situation where he is expected to be
responsible, but to tell him *afterwards* seems only like throwing salt in
the wounds.  Even so, I grant the possibility of abuse in cases where the
notification is before the fact.

BUT, I do not believe that this rare possibility totally abrogates his right
to *know*.  Thus, I would say that notification should be VERY soon afterwards,
although I think that the woman should at least have the decency, respect, and
trust to tell him beforehand!  (Note my words carefully : I am stating that I
believe that it is advisable to tell beforehand, but that I would *require*
it to be told afterwards).

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.

You can call it "male violence against women," but how would *you* feel if
someone deliberately kept something from *you* for such a long time?  (like,
for instance, husband had an affair, etc?).  You *might* even be angry enough
to be driven to violence as well, especially if the delay had been long, so
before condemning me for making such a strong and unambiguous statement, please
consider the context within which I made it.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * The Borg Hard Drive - Your files will be assimilated.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Garvin forgets [Was:...fundamental question]
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:03:26 GMT

In <1992Sep24.025132.20642@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Sep23.150451.23163@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Ch
>is A Lyman) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to Ron Bense:

>I think that Nyikos just figured out what a killfile is and
>feels a need to talk about it.  (I think that Dennis showed
>him his, and now Nyikos wants one that's BIGGER than Dennis'.)

Dennis who?  Oh, I get it, you are still repeating those 
unsubstantiated rumors about Dennis Hall being Steve Chaney.

>Why not?  Nyikos is adopting all of the worst behaviors
>of the various anti loonies in t.a., slowly but
>surely.

Actually, I was lowering myself to the level of the various pro 
loonies.

>  Like DOD, he quotes out of context.  Like Suzanne,
>he pretends that he never saw articles which contradicted
>his claims. 

Unlike Susan, I do not forget it when people talk about claims
of anti-Semitism and demonstrate how the things Susan says support
those claims do no such thing.

BTW I did see the NY Times article, and asked Chaney about it, and
he admitted he'd made a big mistake and had apologized for it.  He's
also offering to apologize for the only other remark from him that
smacks of anti-Semitism.  

[I propose pro-lifers coin a term, "prenatal ageism" and start using
it to refer to various dehumanizations of unborn humans, like
"terminating a pregnancy", Adrienne's "zip nada nothing", etc.
Susan even qualifies for a bit of postnatal ageism, as in "I see
nothing..."]


>>Be careful, Ron.  Don't hold Mr. Nyikos to too high a standard of
>>debate.  You may become a killfile candidate like Larry and me. :-)
>>

>I'm doing my best to join you.  Any explanations as to why Nyikos
>thinks that anyone values his opinion would be appreciated.

You're still a long way off, Susan.  That civilized conversation
we had on anti-Semitism a while back accounts for that.

>Susan

BTW have you checked with any Orthodox rabbis yet?

Peter Ny.
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:51:34 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Oct5.200652.23806@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1aq6b3INN140@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Oct3.171946.28034@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu writes:
>>|>what follows is a post by cj, complete and unedited. in
>>|>this post, cj states "I know that Keegan used the
>>|>mailing list to try to get people to post in support of
>>|>him." this is the specific item i have been referring
>>|>to as cj's lie about me.
>>
>>So I can support the allegation.  If Keegan persists in lying in
>>this way, I'll support it without permission.  (I find it
>>distasteful that I should require Keegan's permission to
>>demonstrate that Keegan is lying.)  If Eric & Larry are
>>interested, I will email it to them.  (I don't consider this to
>>be a violation of the netiquette.)  Other than this action,
>>I'll stay out of this.
>Minor nit:
>Even if it is the case that Keegan sent email to the list asking
>for support, as CJ says, the post that CJ references would not contain
>a Keegan lie, since it would be true that Jim was referring to
>that claim on CJ's part as a lie. However, Jim here admits to referring
>to CJ's statement as a lie, and IF Jim in fact did write such mail,
>then he would be lying when he called CJ's statement a lie.

In the same article quoted above (<r7nz86q@rpi.edu>), Keegan made several
direct claims which were falsifiable by evidence from CJ:

Keegan> on the matter of suzanne lucia, who i have stated was
Keegan> one victim of cj's false insinuations, ... not only does the 
Keegan> mailing claimed by cj not exist, ... in other words, cj had to 
Keegan> know that he inference about suzanne lucia was a lie when she made 
Keegan> it, imo. 

Just because CJ only quoted one part of the article doesn't mean that her "in 
this way" necessarily referred to that part _exclusively_, Eric. It could also 
mean "in the way he did in the article quoted above", or even more generally 
"in the way he's been doing lately".

Chalk up another linguistic scope problem. Sigh.

>As I say, it's a nit.

He who lives by the nit dies by the nit. 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:26:47 GMT

sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes ...
>If someone constantly attacks my values, I know that person is
>my enemy. Simple, nicht whar?

And quite possibly wrong.

Do you think someone trying to enlighten a rascist bigot is that
bigot's friend or enemy?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39143 alt.abortion.inequity:4112 alt.birthright:478
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:31:42 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <3851@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
# ( You have to understand, many folks on both sides of the
# fence use the abortion issue to support a hidden agenda.)

Really?  Both sides?

Gosh.  This I gots'ta here.

Please please please tell us what `hidden agenda' is pervasive enough
among pro-choicers that it demands the use of the word `many' in place
of the word `some' or the phrase `a few' or the clause `a minority [of
folks] so small that its insignificance is insignificant.'

I can't wait -- inquiring minds want to explode!


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:03:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.150549.13239@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> 
burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>>mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes ...

>>> I'll cut quick to the punch-line: I, as I would assume
>>>a pretty fair majority of people do, believe that life begins at conception.
  
>>Wrong.  Best guess: life began 3.5 billion years ago (3.5 thousand million
>>for the Brits).
 
>  Real cute answer.  Is this supposed to be a joke?

No, it's true.  The Brits say "thousand million" instead of "billion".  
I know it sounds funny, but that's the way it is.  

>  To discuss whether a fetus
>  is capable of independant life is irrelevant since medical technology
>  will eventually make anything possible.

I'm just waiting for them to bring Elvis back.

"Love me tender.."

rini  :)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Summary: Notice how Eric is shying away from the questions??? 
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: Wed, 30 Sep 92 02:35:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.194834.19404@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <z0#pm1q.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>Kendig) writes:
>> 
>> How is birth arbitrary?  It is the specific point when the human is
>> removed from the mother's body and begins to obtain oxygen and
>> nutrients on its own, rather than having the mother's body supply them.
>
>Because that specific point is not fixed in time after the moment of
>conception when a process beings that will lead to the birth of a newborn
                           ^^^^^^ S/B "Begins"?

>child if nothing happens along the way to prevent it.

Um, the point of conception is not "fixed in time" after the following things,
Eric:

The man ejaculates.

The woman ovulates.

The sperm begins to penetrate the egg.

The egg performs its first cell division.

The egg implants on the uterine wall (this may occur before or after your
"magic conception point", BTW).

Do you have a point to all this?


--
=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???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Threats?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:57:45 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  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
> But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
> services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
> I will pull the plug on YOU.

I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:18:33 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Sep28.045702.14711@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.024902.23519@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>
>>> Well, for your information, (and I know this might shock you)
>>> I am NOT the only person in the world who stands up for the right to
>>> live. 
>
>> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
>
>I stand up for life too.  When I heard that a woman was 
>arrested in Greensboro NC for robbing several banks so she 
>could buy food and clothing for her children, I stood up 
>for legalizing bank robbery.  That woman should not have
>had to face the risk of being shot and killed during the 
>bank heist.  While bank robbery is immoral, I can't force 
>my morals onto bank robbers by making bank robbery illegal.
>That's why bank robbery should be made safe and legal,
>just like abortion. 

There's an interesting point here.  I remember reading an essay by a man
named Schaeffer on the need to legalize rape so that there would no longer
be back alley rapes.  Hospitals would create rape floors where a woman could
go and be attacked by a man, all the while being monitered by government
officials.  The concept  is sick, but the point is well made.

Ted K.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 4
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:21:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <5713@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>Besides I don't follow the analogy that an unwanted pregnancy and getting
>hit by a hurricane are similar. Unless you somehow think that your
>lifestyle or your decisions will cause hurricanes to hit your house.

Of course if your lifestyle, and your decisions about your lifestyle
cause you to move to south Florida, then you run the risk.

Anyone who has sex runs the risk of getting pregnant.  Even the best
preventative measures aren't perfect.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:55:41 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  <1992Sep27.211130.8098@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.032540.166031@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
> (Larry Margolis) writes:
> >
> > In  <1992Sep25.171158.20935@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Go
> > > In article <1992Sep25.002553.124013@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > In  <1992Sep24.011307.7484@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoreg
> > > > > In article <v67nb=k.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, I'm afraid that in this case human eggs and sperm are undeniably
> > > > > > human life.
> > > > >
> > > > > Left seperated and with no interference, neither will ever be "born."
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, they are not human life...where as, when joined, they are.
> > > >
> > > > 1.  They're human and they're alive, so they constitute "human life".
> > >
> > > Well, let me explain again.  What I mean be human life is something human
> > > that will develop into a child (be born).  Comments?
> >
> > What I mean by human life is human life.  Comments?
>
> Please exapand and give examples.  It is not clear what you are calling
> human
> life and what you are not...also what exactly do you mean by life?

Living beings that are human.  E.g., sperm, eggs, zygotes, embryos, fetuses,
and people.

> > > > 2.  Left by itself and with no interference, no zygote will ever be
> > > >     "born" either.
> > >
> > > True.  But that would be bad interference.
> >
> > How does *no* interference constitute *bad* interference?
>
> Because, IMHO, it would be murder to prevent a wanted and healthy child
> from
> comming into the world.

So you consider the natural failure of a fertilized egg to implant (which
happens on the order of half the time, I believe) to be murder.  That's,
umm, an interesting concept.  Who are you going to prosecute?

> > > If something it "bad," it shouldn't be done.
> >
> > But no interference *means* nothing is done.
>
> Exactly.  Let me give you something to think about.

Let me give you something to think about.  "No interference" can not be
"bad interference", because there was no interference to be good or bad.

> See someone fall off a cliff and they just happen to catch hold of
> something, which saves their life temporarly...they will no be able to hold
> on forever.  You are able to save this persons life with absolutly no risk
> to yourself in any way, shape or form.  Is it permissable to allow this
> person to die?

Rescuing them would be interference, but good.  Not rescuing them would
be bad, but would not constitute interference.  Causing them to fall would
be bad, and *would* constitute interference.

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