HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:27:13 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <BvGHAs.n0p@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.212840.11036@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.204440.7668@csus.edu>
>>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>
>>>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
>>
>>I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
>>would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.

>This is almost as funny as your claim that there's a place called "Naziism"
>and that there's a religion called "Hymietown".  Sounds like you got a few
>connections cross-wired wrong, to me...:-)

OK, PatricK,  so he was misinformed about the first thing.  
But his second sentence
still makes a lot of sense in the light of what Elizabeth revealed to me
about Chthulu a while back.

Note my use of "PatricK."  Until I get a response from you about at least
one of my two long follow-ups, where I 
	1. said  "Spoken like a true redneck," followed by a personal anecdote
	about ROTC summer camp,
and
	2. asked what kind of "chance" you gave Steve to get an apology
	from you, besides "march(ing)" his [expletive deleted] over to
	your office,
you will be PatricK to me.  (If you haven't seen one or the other of these,
or would like to see them again, give a holler.)  That is, unless you do
something to make me call you "PatricKK," at which point I'd put you in my
de facto killfile, because I don't ever want to have to call you 
"PatricKKK."

Peter Nyikos
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41391 talk.politics.misc:50331 alt.rush-limbaugh:6875
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:34:35 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <adams.718476286@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

MW:I also didn't see anything in the constitution about rape and pillage
MW:either.  I guess if the states felt the strange urge to ban or regulate
MW:either of those things, you would claim that that would also be
MW:unconstitutional.

SA:Not at all.  Raping and pillaging are invasions of other persons (we're
SA:talking legal definition here) rights.  Society has deemed that such acts
SA:are to be punished as they deprive another person (again, legal definition)
SA:of their right to life or privacy.

So once again we are back to legal definitions.  Legal definitions can
be changed if enough persons want them to be.  If the legal definition
of a person is changed so that it includes fetuses, then would not the
fetuse now enjoy a right to life.

SA:The states and the people are allowed to regulate in these areas. The

So individual states have the right to regulate abortions.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: And now another semantics nit
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 20:21:05 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  <1992Oct7.015734.6118@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.182548.28229@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com write
> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> ># You do know that you cannot call a sperm/egg members of homo
> ># sapiens.
> >
> >Mr. Guerrero, you seem to have a penchant for employing the phrase
> >`members of the species homo sapiens' (or contractions thereof).
> >
> >Question:
> >
> >     ...where do I get my membership card?
>
> You already have one from the time you began your existence as a human life.
>
> I certainly believe that neither I, nor your mother, have a right to take away
> your existence as a special human life.
>
> Be glad you were able to get your "membership card" before society
> started taking them away from people.

When did society start taking them away from people?  Or are you referring
to (diploid) "members of the species homo sapiens" who have not yet
achieved personhood?  (I.e., zygotes, embryos and fetuses.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: guest@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Guest Account)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:04:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC

In article <weqUSeq00iUyA5sLN3@andrew.cmu.edu> Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Out of sheer curiosity, I called up the Feminists for Life and asked
>them for some information. They send me an introductory pamphlet, some
>articles, and a few xeroxed pages of their newsletter "Sisterlife". If
>anyone is interested, please let me know through e-mail or post, and I
>can post some of the contents, (although I don't think I can post the
>contents verbatum -- is this illegal to do?) so people can see what the
>FFL's goals are, etc.
>
>The only opinion I will offer right now is that they seem MUCH more of
>an anti-abortion group than a feminist organization.
>
>
>Alison Colman (The Big A)

Alison - 
I can't think of any reason not to post quotes from "Sisterlife".

With regards to your "MUCH ...." statement above I have two comments:

1)  Many feminist groups have particular areas of concentration.  Its natural   for people of like mind to want to stick together and support eachother.  So 
you may have a gay womens group, or a group specializing in Lamaze or breast-
feeding.  So your suspiciousness is, I think, misplaced.

2)   As you can very well see FFLA people are ostracised from the rest of the
establishment community.  They are therefore by definition forced to concentrateon their differences with respect to other organizations.

3) (forgot this one)  FFLA wants the world to know that there are at least some feminists who do not buy the party line.  Its important to them to not be       painted with the same broad brush as others.

Paul.
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An Invitation
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:51:16 GMT
Organization: NRL

In article <BvtH7o.Cw1@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R
SULAIMAN) writes:
>In article <3919@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>In article <BvrnD0.3n3@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R
>>SULAIMAN) writes:
>>>
>>>I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Pro-"Lifers"
>>>to go to their nearest universities offering Womens Studies courses.
>>
>>I've seen the way establishment feminist sometimes treat pro-life feminists. 
>>Doesn't sound like "fun" by my definition.
>>
>>Paul

Cynthia-

I deplore people being disrespectful to eachother no matter what there
position.

I don't doubt that a Womens Studies course would be beneficial for anyone.  I
was referring to you comment as to the "fun" part of it.  I thought you were
saying that it would be fun to watch an individual who is anti-abortion sqirm
in their seats as they see the error of their ways.  I know see that you mean
that it would be intellectually stimualting for all.   Right?

I'm curious why you think "pro-lifers" don't already attend Women Studies
courses.

>
>
>Same as Pro-Life Christians do to Pro-Choice Christains???  
>
>Maybe if you attended you'd see that there are a great many ideas and
>thoughts welcomed and encouraged in these classes, instead of the narrow
>view you seem to have.
>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.test
From: mark@ocsmd.ocs.com (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: Online Computer Systems, Inc.  Germantown, Md., 20874
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:40:25 GMT

Michal Leah Peri (peri@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: >>I'm not on drugs, and it's not that late in the night.  Plus, I know I'm not
: >>stupid because I made it through graduate school with honors.
: 
: You spent N of the best years of your life in self inflicted poverty
: and degradation, and you claim it proves your *not* stupid??!
                                           ^^^^
*sigh*
Well, I AM reading this in alt.fan.dan-quayle... maybe this is where Dan
got the extra "e"....
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, Online Computer Systems.  1-800-922-9204 or 1-301-601-2215
This file .disclaims everything signed with my .signature, I .mean it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.134540.26238@sbctri.sbc.com>
asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.195245.18561@coopsol.com>
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
>>Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
                                                  ^^^^^
>I'm as hip as the next guy, but would you be proud if your wife was telling
>thousands of strangers on a computer network of the ten men she had done
>before you came along?

You know, I really wish people would find out the story behind
Gordon's .sig before complaining about it.  At least you aren't
calling him an evil nasty person who was denigrating women....

Several of us on talk.abortion have agreed to become Gordon's
ex-girlfriends (beginning the relationship that way avoids any
possibility of a nasty breakup).  Personally, I did so *after* Gordon
had adopted the above .signature (minus my name) and thusly *after*
Gordon's wife had ocme along.....

>And I can't believe any man could be with a woman named "Cathi". :-)

Well, ask Cathi then....  She's still around....

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:24:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.211714.9170@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>>Well, I certainly do care about human life, born and unborn.  Whether
>>>>you believe that or not is another thing.  But I know what is in my
>>>>heart and what is in my head.  What is in my heart and what is in my
>>>>head cannot be wrong.
>>>
>>>Tell that to the black South Africans, and to the Jews, and to the
>>>Bosnians.  Ask the white South Africans, and the Nazis, and the Serbs
>>>if they were justified in their actions.  Ask them if they were
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>The Jews, Bosnians, Nazis, Serbs etc. were involved in some form of
>>genocide or the other whether it be doing the killing or being killed.  In
>>each case, the rights of each person to life was violated.  The rights
>>of the Nazis, etc. to have "wanted" humans took precedence over the
>>rights of the Jews, Catholics, etc. to live.  The Nazis, etc. actively
>>killed the Jews, etc. because they were perceived to have no right to life.
>
>The Jews were killed because they were greedy and thieves and because
>they were clearly subhuman.  The Bosnians are being killed because the 
>Serbs are defending themselves.  And black South Africans were not
>being discriminated against any more than cows are discriminated
>against.  In none of these cases did people believe they were doing
>anything but the most noble actions.  Just like you.
>
>(and no, I don't hold any of these beliefs personally)
>
The "noble" actions of these people often involved killing.  Those who
supported the specialness of human life no matter what age, form, color
or creed, wanted them to stop killing even if those who killed thought
that they wanted to produce only "wanted" people.  These people recognized
the humanity of all humans even if certain people wanted to take away
their rights, most important amongst them, the right to life.  Many 
justifications were made, as you said, humans were more like cows, or
that these individuals were greedy and like thieves.  But nonetheless, the
Nazis and the Serbs continued to do ethnic purging because they removed
humanity and a human's right to life away.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Quote Wars
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:15:42 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>> "Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>> -- Ronald Reagan

> Good quote!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Anti-abortion legislation is advocated only by persons that have
themselves been born."

Is the above quote also good?  It's just as 'true.'

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:06:43 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>> Perhaps The Rink should check out Numbers 5:12-31 and see what the Law says
>> about the reproductive destinies of women suspected of being unfaithful to
>> their husbands.

> I just did.  Here's the two verses that sum it all up:

> NUM 5:27  And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall
>               come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done
>               trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth
>               the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and
>               her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and
>               the woman shall be a curse among her people.
> NUM 5:28  And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she
>               shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

> NOTE VERSE 28!!!!  Her "reproductive destiny" is unhinged unless she actually
> was unfaithful (defiled) -- not if she was merely suspected to be.

A couple of notes, Sam.  The water that the woman is to drink is "the water
that brings the curse."  This refers to 'the curse of women' or menstruation.
If the woman has conceived, the water will bring on a miscarriage; that is
to say, abortion.  It seems that God is pro-forced-abortion in this instance.

Another thing: different translations use different wording for the phrase
"her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot."  I don't have the specifics
handy, but I recall one translation going something like, "her belly shall
distend and her womb will discharge."

Steve Adams has more complete information.  His article is undoubtedly in the
pipeline.

> Samuel Stoddard, the Weapons Master           JESUS IS LORD!!  HALLELUJAH!!!!!

For you and me, yes, but not for everyone.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:49:00 GMT

Please remove talk.bizarre from the Newsgroups: line when following up
threads like this one.  Thank you very much.

Mark.
mgooley@advtech.uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.014533.9155@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <Bvv95M.JI6@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <7159@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>Beaver really should proofread his articles.  Soc.women
>>>and soc.feminism aren't the same newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>For your attention, Ms. Garvin, the following appeared on soc.feminism,
>>not soc.women, and was approved by Cynthia Tittle.
>
>I think this is what Garvin was referring to:
>
>Article 31729 (50 more) in soc.women:
>Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
>From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
>Subject: Guilty?
>Nntp-Posting-Host: castor.cs.psu.edu
>Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:49:59 GMT
>Lines: 100
>
>
>Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
>===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.
>
>
>The context was women as soldiers:
>
[text deleted]
>--------------------------------end------------------------------------
>
>God forbid, Beaver, that you admit you made a mistake...


Mr. Farthing, if you have read my postings, you will see that
I have no problem admitting to mistakes, when a mistake has
been demonstrated.  Only twelve short days ago, I posted,
"You are right, I misspoke..."

Either Ms. Garvin was taking a cheap shot at an obvious typo
or she was objecting to a real issue.

[You will note "moderated" in parentheses, which would be a flag
to anyone knowing enough to distinguish the groups.  I have no objection 
to correcting errors, but that does not seem to be Ms. Garvin's intent,
especially given how little relevance the typo has to the topic.]


I chose to assume she was objecting to a real issue -- and you deleted
my sentence:

##If you object to the "cross-posting," you should note that the discussion
##of spousal notification and so-called threats appeared extensively
##on soc.women.

I included the original text from soc.feminism to set the record straight,
without indirect references and further flammable errors.


To you, Mr. Farthing, and to Ms. Garvin, my humblest apologies for
making a typo.  I'm sorry you found it important and relevant to the
discussion, since that means I failed to describe my point well enough.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:45:59 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct15.184727.26677@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>Sounds like Susan Garvin may not be answering this challenge. 
>
>SO.. I gotta force her to respond by reposting it.. 

Aww, chill, Steve.  You never respond to me and I don't let 
that force me to do anything.

P.S.  If you're going to repost an article, at least have the graciousness 
to do it a few days (not hours) later.  Thanks.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 9 Oct 1992 13:26:43 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct9.154720.12872@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <26018@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
>   (Ron Bense) writes: >
>> Maybe it has to do with those who seek to impose their irrational 
>> beliefs on the rest of us through law. 
>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  

Bill, in what material way was your life affected by the decisions in
Roe?  What belief was imposed upon you?  What did you have to stop doing?
Start doing?  

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 14 Oct 1992 12:19:37 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

Ron and Bill
>>>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you
>>
>> What was forced upon you?
>
>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
>perfectly fine option.

Scuse, please.  How is this forced upon you?  I don't see you accepting
this particular set of beliefs......

>>Irrational in the sense that you wish to force a belief and moral system
>>on others through law. It hasn't worked in any society at anytime in
>>the world, as it always leads to its downfall.
>Roe did the same thing, Ron.  You simply see the concept of "individual
>choice" as a value that supersedes all others.  I don't. 

Scuse, please: how does Roe force upon others a set of values?  If it 
*DID*, we probably wouldn't see so much discussion here.....

>I don't see any difference.  All law endorses a value or set of values.

Yeah, right.  Like driving on the right hand side exhibits an internalization
that left-handed people are really dangerous,  uh huh.

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41869 talk.politics.guns:21976 alt.conspiracy:11142 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5228 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6630 talk.bizarre:33586
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Language Devaluation Question...
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:00:23 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

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?

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


Him....

'Family Values'

exports meaning?


Hum....

And who can forget:

"pre_emptive retaliator Nuclear First Strike Enahancement."

Hum....


ciao
drieux

ps: just because one is not willing to accept that
natural languages are a dynamic rather than a static
entity is no reason to confess that one is on the
trailing edge....





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion