HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:54:03 GMT


In a previous article, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) says:

>
>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>
>>In article <1992Apr15.004239.5246@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>does the term "auto-mailer-from-hell" mean anything to you?
>>>and yeah, I'm the site administrator. :)
>>I seriously hope this isn't a threat, dear boy.
>>Allow me to donate you a clue:
>>If you were to set up an automailer to mail to anyone's system on this
>>newsgroup--with the possible exception of DJR or SF, I can think
>>of several things that most of the people out here could do--that
>>would be little burden on their local systems--and would probably
>>do the equivalent of ensuring that you can't productively access
>>the internet ever again, site administrator or not.
>
>notice the :)
>
>and BTW, I can simply change the address which I would use.
>
ooops......

I meant to add that I was joking. If I was TRULY mad, I could think
of better methods.......but there's nothing really worth getting
mad about. :)

later

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Summary: I think it's on the other channel.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:21:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.185052.3419@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.012050.25180@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu writes:
>> > Ron Bense
>> 
>> >    Since this *desireable* :) ex-girlfriend has this reaction to DJR
>> >(whoever the hell he is, I missed all his threads, evidently) I vote
>> >him out, totally hopeless case or not...I'm not in the charity business:)
>> 
>> Mmmmm ... a club of men without girlfriends who *want* girlfriends?
>> Now this I can't resist ...
>> 
>> So, Dean, are you in on this?
>
>I was just trying to help the guys who were so hot on
>acquiring girlfriends.  I have all the ex-girlfriends I can
>satisfy already, and as for current girlfriends, there's only
>one woman I can think of whom I would nominate for the position,
>and she's in Norcross trying to get some guy (name withheld
>for reasons of discretion) to make up his mind what it is he
>wants.  Me, I'm ready to start lookin ginto jobs in Norcross
>and all, but I need more commitment that the ssimple fact of
>liking the hell out of each other to make me move my entire
>life.

Well, there *is* one other possibility, or would be if not for the fact that
she's already married to me.  Just as well, I guess, since we didn't know
what you thought of slightly older women.  (Norcross?  Gad.  Does this mean
I have to tell my family up the road in Smyrna to be on the watch for a
unique kind of guy from Jersey?  :_)

>Anyway, as far as finding a girlfriend is concerned, I can
>take care of that without a support group.
>
>When I'm ready for that sort of thing again.
>Dean Kaflowitz

It'll happen, but there's no telling when or where...the last thing I had on
my mind five years ago was being married (with a teenage daughter, yet!),
and look what happened.  So much for my psychic abilities...:-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
                       THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH!
                 (if that's all right with the rest of you...)
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: s o good, a repeat (was Re: An idea)
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:10:08 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
In-reply-to: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Originator: keegan@ukulele

dking@raul (Dan King) writes:
-> MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
-> >Just thought I would present an idea which was once posed to
-> >me.  Why don't people determine the life in a fetus as they
-> >do for people declared dead--like brainwave activity? Doctors
-> >use this to decide whether or not people are alive or dead;
-> >why not extend it in this way? I have heard that brainwave
-> >activity does not begin in a fetus for some time, but someone
-> >around here should know for sure.
-> 
-> I would oppose the idea.  I would oppose it because it ignores
-> the well known fact (Though it doesn't appear known from
-> reading this group) that there is a woman involved.  I do not
-> care if the fetus is performing advanced calculus.  If the
-> fetus is inside a woman and the woman does not want it there,
-> then it must leave.  If by leaving it will die, that is
-> unfortunate, but it does not warrant our intervention.

hurrah dan! for an old man, you did good.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:35:42 GMT


Once again I point out that someone on this echo is wrong.  The
broadcasts and personal survivors (remember the young woman who
was shot and burned and left in a pit, who stumbled back from 
Treblinka?) were NOT ignored.  They were considered so incredible
that the human reaction was twofold:

Some became part of the resistance
The rest tried to keep low and not be taken

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:29:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?

Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die? 

I am not Chaney. I hope you can prove what you say, Patrick L Humphrey,
otherwise I demand a retraction from you. Either you're listening to a
liar, or you are a liar. I don't know which, and frankly, I don't care,
but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
and you owe me an immediate retraction.  

And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
sysadmin, I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next
person that gets brought down.

Comprende?  

>
>-- 
>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
>  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
>
>                    I've fallen -- and I can't reach my beer!

- Dennis Hall
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:08:27 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr13.185646.15354@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

:Ron, you're so wRONg. You see, I am not a babe, I do not babble, and I
:do know what I speak of. Clearly you are the idiot if you refute
:my statistics. 100% for abstinence friend. I don't have to look THAT up
:in the World Almanac either. I didnt' impose the practice on her...
: I just told her what works. Use it or leave it, but know that while I 
:won't fight you on your sexual habits, I WILL defend the fetus. If you can't
:have responsible sex, then you had better be responsible with the end
:result...

	Masturbation also has a 100% effectiveness for preventing the
spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancy; I wonder why Steve Franklin
has steadfastly avoided mention of that.
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:56:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr12.225650.21492
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr9.210134.3581@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>No offense to Nora, Monica, Dean, and many others of the Jewish
>faith/race, but at least you have a country to fight for.  At least the
>rest of the world came to your rescue when you were being slaughtered by
>the millions.  Ah well, I've gone on too long about this.  Sorry for the
>diatribe.

No problem about going on too long, and yes, it helps that I have a 
country to fight for. But the rest of the world certainly did *not*
come to our aid. They came to France's aid, and Britain's aid, and
Russia's aid; and when they had destroyed the threat to the nations
of Europe we climbed back up out of hiding. But they did not do any
of it for the safety of the Jews: first of all, they didn't believe
that we were in real danger (no matter how many times we told them
or how much evidence we provided) and second of all, nobody was going
to get into another world war just because of a bunch of Jews. It
was hard enough for the United States government to convince people
there was a reason to go to war over Britain, let alone a weird
group of people without a country and whom most Americans didn't
like anyway. My family, most of whom was in America at the time,
heard over and over again, "I don't much like Hitler, but at least
he's getting rid of the Jews for us." It's funny; I've heard the 
same thing myself, about Hussein and about Nasser and about Assad...
it never really changes. Every time we have had to fight, no matter
who was theoretically our ally, we've stood alone. We probably always
will. Why do you think many American Jews *do* tend to be so protective
of Israel?

>Gordon

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 18:14:16 GMT


The Libertarian Party, to the best of my knowledge, has not taken
a position on the status of the fetus.  All that they have done is
to show why a woman's right to choose can be justified even IF the
fetus is to be regarded as a person.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:56:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr10.112224.29959@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <1992Apr10.061941.278582@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##Oh, great.
##
##Can someone tell me just which anti-choice group perpetuates the
##myth that Norma McCorvey was represented as a rape victim in
##the Supreme Court case?  I keep hearing this "Jane Roe lied"
##line used as if she never told the truth.  She did.  She did
##so very early on.   
#Hmmm...That's not what Tribe, who is usually pretty pro-choice
#says. He seems to think that the case went to trial with the
#premise that she was raped, but that she said she wasn't
#subsequently(pn the order of years)

I'm willing to bet that Eric has read Tribe since I have, or
that his memory is better.  I'll take his word for the
fact that the claim wasn't retracted until after the case
had been heard.  I remembered reading that she had told her 
lawyers the truth, but I'm probably wrong.[1]

Was the alleged rape used in any of the arguments, Eric?
(I'm supposing that you remember all of the facts, if not,
I'll go look it up over the weekend.)  I could care less
what she told people as long as the decision wasn't
based on the rape.  I'm very sure it wasn't.

[1]For the terminally dense, I'm admitting that I was wrong
and Eric was right.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice, Pro-Life, Hmmm... (Take Two!)
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:24:36 CDT

In article <1992Apr8.010527.1233@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and darn proud of it.

Well, she sure was a good sport about that chorus line formed by all
your ex-girlfriends at the wedding reception. I did feel bad about
what happened to her train when she decided to join in, though.

On behalf of all your ex-girlfiends, I'd like to request a guest 
appearance in this forum from Gordon's sweet wife. She doesn't
even have to dance!

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:56:07 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.195424.16434@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.161004.18631@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <92101.130850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>Anti:
>Housewife
>High-school education
>Often Catholic
>Religiously observant
   Heh... What a poor generalization. Well in any case, most of the women
I konw who are pro-life (including those my family) include an engineer,
lawyer, Chartered accountant, and teacher. Hmmmm... 

>Pro:
>Career woman
>College or university education
>Often "personal" religion or none
>Often nonobservant
   A personal religion. Does that mean the worship of the self? 
How lovely a religion. can I worship you too? no, I think not

>Anti:

>Abortion makes possible a drastic form of optional motherhood, and
>therefore threatens identity as a mother. It suggests that babies are
>somehow expendable.
   No... Abortion creates a drastic change in the concept of life. Women
and men see this as a threat against the sanctity of life. It suggests
that babies are expendable...

>Pro:

>Abortion makes possible control over how many children one has, and
>helps keep motherhood from being involuntary. It is not the most
>pleasant thing in the world, but it is a good backup to birth control.
Abortion reinforces the concern for the self. It is not the most
pleasant thing in the world, but if you tell yourself it is a FETUS,
and not an UNBORN CHILD, then it makes things easier. ALso, if you
dont' see any pictures of it in it's 3rd trimester, it is also
easy...

>	Just about all those on the Internet are people with careers,
>so we do not get many housewives. Not surprisingly, there is only one
>persistent anti-abortion woman here: Suzanne Forgach. In contrast to
   I don't agree with this. i know lots of people here at school who
have computer accounts and don't use them. The ones that _do_ use them
more on average are those who dont' seem to hae anything better to do.
I do not think the internet audience is a general population. I don't think
it has to do with it's education or it's wisdom. I think it has to do
with a specific mentality we are dealing with. The internet audience
is exceptionally liberal, and mostly thinking of themselves.
    steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:42:26 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.173029.24847@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) asserts:

>Jesus H Christ, dude.  The primary purpose of sex is NOT to procreate!
>If god wanted it that way, he wouldn't have made it so we could, or even,
>WANT sex at any other time except when conception was possible.
   Go read you grade 10 biology book. [Hu]man[ity] has lost his gestation
cycle because he has mastered his environment. It is nothing to do 
with God's will. He has overcome his environment, so there is nothing to
curb and direct his gestation cycle. God made sex fun so that we would hav
damn good incentive to do it. However, now that there are no periodic variables
to direct our cycle of sex, Trojan Condoms makes millions while our Population
growth is on the decline BIG time.

>Get off your religion and start THINKING.
  whatever...

>"Mother Nature" didn't allow for open-heart surgery, vitamin tablets, 
>aspirin, fingernail clippers, or even clothing, but that doesn't mean
>that we can't utilize them, does it?
   One saves lives, one doesn't. I don't think this isa fair analogy


>I also think you're equating lack of abstinence with promiscuity.  While in
>some cases, that is true, it is not always, nor is it the norm.  Most people
>practice serial monogamy (as I've written to you in email, and you couldn't
>be "bothered" to reply).  Serial monogamy is not the same as promiscuity, nor
>is it bad.
  I thought I replied. Sorry - I remember your mail well. I dont' know how
I couldn't have replied.

>He he. As a psychologist, I can tell you that statement is a red flag to your
>insecurities.  A person who is unwilling to admit frailties is most boring
>and most frail.
   Well. I am not a) boring, and I am not b) frail. So what does Freud 
tell you now? I have sexual thoughts for my uncles and father or something?
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:18:19 EST

In article <4oVaJB2w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>,  (Craig Smith) writes: 
> Again, sperm and egg alone are haploid, i.e. have only half the required
> chromosomes, and cannot be considered human. A fertilized egg, however,
> has a complete set, and *can* be considered to be such.

So a complete set of chromosomes is your answer. I guess you've answered
our Downs questions. Very convenient to pick and choose science to
rationalize a pro-life stance. How about these science facts: Sperm and
eggs are composed of human cells, zygotes and embryos are composed of
human cells, you and I are composed of human cells; Do you think the
important difference is the amount of chromosomes or the ability to
think? Would you refuse to disconnect life support systems when the
ability to think is gone?
One last question, if a zygote is an individual human being, should
a woman be allowed to prevent it from implanting into her uterus, thus
allowing it to seek implantation elsewhere? Thanks -J.J.
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:57:41 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>    I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think the abortion
>>argument is one of competing rights - where the right of a woman to
>>decide what happens with her body is balanced against the right of the
>>fetus to live to birth.
>
>Well, (a) no one here has successfully established that a fetus HAS
>a 'right' to 'live to birth', therefore (b) you can hardly argue competing
>rights until you have accomplished (a).
>
>There is *no* provision under our constitution that provides a fetus with
>a 'right' to 'live to birth'.
>
>Even in the third trimester it is the STATE that has rights (wrt a
>compelling interest in the fetus), not the fetus itself.

    Perhaps they have note established that the fetus has rights in a legal
sense - but there are plenty of people who argue that the fetus has rights
in a moral sense and should in a legal sense.

    Note that I do not agree with them - I'm just pointing out that the
question of which is more important (mother or fetus) is what I see as the
basis of the entire argument. I'm not (in this thread) making any judgements
on who is correct, just pointing out what I see the argument revolving
around.

                                                   kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Nazi Comparisons (was Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM!
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:50:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.080138.5399@midway.uchicago.edu> 
rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> Just to make sure everyone understands *my* position on this, the reason
> I have flamed everyone BUT Kellmeyer on this one is that my purpose is to
> get the references stopped; I care not how. They get stopped quicker if you
> ignore Kellmeyer's 198+ lines of total bullshit than if you flame him; he's
> either way too stupid to get the hint or he's a genuine Nazi who's trying to
> have the effect of causing immediate heartache and future destruction to the
> people the real Nazis were trying to kill.

I agree that Mr. Kellmeyer should be condemned for comparing pro-choicers
to Nazis, but I feel that the references he posted were appropriate  
for this forum. Without the inflammatory Nazi to pro-choice comparisons,
his post appeared to contain factual and informative historical
information. If he had not made his Nazi comparisons, then how could
anyone object to the posting of (apparently) accurate historical
information? Is it now inappropriate to post facts to USENET?  
His motive for posting the material should be condemned, but I can't 
condemn the facts (are they the facts? can anyone refute them?). 

I think it's possible to read the material without automatically
creating a connection between the atrocities that the Nazis committed
and the facts about the Nazi's abortion laws. I cannot object to
the posting simply because some people are unable to read it without 
making that connection in their minds. We should not prevent people
from thinking for themselves, even if their thoughts stem strictly
from their emotions. 

I think people should be allowed to read the material. They should
be allowed to decide for themselves whether it should influence their 
opinion or not. 

Doug Holtsinger
Undecided
From: conradv@huey.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A SNOOPER IN THE NET
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:33:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: hubcap.1992Apr8.203315.21942
Reply-To: conradv@huey.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Organization: Clemson University Engineering Department
Originator: conradv@huey.eng.clemson.edu





roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: 
->         Careful investigation has shown that the Dennis Hall 
-> posts are indeed a fraud. 
 
 
If you spend more time arguing sense in t.a instead of snooping around  
 things that dont concern you and taking part in mud slinging feativals , 
perhaps we can make something out of you afterall-though I strongly doubt it 
                        Conrad C Vincent 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion