HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Organization: Occasionally.
	<1993Jan1.204017.12449@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:39:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.204017.12449@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

   I cancelled my original article less than a minute after I put it up,
   Patrick, because I was in a bad mood when I posted it and I said some
   things which could be interpreted as flames.  I'm not sure how it
   still got out to your site, but what's done is done.

I've forgotten all about it -- how long ago was it, anyway?  It feels like a
couple of years, though I seem to remember it as being in the early part of
last month.  (Time flies when you have as much to juggle as I do at this
time of year.)  Anyway, as you said, it's done and buried -- so what can we
argue about now?  :-)

   One thing I'll say in my defense, though, for those readers who
   somehow got the article: There's a difference between clueless newbies
   who parade around this newsgroup saying "ab0rtion is murder" and reply
   to every single thing a pro-choicer says by parroting those words over
   and over again, and considerate pro-lifers who believe that abortion
   is murder but can back up their opinions by responding considerately
   to pro-choice arguments.  (As in, "I know you feel that abortion
   should be allowed because _____, but I still believe that the reasons
   to protect a fetus are more important than the reasons you give to
   take its life because _____.")

   I encourage considerate discussion with pro-lifers.  I don't like it
   when people assume some morally superior attitude, though.  You seem
   reasonable, Patrick; I look forward to debating with you.  :)

Welcome to the wrangle, then -- you'll be a welcome change from such
paragons of honesty as Holtsinger and Nyikos (and maybe even that Chaney
guy, if he decides to come back).  I know there are at least a few pro-life
folks with their heads set on straight out there, as I've encountered a few
in person -- and we need more of them in this newsgroup.  

Anyway, the rest of y'all can go back to the regularly scheduled food fight.
I'm going to be packing up and heading home for a well-deserved weekend in
about 20 minutes...

--PLH, glad he didn't get to watch the dismantling of the Aggies by those
slugs from Notre Dame...
--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

              * Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:28:40 GMT

In <1992Dec18.191718.22011@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> = (Maddi Hausmann):
>>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >

>>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>>>>someone who prefers suicide.

>>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.

>>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

>There is no such thing, twit.

You lose.  Check out my follow-up to Storga, who said the same thing in
response to the same statement by Suzanne.

>  And thanks for admitting the religious basis
>for your fanatical anti-abortionism.

Thanks for showing us your ability to jump to conclusions on the basis
of insufficient evidence.

>Gotcha!  

Likewise.

PJN

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: onyx@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Jeff Phillips)
Subject: Re: Petey Ny, check reality, try again
Keywords: risks, surgical procedure
Organization: Florida State University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 03:46:42 GMT

In article <1093@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>Abortion providers do have the same responsibility to provide
>information to their patients as other doctors do, Mark.  The
>court cases that PHoney cites don't have anything to do with
>informed consent in medical terms - they have to do with a
>stae-written script detailing the abortion procedure, fetal
>development, possible complications, and other things.  These 
>state speeches are designed to discourage abortion, not to 
>inform anyone.
>
And the notion that there is any reason for the state to interfere in
this medical choice any more then any other is ludicrous.
Too bad Petey can't figure that out.

[Logical, well thought out and sensible legal opinion deleted for
space]


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
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: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:51:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.190837.4545@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec28.020955.13604@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In the case in question,
>>namely abortion, you are arguing in favor of legislation regarding
>>abortion
>
>Mark, you must be confused.  Kevin keeps telling us that he is *not*
>arguing in favor of legislation.  (I'm afraid that I'm confused as well,
>since it sure looks to me like he's arguing for legislation, but there's
>probably a fine semantic point that we're overlooking.)

No doubt. The only thing I've been able to see is that Kevin is
*constantly* arguing the side of logislation, without ever actually
*proposing* any specific legislation. He apparently sees a difference
between arguing in favor of legislation, and supporting that same
legislation.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Meet Operation Rescue
Organization: Clark University
Date: 28 DEC 92 21:10:05 GMT

In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
> 
>In article <1992Dec24.171908.15324@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>|I got word last night through a close friend in a position to receive
>|such news that Operation Rescue is planning to seige a hundred or so
>|cities in the middle of January.
> 
>|He also said that (and this is the part I have trouble believing -- I
>|can chalk it up to paranoia if its wrong) they plan to branch out to
>|more overt anti-gay activity.  I couldn't get him to be more specific,
>|but he's promised to get me a copy of the press release.
> 
>There might be a connection with the Oregon homophobia
>incident.  The people behind the failed anti-gay initiative
>there are offering to take their bigotry on the road in other
>states.  If they did "so well" in liberal Oregon, they say, they
>can do better in other states.  Their constituency probably has
>a considerable overlap with OR's.

I find this all very amusing.  If these people want to stop abortions, maybe 
someone should clue them in to the fact that homosexuality is right up there 
with abstinence as far as preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:16:59 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Dec29.210053.27185@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[...]
># a tiny smidgin of evidence from her, or even her
># "good-as-her-bond" word appears enough to satisfy:
>#
># Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
># Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  J H Woodyatt  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
># Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
># Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga ...

Hmmm...  I believe I did post that my recollection as to who DOD had
proposed as moderators differed from Susan's recollection.

># not to mention:
>#
># Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
># rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham
>#
># Have I left anyone out?  More importantly, have I maligned anyone
># unjustly?  My apologies to anyone who does not belong on one of the
># two lists above.
>
>Man this is weird behavior for Dr. Nyikos...

It's weird behavior, but to say it's weird behavior *for Petie* puts it
up against some stiff competition...

>... can anyone explain why Dr. Nyikos chose to separate the
>supposed `boys' from the supposed `girls?'  Do I want to know?

Funny - I didn't even notice this until you pointed it out.  I did
wonder why he split the list in two by "not to mention", but I
didn't realize that it was just females in the unmentionables...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Craig Sivils to donate bodily resources to save lives!
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:00:40 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <casivils.724921853@node_508ba>
casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes: 

>     Yes, its all clear to me, because infants are simply helpless parasites,
>lets kill them along with the unborn.  (moral, if it isn't cute or make cute 
>noises, its not protected).  And while we are looking at the philosophical 
>definition of a person, grandpa is getting senile and probabbly just doesn't
>make the ticket any more, axe him too.  And that drug addict, they can't be
>living a very fullfilling life (probabbly has a real self-esteem problem too),>nuke that sucker too.  In fact, lets give psycho analysis exams to all 6th 
>graders and perform pre-emptive extraction on those that have a high risk of 
>becoming a threat to society.  This world will be a better place and the 
>rights of those who remain will be protected.  And if you don't agree, we 
>have a way to adjust your attitude (gimme that deer rifle).

Translation to avoid hypocrisy: Yes, its all clear to me, because all
human life is sacred and deserving of the involuntary use of the
bodies of others to save it, I will do the following.  I have agreed
to have the maximum amount of blood extracted from my body on a weekly
basis to help others.  In addition, I have signed up for bone marrow
donations on the maximum possible schedule.  Also, since I have two
kidneys, I have notified the appropriate authorities that they can
take one of them as soon as a suitable person in need is located.  As
a result of my efforts, precious life will be preserved and this world
will be a better place and the rights of those who remain will be
protected.  And if you don't agree, we have a way to adjust your
attitude (gimme that deer rifle).  We will hold you at gun point and
force you to use your body to support those precious human lives,
regardless of how you feel about it.

There is a slippery slope of rights reduction implicated by the
abortion debate, but it has nothing to do with protections for against
murder for legal persons.  The definition of such persons is clear,
long-standing, and not at all challenged by the abortion debate.  What
is challenged is the freedom each of us enjoys to make our own
decisions about how our bodies will be used, or more to the point, not
used by others.  The right of legal persons to life is not at all
threatened by the fact that a parent can refuse to donate blood,
kidney, or tissues to his child.  Why does not granting this right to
/z/e/f/s begin to threaten the status quo?

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:19:00 GMT

Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 

>>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?

>>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.

>> This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

> They do?  Funny -- my wife and I don't, and we're pro-choice.  I guess
> that means we don't exist by your "logic" 

No, it means that your beliefs are inconsistent.  But you knew that.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Laugh of the week from Will Steeves.
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:26:58 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.724975331@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 

>The only one needed for this post, or the one to which I am following
>up, is one for the sentence beginning, "Is this the same Will..." and
>repeating a charge which has been thoroughly refuted by both Will and
>myself.  (And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
>post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
>was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)

I saw the original post in which Will stated that he felt like killing
the woman he had impregnated for not respecting his opinion regarding
whether she should be an incubator for his fetus.  I don't know how
this could be refuted since he wrote it.  By referring to this
accusation, I do not mean to imply that I *believe* Will would
actually have killed her, but I do offer it as evidence that Will
believes he should have been able to force this woman to listen to
him.  That is the essence of the pro-force position.

>"Mezias telling Elizabeth Bartley to get real?  This isn't the pot
>calling the kettle black; this is the pot calling the milk black."

Well, Peter, you have certainly bested me on this one.  Oh, darn.

SJM
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 1 Jan 93 02:45:27 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Dec30.173859.6029@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
># kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
># >
># >"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
># >of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
># 
># Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might
># not agree...
>
>Hell, I'm an agnostic and I definitely do not agree.  The last thing I
>want is some agent of the State coming at me with a scalpel telling me
>my right to decide what surgical procedures are to be performed on me
>are nullified by the fact that it's for my own good.

If you decide that a surgical procedure isn't "good" for you, then, from
your point of view, it's "detrimental" rather than "beneficial", right?
So, the statement I made could still hold true, as long as those key terms
are given a somewhat subjectivist interpretation.

Now, this assumes that you are an adult, to whom has been delegated the choice 
of what is "detrimental" and what is "beneficial". As Mark Cochran has pointed 
out, Jehovah's Witnesses parents HAVE been forced to allow their children to 
undergo needed blood transfusions, because children are not considered capable 
of determining such a complex "detriment" or "benefit" on their own, and in 
that case, we err on the side of life-preservation.

Mark Cochran conveniently misses the connection, however, between this holding 
of the law and the abortion issue. Just as in the Jehovah's Witnesses analogy, 
a fetus is likewise incapable of properly deciding it's own "detriment" or 
"benefit", so, IF WE ONLY CONSIDER THE INTERESTS OF THE FETUS, it makes 
perfect sense to err on the side of life-preservation. As a pro-choicer, of 
course, I would never exclude the woman's interests in such a manner: I'm just 
pointing out why it can be legally _presumed_, for a minor, that life-
preserving measures are "beneficial" and that life-threatening or -destroying
measures are "detrimental". This then goes to the question of "interference".

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.185537.33941@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <34636@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>>(Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
>>
>>>      o  "deadly self-defense is generally permissible against rape"
>>
>>I can't say I know much about this issue.  Are you saying that a woman
>>who is being raped cannot use deadly force to stop the attack?
>
>What Kevin wrote doesn't even make sense.  "Deadly self-defense"???

"Deadly self-defense" == "Self-defense that causes a death" 

What seems to be your problem with this term?

>He's trying to avoid saying "deadly *force* is generally permissible
>against rape" 

What makes you know I'm trying to avoid it, Larry? "Deadly force" expresses
the concept just fine. I think I might even prefer it.

>(which is true everywhere in the US that we know of),

Where's the disclaimer about just how limited your "knowledge" is, Larry?
And what's this "we" bit? Is that a royal "we", or are you (both) turning 
schizophrenic on me now?

								- Kevin
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reply to Storga in re Trumped-up Case #3
Date: 23 Dec 1992 16:37:11 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: abortion, adoption, children

In article <nyikos.725131836@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>so i read the read of the post. he still hasn't
>>apologized.

Doesn't really look like he's going to, either.  After all:

>These things take time, and my netserver hasn't been cooperative.

Not only that, but he decides AGAIN, while his netserver is being
uncooperative, and time is doing the taking somehow holding him back
from actually saying the fateful words: "I made a mistake" he decides

instead!

To malign me in his imagination, and on the net, ONCE AGAIN!!!!


>Next time I try, I think I'll mail
>a copy to Adrienne, at least.  Of course, if she's like Ms. Adolf,
>you will just have to take a chance on it showing up on the boards.
>I mailed Ms. Adolf a copy of my fictional Suzanne-Gordon dialogue on 
>this Case #3, and she went on letting y'all think I had gutlessly
>chickened out on this trumped-up charge against Suzanne.


Ah, so now it's MY responsibility to clear up your stinking name for
you, eh Peter?  And if your uncooperative netserver doesn't deliver
that copy, as it has
                    NEVER
                         managed to deliver it to the net, you'll feel
fully justified in saying I trumped-up a charge against you!!!!!

Although, to be fair, and open and honest in this instance, I *do*
think you have gutlessly chickened out so far, Phoney.

And you are STILL gutlessly chickening out.

We are not surprised at you gutlessly chickening out.  We are surprised
that you yourself point to it blatantly.

Adrienne Regard

Ms. Adolf and I appear to be a part of yet ANOTHER club -- the club of
women who seem to have control of Peter Ny's reputation, since it's
so damned obviously out of his own grasp!!!!!!  Hi, Nadja!


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:24:16 GMT

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?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: What's that?
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:10:18 GMT

In article <aidler.725611282@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>>2. the child's entire existence is in the balance.
>
>>The woman's existance is in the balance too.
>
>Precisely.  Therefore an arbitrator is required.
>
>>>>}                        The physician only receives a fee

Bull. We have a phsycian who can determine the medical factors, and a
woman who can determine her own needs. We don't need anything more.

>>>>}by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
>>>>}to be impartial.
>>> 
>>>Do you presume that all physicians always act in the
>>>best interest of the woman or child and never in their
>>>own self-interests?
>
>>A physician who is interested only in fees would be much better off 
>>encouraging childbirth.  They make much more money delivering babies than
>>they do aborting fetuses.
>
>I don't know how abortions are supervised in your
>area (Virginia?), but here in B.C. there are people
>who demand community clinics independent of hospitals
>to provide for "women's health."
>They would not supervise births or any form of natal
>care other than abortions.
>What are these clinics likely to recommend to 
>a pregnant woman appearing at their door?
>
A woman who is going to an abortion clinic has already decided what
she wants. Who are you to tell her what to do with her body?

>>Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights 
>>from the pregnant woman?
>
>The mother, father, and child each have *rights* and 
>*responsibilities*.

There is no child in this discussion, only a fetus.
Do try to get your facts straight.

>Someone needs to independently judge that all parties
>are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their 
>abilities.
>
Abortion is a responsible way to handle an undesirable pregnancy. If
you contend otherwise, please present evidence, not Truth by Blatant
Assertion.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion