HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keegan defines the term "pro-choice" for everyone concerned
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:58:18 GMT


In article <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>
keegan@daisymae.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>boyiny@lie.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
>-> >[James Keegan to me]>[...]
>
>[... deletions by dsholtsi ...]
>
>-> I think I must have. I still say that I am pro-choice, does
>-> that sound wrong to you? It seems that I sound pro-choice to
>-> most people...
>
>i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
>doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
>that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>third trimester.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 02:35:17 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 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
Followup-To: talk.bizarre

In  <BvtHx4.KvB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes:
>
>      If you understand it so well, perhaps you would like to translate what
> he keeps writing?  Not only on talk.bizarre, but on all of the groups to which
> he posts.

He said that Rich Lund doesn't know shit from Shinola.

(I'm afraid it loses something in the translation...  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.b
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:48:48 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  <5960@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
> Sex without consequences and avoiding the
> consequences of one's actions is the problem.

Why is sex without consequences a problem?  (I assume you're talking about
consequences other than orgasm.  :-)

> Everyone has the right to do whatever good or bad to one's body
> as long as they accept the consequences of their actions.

And if she accepts that one of the consequences might be an unwanted
pregnancy which she'll abort?

> :Is Mr. Chuck Amish or a Shaker?
> Since I can dance the lambada, I'm probably a Shaker. :)

Since you're so full of it, you probably should take some Ex-lax.  Then
you'd be a mover and a Shaker.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:06:08 GMT

In article <7d1z6nb@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>not only are you a liar, mr. rescorla, but when you are
>exposed, you dance like the net.idiot you've been named
>after.
So, Jim, why is it that when someone else makes a false statement,
they're lying, but when you make a false statement, it's an error?
Please, explain this subtlety.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43035 talk.religion.misc:18506
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Keywords: mendacity
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:41:05 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.719171669@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
(masses of stuff deleted)

>No, because that was AFTER you made the comment, using the plural. Plus,
>I think it has now been established beyond a reasonable doubt that
>M. Price is not a Christian. Which puts it back down to one.
> What I'd like to know is, DID YOU KNOW
>THIS ALL ALONG, that M. Price is not a Christian?

Dear Petie,
     Just a word of advice. Repeating an assertion ad nauseum does not
only not make it true, but also does not make it proven.

                                                         MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: PH, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:48:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.232041.1835@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.719094069@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <ldbc8lINN98q@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>In article <92283.030621KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>>In article <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
>>>>(Eric Marsh) says:
>>
>>>>>>>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>>>>>>>anything deeper, Grasshopper?
>>
>>>>>>Besides absolute right and wrong, no.
>>
>>This use of "absolute" is misleading.  There are strong philosophical bases
>>for morality having nothing to do with religion, but there is nothing
>>really "absolute" about most of them.
>
>Sister, your ignorance is showing.  There's *NOTHING* absolute about anything
>having to do with morality.

Er, Keith Moron, do you realize you just made an absolute statement about
morality?

Or, then again, maybe it was an Absolut statement. Expect a killer hangover 
in the morning...

								- Kevin
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:23:19 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 11-Oct-92 Pro-Choice Criteria for
Per.. by Brian Yamauchi@ces.cwru. 
> 1) They believe that a soul enters the body at conception.
> 2) They believe that personhood is defined by having a unique genetic
> code.

Mr. Yamauchi says he doesn't accept the first because he's not religious.
And not the second because it's semantic and can be chosen not to be
adopted. This brings up an interesting question (to me). How do most
people here perceive what the word 'person' means? I thought I knew
what it meant. But I've never thought of a person as 'cognizant' which
is one definition that's been proposed.

The definition(s) of person use the term 'human being' extensively.
And in my desk dictionary, I couldn't get a definition that didn't
end up being circular.

However, the on-line dictionary gives:
Word         HUMAN BEING  n.
Definition   --n. A member of the genus Homo and esp. of the species Homo
             sapiens.
So I think that's a fairly straight forward definition. Question does
everyone think that that includes z/e/f?  I think it does. So I'm going
from the assumption that we can at least call the z/e/f human beings, 
even though they are dependant solely on other other person for survival.

I cannot find an on-line or desk definition that mimics the second 
'pro-life' argument. And what I have found doesn't seem to really fit
any pro-life or pro-choice arguments concerning whether the child is
a person or not.

1. A living human being, esp. as distinguished from an animal or thing. 
This would include z/e/f, but disclude the dead. Good for pro-life, not
for pro-choice.

2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality.  
I'm not sure whether this definition could help either side. More and more
research is being done on how much of a personality a child has at birth.
Some children are happy newborns, or attentive newborns. Others are sullen,
or screamers, etc. I think both sides could use this definition to argue
their point, which makes it essentially useless.

7. Law. A human being or organization with legal rights and duties.  
A definition which interests many people, yes? Do born children have
duties according to the constitution? Would this definition exclude
all children, thereby being no help to those who would distinguish 
personhood between the born and unborn?

Final question. Is arguing whether the child is a person or not a
worthwhile endeavor? For some people, it's a religious argument that
determines the definition. Do others argue on personal moral grounds?

(So much for that being a final question. 8> )

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: And now, Deep Thoughts by Jim Keegan...
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:55:37 GMT

In <0r1zvnj@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Oct10.024526.16500@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >

>>>First, I don't think Susan does see misogyny 'round every corner,
>>>but she certainly does see it enough on talk.abortion, as do I
>>>and quite a few others.  
>
>>I think invoking "misogyny" is a convenient attempt to undermine
>>the credibility of any substantive arguments.  
>
>can you list the criteria you evaluated to reach this
>conclusion. 

Yes, Jim, I can, and have done so in other places.  However, 
I'm unlikely to provide *you* with much of anything substantive
given your propensity to sidestep nearly identical requests.

>from what i've read, i think invoking misogyny happens when 
>misogyny is evident. a good example of what i'm talking about 
>is when someone replies to one of your posts and sees misogyny 
>in it.

Oh yes, that's ever so substantive an example.  It would be
even more incisive and uniquely Keeganesque, though, if you
had appended "i know you are, but what am i?" to the last
part.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Talk about yer basic ugly dream...
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:58:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>><BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) :
>>...
>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>
>>We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
>>get you to your god that much faster. :-)
>>
>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.

Funny, I'm one of those "PC" people you rant about, and I've never felt
*any* book should be burned.  That seems to be more the province of you
folks who scream about how "liberals" should be suppressed, or silenced, or
somehow neutralized, for the "good of society".  The pro-choice contingent,
in general, aren't the ones advocating throwing the Constitution out the
window to get rid of those nasty little annoyances like the first ten
Amendments that keep you from doing what you *really* want to do to those
who don't agree with you...

--PLH (216 years -- well, we tried.)

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:36:56 GMT


Do you have nothing substantial to say about FFL's positions?
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Stranger than fiction: Simon Le Booth
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:42:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Oct12.201031.16338@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>[Story ideas: bludgeoning, tear-gassing pro-choicers, on-the-spot executions
> by police, a "New Order"]

Let me get this straight, Simon... this book you're writing... you consider
this a *utopia*?

>I enjoyed [_Handmaid's Tale_], although I didn't like the slam against 
>religion.

Fascinating.  If it didn't slam religion, would you have enjoyed it as a
pleasant little book about a society you'd like to live in?

>You're worried about meeting a science fiction author in person??
>Orwell (Eric Blair) worte 1984 and no one was afraid of him.

Orwell wrote a dystopia.  He was sounding an alarm against fascism and 
brutality.  You seem to be championing it.  If you consider a stronger
version of _Handmaid's Tale_ to be a Happy Happy Joy Joy future, I'm
willing to bet that the pages of your copy of _1984_ are welded shut
with the dried remnants of your twisted, pro-fascism come.  You probably
went into unbearable orgasm during the Room 101 scene where that Enemy of
the State Winston gets his head trapped in the rat torture cage.  Seek help.

Hey, pro-lifers!  Don't you LOOOOOOOOOOVE this guy?  Aren't you totally glad
he's championing your values?

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: So what is the Down Side?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:14:42 GMT

bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
] 
] Ah, but if it goes to the House, then the winner (BC most probably)
] can not say he has a "mandate from the people" to pursue his
] agenda. This may well make some Congresscritters a bit nervous
] about backing any radical new changes. 

bob,

maybe you've been out of the country for a few decades or so????

So far even WITH grand Mandates from the Masses,
what sort of 'Radical New Changes' have we really seen?

Nixon took us off the Gold Standard.

Carter deregulated the trucking industry and restored the draft registration.

Reagan deregulated the airlines and banking.

Bush finally recognized the 'Flying Tigers' as vets of WWII....

and .....

OH! you mean, maybe balance the budget while the interest rates are low...


ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns,alt.drugs
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Winning the War On Drugs
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:21:56 GMT

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
] In article <1992Oct9.105949.1876@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >NextWeek: Building Strategic Suburbs, a winning
] >strategy for the War on Drugs.
] 
] Ooh! Is this like the strategic hamlet (helpful hint, it is NOT
] Peyton Place)? Or is it like the great survivalist video I caught 
] a while back where they show you how to organize a militia to defend
] your neighborhood, town, or farm community?

Well After Persons from the National Level Security Agency
For your AREA, has finished the Security Check of all persons
in the General Area, then Those who Have been afforded a Clean
bill of Health will be allowed to Live, and the Infected ones
will be Fumegated.

Those Persons showing a Clear Understanding of the NEED to
Protect our American Way of Life From the Dangerous of the
So Called Cultural Elite who are Engaging in a Cultural War
with the Decent Part of Society will be taught the fundamental
skills for defending their AREA against Dangerous Elements,
as well as Assist in such Security Operations as are directed
by National Level Security Agencies for The Area.


ciao
drieux


PS: REMEMBER! We ARE At WAR!!!!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:40:58 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>Why fight?  Why struggle?  Why exert control over another human body?
>What about sharing?  What about cooperation?
>
>The birth process is certainly a painful, gruelling one.  Expectant mothers
>certainly have fear in them, are worried about support, have to endure
>pains and wild streaks, and undergo numerous other things.  However, we must
>also remember what exactly is inside of them, their human unborn sons
>and daughters.  

Rest assured that I, for one, never forget what is involved in an
abortion.  

Now here's a question for you: given a choice between giving up any 
chance of a successful career, facing certain agony and possible 
death on one hand, or killing an 8-week embryo, which option would 
you choose?  Be very careful in your answer, for this question has 
a trap in it.		:-|

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:11:20 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
->>Then I suppose I must compliment C.J. as a woman of character.  
->>I've seen her leave Nora Rivkis, and Siren, and now (apparently)
->>Rescorla to their fates when they got into trouble defending 
->>her.
->CJ had Keegan killfiled. 

that was her choice. you obviously didn't care about
that because you confronted her with posts she had
decided to kill. and here you paint yourself as a
proponent of choice.

->I specifically asked her to post
->supporting evidence, and she stepped in for that reason only.
->(Note that I did not say that she suppoted her original claim.)

so you asked her to do something she had, by default,
chosen not to do. i wouldn't be at all surprised if she
wishes that you had considered the obvious consequences of
your post before you posted.

->>discussion and peace.  Or why she won't let this depressing quar-
->>rel die.
->This is utter nonsense. It had been dead for months until JIM
->brought it back up. JIM accused CJ of being a liar. I challenged
->him. THAT is how this particular round started. 

you are misspeaking yet again, eric. i won't call you a
liar because it could be that you've forgotten a post
you replied to not too many days ago.

here is the evidence of your misstatement which, if
you'll note comes from one of your posts which you seem
to have forgotten.

=============
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:42:12 GMT

In article <4jkz=t+@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>->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.
>
>why would anyone care if a person like you, who has
>lied about people who considered you a friend, respected
>someone or not? you've demonstrated that your respect is
>as worthless as your word.
================

that is what started the mess, eric; cj taking a shot
and me replying with one. less your continued
intervention, that is where it would have ended.

and this prompts me to share something with you.

one day in the early stages of the most recent
cj-go-round, i received some email from a longtime
t.a. lurker who asked me if i thought rescorla was
trying to embarrass cj.

i said i didn't.

then, after the flurry of articles in the past
several days, i received email from the same lurker
who told me "See. You were wrong! Rescorla killed
her."

i got thinking about that remark, and of the
developments of the past few days, and then wrote
back: "you're right. he did that. but i don't think
he had any idea what he was doing."

you may disagree with these implications. i think you'd
be wise to consider them.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Date: 15 Oct 1992 08:32:15 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.

In article <Bw5stq.3Iq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>In article <31022@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>>I really admire people who decide that the burden someone else must
>>bear is `reasonable.'  
>Don't you condone taxation?

Which of course is the crux, isn't it?

money == a woman's body.

Here in talk.abortion,
over in the child-support discussions,
and on a number of street corners.

money == a woman's body.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: On Resolving all 'this'
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:17:18 GMT

smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
] > = (Steve Novak, MBA) writes:
] >> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
] >># = ( Steve Novak) writes:
] >
] >[re: newly-created Most Bizarre Awards (or, MBAs)...]
] >
] >>#In terms of "bizarre" twisted, our resident ZAP comic.....drieux!  (Cl
] p,
] >>#clap, clap, clap, clap...)  R. Crumb has to go a ways to catch up with
] >>#THIS guy.
] >
] >>Well, that settles that.
] >
] >That was merely my not-so-humble opinion.
] 
] No, no, no.  I'd already made up my mind that you were the
] sole judge in this area.  
] 
] drieux might have had an attack of modesty (like some other
] people we know) if we'd let him decide, although Miss Drieux
] might have had some good advice on how such things should
] be decided.


I am pleased that you have raised this MOST
pressing social concern, and the Clear Arbitor
of all of this will, perforce of the nature of
the discussion, most obviously, intuitively,
and Self Evidnetly be:

PenisLength.


ciao

Miss Drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!