HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:08:29 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>  You've gone binary again, Ray.  Either-or. C'mon man, not all choices are
>1-0. All we need are about 12 fewer B-2 bombers. Then we could do almost
>all of it.  I say we can do both.

It is either-or, as there is only so much green stuff around.

And I believe there are only 3 B-2s in existance at the moment, with
a total of nine at the completion of the contract. These are in dispute
at the time being, from what I remember reading in the paper, as the
funding may get cut for them.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Followup-To: misc.test
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:29:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.203925.5847@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#-# dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
#-# #Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr.
#-# #Nyiko's point of view and perhaps your folks did
#-# #not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand his point
#-# #of view conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and
#-# #ask Mr. Nyiko himself.
#-# 
#-# I don't need to - I read Nyikos' article when it
#-# appeared.  You should, too.  You'd look like much
#-# less of an idiot if you refrained from commenting
#-# until you had done so.
#
#i don't think that's true, susan. mr. dick has posted
#to t.a. in the past and always looked just as much of
#an idiot as he did here.

I was beginning to think that no one else remembered Dick
from his previous posts.  

I'd still argue that he could look like *less* of an
idiot if he read the articles he was interpreting.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:46:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.222608.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

}Sky diving is fun, also.

Quite true.  I have jumped from a perfectly good Cessna, and, while
I am quite comfortable with a parachute and always have one when
I fly at all high, I parachute is not my prefered means of descent
from altitude.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:46:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.070009.6188@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
> > This is at 23-24 weeks, which
> > coincidentally is the the current viability age.
> 
> Oh, and did you miss my post about the 22 week premie that just
> went home from the hospital?   The age is moving younger and
> younger all the time.  And you know what?  It's NOT the babies
> who are changing.  It's just our medical knowledge of how to
> care for them that is.

Did you miss the posting in which someone spoke with a doctor
who is friends with a member of the team that worked on the
premie, and the premie was 26 weeks of age, not 22?


Dean Kaflowitz
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let Galen speak for the undead (Was: Bats don't suck blood)
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:20:19 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep13.153646.26711@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>-> Given his experience as spokesman for pre-born
>-> children and apparently now as spokemsn for
>-> post-dead children and adults, I nominate Galen to
>-> speak for all pre-dead homo sapiens.
>
>i wonder if you might be willing to rephrase that
>nomination so that galen would be the spokesperson for
>all things, living, dead, and pre-existence.

I think you already have.  Thank you for saving me the trouble.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:53:17 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> 
>> Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>> they won't have sex with them".
>  
> What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.

I'm not sure if this statement is the result of homophobia or misinformation.
I know gay men who love women, but they still have sex with men anyway.
One thing I learned in my Sexuality class which you might find interesting
to know, is that pure homosexuality is not necesarily the norm in the gay
community.  There is quite a bit of information suggesting there can 
be a homosexuality scale...  What I mean to say is that lots of gay
men have varying degrees of sexual interest/activity with women.
I'm definitely not an expert at this, but that's what they taught me,
and they had references to boot.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 20:58:24 GMT

In <xq2y7_l@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>>In <1992Sep05.072518.28382@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>>Also, I have not heard of a single abortionist turning in someone
>>for incest.  It takes a while to find out whether any such cases
>>have actually occurred, though.  Stay tuned.

>The only way YOU would find out is if enough evidence were gathered
>which led to a publicized trial.  Many many charges these days lead
>to plea bargains, which are unlikely to be well-publicized.

>Another thing you've neglected to mention is just what your friend
>"the lawyer" DOES.  There are many many branches of law.  If he
>specialized in, say, corporate takeovers, he's no more likely to
>have heard about anything like this than you or I.

Well, one thing he has admitted to doing is defend a lot of drunk driving
cases.  I asked him if he felt bad about it, and he said usually not, 
because usually the State has such a rotten lack of evidence that the
case should have never come to trial.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gypsies and the Down's Syndrome:  McBean and Nyikos email
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:31:20 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

> In article <brandonu.ca mcbeanb.mail.abortion:13>, nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> >> Other
>>> >> people have different beliefs and values, and it's unfair to impose
>>> >> one set of values on such a large and diverse population as that in
>>> >> which we live.  That's why I'm pro-choice.
>>> >
>>> >This is going to probably be the big bone of contention between you
>>> >and me in the future.  As you may know (I picked it up from Peter Maas's
>>> >book _King of the Gypsies_) many gypsies think they have a god-given
>>> >right to steal, and this may be shared by the Mafia as well.  Yet we
>>> >continue to have laws against theft, etc.
>>> 
>>> Here's a sticky argument, but I think I can surpass it...
>>> Being pro-choice, I am not actively causing the death of any feti,
>>> but I am protecting all women's rights to protect their bodies.
>> 
>> Since when is abortion for gender selection, and abortion for 
>> the elimination of
>> handicaps on the order of Down's Syndrome, protecting the body of
>> the woman?  

When can you prove an abortion is for gender selection?  What if the
baby's gonna be killed anyway if it's the wrong sex?
As for handicaps, if the woman wants to abort her z/e/f then
what sort of life do you suppose she would offer that child if
forced to give birth?  Maybe she's financially incapable of
such a burden.  Maybe she's mentally incapable.  Would you want
to propose that a psychological survey of such women be conducted
before allowing them a legal abortion?  That could drag things out
until the third trimester, or even after birth.  Then what do you
do?  The woman's risk has practically been realized by that point.
She might be dead.  She might be hysterical.  She might have starved
by then.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying there's no
way to regulate it.  That's how I became pro-choice in the first
place come to think of it.
 
>>> The gypsies and the mafia's personal beliefs would cause them
>>> to actively harm other people, and violate their freedoms.
>>> A pro-choicer violates nobody's freedoms other than the fetus,
>>> but the fetus is not a person, only a potential person, therefore
>>> the rights of the mother (the real current person) override any
>>> partial rights of the fetus.
>> 
>> Uh-oh.  Looks like we have another big bone of contention here.  When
>> you say "potential person," are you speaking in purely legalistic terms?
>> I would guess not, from your use of "actively harm".  

You guessed correctly...  

>> But then you are
>> making a gigantic assumption, that the fetus is incapable of suffering
>> great agony during a D&E dismemberment, etc.

I made no such assumption.  I'm still foggy on these ideas, but I think to
myself "if all you have is pain, do you have anything?"  Let's not
forget the pain of childbirth, either...
 
>>Peter

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.114559.18850@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> : Gee, maybe people should have the right to voice their opposition to black
> : people living next to them, or Jews, or those icky non-Christians (we all
> : know that *real* Americans are Christian Republicans).  Perhaps you don't
> 
> Aw Gee, maybe people _should_ have the right to freedom of speech, Gordon...
> 
> : like it Doug, but bodily autonomy rights should not be left up to the whim
> : of the people.  
> 
> No, they should be left to the whim of a small clique instead.

I think you misunderstand him, Mr O'Dwyer.  The point is that
they should receive the protection of the law and not be left
to the whims of a majority.  What you say is correct in the
sense that the right under discussion was found to be protected
by what you undoubtedly would call a "small clique," and
is now being destroyed by a change in the composition of that
"small clique," making the law appear to be a straw in the
political wind.  That is a shame, and serves to denigrate
respect for those to whom we look for legal protection.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.154725.25747@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>
>How do I explain this, it's rather like having to explain why life has any
>value at all.  If a babies at 21 weeks are surviving, then it seems by
>definition that they are persons, with all of the inalienable rights that
>are guaranteed by our US constitution.  To purposefully take their lives
>is wrong, just as it is wrong to take the life of a person at 2 years, 30
>years, or 80.  I think it is hypocritical for people to decide that
>someone is a person in one case, but not another.
>

No.  Just because a fetus can be born and survive at 21 weeks does not
mean that it is a person.  Legally (and we *are* talking legalities here)
a fetus isn't a person until it is born.  The very act of birth is the
demarkation line, not what it is capable of, given medical science.  We
can't say that "since one fetus can be born and survive at 21 weeks, then
by *all* fetusus can be born and survive at 21 weeks, and by that capability,
them *all* 21-week fetuses are "persons".


>You once asked me if I had an analogy for why abortion is wrong.  I
>thought about it a lot, so here goes.  Do you think that it is ok to
>remove a person from a life support system? (Many people say yes!).  Now,
>however, do you think that it is ok to remove a person from a life support
>system if you know that in 9 months they will be fully living on their own
>again?
>

There is no alalogy for a pregnancy.  In your case, is the person on
life support residing within, taking resources from, another person?
Does that other person want it there?  

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: On the Nature of Ritual Cannibalism
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep8.200038.1155@wetware.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:23:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.200038.1155@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>HUM... interesting that few see the similarities
>between this and the use of Peyote.....

Well, I would say that the similarities are short in coming. Peyote is
food of the Gods, Christian communion on the other hand, well everyone
knows In Vino Veritas, right? That's the Bacchus/Dionysian thing.
However, the Apollonians took control by the time the Christians
appeared, so they only taste the wine, just enough to taste, not enough
for veritas. That's the same with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and bad, just a taste to proclaim its evilness, never enough for
anything near veritas. As for me, yes I freely admit to consuming more
than my share of the fruit daily, OPP, yeah you know me. I'd call myself
a humanist, it seems so obvious, but since the dominant Christian world
seems to think that word is evil incarnate, well I'll keep away from it
then. I'll just stick with roma spelled backwards is amor. Well look, I
gotta get back to work, it's the Apollonian thing to do.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: There is no bottom to this pit -- is there?
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:32:37 GMT

kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
# ># I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually
# ># congratulate them for achieving it.
# >
# >Do you also congratulate men for successful insemination?
# >
# >``Damn fine work there, Billy Joe.  I say I gots to admire that.''
# 
# Oh hee. Oh ha.
# Mucho funny there.  Is it strange to congratulate someone for being
# pregnant?  Is this an alien concept to you?

Pardon me whilst I put on my Miss Manners outfit...

When receiving news that a woman is pregnant, it is not impolite to
assume that the pregnancy was planned and desired (unless otherwise
told), and, as with all such news, congratulations are not appropriate
unless the woman has confided in you that she has had difficulty
becoming pregnant.

It is regrettable, but there is still a stigma attached to fertility
problems, and etiquette demands that we not make rash assumptions that
lead to injured feelings.


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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:41:38 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  <lefty-100992164401@lefty.apple.com>  lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.151356.9274@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu
> (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) wrote:
> >
> > If everyone responded to pro-abortion flamefests like Steve Franklin did to
> > Lefty, the pro-aborts would ... be scared off of USENET...
>
> Hate to rain on your parade, Dennis, but I seem to still be here.
>
> Where's Stevie?

Curled up in a corner somewhere, licking his wounds?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Epitaph: He didn't dodge the bomb... (was Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:21:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.011244.18565@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> The fetus was a person before Roe vs. Wade. And of course, it is Roe
> vs. Wade that we're challenging. 

The above statement is false.  The issue was not decided.  There
were laws that prohibited abortion prior to Roe v Wade, but
no actual statement on the legal status of the fetus.

Chahallney is talking through his hat and demonstrating his
inability to understand the way law works.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36645 alt.abortion.inequity:3784
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Shrugging off an aborted pregnancy (was Re: Another good reason 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:12:10 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> [--excerpt from Sue Hertz, _Caught in the Crossfire: A Year 
>> on Abortion's Front Line_ deleted--]

>> Boy, that sure was ikky.  Were you grossed out, too,  Doug?  I guess
>> this means that you shouldn't go into medicine if you can't handle
>> ikky-gross stuff.

> And that Rodney King beating was horrible.  Did that gross you out, Lyman?
> I guess that means you shouldn't move to Los Angeles if you don't want 
> to get beaten by the LAPD, right Lyman?

Having fantasies about seeing me beaten up by the LAPD, Doug?  Or did
you actually have a point?

I had one.  Part of the burden and responsibility of being a medical
professional is dealing effectively with ikky-gross stuff.  Don't you agree?

Part of the burden and responsibility of being a law enforcement professional
is to deal effectively with ikky-gross suspects, which does not include 
hitting them 80-some times with a night stick.

Grok the difference, Doug-boy?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:50:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

> In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> >What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.

I must hate sheep and aircraft, because I don't have sex with
them.  I have sex with women, so I must hate men.

Jeepers, and I thought I was a caring, loving individual.  Now I
have learned from Suzanne that I hate just about everything
because I don't have sex with them

Suzanne, do you have sex with newborn babies, or do you hate them?

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Sep 92 00:01:16 GMT

In <Bu43C8.6ox.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715653015@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Sep3.180335.8977@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>##Geez, Petey, do the continual anti-Jewish remarks by Holtsinger and
>##Chaney really pale in your mind next to the one mistake made by
>##Patrick?
>#
>#Sorry, I haven't seen any of them.  I simply don't have the time
>#to read everything in talk.abortion.

>Oh, yeah, right.  DOD uses one of his anti-Semitic slurs as a .sig.
>Are you telling us that you don't read any of DOD's articles now,
>or are you just using the "if I can't defend it, I never saw
>it" excuse?

What's anti-Semitic about disagreeing with one woman's distorted account
of what Judaism teaches about human life?  And even if it were not 
distorted--would you call someone anti-Islamic if he criticized 
people who saw nothing wrong with a precept allowing polygamy?

>Susan

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:21:29 GMT


In <1992Sep11.004555.14711@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes: >>
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes: >>>
#wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>

>>>> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
>>>> immaturity with mental illness.
>
>>> i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad,
>>> really, that you don't think therapy might help.
>>> perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point
>>> you've already lost.
> 
>> I think that Overpeck is caught in the "don't
>> criticize another pro-forcer too strongly" trap.  He
>> seems to think that it's reasonable for Holtsinger
>> to not expect to have his sources checked, even
>> though I had given advance notice that I would do
>> so.  He seems to think that it's only a sign of
>> immaturity when a 21 year old is convinced that he
>> is a fictional entity (or an inanimate object.)
>
> it's a consistent reaction for him, if that's what he's
> doing now. he did the same thing with djr for a long,
> long time. from what i read as the tone of his notes, i
> think he tried to use this particular thread as an
> extension of an older disagreement. of course, i could
> be mistaken here. he seems to have jumped on what
> appeared to be an opening and when that turned out not
> to be the case, then things got convoluted for him.

My, for someone who's fond of cynically accusing others 
of being "mind-readers", you're awfully willing to engage
in some serious presumption, yourself.

However, I, in my convolution, am still waiting for a list 
of symptoms to substantiate your diagnostic impressions.
Absent that, your comments can only be interpreted as an
attack (and prejudicial toward those who truly suffer from
mental disorders).

>> Teenage women who want to make decisions for
>> themselves, on the other hand, are deemed to be in
>> desperate need of couselling.
>
> nice point.

It would be, if I'd ever made such a ludicrous assertion.  
Attributing such a claim to me is disingenuous.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion