HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Followup-To: junk
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:09:29 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
# In article <1992Oct8.114408.2452@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
# >characteristics of living things?  I don't, but I know one of them
# >is being able to reproduce, and a sperm can't get together with another
# >sperm to make offspring sperm, so I would assume that sperm/eggs are not
# >classified as living things.
#
# OK, I've had a vasectomy. Does that mean that I'm dead?

Oh god oh god oh god oh god oh god!

My S.O. was rendered sterile during an appendectomy.

You KNOW what that MEANS!!!!

I'm a *NECROPHILIAC*!!!!!

That surgeon *MURDERED* my S.O.!!!!!!!

I'll *KEEL* him!  I will!




Maybe I'll just cut his goolies off...

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

Modern Day Problems:

Does this go to talk.bizarre or rec.humor.funny?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.religion.computers
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Let us look at this another way...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:45:59 GMT

darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
] From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
] Message-ID: <fTF31xn@quack.sac.ca.us>
]  
] >... Apparently the only answer is that Jesus was sometimes a 
] >man, when that was convenient and sometimes a God when that was 
] >convenient and sometimes a Son of God when that was convenient. 
] >Few Christians care to discuss this problem because there is no 
] >valid solution. 
]  
] Apparently, light is sometimes a particle when that is convenient 
] and sometimes it is a wave when that is convenient. 
]  
] Is there "no valid solution" and light therefore does not exist? 
]  
] No.  It is just hard to understand. 

Actually its very Easy:

On the One Side there is Light, and Truth, and Beauty, and Spirit, and Software.

On the Other Side is Dark, and Lies, and Ugly, and ThePhysical, and Harware.

What confuses You is the way in Which DarkEaters Work 
in the holy Struggle Between Good and Evil.

It is Obvious, therefore, that Paul is most likely a HardwarePerson
and thus Prone to the DarkSide.

ciao
drieux

ps: "Remain in the Light"

isn't that a religious maxim?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:48:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <kerqJK600iUy46mcE=@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

[text deleted]
#    I still don't understand why Scott and Susan continue to reply to
#chaney. Is it some sexual contest?  I would guess chaney is ugly and fat
#and lives in Florida.  Find a new target for seduction.  A sane one.

I can't speak for Scott (well, actually, I can speak for Scott, but
I don't want to right now), but I reply to Chaney/Hall because it's
a cheap form of entertainment.  With relatively little effort, one
can inspire screen after screen of incoherent ravings.  

I'm open to suggestions for a new form of fun, though.

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED H
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:57:03 GMT

In article 23271@newshost.unh.edu, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>
>I have great comprehension, and actually, I would like you to email me a list
>of these.  I've taken on many other people's prized Bible contradictions.
>

Here's a few...

Old Testament:
	Where did the people east of Eden come from ?
	
	Why wasn't Lot considered a sinner, since he offered
		his virgin daughters to a crowd to be raped?

	Why is Lot's hospitality considered special?  He was acting
	on the knowledge that his visitors were important beings and
	treated them as such. According to tradition, his hospitality
	would have been worth more if he had not known the rank of his
	visitors and had treated them as kings in any case.

New Testament:
	Why are there different names and different number of
	generations given in the reports of Christ's lineage?

	Why is Christ's lineage given through Joesph?

In general:
	If the bible has been written by men through divine inspiration,
	then which bible is correct, or are all versions correct even if the
	words are not the same?

	Since the New Testament requires you to declare Christ as your 
	savior and to avoid all other religions, which of the Christo-centered
	religions are correct, or are they all correct even if the central thesis
	differs?

---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: i represent myself
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:27:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.163134.17826@nwnexus.WA.COM>, jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> 
> 
> Hey Bruce...I don't give a damn about what's in any dictionary except a law]
> dictionary.  When you're talking about taking away people's rights, you're
> talking about a legal issue and the only thing I care about is legalities.
> Murder is a legal term, and no matter what YOU choose to call it, when
> you decide to leglislate away women's rights, you HAVE to use legal terms.
> A fetus is NOT a person, check up on the law.  A child is a BORNED person,
> check up on the law.  You will have to change all of these to have it 
> your way.  Until you do, the legal definition--the only one I care about--
> stands.
> 
> Jennifer

this argument rings of "it's the law, so you have to (not) do it anyway".
perfect for the unthinking clone brain betas and epsilon morons.

do you ever exercise any of your own free thought, jennifer, or do you rely 
on whatever authority presides to guide you? do you know what a thought is?

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Summary: If DOD wasn't so funny, he'd be sad... 
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: Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.211232.6772@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.033716.27520@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>>> the term of pregnancy.  
>
>> The only restrictions on third-trimester state abortion laws are when the
>> "life or health of the mother" are at stake. But who gets to decide that?
>> Physicians do. At most, you have demonstrated that *PHYSICIANS* have the 
>> power of life and death over third-trimester fetuses. 
>
>Yes, physicians have the final word on the fate of a third-trimester 
>fetus when a woman comes to them for an abortion. But that's not much 
>different from unrestricted abortion-on-demand. 

DOD, would you mind telling us what you think is "not much different"
means?

>
>> You're probably not quite so trusting of the medical profession as Harry
>> Blackmun is. I'm not so trusting either. But they've been around long enough
>> to deserve the benefit of the doubt, Doug. Can you document cases where 
>> doctors in good standing are regularly performing third-trimester abortions
>> for "bad" reasons? 
>
>I recently posted an article about an abortion doctor who was convicted
>of federal income tax evasion. This doctor allegedly over-billed 

Note:  "federal income tax evasion" = "performing third trimester abortions
for bad reasons".

>insurance companies, over-estimated the gestational ages of fetuses 
>so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to get up off the operating table to pay more money. Should we give 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've been laughing at this line ever since DOD first posted it.  What
was he expecting?  That the "sedated" women would just run over to their
purses and pull out wads of cash?  That a sedated person is actually
coherent enough to write a check?  Maybe DOD thinks these women just
gave the doctor their credit cards, along with a signed note saying that
he was authorized to use them?

>all abortion doctors the "benefit of the doubt" and legalize each of 
>these practices too? 
--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When did human life begin??? Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:04:32 GMT

In article <y2rzasj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>To my knowledge, discussion of the time at which life appeared on planet 
>>Earth 
>
>Cute wording.  You do realize, of course, that Roe is riddled with
>references to "when life begins".
>
>>was never germane to the RvW ruling. Do you have a cite?
>
>Actually, no.  I had thought that the statement appeared in an
>amicus brief in the Roe case (which it may very well have), but
>the only reference I could find was to an amicus brief in the
>_Webster_ case.
>
>	"Biology, according to the _Webster_ brief filed by
>	167 scientists and physicians (including eleven Nobel
>	laureates and and five National Medal of Science winners)
>	says life began once billions of years ago and has been
>	a continuum ever since, marked by important moments
>	such as conception, implantation, quickening, viability,
>	and birth."
>
>	-Sarah Weddington, _A Question of Choice_, p. 248
>
>Guess those pesky biologists were the ones who started the "moldiest,
>stalest 'joke' on usenet", eh?

Looks to me like the passage you cited was Sarah Weddington's _interpretation_
of the amicus brief, not the brief itself, nor is there any particular
reason to believe that the stuff about "billions of years ago" was ever
offered as a direct answer to the question "when does life begin?", as is
continually done here on Usenet. Finally, as you note, this pertains to the 
_Webster_ case, not RvW.

Shall we move along now?

								- Kevin
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:24:22 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.719096777@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>The number of deaths due to abortion has next to nothing to do
>with whether abortion is legal or not.  Are you not aware of
>the mortality statistics over the years?  The big drops came with
>the introduction of antibiotics and of safer abortion techniques.

Are you suggesting that every woman denied access to legal abortion
will be able to get access to suction curettage?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
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 18:18:15 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->Suzannee-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
->>Eric Rescorla (rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu) writes:
->>| I want Jim (and now you) to retract your unsubstantiated
->>| public allegations.
->>
->>Gee, Rescorla, don't *I* get the option of substantiating them
->>instead? Or do you just like C.J. better?
->Is it that you just can't read, Suzanne?

you look really stupis saying something like this when
it turns out that you're the one with the reading
problem,

->I wrote "I want Jim (and not you)...."

no. you did not.

from: <1992Oct13.135204.6263@news.yale.edu>
"I want Jim (and now you) to retract your unsubstantiated public
allegations."

who was it you were saying couldn't read, eric?
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:23:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct15.164255.11261@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> ...why should I buy a line about Dean's
> Miracle Racism-detecting Nose which seems to go off pretty easily too?

Actually, since you know absolutely nothing about how often I detect
anti-Semitism, what you have to say is a pile of useless nonsense.
This is not unusual for you, and I expect you to make more pompous
and idiotic statements in response to this.  Please do.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Why Keith reads Drieux
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:17:42 GMT

From article <1992Oct10.230432.13152@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> In article <BvsFow.IyB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>>
>>	So, drieux, why do you post?
>>Ray Swartz
> 
> Becuase, while we mere mortals fail to comphrend the majority of the wisdom
> in Druiex's posts, there is an occasional glimmer of awareness.
> 
> Because, while we are but earthworms who have not the right to move upon
> the same earth as Druiex, he continues to give us the Truth[tm].  He
> continues to show us the errors of our ways.
> 
> Because he strives to bring us from the SlumScumOfHumanity in which we
> are entrenched into a more EnlightenedStateOfBeing.
> 
> Because those who understand even a small portion of the greatness that
> is Druiex stand by our terminals, waiting for even the smallest scrap
> of wisdom, as the beggar stands outside the soup kitchen.


The joke's on you, Keith.  
Drieux posts for laughs, just to see who takes him seriously.

SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!  
Summary: Hey!  DOD!  Your bogosity meter just went "BRAAAAACK!".
Organization: Patrick, Dale Ann, and the ubiquitous cats
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:22:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.172426.22616@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.151521.15156@advtech.uswest.com> 
>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>> Honorable mention in this category goes to Holtsinger, Arnold,
>> Schweikert - and other t.a. members of the Religious
>
>I'm not religious.

Does anyone else find this statement slightly amusing, in the way he repeats
it so religiously?  :-)

--PLH, the irony abounds

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I'm back, the VP debate.
Summary: Excuse me?!?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:52:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Just Patrick.  (Dale Ann and company are at home.)

In article <1992Oct15.061632.18735@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>>If you count the Libertarians, 3 out of 4 major candidates
>>>support the right of a woman to choose.  
>
>Should we count the Libs?  They were very much against abortion in the
>1988 race.  

Would you mind telling me what hat you drew *that* conclusion out of?  
I hate to disillusion you, but Ron Paul (the LP's candidate in '88) was
*personally* anti-abortion -- but the party's platform, if you had bothered
to read it, was nothing but pro-choice.  Paul himself stated, more than
once, that his opposition to abortion was his alone, and that it wasn't his
place to force that view on anyone else. much less the LP.

As someone who did just a bit of volunteer work for the LP in the '88
election, I can assure you -- you're *way* off base on this count.

--PLH.  Don't blame me.  I'm voting Libertarian.


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:30:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.122031.11227@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

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

>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>>> Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.
>>>
>>> Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.

>> This analogy fails since the "donation" of resources by the woman
>> has already commenced in the case of pregnancy. 

> You mean that since she's already started donating her resources
> against her will, she's not allowed to stop?

I didn't think that outright killing was equivalent to stopping the 
donation of resources.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:07:42 GMT

drieux@wetware.com  writes:

> Well to be truthful steven, I really like to talk to
> the boys with those BigBluedBarrels....
> 
> It makes me just Shiver all over....

> And yes... I love the bit about the 'freedom fighters'
> some day he and I will just have to sit down and discuss
> the difference between a irish cocktail and the dull
> drival of the standard party line molotov cocktail,
> and the utility of same in the Armed Struggle phase
> of the liberation of AmeriKKKa from the Enemy threat....
> 
> God, and we can talk about tactics for avoiding 
> secret police surveillance... and all the other
> important things that go into forming an underground unit.
> 
> Then we can talk about the utility of the currently
> operable Gay Undergound as a functioning 'BackBone Cabal'
> for just such operations....
> 
> Now where were we about those Ikky yukky liberal types....
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> ps: a right to bear arms is constitutionally guranteed right.
> So also is a woman's right NOT to bear arms, legs, feetsies,
> or WarmCuteFuzzies merely as some AntiChristianDogma has been
> generated to the opposite....

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.  What in the
heck does this say?  It rambles on and on without any meaning like some
weird piece of Zen poetry.  This is yet another example of the failure of
public schooling to teach people how to write clearly.  It would be bad
enough if the author just didn't know how to write complete sentences,
spell correctly, punctuate, capitalize proper nouns, and not use capitals
in the middle of words, but the worst sin of all is this simply isn't in-
telligible.

The reason why this whole quoted article makes about as much sense as
Bill Clinton's economic plan is that the author is liberal and liberals
don't like rules.  We conservatives know that periods, commas, and capitals
were created for a purpose.  Furthermore, suspension points were never in-
tended for those spots where one's mind trails off.  If you're going to
write something, remember that there are thousands of us who are attempting
to read it.  I hate to pick on people for their grammar and style because
we all make mistakes, but there is simply no excuse for such wildly in-
comprehensible messages as this.


Kurt R. Krueger
kkrueger@unomaha.edu
University of Nebraska at Omaha

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42647 alt.abortion.inequity:4443
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:14:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity

In article <26371@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
>>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
>>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;
>>he cannot escape child support obligations.
>
>Don, what planet are you on? Men frequently escape their child support
>"obligations". There is a class that don't, frequently those considered
>partners, such as in marriages, but the rest have no obligations of
>any sort.

I am on Earth.

On Earth, in the United States, and most certainly in my state,
there are laws that say a non-custodial father (married or not)
of a child is subject to pay child support.

On your planet, does the government give men the right 
not to pay child support?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged