HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:01:04 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
->(Kevin Darcy) writes:
->>Second, for hopefully the last time: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
->>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!!! So please stop stating or implying that this is
->>my view. You are dead wrong.

->Is this the same Kevin Darcy who once wrote something about "...in this
->circumstance, I feel it would be justifiable to force the woman to
->continue the pregnancy" (Not an exact quote.  Anybody this one archived?)

sure. i have it archived. i just emailed it to you.
when you receive it you can post and show that he lied,
again.
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:49:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct16.002853.4171@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.213018.10535@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.001826.5995@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>[Ok, I've deleted the "Ann & Ed" thing, since Simon actually said something
>about it...]
>
>>>
>>>No, Simon.  I'm trying to find out what you think about this single case.
>>>
>>>Now would you kindly answer the question so I can ask you some more questions?
>>>
>>I thought I already answered this-
>
>No, you didn't.  And you really didn't answer it below.
>
>>
>>In this case, everything possible should be done to ensure both the safety of
>>the mother and the unborn child, however, if all other measures are exausted,
>>abortion might be necessary, but only as an absolute last resort.  Only in
>>this case though.  I am still pro-life.    Now, that's an immature concept
>>I've been told.
>
>Being pro-life is hardly an immature concept.  But anyways...
>
>You haven't answered my question.
>
>It's a simple yes/no question.  Let me go over the facts again:
>
>If Ann gets pregnant and tries to carry to term, she'll become a cripple.
>
>She gets pregnant.
>
>
>Now, between the '*' are my two questions.  The first one requires a yes/no
>answer on your part.  The second one requires a paragraph or so.
>
>****************************************************************************
>
>QUESTION #1)  Would you allow Ann to have an abortion?

See below, although I've already anwered the question.>
>QUESTION #2)  Why should she have to ask you?
Why wouldf she need to ask me?? I'm not the govt.>
>***************************************************************************
>
>Now, please don't go off into "miracle cures" and such as that.  Please
>don't start in on "she could just go into the hospital for 6 or 7 months";
>they can't afford the hospital stay, and who is going to watch their other
Gee, you've added a condition here.

>two children?
>
>Just answer the questions, Simon.
>--
I thought I had answered the question.
I said that all measures must be taken to ensure both the safety of the
mother and the unborn child.  Now, if all other measures are exhausted,   then
mabye an abortion would have to be done.  As an absolute last resort.

                                                                      out
explaining my answer.  But I guess to you all I won't answer correctly unless
I come out pro-choice and I refuse to do that.  But I did answer your question,
again.

Simon
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.043302.16723@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>        This would seem to be about par for someone who deplores
>feminism as having made opportunities for unattractive women. He even
>calls feminists "feminazis," and snickers about why they are so
>pro-abortion when they are all lesbians.

This is not true.  A feminazi is defined as a RADICAL feminist whose purpose
is to see that as many abortions as possible take place.  By no means does
he call all feminists feminazis, or lesbians.  In fact, he agrees with the
more mainstream feminist ideas, such as equal rights, equal opportunity, and
equal pay for equal work (which he has called common sense).

Is Rush a feminist?  You be the judge.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:38:37 GMT

(Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
->>[darcyspeak deleted]
->>->-Ken (no spaces or capitalization, no relation)
->>
->>this is a good .sig for you to use if all of your posts
->>are like this one.

->But back to the point of my prior post.  

there was no point. you replied to a thread without
knowing what was being discussed. you were talking
about items not previously included in the thread you
were posting to.

you'd better keep using your "not k e n" sig, i think.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: A hypothetical case: Assault or murder. (Was: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:02:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.024354.6357@ugle.unit.no> dennis@Lise.Unit.NO (Dennis G Landsem) writes:
>
>    A women is, lets say, 2 months pregnant. She has every intention of carrying
>    the child to term. One evening as she is walking in the park, she is 
>    assaulted by a robber. As a direct result of this (a kick in the stomach) she
>    has a spontaneous abortion. 
>
> What I'd like you to answer is this; would you consider this an assault or would
>you consider it to be murder ?
>
> As I understand Gordon and other pro-choicers they would consider this an
>assault, as the fetus at this stage is merely a part of the mothers body. So this
>would be on par with his f.x. biting of part of her ear or cutting of one of
>her fingers.
>
> Pro-lifers on the other hand, I think would be most likely to consider it murder
>(I must admit to subscribing to this opinion myself).
>
> If anyone knows what the law says about this, or even better, knows of actual
>cases where this has been tried, please post.
>
>Regards,

Well, you're probably not going tolike my answer but here goes.  First, you
stated that the woman WANTED to have the baby.  That intention right there
IMO makes the actions of the robber BOTH assault on the woman, and some
form of homicide on the fetus.  I don't think I could call it murder, as
murder is defined in law an an "unlawful killing of a human being" and
it certainly is lawful to kill a fetus.  The form of homicide would depend
on the robber's intentions--did he intend to harm and possibly kill the
fetus by kicking the woman in the stomach?  If he did, then I think
that homicide should be the charge, if he didn't, then possibly involuntary
homicide should be the charge.

Now, if you had first stated that she was on her way into an abortion
clinic to have an abortion, then the robber should only be charged with
assault on the woman, as the woman was about to exercise her rights
with respect to her body.

In either case, I believe the woman should have a civil case against the
robber for pain and suffering, medical costs, etc.  I'm sure the pain and
suffering and medical costs incurred as a result of the kick would be more
than that caused by an elective abortion.

However, what I think is not the law.  The law does not grant the fetus
the same rights as born persons, and therefore, the robber could not
be charged with any charges with respect to the fetus.  BUT, if the fetus
survived and was born via c-section, and damage resulted from that pre-mature
birth caused by the robber, THEN he could be charged with assault or whatever
appropriate charge against the INFANT--the infant, who is protected legally,
has now suffered as a result of the robber's deliverate actions.

Jennifer
>
>DGL
>
> 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:22:06 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->>for a person who so casually tosses inferences about,
->>you seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with the
->>concept of responsibility. 

->Only when others insist that I am responsible for their
->tragedies.

you sound a bit paranoid here, bill. no one suggested
that you were personally responsible, just that you
share in the responsibility. it must be difficult for
you, knowing that your legislative agenda could kill
many women.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:26:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.132358.26156@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>Eric Rescorla (rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu) writes:
>| I want Jim (and now you) to retract your unsubstantiated
>| public allegations.
>
>Gee, Rescorla, don't *I* get the option of substantiating them
>instead? Or do you just like C.J. better?
Is it that you just can't read, Suzanne?

I wrote "I want Jim (and not you)...."
How does that say that you don't get the option?
Your second sentence simply doesn't follow.

>| Blatant assertion.  Are you going to support this?
>
>Do I have to?  You've done such a good job of it already.
I see you've started using Jim's tactic of claiming that *I*
have showed something that you are unable to.

No matter. It's still blatant unsubstantiated assertion on your part,
and belies the fact that you seem unable to actually prove anything.
Merely asserting it over and over does not make it so.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Defying Physics (Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:28:46 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct9.191443.11469@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In response to the sperm/egg debate again:
>
> Can a human individual be at two places at once (when alive)?  Can
> Joe Blow be in La Jolla, and in Anchorage at the same time?  Of course,
> not.  Humans can only be in one place at one time.
>
> Now someone asserts: Eggs/Sperm = human life (members of homo sapiens)
>
> Let us assume that the assertion is true.  If it is true, then we,
> at that point in time are both eggs and sperm (separated).

Nope - your conclusion is in error.  We don't exist yet.  The egg and
sperm are separate individuals, so naturally they can be in different
places.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Keegan defines the term "pro-choice" for everyone concerned
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:30:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.185818.1397@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>In article <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>
>keegan@daisymae.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>
>>boyiny@lie.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
>>-> >[James Keegan to me]>[...]
>>
>>[... deletions by dsholtsi ...]
>>
>>-> I think I must have. I still say that I am pro-choice, does
>>-> that sound wrong to you? It seems that I sound pro-choice to
>>-> most people...
>>
>>i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
>>doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
>>that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>>legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>>third trimester.

Er, Doug, didn't we already thrash all this to death over 4 months ago?

Do you have something NEW to contribute to the discussion?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:46:17 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>	I did not play with any words. Murder is "the killing of one
>human being by another". No playing needed. Mother is a human being, 

This is a blatant and obvious lie.

As has been pointed out enough times for even the stupidest person,
murder is the _unlawful_ killing of one person by another.  Putting it
in quotes does not make it less of a lie or more correct.

>fetus is a human being, abortion is murder. Just because you don't 
>agree with the definition of murder I choose, doesn't mean that I
>must agree with the one you use. 

Just because you make up lies doesn't make them true.

>	Neither am I trivializing the notion of murder. Murder is
>a horid and despicable act. It should not be allowed - this is
>why I get so upset that the slaughter of innocent, defenseless children
>has been legalized here.

Please spare us the self-serving sanctimonious bullshit.  I don't
believe for an instant that care even the slightest bit for people or
children, innocent, defenseless, or otherwise.  Your obvious use of a
trite emotional ploy is disgusting in its trivialization of the issues
and revealing for the lack of any substance you provide to back it up.

Go away until you've learned to act your age.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:21:25 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Oct14.165855.8916@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.719007205@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> The above takes the prize for "most irrational comment by Susan Garvin",

>Yes, it probably does.  And since it made some sense, it doesn't
>even come close in lack of rationale to what I have seen from
>you and other pro-lie loonies.

I've looked at your one-on-one with Bill Overpeck from time to time,
and I wonder why he bothers spending so much time talking to you.
If *ipse dixits* like this are your main stock in trade, I'm glad
I've wasted little time on you so far.  

>> although it has some serious competitors.

>Yes, that is true.  In fact, it is way behind much of what you
>write in terms of irrationality.

When I wrote my comment, Susan Garvin's irrationality was there
for all to see.  Do you seriously think what little you have shown
of my words supports your assertions about me?

>> Susan apparently wants to
>> get on Don Beaver's killfile, not just mine.  But, as I told her in a
>> private message, I have some evidence that she is capable of better
>> things, so I am not about to put her in mine.

>And aren't you just the most magnanimous little set-theory
>expert with the hot SAT scores?  What a condescending twerp
>you are, Peter.

Look who's talking about condescension.

>There's been some discussion of misogyny lately.  I don't think
>Peter is a misogynist.  I think he's a condescending little
>twerp towards everyone.

I am only condescending towards people who deserve it.  When
dealing with rational people, like Elizabeth Bartley, I am
quite respectful.

>> I hope Will is listening.  He told me he still has some residual
>> respect for Susan.  A month or so he said he had a great deal of
>> respect for her.  At this rate...

>And I am sure Susan is laying awake at night trying to think of
>ways to regain the respect of the guy who said he'd have killed
>his girlfriend if she hadn't shown him the proper respect.

Thanks for letting me know where you stand on this issue.

>Dean Kaflowitz

How much did Bill Overpeck have to kowtow to you to gain your
respect, Dean?

Peter Nyikos
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 9 Oct 1992 10:35:58 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com
Summary: Want a clue?
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Oct7.222752.5269@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
#
#You people are so twisted!  You think that never having a life is better 
#than being abused in your life!  In most cases of abuse, the person's 
#life is not totally ruined.  Are you saying that being beaten by your 
#father is so bad that you would rather not have been born?  And anyway, 
#who the hell are you to decide if a person wants to live or not?
#
#Ted
#

What life experiences are you basing this argument on?

I'll be happy to clue you in on what an abused person really
thinks. Just send me email.

                mike@east.sun.com

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 13 Oct 1992 12:27:13 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Bw2pHo.Hp5@cs.psu.edu. beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
.In article <1beugiINNi6u@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com. regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
..In article <1992Oct12.235505.18773@zooid.guild.org. Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org. writes:
.
.db. Stipulate: fetus (B) is a person with rights to be weighed against
.db. those of other persons.
.db. Stipulate: voluntary sex implies voluntary reduction of privacy rights.
.drieux.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
.To clear this up, this part is absolutely true.  The point of making
.a stipulation was to see where the argument (of consistency in a "pro-life"
.position) led, and to avoid the barrage of ad hominem attacks and 
.the battles among personal beliefs.
.ws.When Don made that quote, he was primarily
.ws.referring to the fact that for *men*, this stipulation is *already true*, while
.ws.it is not true for women.  
.ar.Scuse, please, but can you please tell me more about this interpretation?
.ar.In what way has Don made reference to a fact that men suffer this stipulation
.ar.and women do not?
.To clear this up, while I +do+ believe that men suffer the stipulation
.while women do not, I wasn't referring to it at the time.

Scuse, please, but I still don't understand.  Maybe I wasn't clear in my
sentence.

WHAT is being stipulated?  What is this 'reduction of privacy rights' that
men are suffering that women are not suffering?

>I think Will picked up on that, knowing that I do believe that
>men are assumed both morally and legally to have voluntarily reduced
>their rights if they have sex, while women are not -- legally, at least.

??

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Language Devaluation Question...
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 05:33:24 GMT

[I don't have the vaguest clue where "drieux" is posting from, nor can I
figure out how he chooses his cross-posting groups.  I've deleted those
that seem especially gratuitous.]


In article <1992Oct10.210023.6502@wetware.com>
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>]
>] 	I believe that the way "drieux" treats language devalues it, because no
>] meaning is conveyed.
>]
>] Ray Swartz
>
>An interesting point you raise here....
>
>and the slogan: "Abortion is Murder"
>exports meaning?

[I normally don't follow-up to "drieux, but...]

     Meaning, yes.  Validity, no.

>Defending the constitutional right to bear arms,
>and arguing against a womans right to an abortion
>exports meaning?

     Why have you linked these together?  Do you, for some reason,
believe that the necessitate each other?

[Other irrelevancies to talk.politics.guns deleted.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Guerrero shoots his foot!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:59:54 GMT

Golly!  Guerrero here refutes his opinion that personhood begins at
conception!  In establishing that sperm/eggs are not people/humans/
human life (terms he uses interchangably), he also manages to show
that a zygote also cannot be a person since it can split and become
two people.  Hence, a zygote is not human life!

Clever boy!

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In response to the sperm/egg debate again:
>
>Can a human individual be at two places at once (when alive)?  Can
>Joe Blow be in La Jolla, and in Anchorage at the same time?  Of course,
>not.  Humans can only be in one place at one time.
>
>Now someone asserts: Eggs/Sperm = human life (members of homo sapiens)
>
>Let us assume that the assertion is true.  If it is true, then we,
>at that point in time are both eggs and sperm (separated).  But how
>can this be?  Can we really be at two places at once?  Can our human lives
>begin before we are one?  Did the sperm that was you agree to meet up
>with the egg that is also you?  You cannot be two places at once, just like
>the sperm (which is you) and the egg (which is you).
>
>We have a contradiction.  We once assumed eggs/serpm = human life
>(members of homo sapiens) but since we have a contradiction, it is safe
>to say that the alternate assertion, that eggs/sperm != human life
>(member of homo sapiens) is true.
>
>---------
>
>Another way of looking at things:
>
>Is it possible to have two humans in you? (I mean exactly the same human
>being one with another human in exactly the same space.  Thus, a pregnant
>woman and her unborn child, since they are not occupying the exact same
>space, are not one human entity).  I don't think so.
>
>So let us assume that the assertion that eggs/sperm = human life (members
>of homo sapiens) with the added assumption that the eggs and the sperm
>are two different human lives.  Since this is true, then at conception,
>two different human lives come together.  But the problem is, you are
>exactly one human entity.  So how can two separate human lives produce
>exactly one human entity?  Didn't we say that it is not possible to 
>be exactly two humans at one exact time?  From two human lives, there
>results only one human life.  This cannot be.  How can Joe Blow merge
>with Susan Parker (random name) to produce Joe Parker only?
>
>Thus, since a human cannot exist as exactly two humans, we have a 
>contradiction.  We can safely say that the assertion that eggs/sperm
>are human life (members of homo sapiens) is false.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche