HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 20:24:52 GMT

In <1992Aug29.135948.22535@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715043800@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> [Dan King wrote] 
>> >Were the pro-lifers picketing the house because he was involved in 
>> >child pornography (an illegal act), or were they picketing the house
>> >because he performed abortions (A legal act).
>> 
>> Don't assume the abortions were legal.  Here in Columbia almost every
>> abortionist has done 2nd trimester abortions in his clinic, and some
>> even admit it openly, even though South Carolina law says all 2nd 
>> trimester abortions must be done either in a hospital or a licensed
>> clinic, and not one of the clinics in South Carolina is licensed.

>Here we see that Nyikos has no facts on which to accuse the doctor
>in question of performing illegal abortions, so he posts idle
>speculation in the guise of facts.

You're missing my point.  You said A.  I said, don't 
assume A, there's also possibility B.  Now B may be idle
speculation, but I did not disguise it as a fact.

>> As to why the pro-lifers were picketing, I don't know, but judging
>> from the pro-lifers I know, they were probably protesting both acts.
>> Certainly if they knew about all his sleazy porn business, they would
>> have been protesting both.

>Here we see that Nyikos has no information on the matter at all, but
>just speculates that his side would do the right thing if they
>knew what it was.  Again, pure speculation and no information.

Not speculation.  Based on a great deal of experience, although I
should have worded the above differently: all the pro-lifers I know,
had they known about all the sleazy porn business, would have been
protesting both.  And I know over a hundred pro-lifers from all
across the country.

I've seen real speculation from the pro-choice side.  People
calling me a misogynist, a liar, a man associating with terrorists, 
an unprincipled man, a man lacking integrity--that's real speculation.
None of it backed up by a shred of evidence, nor with valid comparisons to
people who do fit the above descriptions. 

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion-adult/child sex link.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:13:45 GMT

In <BtnK6r.Hzy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:

>In article <nyikos.714858926@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <BtJxEw.D6z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu  
>writes:

>> >Here's my proposed response to the statutory rape problem. You can't
>> >have an abortion until you can get pregnant (duh!),
>> 
>> Alas, this is incorrect.  I can give you the name of at least one
>> woman who "had an abortion" when not pregnant, and reports of lots more.

>Some people may tell you, "please, go ahead, post her name and some  
>documentation," but I won't, because perhaps she has had her privacy  
>violated enough.

I appreciate your concern, but the woman won't mind since she went 
very public with it, as my post will amply demonstrate.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:51:35 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  <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <BttGE0.L16.2@cs.cmu.edu>
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
> >>> Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
> >>> attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or
> >>> older.
>
> >> No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to
> >> employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
> >> for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
> >> Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).
>
> > Kathi's statement is correct.
>
> No, it is not correct.

Sure it is.

> > As more than one person has pointed out, Colautti
> > v. Franklin struck down the law because it was vague, not because
> > the prohibition was unconstitutional.
>
> Where are we disagreeing?
>
> As I said above, the Court "struck down" legislation to require
> a physician to employ the abortion technique which would provide
> the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive.  Therefore
> Ms. Mill's statement is not correct.

Her statement that the state *may* enact legislation requiring a
physician to attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks
gestation or older is correct.  The fact that Colautti v. Franklin
struck down a law requiring this because the law did not clearly
indicate that the woman was more important than the fetus in no
way invalidates this.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:35:42 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
|You people are making fun of Doug for being an idiot, but I think it's
|incredibly offensive how he's making fun of the Jewish religion.  If
|someone put down Catholics in the same way Doug is putting down Jews,
|he would be the first one screaming about it.

This is the kind of behavior that moved me to formulate my
theory that t.a has a niche for Rasmussen-behaving twits.
If the niche is vacant, somebody will evolve to fill it.

Or maybe "devolve" is the right word in this situation.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Not only are you obviously a boring conservative twit with sexual 
dysfunctions beyond the dreams of analysis, but also the proud possessor 
of a one track mind that just keeps going and going..." --Rebecca Ching,
on David Rasmussen
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:12:48 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Aug25.205744.23633@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.013426.26602@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.204637.20295@ncsu.edu>
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug16.005011.3902@menudo.uh.edu> 
>>>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>>>> Consider yourself corrected.  Meet the anti-abortion but pro-choice person
>>>> that does more than pay lip service to the first part of his stance.

>>>Wait just a second.  Didn't you once claim that most pro-lifers do not
>>>agree with Steve Chaney's remarks?  If you're now claiming to be pro- 
>>>"choice", then what business do you have saying such a thing?  

>><YAWN>

>>Guess what?  "Life" isn't spelled l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n.
>
>Guess what? Civil rights IS spelled l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n.  That's the
>only way discrimination can be banned or eliminated, is by
>legislation. 

Oh?  Seems to me some bus companies stopped discriminating because of 
boycotts organized by private individuals.

Certainly the only way discrimination can be banned is by legislation.
But has that eliminated it?

>It IS civil rights that we are fighting for, WRT the unborn child,
>right, fellow pro-lifers. It's discrimination against the unborn that
>we are trying to legislate against. 
>"Life" not being "legislation" is as foolish an idea as civil rights
>not being legislation.  

>To loosely quote Martin Luther King, Jr., he said, "I can't force a
>person not to hate me, but I can prevent them from carrying it out." 

Martin Luther King, Jr. did a lot of things which discouraged
discrimination by making it unprofitable, too.

Civil rights is a goal.  Lack of abortion is a goal.  Legislation is
a means.  You're confusing the most obvious means with the end.

Would you call someone who didn't believe in legislation against
discrimination because he didn't approve of governmental interference
in private contracts but who went around organizing boycotts of
companies that discriminated "anti-discrimination"?

Would you call someone who couldn't stand laws against abortion
because his wife/her mother/whoever died from a botched illegal
abortion but who volunteers at an abortion alternative center
"anti-abortion"?

--
Pro-Choice                  Anti-Roe                    - E. Elizabeth Bartley
              Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:39:51 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>If you don't want to outlaw alcohol, fine -- but then you have no logical
>basis for outlawing marijuana.

>Incidentally, the discussion is now academic to me.  I haven't used either
>substance in over 7 years.

A question: Is having a glass of wine with dinner "using" alcohol, or
is it merely the enjoyment of fermented grape juice?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:31:34 GMT



There was another exhibition of just how much the protesters outside
the clinics here care for children last Saturday.  The young daughter
of one of the demonstrators ran in front of a moving car.  She was
not seriously injured, luckily, since the car was moving very slowly.
Her mother neither called an ambulance nor took the child home, but
forced her to stay for another several hours of demonstrating.  (The
little girl had scrapes and cuts from the street, and was naturally
very upset by the incident.)

I guess this explains why women walk faster when one of these
people shrieks "I'll take your baby."

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:09:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.021852.18235@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <66941@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>> Has someone been picked to moderate the new group?

>Unfortunately, nobody's been brave enough to volunteer.

I was one of the people you mentioned as possibilities, and I don't
believe anybody's objected.  I'm willing *in principle* to moderate 50
articles a day or thereabouts for a talk.abortion.moderated group
(though I still think a mailing list would work better).  However, I
am emphatically unwillling to moderate an abortion group to remove
flames if flames are defined as any insults, attacks, etc.; the
definition is too general and I'm not perfectly objective on the
abortion issue.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 23:22:54 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

>  = dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> If I recall correctly, 60 minutes explained how one woman, who needed an
>> abortion to save her life, was refused an abortion at several hospitals
>> ...
>> One might argue that technically the US law grants "abortion on demand",
>> but this anecdote illustrates that in reality it can be extremely
>> difficult to obtain an abortion EVEN IN LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS
>> and EVEN IF YOU HAVE LOTS OF MONEY to fly from state to state.
>
>I think it's rather unscientific to use a single piece of anecdotal
>evidence for extrapolating to the typical case.

You're right.  In the more typical case, she wouldn't have lots of money,
and she'd die.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <9bye939@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
 
>I agree!  I just started reading this News group and am shocked at the useless
>ramblings - I was hoping for some rational, thought provoking discussions, not
>a lot of clearly false opinions - on both sides of the arguments.
 
Are you referring to rational, thought provoking discussion such as:
 
In article <siyemop@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:

>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>- and my wife has said the same thing...
 
I notice no justification for your claim in this paragraph.  Should we
all just shut up and accept your beliefs?  How about following this 
claim with some rational discourse on to how you want to carry this out?
Would you allow no exceptions for the above?  Would you want charges 
brought against women who endanger the fetus?  Would you want to force
a woman to take the maximum precautions to ensure the safety of the 
fetus?  
 
Don't whine about people not using this group the way you want it used,
when so far you have failed to use it the way you want it used.
 
>Sean P. Curley						Unify Corporation
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: abortifacients
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:30:39 GMT

>>>> = vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>>  = tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>>   = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>    = chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>>
>>>This is a false statement.  IUD abortions do not stop beating hearts.
>>
>>I won't listen.  I won't listen.  Stop confusing us with facts.  We want 
>>easy answers, not accuracy.  Next I suppose you'll want to point out that 
>>a fetus might not have a brain, or can't write a diary.  Really, we're 
>>not interested.
>
>99% of all abortions kill fetuses whose hearts are already beating.
>
>Can someone tell us when the human heart starts beating? I have proof that
>it beats by 3 weeks after fertilization, which is way before 99% of all
>abortions.
>[...]
>Oh, and if the fetus does not have a brain, what makes them grow?  They have
>detected brainwaves and nervous responses to stimuli by 7 weeks. 

(1) OK.  You've just argued that anything that is growing needs a brain 
    to do so.   For credibilities sake, I suggest you distance yourself
    from this remark.
(2) And what do you mean by "brain" or "heart"?  Do you mean some tissue 
    with some sporadic twitching that will eventually develop into a heart?  
    I'll let the medical experts define and identify these things, but I 
    think it's safe to say that it's not uncommon for an abortion to involve 
    a f/e/z with neither a brain nor a heart  (eg. IUD or the pill)

So unless you think abortion is OK when the f/e/z is sufficiently undeveloped 
(do you?), "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" isn't the issue.  But if 
"Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" isn't the issue, then why do I hear it 
all the time?  (read on...)

>And a newborn cannot write a diary, either. What's your point? That
>personhood doesn't start until someone can write a diary?

The point is this: "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" is an assertion that may 
or may not be true, depending on the circumstance.  But whether it is true 
or not is apparently irrelevant (to G. Clausen), because it is part of a 
purely emotional appeal, along the lines of the infamous "Diary of an Unborn".
Or perhaps some pro-lifer's are genuinely satisfied with some vague emotional
rationale and aren't really interested in examining the situation.
(This might be said of some pro-choicer's too, start a new thread if you wish)

Hearts, brains, sentience, etc. are all qualities of normal, born humans,
that many pro-lifer's attempt to associate these qualities with f/e/z's.
Unfortunately these qualities often simply aren't there, but even when these
qualities are not present, many (most) pro-lifer's are STILL against abortion.
So cut the crap and tell us the real reason you think abortion is wrong.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Aug20.192934.29839@vexcel.com>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug21095144@gauss.nmsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:25:00 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug21095144@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

   	Tell me how to stop Congress from spending $1.5 for every
   	$1.0 in revenue.

Tell the wimp to veto such spending.  Tell him to submit balanced budgets,
like Reagan never did.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:21:08 GMT

In article <JTURNER.92Aug21192600@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.144742.23278@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> Criticizing Jess Helms for doing what the NEA has *always* done -
>> decide to fund some art, while declining to fund other art -
>> is hypocritical.
>
>	The DIFFERENCE is that the NEA decisions are not based on
>the content of the art.

Sure they are.  They're also based on the definition of art being used.

The very definition of "art" is culture-specific.  While the NEA could
fund all art without discriminating on the basis of content using one
culture's definition of "art", it can't avoid discriminating on the
basis of the definition of "art".

Is "piss Christ" art?  The answer is culture-specific.  In funding it,
the NEA is pushing certain cultures.  Since it uses tax revenues to do
so, it is using FORCE to push those cultures.  (Taxes aren't
voluntary.)  We know it doesn't fund certain kinds of "art", so it
discriminates on the basis of culture.  The fact that it has to make
these decisions doesn't change the fact that it is making them.

I understand that "liberals" don't like the idea that they're really
no different from Helms, but they can always stop being like him.  The
fact that they don't reveals that they're more interested in forcing
their culture than they are in their belief that forcing culture is
wrong.  (The alternative is that they believe that forcing CERTAIN
cultures is wrong, but that forcing certain cultures is acceptable or
even good, in which case there's no contradiction.)  Something had to
give in that situation.  They're more interested in forcing their
culture than they are in their ideals.  Intolerance is a common
choice.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Summary: What a non-thinker.  What a way to go out!
Reply-To: russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
Organization: Boye, Dewey, Cheetham and Howe, Atty's.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:38:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.211013.6338@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>Perhaps you forget that the unborn may, in fact, be human life? 

Perhaps a petri dish of skin fibroblasts from my arm is human
life?  (What else would it be, a flatworm?  You're saying these
cells are not alive, not human, or what?)

Perhaps you're so clueless you can't distinguish between mere
cells, mere living matter, and a human being?  There is nothing
special about cells, you kill and shed millions every day.

>Or are
>the unborn just a parasite sucking things out from the mother and therefore,
>we should be allowed to 'exterminate' that pesty parasite?

The unborn, until it starts myelinating the cerebral cortex,
is a nothing of itself.  If the person in whom it resides
thinks it is a parasite, it IS.  If the person in whom it
resides thinks it is a blessing, it IS.  A rose in my garden
is a prize, the same rose in the cornfield is a weed.

Do free yourself from your confining absolutist mental framework
and think for a change.  It is very liberating.

>Please, let's not get into it again.  Consult other threads for the 
>abortion debate.

You get into it and then tell the rest of us not to.  Either
practice what you preach or admit your essential hypocrisy.
-- 
Russ Cage                  wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (until 8/28/92)
            russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu (until whenever)
I'm leaving the net today for an unknown duration.  I won't see any responses
to these posts unless e-mailed to the second address above.  Au revoir!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc