HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:47:39 GMT

mark@ocsmd.ocs.com (Mark Wilson) writes:

] Michal Leah Peri (peri@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
] : >>I'm not on drugs, and it's not that late in the night.  Plus, I know I'm not
] : >>stupid because I made it through graduate school with honors.
] : 
] : You spent N of the best years of your life in self inflicted poverty
] : and degradation, and you claim it proves your *not* stupid??!
]                                            ^^^^
] *sigh*
] Well, I AM reading this in alt.fan.dan-quayle... maybe this is where Dan
] got the extra "e"....

Hey Bud, some of US has us Respect for Family Traditons.....

And if it is good eenough for the Man a Heart Beat away
from the Big Red Button.... It Be goode eenough for US!

ciao
drieux


ObTechStuff:

>>Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.test

Note kiddies, the above line is called the 'misc.test' trap....
Had Mark wilson been away of the Evil Bad Habits of those who are
Willing to Make Fun of the GreatAmericanWay.... he would not
have fallen for this.....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41902 alt.flame:13470
From: khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:29:47 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <0fxz+=n@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
Keith posted:
>>->circumstance, I feel it would be justifiable to force the woman to
>>->continue the pregnancy" (Not an exact quote.  Anybody this one archived?)
>
>legislation wasn't the issue. force was. see?

Well, if you want the issue to be force, than the issue is force, I guess.

On that note, the exact issue was:  Did or did not Kevin Darcy say
somthing to the effect of "it would be justifiable to force the woman to
continue the pregnancy."  And in that wonderful excerpt from these huge
archives you apparently have, there was no mention of forcing a woman to
continue the pregnancy.

Only two types of force were mentioned in Keith's excerpt:

Legislative force to force an abortion, and financial force to give up the
child.  

But no mention of forcing a woman to continue her pregnancy.

So again, where is your proof?

It seems that we still have a problem with that, don't we?

Or mabye I'm the only one who thinks accusations ought to be backed up by
facts.

-Kenny
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:33:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.155120.13885@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.145317.4953@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.010340.18230@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>Ah, so you feel abortion should be allowed until ~24 weeks into the pregnancy.
>>>
>>>Welcome to the pro-choice camp, Simon.
>>>--
>>That'll be the day.  A day when there's ice skating on Archeron.
>Acheron.
>-Ekr
>
>Thanks for that correction.   Now, I'm not th one who sent this thread onto
80+ newsgroups.  This started in alt.activism.  I am now in talk.abortion.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: What the hell is a "born fetus"?
Summary: Or is this just more of the "Pro-Life Dictionary" talking??? 
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 15:29:27 GMT

In article <3913@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>
>Its hard for us to argue on an even plane from this stance.  To me the conflict
>is between two equal entities - Mother vs Child.  Subjugation implies superior
>over inferior.  Furthermore, I'll admit that even if you were to agree that an
>unborn and born fetus are equivalent there is still much room for argument over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What the fuck are you talking about?

>who takes priority in certain Solomon like situations.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:10:38 GMT
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <9nnzwbm@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>> 
>>> No one is asking the baby.
>> D'you suppose there might be a _reason_ for that?
>Sure.  They're afraid they might not like the answer.

Silence implies consent, Suzanne.  If you're claiming you get answers
other than silence, I, for one, would like transcripts.

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

                Steve Chaney Memorial Anti-Roman Catholic .sig
        "Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' The Vatican Rag!"
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:01:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.202849.41991@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

> There's a difference between *refusing* to take notice of her reasons,
> and *not forcing* her to *disclose* or *justify* her reasons.

But you do force the woman to justify her reasons for aborting.

You say that a woman can kill a human being as long as that 
human being is inside her body.

Since you ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting
an abortion, and you concentrate only on the location of
the fetus relative to the woman, you have managed to 
reduce pregnant women to fetal containers.


>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.test
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 10 Oct 1992 22:28:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

>>I'm not on drugs, and it's not that late in the night.  Plus, I know I'm not
>>stupid because I made it through graduate school with honors.

You spent N of the best years of your life in self inflicted poverty
and degradation, and you claim it proves your *not* stupid??!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: "Have you heard of us?" (Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:01:24 GMT

the hallchaney creature posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

->Have you heard of us? 

oh yes. is "us" the correct term to use when you are
referring to a single person? personally, i think when
you are referring to you and your dennis personality,
you should say "I."

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Biblical Authority for Law
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.131833.20451@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> And Jesus said:

And here's yet another data point to support the observation
that the pro-aborts are usually the first ones to raise the
issue of religion.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Your Biblical Support ISN'T.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:49:09 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

> In short, the person who posted these references claiming them to
> be scriptural support for abortion IS A DIRTY LIAR.

And, wouldn't you know it, the first reference The Rink typed in was:

MAT 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
MAT 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
              with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you
              again.
MAT 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own
              eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the
              mote out of thy brother's eye.

The irony is priceless.  The net is sweet.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42378 talk.politics.misc:51489 alt.rush-limbaugh:7295
From: lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:31:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Oct13.052621.144287@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> >In  <9535@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wil
>> >> Suppose your house is a boat.  You invite someone onboard. 

>Wrong.  It's a pleasure craft.  You didn't invite anyone else on board.
>If you left it at the dock, there wouldn't be any problem, but it's your
>boat and you decided to take it out for a little fun.  A passenger was
>neither invited nor welcome.

Ok, lets say its a sailboat.  A nice rigger that can chop through the waves
with little problem ... the visitor happens to be a world class sailor!
So the two of you go for a sail and pass an island with purple martians on
it!  And about that time the Swedish Bikini team drops in! Wouldn't that be
great!
 
>
>> >Now, suppose there's a limited amount of food on board, and you don't know
>> >if there's enough to make it back to land.  If you let the stowaway share
>> >your food, there's a good chance both of you will starve to death.

Now lets say you were hungry so you decided to stop on this island.  And after
wandering around for a while you find a McDonald's, so you, the crew, the
visitor, the team, and the martians all bop over and bet a big mac.

What does this have to do with anything?

NOTHING!

Please do not go on ad nauseum with analogy after analogy because they just
get twisted around, and people talk about puting rubber over boats, and how
its this boat instead of another boat, and the discussion gets silly, so if
you want to agrue about abortion or whatever fine but don't get caught up in
silly analogies.

Dustin
lanier@acpub.duke.edu
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:23:50 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <26463@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>Isn't it wierd that you pro-choicers applaud the acts of ACT-UP but
>>yet you abhor it when Operation Rescue pulls a stunt? You pro-choice
>>vacuum-heads are known for your double-standards.
>
>Pardon?!? How can you compare peaceful actions to those bordering on
>terrorist actions? OR definitely uses force to get their way. Do you
>have any accounts of ACT-UP doing so? Or have they only been seen to
>sing or otherwise disrupt speeches and such?


I think there have been a couple of recent incidents in which
ACT-UP people disrupted a church service in New York, throwing
condoms around and shouting obscenities.
On January 16, 1991 a group of AIDS activists stormed into the studio
of CBS News during their evening news broadcast.

Now, have any pro-lifers done that??

You know, I get the feeling that the only way to be heard is to be
controversial.  It's a little upseting that polite behavior goes
unnoticed.

Simon
(Heat Sheild Up!!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:31:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>Mr. Fischer writes:
>
>>= >>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>= >>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>>= >	   ^^^^^^^^^
>>= >
>>= >This question has my nomination for "pro-choice understatement of the 
>>= >year," even though it is phrased as a question: it certainly makes a strong
>>= >statement, especially about the state of mind of the one who wrote it.
>>=  
>>= And the consistent inability of any pro-lifer to answer it is even
>>= more telling, Mr. Nyikos.  Care to give it a shot?
>
>I've been doing it ever since joining this newsgroup.  Did you
>catch "Another failure to communicate on an ultimate question"?

I don't read all 150+ messages that go by each day.

What's your answer?  (still waiting)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Defying Physics (Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:14:43 GMT

In response to the sperm/egg debate again:

Can a human individual be at two places at once (when alive)?  Can
Joe Blow be in La Jolla, and in Anchorage at the same time?  Of course,
not.  Humans can only be in one place at one time.

Now someone asserts: Eggs/Sperm = human life (members of homo sapiens)

Let us assume that the assertion is true.  If it is true, then we,
at that point in time are both eggs and sperm (separated).  But how
can this be?  Can we really be at two places at once?  Can our human lives
begin before we are one?  Did the sperm that was you agree to meet up
with the egg that is also you?  You cannot be two places at once, just like
the sperm (which is you) and the egg (which is you).

We have a contradiction.  We once assumed eggs/serpm = human life
(members of homo sapiens) but since we have a contradiction, it is safe
to say that the alternate assertion, that eggs/sperm != human life
(member of homo sapiens) is true.



---------

Another way of looking at things:

Is it possible to have two humans in you? (I mean exactly the same human
being one with another human in exactly the same space.  Thus, a pregnant
woman and her unborn child, since they are not occupying the exact same
space, are not one human entity).  I don't think so.

So let us assume that the assertion that eggs/sperm = human life (members
of homo sapiens) with the added assumption that the eggs and the sperm
are two different human lives.  Since this is true, then at conception,
two different human lives come together.  But the problem is, you are
exactly one human entity.  So how can two separate human lives produce
exactly one human entity?  Didn't we say that it is not possible to 
be exactly two humans at one exact time?  From two human lives, there
results only one human life.  This cannot be.  How can Joe Blow merge
with Susan Parker (random name) to produce Joe Parker only?

Thus, since a human cannot exist as exactly two humans, we have a 
contradiction.  We can safely say that the assertion that eggs/sperm
are human life (members of homo sapiens) is false.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 15 Oct 1992 09:08:43 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>>Abortion is available to women because it is a woman's body (and only a
>>woman's body) that supports a pregnancy.  Child support, on the other 
>>hand, is required of BOTH men and women when a child exists.  And
>>while it may be a burdensome thing, is not 'inequitable' in it's legal
>>assignment.
>So which body ends up dead, Adrienne?  Is that your body that ends
>up aborted?  Or is it another body that ends up aborted?

Scuse, please, Kevin, for actually asking you to stick to the point, but
Don and I are talking about the obligatons of PARENTS.  You know what 
PARENTS are -- people with *born* children.

It doesn't escape you, does it, that a man has no obligation for child
support BEFORE a child is born, does it?

>I am not well versed on the laws of wrongful death or child custody,

So why don't you go *get* well versed before you go blathering off to
very little point?

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:52:00 GMT

> = (William Crosmun) writes:
>>lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:

[...]
>>For Christ's sake, think for yourself, man!

>>Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
>>lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
>>and *you* talk about big spender liberals?

>What is Clinton going to do differently?

For one, quit appointing far-right wing judges like Clarence "Long Dong
Silver" Thomas.

That alone makes him worth his weight in electoral votes.

The politics of exclusion, division and fear is another hallmark of
Republican presidents dating back to when Eisenhower was too afraid to
stand up to Joe McCarthy and the power behind the throne, Ray "I Hate
Jews and Homos" Cohn, the Jewish homosexual.  Clinton will not allow
such hatred to rule the day as Bush the Wimp has done.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:18:14 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Listen to Rush's show and you may learn 

Somehow, I doubt it.

>Ted

                  -rocker
From: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil (usenet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:31:32 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

In article <7161@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) 
writes:
> 
>
> 
> Of course, we're up to five FFLA spokespeople on the net,
> now.  They all seem to be male.  I wonder why.
> 
> Susan

Susan - I'd like to hear your "wondering" out loud.  What's you innuendo 
here?

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:10:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.032116.24800@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep19.222609.21030@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <p!1nn2-.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>
>>>So, if the fetus is removed intact and alive you would approve of an
>>>abortion?  
>>
>>Legally speaking, that's NOT an "abortion", Gordon:
>>
>>	Abortion.  The knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child
>>	or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the
>>	womb other than for the principal purpose of producing a live birth
>>	or removing a dead fetus. (Black's, 5th Ed.)
>>
>>Can we get this definition into the FAQ, please? I'm sick of typing it in...  >
>
>a-bor-tion
>Noun
>1. Induced termination of pregnancy before the embryo or fetus is capable
>of survival.

I.e. the fetus dies. Early caesarean does NOT count as "abortion" under this
definition.

>2. A fatally premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus.

"Fatally premature", i.e. the fetus dies. Early caesarean does NOT count as
"abortion" under this definition.

>Was Black a rhetoritician?

No, he was a legal scholar, presumably.

>In the many dictionaries I've looked up the term 'abortion' in, I've not
>once see them redefine a fetus or embryo as an 'unborn child.'  This isn't
>even concise English.

I agree. Whoever wrote that definition in Black's used some suspiciously
pro-life phrasing. However, the gist of the definition is that the death of
the fetus is a necessary component of any "abortion". Early caesareans don't 
count as "abortions". This is corroborated by the American Heritage Dictionary 
definitions you gave above. My point is vindicated. Thank you.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:19:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.164544.16005@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>In article <1at1jlINNj4s@fido.asd.sgi.com>
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) quotes herself from e-mail:
>
>| >->  -I'm afraid I assumed that he [Keegan] sent mail
>| >->  to everyone saying approximately the same thing.
>| >->  If he did NOT discuss this in mail with Suzanne,
>
>He did not.
>
>| >->  then I will retract that charge
>
>... she promises.
>
>The next (and last) I heard from C.J. on the subject was in 
>article <1992Jun1.172036.17733@odin.corp.sgi.com>:
>
>|  /GB0012@/h:j        [this was my address at the time]
>|  /keegan@/h:j
>
>Some retraction.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how to prove a proposition, Ms. Demitrio.
You certainly have failed to prove that CJ did not retract the charge.

It is ENTIRELY within the realm of possibility that CJ retracted it,
and you merely did not see it. Proving the nonexistence of an
object with an essentially infinite possible location space is
very close to impossible. CJ's potential retraction is such an object.

-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:41863 talk.politics.misc:50775 alt.sex:32565 alt.rush-limbaugh:7049 alt.politics.elections:16027 alt.politics.clinton:9625 alt.politics.bush:8566