HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:07:05 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

From the September 1992 issue of _The Body Politic_:

     Snapple Beverage Corporation has sent a letter to Planned
Parenthood NYC emphatically denying Snapple supports Operation Rescue.
They are asking help in stopping the rumor and any information about
where it came from. Call them at (516) 872-4800 and ask for Wendy
Kaufman, Director of Public Relations.

                                                     MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:46:32 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <25877@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>
>>>I realize that these late term abortions are rare.  But that seems such a red
>>>herring to me.  I've read in some recent postings that if certain crimes 
>>>rarely occur then its a waist of time to pass laws against them. The 
>>>intrinsic badness" or "goodness" of an act doesn't seem tied in with its 
>>>frequency.
>>
>>How about making a law against someone "throwing" a heavy tool or the
>>like down to earth from orbit? It could kill someone, but there is no
>>law against it. 
>
>Litter laws.
>
Reckless endagerment will do, also...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:40:36 GMT

In <1ykzq+b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>>->If you can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider retracting
->>>->the accusation.
->>>
->>>sure i'll consider it. but i really don't think my position
->>>will change. why don't you ask cj? i'm curious if she'll
->>>tell you the truth.
->>And I'm curious to see if you will have the intellectual honesty
->>to support your position--or retract it.

->_I_ will support keegan's position on this.  But as keegan has posted
->that he does not want the details public again, you'll have to email
->me for the story.

oh i don't think eric wanted the details. i offered them to him
via email twice (he deleted that offer). i remember when i thought
he was fairly intelectually honest too, but that was some time ago.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:29:31 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> i don't have to claim anything, mr margolis.

->True

rather strange of you to ask then, wasn't it?

->and I already explained in what circumstance I would expect
->something from you rather than cj.  

mr. margolis, there are no circumstances where the
target of an allegation is expected to prove innocence.

an unsupported allegation was made about
me. either you believe allegations should be supported
or you don't. or i suppose you could take the position
that some people should support allegations and others
need not support them.

->I'm not sufficiently interested to pursue this any further.

i didn't think you would be.

funny how things change, isn't it?
From: grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:34:59 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
[...]
>Well, jeepers, Bill - I know this a real *stretch*, but...maybe it's not
>the religious convictions.  Maybe, ju-u-u-ust maybe, it's those
>religious fanatics who are trying to make everyone live their way by
>force of law!
[...]

Kay... one more think before I go start dinner.  Mr. Novak, do you believe
murder is wrong (not taking into account the laws)?  Please explain *why*
you believe murder is wrong (no matter what your answer is).  

-Stephen

-- 

Stephen Spencer		grendel@cis.ksu.edu		sdstpk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Kansas State Univ.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:30:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.221838.7773@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
}In article <1992Oct4.154347.17433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <1992Oct4.022619.21355@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
}>writes:
}>
}>}I'll meet you halfway on this.  I'm all for letting women know what
}>}they're really doing when they go in for an abortion; I'm in favor of
}>}showing them a chart of the development of a human fetus and letting
}>}them see what they're un-making by having an abortion.  But I DON'T
}>}want to see people feeding them subjective propaganda like so many
}>}pro-lifers seem to like doing.
}>
}>Halfway?  You're going to meet this guy halfway and confer upon
}>women some special knowledge that you seem to think is known or
}>discovered only by those with a Wand of Wonder?  Shoot, let the
}>women figure it out for themselves.  They can, you know.  
}>
}
}Just a side comment: The idea that women can figure it out for themselves
}(abortion, and the unborn being human)...  For some reason, this reminds
}me of reasons for ALLOWING abortion.  Some mentioned that those
}who have sex or use contraceptives don't really know much about the
}consequences or something like that.  Since they don't know much
}about the consequences of sex or else some of the consequences of even
}"safe sex," these people should not have to go through the birthing
}process.  Then in this post, it is suggested that women can figure it
}out for themselves.  What's the deal?

Not only will I suggest it, I will assert it.  I think women can figure 
"it" out all on their own.  Even pregnant women.  I know it may be
quite a blow to your ego, Martin, but they can think even without you!
That's the "deal."  Sorry if it rattled some of your conceptions...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:56:37 GMT

In article <1af39vINNdal@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.071141.446@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1ad6r3INNfc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Dehumanizing the child.
>
>Let me also take this opportunity to point out that no one is dehumanizing
>the child.  Pro-choicers 'de-personify' the child, certainly.  But there 
>isn't anyone here who things a fetus is a canine before birth.
>
>However, since 'de-personifying' doesn't sound as 'naughty' as dehumanizing
>(and, of course, because it is more accurate), pro-life idiots are loathe
>to use it.
>
>Another inaccurate appeal to emotions.
>

What's so emotional about the fact that the unborn is, indeed, human life?


talk.abortion is slowly getting tiresome...





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:15:52 GMT


nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
->rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>I merely wish that Mr. Keegan publicly substantiate a publicly
->>made accusation.

->Mr. Keegan prefers innuendo, rumor and red herrings 
->to proof. 

damm! and this right after i defended your powers
of inference with dr. bill.

i really didn't expect this kind of newbie blunder from you.

hell, you were once a legitimate t.a. participant
so i'll bring you up to date. eric is asking me to
substiantiate an accusation that i made of cj. in that
accusation i called her a liar.

what seems beyond eric's grasp is that he is
asking me to prove my innocence of a lie which
cj posted about me. as it happens, i could do that
if i so chose. but i prefer to highlight eric's
double-standard because it aptly displays the kind
of hypocrisy that has grown in t.a. over the past
year.

i wanted to see just how far he'd go before he
realized what he was doing.

i haven't counted the number of posts in which
he asked me to prove my innocence. but i know
the number of posts in which he asked cj to
support her claim about me. zero.

then there was the matter of cj's lie about
suzanne lucia. when that matter was made public,
cj never acknowledged it, not did she apologize.
and it was the most vicious kind of lie; the
kind which infers that a woman can't think for herself
and that she is, instead, controled by a mail.

i would have thought you would be a defender of
the victim of that kind of lie rather than a
supporter of the liar. i've been mistaken before.

->If rocker is to substantiate Mr. Keegan's claims, she 
->should either post her evidence  

don't you mean "repost" rather than post? after all
if you read rocker's post, or mine, you would know that
we both declined to repost material which was posted
months ago.

->All that I have seen so far is the alleged willingness 
->of rocker to support Mr. Keegan by email, but a refusal
->to post the alleged evidence to the net. 

aha. that's what i thought. you hadn't read rocker's
post, or mine. do try to catch up so you can be a
relevent participant again soon.

->Whenever someone plays this game, I wonder if their reluctance to post is
->out of the fear of being the loser in a slander suit if the alleged 
->evidence is posted to the net.

goodness, the last i read something like this was when the
muffin threatened to sue patrick. now that i think of it,
maybe it was kevin threatening to sue lefty. no matter.
both threats were ridiculous. they were also quite entertaining.
do you think someone will threaten to sue me?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:23:55 GMT

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
->nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->>Is Keegan being intellectually honest himself?  Does not Elizabeth
->>want to punish the abortionists, not the women?

->No.  As I am of the opinion that women are intelligent, responsible
->people who make their own opinions, I think that women who get illegal
->abortions (which I think third-trimester abortions should be) should
->be punished.  Admittedly, due to some mitigating factors universally
->present in pregnancy, I don't think the punishment should be anywhere
->close to that for murder, but I do think it should exist.

you once posted what you thought these punishments
should be for the women who would be victimized by
the anti-choice legislation you want.

have you modified your views on what these punishments should be?

->Pro-Choice           Anti-Roe               - E. Elizabeth Bartley
->            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40824 talk.religion.misc:17742 alt.atheism:18438
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:35:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>  Abortion is not a crime.

Legal definition only.  It can be changed at any time by an act of congress.

>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.

So what.

>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.

Why?  If congress passes a law that says that abortion is murder, then it
is murder.

>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons

Your definition, not universally accepted.  My copy of Webster's defines
murder as the killing of a human being.

>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.

obviously

>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.

Your definition, not universally accepted.
Back to Webster's.

child:
1A: an unborn or recently born person.

>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
>Are you getting it yet?

Just because you want something, does not make it so.

Repeating giberish over and over may put you into a trance, but it won't
make it the truth.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:15:11 GMT

In <bob1.717688157@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>In <10817@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep20.030811.17500@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>>sdemitri@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Lucia Demitrio) writes:

>>>"Dead so far" describes what we know about the present and past;
>>>"die for good" projects brazenly into an eternity that ain't over yet.
>>>You can't prove that the dead *won't* be bodily resurrected.

>>Of course you can.  Even if you don't appeal to natural science, there
>>are those whose bodies are not available any more, having rotten away,
>>being burn, dismembered, and so on.  They'll have to get a new body in
>>order to be resurrected. 

This is exactly what Paul says in I Corinthians 15.

>> This is _not_ what happened to Jesus of
>>Nazareth -- he was seen walking around in the very same body.  Remember
>>the nail marks in the hands and the spear wound in the ribs?

External similarity, so that there is no problem of identification.

>Yes, but this was after 3 days. If the rest of the 'good christians'
>are to be bodily resurected some day in the future, I sincerely
>hope that it is without a sense of smell or sight. Even one year
>in a hermetically sealed coffin is not a pretty sight (why some
>folks go to that expense is beyond me - you rot from the inside
>out). Personally, I'm for cremation - environmentally I guess I
>might help grow a few daisies if buried whole, but think of the
>wasted space.

>BTW Happy Rosh Hashannah (sp?) to all.

Are you Jewish?  You might want to take a look at Ezekiel 37.
Those soldiers probably had fresh flesh, no rotting smell, from the 
description given.

>REB

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:54:44 GMT

In article <BvAtuu.G96@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.153959.3058@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <BvAnLI.AvL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> The essence is this:  rape/incest may alter the balance of rights
> >> between woman and fetus, because it nullifies a "voluntary" acceptance
> >> of obligations and because it may represent an extra burden to the woman
> >> not present in the case of voluntary sex.
> >
> >Why is a woman, in your view, "obligated" to carry a pregnancy
> >to term if she had sex voluntarily?
> 
> 
> I have never stated that a woman is, in my view, "obligated" 
> to carry a pregnancy to term if she had sex voluntarily.

Well the implication of what you said above seems to me to clearly
indicate that you believe a woman is obligated to carry a
pregnancy to term if she has sex voluntarily.  Please clarify
what you mean above when you speak of "nullify[ing] a
'voluntary' acceptance of obligations..."  My understanding
was that you believe voluntary sex is an implicit acceptance
of an obligation to carry any resulting pregnancy to term on
the part of the woman.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Correctus to you, Nadja)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some people think I got scared off..
Keywords: NOT!
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:29:42 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet

In article <1992Sep24.021544.3447@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned) writes:
>
>Hi, Potty Mouth, ready to play? 
>
>It looks like you've confused your hemorrhoids with someone else's. Not
>surprising for someone of your maturity level.

Well, if it isn't the Little Cobra, the Snake in the gr(ass) herself.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Brain dead fetuses?  Shirley, you must be kidding.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:23:06 GMT

Kevin, old buddy.  How's it going?  I was wondering when you might nibble
on one of my posts. ;-)

<91359@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Gordon:
>>Bruce Varney
>>>	Yes, but medical redress in the case of a car injury does not
>>>involve killing another human being. Don't you see that your analogy
>>>is ridiculously false??
>
>>Since some pro-lifers seem to like the "magic button that inserts one
>>person into another" scenario...  What if the car accident resulted in one
>>person ending up inside of another?  What if that one person was, for all
>>intents and purposes, brain-dead?  Should the injured party be allowed to
>>remove that brain-dead person from their body?
>
>I think that the analogy fails a crucial point, Gordon.  

Oh, the analogy is ridiculous.  I freely admit that.  I'm just using it
against a pro-life argument since I've twice been offered this same sort
of analogy myself by a pro-lifer.

>                                                         The fetus
>is not brain dead.  Medically, a brain dead human being exhibits
>no neural growth (perhaps spiritually, however).  

Medically speaking, Kevin (and I admit that neither of us are medical
experts), brain death has little to do with brain *growth* and all to do
with significant neural activity.  The fetus has insignificant neural
activity due to insufficient hardware.  The medical term for the
neuralogical state of the fetus may not be referred to as "brain dead",
but that is it's present state for all intents and purposes.

>                                                  The brain of the
>fetus from week 5 onward is constantly growing and transmitting signal.
>Be it true that the mental process isn't that complicated or even
>developed enough to suggest thought or what we would call emotion.

The brain of some people injured in accidents continues to put out basic
signals in some cases, enough to maybe respirate or generate a heart beat.
But in the these cases the patient is declared brain-dead.

>I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..

I like this sig.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.


-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:37:13 GMT

In article <1a9ruoINN4hq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.201847.16813@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>>In article <19voc1INN236@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Given the stats from the survey I cited, 98% of all abortions are for birth
>control reasons -- MOSTLY responsible sensible people who USED birth control
>and who's birth control wasn't effective.  
>                        ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>
Not true.  The methods they were using are KNOWN to fail!  There is ONE known method which is 100% effective!  Anything less than abstainence is gambling! 
I have a vasectomy, I'm told that even that is not 100% effective.  Therefore, I have a choice, take the risk, or abstain.  


>You would rather this teen-age girl who won't clean her room was having
>UNPROTECTED sex?  You would rather this teen-age girl who won't clean her
>room had a BABY?

I would rather these kids be armed with the TRUTH.  There is ONE, and only ONE method which is 100% effective.  Tell them to EXPECT to get pregnant if they use any other.  What's wrong with that?  Let them know the truth up front, instead of hiding it in lies of "safe sex."  

rlg
 


-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"                                           
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:29:35 GMT

In <1992Sep24.160401.18867@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> Not always.  In the drive for fresh, "live" brain tissue, a new method
>> of abortion has evolved.  Here is Bernard Nathanson's description:

>> "Pregnant women at 13-18 weeks are placed on an operating table, 
>> the cervix is dilated, the bag of waters broken, the fetal head is
>> guided into position just above the open cervix, the fetal skull is
>> then drilled open and a suction device is placed into the brain.
>> The brain substance is then suctioned out and placed immediately on
>> ice to preserve its viability."
>>         [ALL About Issues, March/April 1992]

>[--deletions--]

>> Fetal tissue harvesting involving elective abortion is a form of 
>> cannibalism.

>Did you know, Peter, that federal guidelines presently prohibit the
>use of fetal tissue from elective abortions?

Wrong, wrong, wrong!  Federal guidelines only apply to FEDERALLY
FUNDED research.  I talked about this quite a bit back in July.

>And where can I find a copy of "ALL about Issues"?

I'm not sure where YOU can find one.  I can find one through the
local Right-to-Life chapter.

Anyway, I'll be quoting from a more accessible source when I get
a little more time.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion