HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:30:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>Again, a result. The action is not against the law. This would be the
>>basis of a suit, as it could, in all honesty, be argued that all precautions
>>were taken to not injure anyone.

>I don't believe this is the case.  If I do something, and take all possible
>precautions to prevent injury, yet I know there is a good chance of
>injuring someone, I'm guilty of reckless endangerment...if they are hurt,
>then it's a different story all togehter.

Yes, but the same could be said of driving a car. There is reasonable
expectations that an object thrown from space (my example) will not
hurt anyone, similar to driving a car will not hurt anyone. (And driving
a car probably has greater odds of hurting/killing someone than if you
were to throw an object from space. Kind of similar to hitting a person
while shooting a gun in Antiartica, it could happen, but the odds are
kind of low.)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:24:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.204440.7668@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Whoooooo! I'm Scaaaa~~~~red! Elizabeth Bartley calls me a HYPOCRITE!

<chortle>  <snicker>

Gosh, how characteristic this unconcern with intellectual honesty seems.

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

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:26:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.155924.18093@cs.yale.edu>,
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep27.201416.2717@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> >In article <z0!pcta.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> Not bad.  It is _not_ an absolute proof by any means, but not bad.
> >> It assumes a foundation of axioms common in modern mathematics that
> >> are widely accepted as true but have, in themselves, _not_ been 
> >> proven.  Thus, that "0<1" is a fact that can be known absolutely
> >> is something you haven't shown.
> >
> >Ok, since you won't accept that, how about this.
> >
> >If I am within 1 cm of ground-zero of a h-bomb explosion and have absolutly
> >
> >nothing to protect me, I will die.
> Not only is this not KNOWN to be true, it's not even true at all.
> There is a nonzero though vanishingly small probability that every
> single particle of matter will tunnel through your body and that not
> a single photon will be absorbed by your body. I.e. that you will
> be completely unaffected by the blast. This is not a likely occurrence,
> but it is also explicitly permitted by Quantum Mechanics. Care to
> try again?

Sure.  Thanx for the info.  Interesting theory.  Anyone care to test it?
I am sure you're aware of that the math involved in showing this, could
be at fault in any of a million or so places.  But since this is getting
off the subject, I will stop here.

Ok, I am willing to try again.  Cut my body into a million pieces. 
Distribute
those pieces to a million different cities.  Cremate those pieces and wait
for the ashes to disolve into the earth.  I will be dead at the end of this
process.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 00:30:26 GMT

In article <3803@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <25756@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
 
>> In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>> >This is in essence the crux of the problem.  Implicit in an anti-abortion
>> >position is that women have different responsibilities than men because
>> >of their biology.  To the 'old guard' women's movement this is heresy.

How nice. How sexist. How thoroughly predictable.

>Wow!  You know my inner sole Ron!  Name calling only detracts from your
>position, not mine.  The 'rest of my post' referred to my view on the fetus.
>"Barefoot and pregnant"????? To use and "old guard" abreviation, you
>must really take me for an MCP.  

So do I. So do almost all the pro-choice posters in here. 

The sexist, romantic Victoriana so implicit in "women have different
responsibilities than men because of their biology" speaks for itself.

I'm sorry. That one ranks right up their with one of the Papal Bull's

"women view the world through the prism of the home" and

"woman's sphere and man's sphere are defined by biology" and

"a man's biology has designed him to be a leader and a thinker. A woman
lives for the emotional life; her mind is not as quick, but is just big
enough for love."


Thank you for sharing.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:46:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>In <1a7mr3INNle@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
>>to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
>>a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
>>automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
>>to live with injury without medical redress.
>
>	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??

You are mistaken.  Medical care is expensive and finite.  By being
irresponsible in your behaviour you are talking needed medical care
away from the children and mothers who need it to live and be healthy.
Instead of spending it on yourself, you could be spending the money
to allow mothers to give birth to healthy children, instead of denying
them their right to life.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 3 Oct 92 14:43:09 CST
 <1992Sep28.201847.16813@spectrum.xerox.com> <1a9ruoINN4hq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Sep29.183713.3166@spectrum.xerox.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep29.183713.3166@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
> 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! 

Abstinence is not 100% effective, rape and incest aside :-P

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:44:23 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> I read a news article not long ago that stated that China does not,
>> nor did it ever have, a policy of forced abortion.  I have read about
>> China's `coerced abortion' policy which amounts to strong government
>> incentives for abortion as a population control measure, but searching
>> my memory, I can't remember ever reading about China's `forced
>> abortion' policy.

>I believe you are right, James.  Although (since we're in a terminology-
>clarifying mode here), it's probably more accurate to say that China has
>some pretty strong _dis_incentives against having more than one child.
>I seem to recall reading a story about a Chinese woman being fined $1000
>(a LOT of money in the PRC) for having a second child.

As I understand it, China is based on collectivism.  Under that
philosophy, the penalties/disincentives for having a second child
would fall not only on the family itself, but oftentimes on the
collective (factory, village, school, etc) as well.  I.e., factory
workers would be denied wage increases, etc.  Seeing themselves
being put at a disadvantage due to the actions of another, groups
of people would sometimes take it upon themselves to "persuade"
the group member to forego having the child.  This was not _government_
policy, but as I understand it, the government wasn't known to
take much action against it.

                     -rocker
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:34:23 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes:
|(Susan Garvin) writes: >
||What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
||about a dead young woman?  

|Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
|crusade.  

Malicious?  You're despicable.  This family lost their daughter
because of a parental consent law.  They were devastated, and
they don't want other parents to suffer the way they did.  They
campaign against the law that killed their daughter, and you
call them malicious.  You disagree, so you dismiss their work
as "political expediency".  You know no compassion.

Fuck off & die, Overpeck.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com          C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:34:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>But given that birth can happen at almost any point for a human, it is
>to arbitrary.  If this notion of arbitrariness bothers you, please
>respond via E-mail and I will try to explain why I feel it should.

Birth happens only at birth.  It does not happen "at almost any point"
It is clear and unambiguous.

>> Please present a plausible scenario that shows how one might determine
>> the exact moment of conception.  For bonus points, create a scenario
>> that is feasable.
>
>We invent some device that is capable of detecting this moment.  Very
>possible.

Bzzzt.  Wrong.  No credit.  No bonus.

"How do we explore the universe in an afternoon?"
"Why simple Billy.  We just invent some device that will let us
 travel faster than the speed of light and travel in time."

>> So then, you are a child?  You depend on other people for your food,
>> for your water, for your clothes, etc.  Does that mean we should be
>> treating you the same way we treat, say, a 2 week embryo?
>
>I am also a person.  IMHO, so is a 2 week embryo.  As a result we should
>both
>be treated in the same way.

That you should be treated like a 2-week embryo is a conclusion I'm also
beginning to come to.


-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:37:10 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Abortion is not murder now.
>
>BUT IT WILL BE!!!
Oh, really?  Wanna place a little wager?

I'm just waiting to hear what you have to say 6 months from now when
Congress passes the Freedom of Choice Act and President Clinton signs it.

Then what?  Nothing you can do locally will change this...state regulation
will be limited.  And Larry Tribe (or another liberal Cons Law expert) will
get a seat on the court.

(No claim to personally wanting or liking this, just predicting the future)

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39916 alt.abortion.inequity:4196
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:12:35 GMT
     <1992Sep25.003312.4297@csus.edu>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>syl@bcserv.wustl.edu (Syl the Wallydraigle) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official Astro Boy Virus expert)  writes:
>>>Rush Limbaugh is the only balance we have to Murphy Brown, and other
>>>conservative-bashing TV series. Rush is the only one who is so capable
>>>of catching the pro-aborts and the liberals when they make mistakes. 
>>
>>"pro-aborts"?  Don't be a git.
>
>I'm not. 

Truth by Blatant Assertion.

>That's why I called them that. 

I'm not lots of things, but I don't see that as a license to call other
people those things.  I'm not female, for instance; does that give me the
right to call you a woman? (Apologies to any women offended by the above
example.)

>They can't be pro-choice
>because marijuana is a choice, too, but they don't take a position on
>it. 

Counterexample: I have a position on marijuana.  Your statement is not 
correct.

>Then what are they pro? Abortion!  

Snort.  Yeah, you can see me in those operating rooms all the time, cheering
on the doctors.  "Scrape him out!  Scrape him out!  Waaaaaay out!"

You git.

>>Hell, better than just listening to Rush Limbaugh, maybe we should join his
>>Neo-Nazi party?  
>
>Actually, Naziism was the first place where abortion was legal. 

Funny, my online encyclopedia doesn't have any entry for "Naziism", nor
does my globe show a place named "Naziism".

>Historically, Rush's opponents are closer to Naziism than he is. 

How?  Temporally?  Spatially?  Alphabetically?

>BTW, I'm prepared to handle any flames you have, with documented
>evidence of this as a historical fact. Be smart and drop this.

Sorry -- I don't do oxymorons.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                Steve Chaney Memorial Anti-Roman Catholic .sig
        "Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' The Vatican Rag!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations....
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:26:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.174800.23799@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# DISCLAIMER:  I AM NOT STATING PERSONAL BELIEF.

 [...]
 
# Stipulate: women are not Real Persons But Breeding Mares of the Riech.
# 
# Stipulate: God Divinely Appoints Some of us to Rule and Others Not.
# 
# Stipulate: That Those who Do not Agree with me Have Proven that
# they are Clearly Enemies of GOD and Must Pay Penance for their
# Idolatrous and Blasphemous Heretical Notions, and then Be Burned
# at the Stake.....

You forgot, the `WHETHER THIS *SHOULD* BECOME LAW OR NOT IS ANOTHER
QUESTION' if you were intending to do the whole parody up right.

I mean, after all, you're only arguing whether such a system of
beliefs is `consistent,' not whether it has any intrinsic value, right?


Ooops.  Never mind.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40582 alt.abortion.inequity:4245 alt.birthright:518
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:05:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.203546.5164@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>Abortion treats our fellow humans, our own children in similar fashion.  
>>The value of those we abort becomes virtually set to zero.  Some would say,
>>the value of those we abort is actually negative.  Let us put human life in
>>a better position lest we ourselves become victims of those who look down
>>upon human life.
>
>"Us?"  I suggest you start with yourself.
>

Us, as you might expect, means "you, I, and everybody in this place."
(Someone, is that the right PWEI quote?  I mean from the song "Can U Dig It?")
This means WE are working on this together, and not separately.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:49:45 GMT

In article <9tgz#dh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>
>No.
>
yes. dozens. and a dead adult one, fresh-killed for food. and a dead
calf, dragged out of its mother by me and two others with our hands. and
lots of other things. what of it?

scott

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:24:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.041224.23675@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>>
>>Prove what you say or else take this back and shove it WAY up your
>>ass.
>
>Dennis seems to think that one can offer proof of one's state
>of mind.  I was surprised, though.  I didn't think that he'd
>use this particular .sig in front of his fascist friends.  I
>thought that he'd stick to his anti-Semitic one in that newsgroup.

Bogus only proves the obvious here: 
If you disagree with her, you're an Anti-Semite. 

Even though Gloria Feldt is a Theocrat, to say that is wrong is to be an
Anti-Semite. 

NOT !!!

Susan Garvin you are an unintelligent piece of shit that should be
turned into a case study. I already challenged and defeated you over the
Gloria Feldt issue and now you're going to bring it up again?

Does the word "Masochism" mean anything here, folks? 

>>Prove 
>>1) That this is my "gay pride" .sig. 
>
>Here, Dennis wants me to prove that he appended the .sig
>to his article.  Given that he appended the same slogan
>to his reply, I guess he proved it for me.

No. You've got to prove that I got it from anyone but myself. 


>>3) That I am Dennis Hall. 
>
>Dennis forgets that Dick Smith, sysadmin at CSUS, is willing
>to verify that the account from which he posted was, in fact,
>issued to Chaney.  Dennis is very sorry that he got caught
>lying, it seems.  He would have preferred not have been
>caught.

Another blatant assertion. 

You have absolutely no documentation of this crap and you never did. You
continue to make this assertion yet you have no facts to back it up. 

Typical action of a liar, eh? 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
From: probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:17:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.222204.19528@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1a7911INNdlg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.051014.10293@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>>>>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>>>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>>>I have !  I have!  And I've seen a rat embryo (lots of em too)
>>>and a fish embryo and a buncha others that I just can't remember!
>>>Do I get a prize, Peter?  (sorry I don't know what the point is here)
>>
>
>>Brian, have you seen a human fetus?  
>
>>Comparisons don't work if people haven't two things to compare.  I notice
>>that Mr. Nyikos asks how many people have seen fetal pigs, but not how many
>>people have seen fetal humans....
>
... and at this point i am reminded of the monty python bit where at random
points in the show, someone asks: "by the way, did you know that a naked woman
looks like *this*?". promoting fits of giggles, which i have had a few times
here. still, it makes a nice change...

scott

Newsgroups: talk.abortion