HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:26:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Nov21.040041.21953@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1992Nov21.022031.24146@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
## I provided the proof that Larry Margolis contacted my
## sysadmins.  I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to
## accept it.
#
#You claimed he sent"threatening email" to your system
#administrator.  I read your posting.  There was no threat.
#There was imply a statement that you had cross-posted widely
#and inappropriately and that you should receive a "talking
#to."  Nothing about removing net access.  Nothing about sending
#you to bed without your supper.  Nothing about calling your church
#elders and telling the Synod about your misbehavior.  In
#fact, you weren't even identified by name.
#
#Now you have toned down your accusation to state that Larry
#contacted your system administrator.  But the disputed statement
#was that he sent "threatening email."  To say that someone
#threatened you is a harsh statement.  Since the email was not
#threatening, you certainly do owe an apology for your
#misrepresentation.

As I understand it, the Reverend's church strictly forbids
the following actions:

1.  Telling the truth.
2.  Admitting that you're lying.
3.  Providing context for quotes.
4.  Apologizing.
5.  Thinking.

Susan


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48476 talk.religion.misc:21424 alt.atheism:21558
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:36:06 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov19.002242.6511@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Nov16.030911.25233@watson.ibm.com>, by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
>> From the Jewish perspective, the "OT" God judged
>> us for our actions, not our beliefs, and had
>> mercy on the righteous of all nations.
>> 
>> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
A "fuller" expression of Xianity, huh?
Or maybe just a more bloated one....

>It's really very simple folks:
>
>In the OT, God teaches us right from wrong.
>
>In the NT, He teaches us why what is right is right,
>                     and why what is wrong is wrong.
It would be really nice if he could make up his mind between the OT and
NT about what's right and wrong. I mean, are we supposed to stone
adulterers or aren't we? Are we allowed to get divorces or not?
Which one is it, God?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:06:45 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Nov20.174546.2811@pan <1992Nov21.222825.4882@dragon.acadiau.ca>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov21.222825.4882@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>
>>There have also been recent discussions of college men
>>doing things like getting women drunk and having sexual relations with
>>them while they were not sober enough to consent.
>
>If she knows that she's drinking enough to impare her judgement, beforehand,
>then she IS giving consent; knowing she won't give it later.

Yeah, and if you get drunk in a bar and wake up naked in an alley somewhere,
you gave your consent to being robbed, too, right?  Idjit.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:13:21 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
->>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>>>> I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
->>>>> Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall 
->>>>> continue to post to soc.singles. 

->>>> i'd like to see some proof of this allegation, unless
->>>> it's just another lie, of course.

->>> Here's the e-mail that Larry Margolis sent to my system
->>> administrators, forwarded from one of the NCSU sysadmins.  

->> [included post deleted]
->>
->> so are you going to apologize to margolis for lying
->> about him dodie?

->I provided the proof that Larry Margolis contacted my
->sysadmins.  

that's not what you accused him of. you accused him of
sending threatening email to your sysadmins. you're
correct in that you provided proof that he contacted
your sysadmins. your "proof" also contained nothing
resembling a threat; real or implied. you lied when you
accused him of having sent threatening email.

you're a fool DODie. each time you raise this issue,
someone will happily point out that you lied. if
necessary they'll even use the post you foolishly
provided.

->I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to
->accept it.

no one will accept it dodie.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:45:32 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

Always a pleasure to have one with the right Mr. O'Dwyer.

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
# ># Did you know that the human fetus can dream?
# ># Recent studies have found that
# ># the human fetus can actually dream!  
# ># 
# ># "Think" about it.
# >
# >Did you know that cattle dream?
# 
# Cattle aren't human, of course.  There is that.

That *was* a factor I was considering.  Cattle aren't people either.
There is some argument over whether fetuses should be considered
people.  I think you can see what I was driving at.

# Just what evidence of a foetus' sentience _would_ you accept?  

Fetuses after about twenty-four weeks of gestation would be the ones
I would expect to have the capacity for dreaming.  I wouldn't question
your assertion that most viable fetuses have at least a rudimentary
sentience.  Why?  Is my answer important?

I *do* note that, if I am informed correctly (I worry sometimes), most
infant circumcisions are performed without anesthesia, for a reason...
not necessarily a good reason in my opinion.  That reason being, they
are deemed by the priests in our medical profession as having not
enough development in the nervous system for anesthesia to be
necessary.  Make of *that* horrifying news what you will.  It would
seem to me that sentient infants would find circumcision a permanently
debilitating experience.  (Beats the twinkie defense, eh?)


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:51:05 GMT

In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxuK2B.32F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1e9108INNlmu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>What a woman has is the right to define how her physical
>body will or will not be used. 
>
>Which is precisely analogous and symetrical to a man's right to determine how
>his physical body will or will not be used.

Either his body is used 40 hours a week to earn money or 
it is used 168 hours a week to pace a 10x10 room.

Unlike a woman, a man has no choice how his body will or will not 
be used, once conception occurs.

The fact that a woman who *chooses* to give birth faces the
same responsibilities (in theory) is irrelevant: she makes the choice,
and more than a few "feminists" and "pro-choicers" refer to her
presumed ability to make a "responsible decision."

"Responsibility" usually refers to her judgement of her maturity,
her economic status, her desire to parent, as well as the health risks.


>However, the minute to transmute a woman's right to PHYSICAL soveriegnty
>into some kind of social obligation, you get a dandy, but useless, argument
>for male-choice.  Because you are basing your argument on air.

What about a man's physical right to decide not to participate
in parenting?

Biology requires no man to "stay" after conception.  It requires 
a woman to "stay" until birth or abortion.

To put it in your language, just because women don't have the 
PHYSICAL ability to leave after conception is no reason to restrict 
men's ability to leave BEFORE A CHILD EXISTS, now, is it?


>>It most certainly IS about male choice.  It is about reproductive freedom
>>for BOTH sexes. 
>
>Which is *not* what the abortion argument is based upon, now, is it, Karl?

You're right: the abortion argument is about reproductive freedom for *women*.


>Now, I fancy myself to be a semi reasonable person.

>Adrienne Regard

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 2
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:31:28 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Nov17.060654.15779@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>Whether that choice is responsible, of course, depends on the nature
>of the act, which in turn depends on the nature of the z/e/f.  That's
>what the whole dispute depends on.

 This statement is not correct.

>Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
>"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)

                                                                   MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: ray fischer: lover of free and open communication
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:43:04 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
->In talk.abortion, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes to DODie:
->>->How do we keep you from reponding to future articles?

->>why don't you volunteer to moderate DODie's moderated
->>talk abortion group. then, you can censor whomever you
->>want.

->It's easy. Just killfile him, or don't respond to his articles. Let
->him blather away, and be content with the fact that it really gets his
->goat that you failure to rise to his assinine points.

ray appears to want much more than to simply ignore
dodie's posts. he wants to know how to keep dodie from
posting! the control freaks are all the same, you know.

do you want to imprison the women who have banned
abortions, ron?

do you want to deny abortions to rape victims, ron?
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:37:07 GMT

<1992Nov23.040702.22855@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <lefty-161192125641@lefty.apple.com> 
>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
...
>> I've seen no definition of "good cause", nor any statement of who would be
>> making the determination of whether a particular "cause" is "good", or how
>> that determination might be made.
>> 
>> Until I see a better set of definitions here, I would support no
>> restrictions on a woman's right to decide to end her own pregnancy.
>
>OK, let's use an example.  Many late second-trimester abortions
>are performed because the child is mentally retarded or physically
>handicapped.  The purpose of the abortion is to kill the child,
>not to "terminate the pregnancy".  Would you oppose restrictions
>which would prevent a handicapped child from being purposely killed 
>during an abortion?

Why does someone kill a handicapped child just to perform an abortion?  I
don't understand this situation.  Perhaps you can explain it more
accurately and in detail.  I would think that somone killing handicapped
children would be reported to the police.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: con't:The Silent Holocaust
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:00:55 GMT

<U19807@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <kf3dole00iUz82Mv0C@andrew.cmu.edu>, Alison Rebecca Colman
><ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> says:
>
>>In addition, please refrain from comparing abortion to the Holocaust. It
>>is most highly offensive to some, including myself, and makes you look
>>extremely ignorant and calloused; some would even go so far as to call
>>you anti-Semitic.
>
>Hey,if you think that what Keira wrote is bad,you should see what some of the
>more Neanderthal RTLers in Chicago have done. They convinced the CTA (our,uh,
>alleged "rapid transit" service) to put up ads on buses and trains showing a
>swastika (as well as some other Nazi-era symbol which I can't recall) next to
>a pro-choice placard. 
The three items are a newspaper/handbill offering slaves for sale, the
swastika and a "keep abortion legal" placcard.  The legend says "Three
times in history the word human being has been redefined"

>The incredibly obvious (to the point of stupidity) con-
>clusion that they wanted everyone to draw,of course,is that pro-choicers are
>the moral equivalent of Nazis. Needless to say,the Jewish community wasn't
>real pleased about this. I haven't seen any of these ads on the buses and
>trains I've taken,so there's the chance that the CTA rescinded their decision.
No.  It is on the bus every morning when I get on at Union Station, Route
121.  They have not rescinded it as far as I know.  It *is* political
speech, so they may not have much choice.  Disgusting speech is still
protected.

 -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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:21:05 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>I note that the Christian religions seem to offer salvation as a remedy for
>original sin, and the penalty for original sin is not particularly severe.
>The Church of Reason, on the other hand, offers a new kind of original sin -
>a z/e/f is guilty of the crime of non-sentience, a crime for which it is
>guilty until proven innocent.  And the techno-nihilists are not nearly so
>forgiving...

Emotionalist garbage (sorry Frank, but it is).  To suppose that
non-sentience is in any way a "crime" is absurd.  It supposes that our
very survival makes us criminals, since plants are clearly
non-sentient, and our survival pretty much requires the death of quite
a few plants.  A similar situation exists with animals, although the
non-sentience is rather less clear in many cases.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:10:16 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
# regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
# >jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
# 
# >,People should be responsible for their sexual activity, as they are
# >,for their other activity.  That responsibility includes the
# >,responsibility to foster and support rather than destroy the life that
# >,results from sexual activity.  
# 
# >Why?
# 
# The life is a forseeable (even if not probable) consequence of the
# activity, life is valuable, and destroying life is bad.

Thank you for your opinion.

Now what does this have to do with abortion rights?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:39:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1ebb5tINN3cm@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

#I think to call a mature baby in the birth canal a foetus is stretching the
#term.  This is a baby being born.  


It's a fetus before birth, and a baby after birth.  I don't think
it matters all that much which term is used for that entity 
during birth.  (I don't consider it that big a deal, myself.
I note that youIf you wish to use "baby" and "birth canal" and
I choose to use "fetus" and "vagina," I think that we can still
communicate.

#It is certainly offensive to say that the
#baby is more important than the woman - but is it any less offensive to say
#the woman is more important than the baby?  I, for one, am prepared to say
#that they are equally important.  

I don't think that any of the three opinions are inherently
more offensive - I think that the woman involve's opinion
is probably the only relevant one, anyway.

#I would wish to see both being treated as
#patients - and this is the normal medical attitude during birth.

You are in Germany, aren't you?  I read a book recently (_Eunuchs
for the Kingdom of Heaven_, I can't recall the author's name) 
which mentioned that there are some hospitals in Germany which
still place a higher priority on saving the baby's life.  I'll
look up the reference again.

My example, of course, involved a problem which would easily be
solved in any hospital by performing a C-section and saving
both lives - that's why I specified a non-professional in an
isolated area.  Thanks to modern medicine, that particular
problem should be so rare as to be newsworthy.

#Having said that, I can't offhand think of any related restrictions which
#would be warranted and workable, and which wouldn't hinder the medical
#profession, thereby putting women at risk.

I agree.  

I sometimes wonder if supporters of restrictions on late term
abortions would also like to enact into law restrictions to
govern the conduct of physicians in every possible instance.
They seem to ignore the fact that an unscrupulous doctor could
willfully kill people in other procedures that are not currently
specifically mentioned in any statute.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: DODie and censorship
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:12:40 GMT

In article <By3BwE.AzH.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.074745.8177@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>#keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>##dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>##-#It wasn't "my" moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, Keeganoid.
>##-#I only proposed a moderated newsgroup 
>##
>##how many readers, other than ms. bartley of course,
>##supported your proposal to censor talk.abortion, DODie?
>#
>#I don't recall anyone (not even DOD) proposing that t.a. be censored.
>#Are you lying again?
>
>Moderated newsgroups are, by definition, censored.

Has anyone suggested changing t.a into a moderated group? If not, then your
comment is irrelevant.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Tit for tat
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.150930.374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
>because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?
>
	Why do those who pursue control of other people's lives feel that just
because they have neurotic sexual attitudes everybody else does?
[Total information content in this entire exchange: 0 bytes]

>Ted
>
The_Doge

>-- 
>"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
>      - some ex-Soviet leader            
	That was the late Nikita Khruschev.  Are all rightists that
ignorant of history or is it just Limbaugh's groupies?
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:34:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <ymt1y#_@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> 
>>If you are pleading on the half of incest or rape victims, that is
>>one matter.  However, the MAJORITY do not fall into this and they 
>>DO NOT fall into this supposed UNWILLING catagory.  They may and 
>>probably do fall into the UNPLANNED or rather LACK OF PLANNING 
>>catagory or even into the UNEDUCATED one.  Families needs to teach their 
>>children (males and females) how to control their body - don't just let 
>>them run wild and then excuse their actions.  The error of thinking
>>that pregancy is unwilling is that the action (the sex act) is so 
>>trivialized and young girls think they need to give themselves to
>>some supposed man to gain acceptance.  Everyone needs to learn self-control
>>and self-acceptance.  One doesn't really gain either by having sex.
> 
> For someone who professes to be a Christian, you sound terribly
> full of hate.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why this is so.

This reads like an overused keyboard macro.  Disable it for a
few moments, turn on the cerebral cortex, and point to the
specific hate-containing portions of this rather ponderous
and somewhat preachy post.  I don't even know if I agree with
the original poster, but I know that I am *sick* of reading
"if you profess to be a Christian..." followed by idiotic
accusations, seldom true and typically irrelevant.

>                    -rocker

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu