HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:17:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <nyikos.718172702@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}Well, it just so happens that killing dogs is not considered murder.
}Killing humans is, once they are safely out of the womb.  

Not at all Peter.  It depends on your justification.  For most people
it depends on their geographic location and the political philosophy
of those in another geographic location.  Killing humans, even after they
are safely out of the womb, is often considered a duty, even patriotic.

}We pro-lifers
}believe that we can afford to extend protection to those inside the
}womb...

On the contrary, Peter.  Or perhaps we attach a different meaning to
"belief."  Pro-life people often hide behind other terms to refer
to their support of killing.   Often they call it "collateral damage"
or something like that.  

I'm being quite serious about this Peter.  Most of your ilk doesn't
have any problem with killing people and you are just pushing for
legislation that would reinforce your particular justification.
Your characterization of "pro-lifers" being concerned about life
in general is rather intellectually dishonest, to borrow a term.

It's not the killing, it's the rationale.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:29:22 GMT
 <1992Sep30.185010.27982@netcom.com> <1992Oct1.070033.29228@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Oct1.180147.14031@netcom.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct1.070033.29228@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>be dead?)
>
>There are two weaknesses to your argument.
>
>One is that your 'right' to life can be waived by other people.
>Otherwise, how could we ever justify executing a criminal?  And how
>could we go to war and give guns to our infantry if we felt that every
>person's right to life overrides every other right we have?

This is exactly it.  The Constitution, far from giving a guarantee of a
'right to life,' says the government may take your life so long as they give
you due legal process.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:11:40 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes to cj:
->>why would anyone care if a person like you, who has
->>lied about people who considered you a friend, respected
->>someone or not? you've demonstrated that your respect is
->>as worthless as your word.

->BTW, would you mind proving that CJ has lied about people who considered
->her a friend?

bingo! i was hoping you'd be the one to answer this.

ask suzanne lucia. she was cj's victim, or one of them. ask
me if you need her current email address. if you want some
details from me, send me email at keegan@crd.ge.com.

->BTW2: Followups to misc.test? Pretty low.

so you noticed that cj did that to susan garvin earlier
today! you should really express your criticism of cj
to cj and not to me eric.

unless you have different standards for different people.
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:24:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.181613.17524@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>] In article <1992Sep24.184740.10729@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>] >] In <16SEP92.17080297@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>] 
>] [debate on Human Life Amendment]
>] 
>] [drieux, addressing nyikos]
>] >Also, as you will note, we are back to the Point
>] >of resolving why Person A should be allowed to
>] >Murder Person B for the actions of Person C toward Person A.
>] >
>] >That is the case of allowing abortion in the case of
>] >rape or incest.
>] 
>] Your wording is ambiguous -- if "for the actions" means "as punishment"
>] then I would certainly disagree; if "for the actions" means 
>] "as a consequence of" then I might agree -- although in the sense
>] of "terminate obligations to B," not "murder B."  (BTW, do you use
>] "murder" as "unlawfully killing a person" or as "killing a person"?)
>
>person A, is raped by person C,
>and hence is allowed to KILL/Murder/Terminate_With_Prejudice person B.

DISCLAIMER:  I AM NOT STATING PERSONAL BELIEF.

Stipulate: fetus (B) is a person with rights to be weighed against
those of other persons.

Stipulate: voluntary sex implies voluntary reduction of privacy rights.


Yes, person A is permitted to kill person B because person B
is infringing on person A's rights.  Every person has a right
to life, but no person (B) has a right to invade another's (A's) bodily
privacy unless that person (A) voluntarily limits their own rights.

"As a consequence of" person C's actions, person A has accepted 
no obligation toward person B.

>Note if You will, that the form of the argument
>allows that Person A can kill any Person B,
>as there is no distinction to be drawn between
>born and unborn.....

Person A can kill any person B who attaches himself against her will
to her uterus.

Is that reductio enough to the absurdum for you?      :-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Lake Elmo, MN)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Calm Blue Water...and a Muskie the Size of Boise
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:33:12 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <6803@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
> I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
> what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
> at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
> at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO THEIR
> FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

	Visit a slaughterhouse.  Say that you're still a carnivore.
	Get a little empathy.  Watch a wheat field being reaped.  Say that
you still eat bread.
	Take a blood sample.  Watch your own white blood cells devour
bacteria.  Say that you still don't want to die of strep throat.

	Get this:  Life Equals Death.  Every second you live means that
something, somewhere, just as capable of life, reproduction, and death 
as you are, dies.

	Abortion is almost always a bad choice, but it is often the least
destructive of a whole slew of bad choices.
	Abortion isn't the problem.  Unwanted pregnancies are the problem. 
Until the problem has been solved, abortion must remain an alternative.
-- 
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."                             
--Lord Kelvin, c. 1895.                                                        
  
elmo (morrow@physics.rice.edu,morrow@fnal.fnal.gov)
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:14:49 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee) writes:

>> Be careful, Ron.  Don't hold Mr. Nyikos to too high a standard of
>> debate.  You may become a killfile candidate like Larry and me. :-)

> Ho ho ho, dude. Real funny. Why if you were actually telling the truth I'd
> recommend you for a job as an unpaid comedian.

If you are accusing me of lying, it should be a simple matter to support
your accusation.  Of course, I don't recall you supporting _any_ of your
accusations.  Perhaps you think that Dr. Science's[1] tactic of making
baseless accusations and then attempting to shift the burden of proof to
others is a worthwhile, ethical pursuit.

[1] Peter Nyikos.  If he can make silly name flames, why can't I?

>> Chris Lyman / email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov / #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>>    "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." -- J. Danforth Quayle
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Must've been what he concluded after hearing an earful of you, I guess.

Dannikins and Company haven't heard much of what the American Public has tried
to tell them these past four years.  That's why they'll be gone in four months.
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40305 talk.politics.guns:21676 alt.conspiracy:10941 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4875 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6252 alt.flame:13233
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:30:37 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
# drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# 
# >
# > I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
# > my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
# > and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....
# >
# 
# I have a better idea.  Why don't you try something intelligent, like
# editing your follow-up line and removing a.f.d-q from the list,
# sparing those of us who don't really care what you think from having
# to read it.   

What?  Is the whole damned net supposed to obey your every *FUGGING*
whim just to save *YOU* the hassle of editing your killfile?


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hi, long long time no see
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:00:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Raiders of the Lost Parking Lot

Welcome back!  Good to have you visiting us again, and it'll be just
the least bit interesting to see a certain Mr. Chaney's reaction to your
return.  The boy's been fond of saying things about you while you were
gone, confident in the belief you wouldn't be back...

--PLH, enjoying a .sigless Saturday morning
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:31:27 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>->interesting to see you support a claim that I am not intellectually
->>->honest. Can you do so?
->>seems to be that you've supported it quite nicely.
->That's not an answer, Mr. Keegan. 

please post your credentials for determining is something
is or is not an answer. after doing so, please specify
how these credentials make your opinion more valid than
anyone else's opinion.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:19:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.203451.23786@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 ...
>>>>I'm not saying that the birth giving process is something trivial to
>>>>be ignored and looked down upon.  I'm just saying when the choice is between
>>>>the life of a human and the mother's situation, the life of a human being
>>>>must be protected.
>>>
>>>Yeah, right.  And how about when the choice is between _your_ convenience
>>>and the lives of people dying in the streets or starving in Africa?
>>>
>>>Or is that "different?"  It's always easy to impose unrealistic expectations
>>>on someone else, isn't it?
>>>
>>Did somebody make those starving in Africa starve intentionally?  Is someone
>>diceing and slicing those people in Africa right now?  
>
>So because they were unfortunate enough to be in a situation that is 
>killing them, you feel no obligation to save them.
>
>What's your excuse for getting involved with pregnant women, then?
>

Interesting way you want to lead me into:

   If you can't save the world and all its problems right now, today, soon,
     then what gives you a right to try to help people in your society?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dianne@dianne.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Dianne Ferrans )
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:35:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.215121.14334@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
|> In article <1aduobINNlht@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Daniel West) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >A doctor should not be REQUIRED to assist a patient wishing to die.
|> >But if a doctor, like Mr. Kervorkian, wishes to help a terminally
|> >ill person in carrying out his wishes, what then is the problem? 
|> 
|> Because only one of the several people Dr. Kevorkian helped kill 
|> was terminal.  The others just wanted to die, they were not terminal.
|> 
|> Ted
|> 

What greater right, than the right to decide what to do with your
own body, even if that means suicide?

Many patients with advanced cancer experience pain so severe that even
the heaviest doses of morphine cannot dull it.  What we're talking
about here is forcing loved ones to endure the agonies of a torture
chamber with no hope of recovery and no hope of escape save death.
Self-righteousness doesn't help here.  I think Kevorkian is being
brave in bringing to the public eye something which, actually, many
private physicians have done privately for years.  There is a
thing known as "quality of life" vs. "sacredness of life".  If we
as a nation REALLY believed in the latter, we'd never allow anyone to
climb a mountain or drive a car.  Denying patients the right to make
even this, final decision over their own personhood and destiny is
wrong.  I'd hate for someone I love to have to make this choice, but
I'd also hate to see them writhe in agony for long months or years. 

See a good book on medical ethics, and study the topic.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 01:05:38 GMT

The last post in the series pulled Chris Lyman neck-and-neck with Margolis:
as of September 22
both were one big step or several small steps from my de facto killfile.

Interesting how Chris also told me recently to follow my own advice
and lighten up.  It's always the guilty party that wants to let 
bygones be bygones, is it not?

However, I am not the kind of person who likes to hold a grudge.  After
encountering greater hypocrisy from Storga and Cochran than either
him or Margolis, I am willing to give the latter two a clean slate
if they cease and desist from their sporadic efforts to 
label me a liar.

Peter Nyikos
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Another flame from Dr. Strychnine
Summary: He actually asked for it -- how could I deny him?
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:12:50 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
# support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??
# 
# I think life is a good choice.
# 
# I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
# wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
# BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
# sarcasm of the replies I get???

You've *almost* got it right, Mr. Booth.  Abstinence is an effective
way for *women* to *reduce* their chances of becoming pregnant.  I
certainly wouldn't want to take abstinence out of the set of methods
women can use to reduce their chances of becoming pregnant -- I doubt
you would either.

However, abstinence does not *prevent* unwanted pregnancies.  Rape can
clearly result in an unwanted pregnancy, and abstinence does not
prevent rape.  Thus, if you still think that `life is a good choice'
in the case of rape, meaning you think that pregnant rape victims
should not choose to abort, then you are entitled to your opinions.

I wonder -- should you become pregnant as a result of rape, Mr. Booth,
will you change your mind about abortion being an inferior choice to
`life?'  Regardless, I hope you'll forgive me if I disregard your
opinions regarding the morality of other peoples' actions as pseudo-
righteous bilge flowing from the open sewer of institutional misogyny.


[ Can we keep the Newsgroups line short, hmmm? ]

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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 19:27:48 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <nyikos.717906902@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> >In  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> >>
> >> But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
> >> services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
> >> I will pull the plug on YOU.
>
> >I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
> >Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?
>
> Glad I caught this one at the source.

Why are you glad?  Do you *enjoy* making yourself look like a fool?

> Margolis, if you try to blow this up into a case against Suzanne,

Why would I do that?  I hope you're not insinuating that I'm as stupid
as Chaney is.

(Thanks, Susan, for explaining it.  You'd think that people who didn't
know what was going on would find out before jumping in, wouldn't you?)

> Even if I put you in my de facto killfile,

<yawn>

> that won't inhibit me from
> exposing your mendacity in follow-ups to others.

Actually, it would - perhaps you need to have someone explain to you
what a killfile does.

And I have never lied here.  I present facts and opinions.  Everything
I say is true, to the best of my knowledge.  (And, if you should ever
find any of my facts to be in error, I'd *want* you to correct me.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:40:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <25820@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>Surely, the unborn person is innocent of any charge and deserves the right
>>to life.
>
>Except for maybe injury, battery, and assault on the mother? These are
>allowable reasons for killing in self-defense, you know.
>

Hehe.  I just *do* love this type of thinking. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:07:16 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
: >But are you proposing to divert to the starving millions all the 
: >monies used to obtain, provide, maintain and extend abortion rights 
: >for women in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter...?
: 
: No.  But neither am I proposing that money be spent to force women (who
: can clearly say they don't want to be pregnant) to remain pregnant with
: an embryo/fetus (which does not object to anything) instead of spending the
: money on thinking, breathing people (who can and do say that they would
: rather not starve to death).

This "silence gives consent" thing does not become you, Ray.

If you ask the Amazon Rain Forest if you can napalm it, it will say nothing.
Does that mean that it's O.K to to napalm the rain forest?

The silence of a fetus, alone, is a shabby justification for anything, let 
alone abortion rights.  

You've got better reasons than that, I hope.

: 
: The only reason money is spent on abortion rights is because many
: misguided people think that they know what is best.  In my experience,
: people who think they know what is best are almost always wrong and
: almost always dangerous.
: 

Heartily agreed.  I don't care much for people who think that they know what 
is best either.   Do you know what's best, or not?  You seem fairly sure
that an embryo is not worthy of human dignity, for example.  Is that wrong,
or is it just dangerous?  Because in my experience, people who know what's 
best often call those who disagree "misguided".

: -- 
: Ray Fischer
: ray@netcom.com
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion