HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:20:23 GMT

In article <BD.92Oct13083951@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>
>>I keep repeating it but it gets
>>misconstrued, if liberal ideas and policies are so great, why does Governor
>>Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?
>
>It doesn't get misconstrued, it gets ignored (for the most part)
>because it's such a silly question.
>
>Why does Clinton want to be thought of as a moderate?  Two easons
>that I can think of:
>
>1)  He is one.
>
>2)  Because he's a politician, and he needs lots of votes to win.
>
>An idea's popularity is not an accurate indicator of its greatness.
>
>Slavery was popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>Facism was popular (in Germany), but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>Gay bashing is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>Not reading is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>Watching 6 hours of TV/day is popular, but I wouldn't call it a great idea.
>The second amendment is in disrepute these days, but it's still a great idea.
>
>Catch my drift?
consider your drift caught problem is I have to throw it back.  In the first
place I never meant to imply that popularity makes an Idea great what I was t
trying to point out is intellectual dishonesty.  Clinton is about as moderate
as Mario Cuomo or Ted Kennedy, he just has to wear his moderate face when he
is seen by the voters.  The truth of your second statement is obvious...he'll
say anything to get votes.  Problem here is you cant keep up with which story
is the current one.
>
>
>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:48:13 GMT

In article <1bf7uhINNn7s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bw2pHo.Hp5@cs.psu.edu. beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>.In article <1beugiINNi6u@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com. regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>..In article <1992Oct12.235505.18773@zooid.guild.org. Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org. writes:
>.
>.db. Stipulate: fetus (B) is a person with rights to be weighed against
>.db. those of other persons.
>.db. Stipulate: voluntary sex implies voluntary reduction of privacy rights.
>.drieux.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>.ws.When Don made that quote, he was primarily
>.ws.referring to the fact that for *men*, this stipulation is *already true*, while
>.ws.it is not true for women.  

>.ar.Scuse, please, but can you please tell me more about this interpretation?
>.ar.In what way has Don made reference to a fact that men suffer this stipulation
>.ar.and women do not?

>WHAT is being stipulated?  What is this 'reduction of privacy rights' that
>men are suffering that women are not suffering?

Apparently, Roe v. Wade said that women's constitutional right 
to decide abortion arises from their fundamental right to privacy.

The stipulation was for the purpose of argument.  It stated
that this right is voluntarily reduced when one participates in
voluntary sex.

After conception, men have no such right to decide issues of 
"personal or family privacy."  This decision is made solely
by the woman.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:44:35 GMT

In <26382@oasys.dt.navy.mil>  bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ron Bense) writes: >
In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <26300@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil
   (Ron Bense) writes: >>>

>>>What was forced on you?
>
>>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
>>perfectly fine option.
>
>Sorry, they were not. You are free to believe that abortion is not 
>correct.  You are not free to prevent others from thinking it is.

What do you think the effect of Roe (or the FOCA) will be several
generations from now, Ron?  As a member of the society whose
Constitution is alleged to endorse the option of abortion, I 
object.  But that's too bad, huh?

>>Roe did the same thing, Ron.  You simply see the concept of "individual
>>choice" as a value that supersedes all others.  I don't.
>
>In many cases it does, unless it interferes with anothers individual
>choice. Then it must be weighed which, if either, are for the greater
>good.

We simply disagree about what constitutes the greater good.

>>>Granted, it may be my opinion, but one that is more difficult to refute
>>>than the first one.
>
>>I don't see any difference.  All law endorses a value or set of values.
>
>But one law allows for many sets of values, while the other limits
>choice to a single set of values. That you are incapable of seeing this
>explains why you are against pro-choice beliefs, 

Whoa.  I *do* see that.  On another level, though, that very law
*endorses* the option of abortion.  I'm not sure you see that. 

>which allow for many
>sets of values which you only see as a single set of values different
>from your own, instead of yours being a subset of those endorsed.

Bill
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:06:21 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
 <1992Oct7.172923.16641@wdl.loral.com> <92281.215719KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
(Eric Marsh) says:

>>>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>>>anything deeper, Grasshopper?

>>Besides absolute right and wrong, no.

>No kidding? So how are these absolutes determined?

No thanks, I don't feel like a flame war over the Bible.  The Bible presents
a code of right and wrong, which most people around here refuse to accept or
consider.

Of course, given the disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God, that's a good
question; how CAN one determine what absloute right and wrong are?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: I'm back, the VP debate.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:51:29 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct15.061632.18735@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) wrote:
> 
> Should we count the Libs?  They were very much against abortion in the
> 1988 race.  

They _were_?  This is news to me.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:01:25 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct15.183144.26165@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen "Amadeus" Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Have you heard of us? There are tons of us who have nothing to do with
> those fanatics at the clinics. I bet you've never heard of pro-lifers
> who aren't a part of OR because you listen to that ignorant Boob Tube
> and the Media, whose most often-used message is "all pro-lifers block
> clinics." 

Mr. Chaney then proceeds to show how reasonable, temperate and even-handed
he is with such phrases as "pro-choice vacuum heads", and "the pro-choice
Nazi movement."

Dennis, the main difference between you and the folks blockading clinics
seems to be that they're generally less vituperative than you are.  Oh,
they seem to have a better grasp of logic, as well.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:53:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.010340.18230@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>[***SIMON*** WOULD YOU PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO TALK.ABORTION AND STOP CROSS-
>POSTING THIS STUFF FROM HERE TO ETERNITY???]
>
>[Note: Followups set to talk.abortion]
>
>In article <1992Oct9.204843.20175@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
>>brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
>>abortion the killing of that child.
>
>Ah, so you feel abortion should be allowed until ~24 weeks into the pregnancy.
>
>Welcome to the pro-choice camp, Simon.
>--
That'll be the day.  A day when there's ice skating on Archeron.

Simon

___________________________________________________________
"Liberals are but cockroaches before us!!!"-- Doktor S.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:08:29 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

M. Price (mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
:     Has anyone else noticed that Petie's getting a littlebit hysterical
: about this whole thing?

Definitely. Also a lot of others -- which is no excuse for any of them.

Could you all *please* take your petty squabble back to talk.abortion and
stop bloody cross posting.

This article sent to talk.abortion only. It can be done. Do it.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42879 talk.religion.misc:18429 alt.atheism:19111
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Kill a Christian today? (Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:21:37 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <Pu1JsB6w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
>>In article <1992Oct8.001541.3046@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, including 
>>>death, with the rest of mankind.
> 
>>Bloody nonsense.  The rest of mankind doesn't come back to life two
>>days after death.
> 
>You imply the belief system is internally inconsistent.  But in 
>that belief system, the rest of mankind does come back to life, 
>albeit not in two days.  

This minor difference may be relevant, though.  Anyway, let's see
where you agree and where you don't.

(1) If I believed that two days after my death I'd come back to life,
I wouldn't mind dying at any time.  After all, I'd only lose two days
out of an eternal (and bright) existence.  No big deal.  My reluctance
to die is entirely based on my awareness that it will be for ever.

Yet Christians make a huge issue of the "sacrifice" of Jesus, although
he clearly didn't lose anything substantial.  This I fail to understand.

(2) Since infinity remains infinity no matter how large a finite amount
is subtracted from it, Christians, who believe that they will come back
to life and never die again, even as Jesus, shouldn't mind dying either.
But experience shows that they do mind.

I therefore question their faith in their own resurrection (and hence
their faith that what happened to Jesus will happen to them).

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:16:32 GMT

In <ld649oINNfba@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.085016.15276@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>>What is wrong with allowing a doctor to assist somebody in commiting suicide?

>>As I understand it, suicide is still illegal in this cuontry, and still
>>classified as murder.  Therefore anybody assisting in a suicide is assisting
>>a murder.  And that is illegal too.

>I think that you are wrong about suicide being illegal. When my wife and
>I got into a discussion on the issue, I called the local police
>dept. and asked them about it. They told me that there are no laws
>against suicide, but the officer said that if the person who committed
>suicide were to do so on public property, it is possible that litter
>laws might apply.

Are there no laws against ATTEMPTED suicide?  I must admit laws punishing
someone who is SUCCESSFUL at suicide are an exercise in futility.  On the
other hand, there are good reasons for trying to deter someone from
attempting suicide.

Peter Ny.
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:21:01 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Bw74A5.Cvo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) :
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>><Bw49xJ.B2G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) :
...
>>>But KEVIN, this is an unviable tissue mass, a cancer, a pox, a worm,
>>>a voracious blood-sucking leech, not a HUMAN BEING!!!!  It is nothing
>>>and less than nothing.  That is why abortion is legal.  
>
>>Name one pro-choicer who would buy that line, Kellmeyer. If you can't, then
>>please dispense with the strawman tactics.
>
>I have heard the fetus called a leech by Gordon Storga.  A cancer by
>Jennifer Brindle.  An unviable tissue mass by nearly any pro-abort you
>can name, ditto worm.  I confess, I may not be accurate on the "pox" word.

Since everyone and their mother is demanding evidence from me for my
statements I hereby demand evidence from you that I called a human fetus
"a leech".  I may have referred to it "leeching off of the woman" but I
deny stating that a human fetus is "a leech".  Prove it, or retract it.
Thank you.

Note:  You needn't bow and scrape.  A simple "oops. made a mistake. sorry."
will suffice.

>>I, a pro-choicer, find your language offensive. The z/e/f is a unique 
>>organism. It is alive, human and genetically-distinct. It is *NOT* "raw
>>materials". It is *NOT* "... a cancer, a worm, a voracious blood-sucking 
>>leech". It is *NOT* "nothing and less than nothing". Please desist using
>>these exaggerated terms. Whatever rhetorical value they had has long since
>>been lost.
>
>You are unusual in saying that, Kevin.  Carl Sagan also compared the
>fetus to a blood-sucking leech in an article in Parade magazine.

Perhaps you have me confused with Carl? :-)

>>>Supporters of legal abortion are ADAMANT in their insistence that there
>>>exists no child until birth.  
>
>>I find such a point mostly irrelevant to the abortion issue. The REAL 
>>question is: "does the z/e/f have the right to enslave the woman who is
>>carrying it"? Please address this.
> 
>An unviable tissue mass cannot enslave anyone, Kevin.

But an insensitive public can try to force the government to enslave
the woman to the fetus.


Gordon
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.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.044641.9165@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>As the Net probes ever deeper into the question of Jim Keegan's private
>e-mail, I have another -- what business is it of yours to ask?
Jim accused CJ publicly of lying. That made it public.

>I wonder what Rescorla wants to know.  After all, most of the mail that
>passed during last May's painful personal quarrel made its way to him,
>thanks to C.J.'s promiscuous and inappropriate cc's.  Stop chasing 
>ambulances, Rescorla; there's no more blood here for you to see.
I want Jim (and now you) to retract your unsubstantiated public
allegations.


>C.J. lied.
Blatant assertion. Are you going to support this?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:59:52 GMT

In <1992Oct13.210020.16743@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.200933.12903@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>First OFF, I must Agree with Former JCS ADM Crowe

>First off, a friend and I where going over a list of the military
>people who endorsed Clinton. It was amazing how many of them had
>a personal axe to grind with Bush or Reagan. Admiral Truly for example,
>endorses Clinton but was fired by Bush for doing a poor job running NASA.
>The former Chief of Staff for the Air Force endorses Clinton but he was
>fired by Bush for talking about battle plans before Desert Storm. I
>believe (but could be wrong about this) that Crowe resigned from the
>Reagan Administration because he wanted a 600 ship Navy and Reagan wouldn't
>give it to him (in other words, he wanted to spend even more on defense
>than Reagan).

>>We KNOW that it is "immoral to demonstrate against one's country
>>when it is at war...." {Read His Lips, Would HE Lie to US?}

>Are you saying he isn't entitled to that opinion?

>>Why then is it that Nixon, Reagan, AND BUSH, have not even
>>sought a Grand Jury Investigation of this CRIME?

>I don't think Bush has accused Clinton of doing anything illegal
>so a Grand Jury wold be kind of silly woldn't it?

>All Bush is saying is that it shows bad judgment. He also raises the
>interesting question of why Clinton feels the need to lie about it
>(and every other negative story).

>  Allen

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Personally, I believe Bush
could have attended every meeting, and still have been 'out of the
loop'. :-)

REB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42287 alt.rush-limbaugh:7252 alt.activism.d:3832 alt.politics.elections:16464 alt.politics.bush:8897 alt.politics.clinton:10075 talk.politics.misc:51379
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:15:16 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Untruths about Rush (WAS Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha
 <1992Oct7.043302.16723@s1.gov> <92281.220604KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <BvtCwF.Gyq@news.udel.edu>

In article <BvtCwF.Gyq@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) says:

>This sounds like a mythical beast.  I can't think of anyone who advocates
>the specific position you just stated.

Of course, nobody claims to.  Rush believes, however, that there are many
such people who use abortion for political power, and for the money.

>No, he just blurs the distinction long after he makes his little defensive
>point.

No, he doesn't.  As I said, he is certainly in favor of equal rights for women.
Despite...

>He argues against women in combat -- so much for equal opportunity.

He has reasons for this, besides the fact that a poll of the military showed
that most of them don't want women in combat, either.  If it weren't 3 in the
morning, I'd get into them.  Maybe later; or, just call him up yourself.
(Good luck :)

>Does anybody know if Rush served in Korea or Viet Nam?  If so -- good
>for him.  If he avoided the draft by being in college, then he's a hypocrite
>everytime he mentions Clinton in this regard.  Heck, he's a hypocrite
>anyway for not bringing up Dan Quayle on the exact same issue.

I've read that he was physically ineligible, some sort of cyst or something.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:14:21 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1bhrs9INNc9a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>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.....

The word "force" is used in lots of ways.  For example,  
pro-choicers regularly tell us how laws targeting abortionists, and
usually enforced only if they harmed their patients, "force" women
to have back-alley abortions, or resort to coathangers and other
long-obsolete methods.

[For more on that "long-obsolete," see the chapter on specious
arguments for abortion in _Aborting America_.]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:27:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.212202.9765@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>Einstein thought he was correct.  Heisenberg thought he was correct.
>>Martin Luther King thought he was correct.  Gandhi thought he was correct.
>>Thomas Jefferson thought he was correct.  You think you are correct.
>
>You however, don't think you are correct.  You know beyond any doubt
>that you are correct.  Here's where you say so.
>

>>>>  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.

This was in response to claims that "you don't care," "you are a 
'sanctimonious hypocrite." etc.  I know my motivations.  Other people
claim to know my motivations.  I know what I think.  That's why I 
responded the way I did.

Thanks for allowing me an opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding