HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:07:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.163408.142786@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep29.082752.1337@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <k4_pjhr.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writ
>> >
>> >That wasn't the question.  It's empirically verifiable that it's
>> >human, because it has human DNA.  But is it a PERSON?  If not, why not?
>>
>> The pro-life movement (I can't speak for it though)
>
>Then why are you?
>
>> and I are concerned
>> about HUMAN life BORN and UNBORN.  Human life begins at conception.  A
>> discussion on "PERSON" (a fight over semantics) may not even be that
>> relevant.  It's a human life.  Doesn't that count for anything to people?
>                                                                    ^^^^^^
>(More things that make you go "Hmmmm."  :-)
>
>Nope, just because it's human life doesn't mean anything.  Men's sperm is
>human life, and billions of them die every day, but you don't see people
>whining Onan-on about "spilled seed".
>

As I've said time and time again, sperm isn't human life!  No scientist
or biologist will agree with you on that assertion.




I think I should keep a file of ready made answers to common statements.
Everytime I see a statement I've seen a million times, I'll just paste
it on.

Nah.  Too lazy.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38919 alt.abortion.inequity:4075
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re: Observations)
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:43:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep25.221118.22087@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote:
> 
> In article <19vpe9INN2bv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> >Who's "we", white man?
> 
> Please explain once again.  This can be easily be construed to be
> both racist and sexist.

Whereby Martin proves that he probably has no sense of humor and certainly
doesn't know any jokes.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:56:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes ...
>In article <BvCrr9.L79.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>  Parents were complaining that they didn't want
>> their kids to see the bloody fetus pictures, and the "candidate"
>> answered that "children need to know what abortion really is."
>> I'm willing to bet that this guy would oppose sex education
>> in schools because only he should decide when his children
>> are ready to know about sex and what they should be taught.
>
>Susan - it bothers me when people have to make presumptions about
>other peoples motives, in this case Mr. Bailey, to bolster their
>own position.  Bailey may be a hypocrite but that doesn't detract
>from his point that "children need to know what abortion really is."

Children also need to know the details of sex, but I don't see any 
XXX-rated commercials on the telly showing kids the details of
what goes where.

(I'll bet 60 seconds would even be enough for Bailey  (-: )

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39426 alt.abortion.inequity:4133
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:56:37 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|}	The woman is responsible for her child just as a military recruit is
|}responsible to obey the orders of superior officers.  He or she signed a 
|}contract agreeing to do so and is bound by it.  

|Doggone.  I try to keep up too.  When did this happen?  Why wasn't I
|informed?  I hope someone is working on a post explaining
|Why Pregnancy is like Military Service and will post it real soon.

And while you're at it, Galen, can you get a copy of this
contract that women sign when they have sex?   My lawyer
wants to take a look at it.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.  
There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the 
intellect." -- Oscar Wilde
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: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:54:04 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>->Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
->>->of he who propounds them.
->>that being the case, there was absolutely no
->>reason for you to blatently assert that my answer
->>was not an answer, ws there?
->Sure. To point out the vacuity of your argument.

then you're withdrawing your statement above, "Arguments
stand and fall ...." i take it? i'm not at all
surprised. i didn't think you meant it when you
wrote it. no need for you to apologize.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Learn The Rules, and Avoid the Penalties
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:39:21 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] 
] TWEEEEEET!!!!! Incorrect sexual reference penalty.  5 yards lost, and loss
] of down.
] 
] Brian, anytime you engage in penetrative intercourse, even with condoms,
] lubricant with nonoxynol-9, spermicidal foam, and a diaphram, you are no
] longer engaging in "SafeSex".  You are engaging in some form of "SaferSex".
] (I almost put "SafierSex" up there.  The subconscious is a tricky beast,
] isn't it? :])
] 
] You _cannot_ become pregnant while engaging in SafeSex because in SafeSex
] there is _no chance_ of fluid transmission between partners.
] 
] You _can_ become pregnant while engaging in SaferSex becuase in SaferSex
] the condom might break, you might not pull out in time, there might be
] enough sperm and gogojuice in your pre-cum to get the little guys going,
] etc etc etc.

I think that it is important for those person
out there who will be either:

1. engaging in sexual activities

2. making references to sexual activities

to remember the above rules, so as to avoid the penalties.

So before the Ref has to pull that flag on you:

Stop and Think what you are doing.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:30:21 GMT

Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>So what should I do in t.a. now?  It's possible that I should just keep my
>fool mouth shut.  If I do, you may remember me to the next simpleton who
>comes along, and does not let compassion get in the way of a good argument.

Stick around.  Keep people honest.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: getting to the heart of things (was Re: Attention!)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:26:50 GMT

In <v6cznq_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Sep23.201144.21459@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep22.131042.16059@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>>> You know, the three most important attributes of an
>>>> effective therapist are 1) the ability to empathize,
>>>> 2) authenticity/genuineness, and 3) non-possessive
>>>> warmth/unconditional positive regard.
>
>>> no wonder you don't do it fulltime!
>
>> As you've never been to me for therapy, you're hardly
>> in a position to speculate about my skills (not that 
>> that's stopped you in other areas).
>
> on the contrary, bill, i think it's a good idea
> to investigate any professional before seeking service
> from that professional. don't you agree? 

Absolutely.  But given our recent conflict, I'm afraid you'll
have to find someone else to provide such services (if that's
your intent).

> i also think you've displayed in this thread some of the 
> characteristics which enter into your professional behavior.

Given that we've never had a therapeutic relationship, your
comment is incredibly presumptuous.  You know nothing about
my skills.

[...]

>>> what about you?
>
>> I have two careers.  
>
> perhaps this is something you should reevaluate.

I regularly do so.  The others in our psychology practice 
would like to see me do it full time, but I prefer the
current arrangement for now.

Bill 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Keywords: watching Nyikos scramble
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:48:12 GMT

In article <6673@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
}In article <nyikos.717906130@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}#Cochran, I have been looking at some of your past posts, and a most
}#uncompassionate person is taking shape from them.  So what I said to Larry
}#(in the line you quote above) goes for you too. 

}Ooohhhh.  Be careful, Keith.  He might threaten to spank you next.

He threatened Keith.  He warned Larry.  But he called me a clown out of
the blue.  I rend my garment.  I wail.  Peter, Peter, Peter, what can I do?
Could I have another chance if I post my SAT scores?

--
       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
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: DearOldDoug speaks through a Medium!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:43:46 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> And that's the news from Minnesota, where the women are strong, the men
>> are good-looking and the children are all above average.

> this statement is NOT correct.

Is this for real, drieux?  Are you channeling for DearOldDoug?

If so, could you ask him if the above statement is sexist?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Any way you slice it -- it's STILL baloney. 
Organization: Command Line Interface Fanatics 
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:55:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> 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??

Do you have proof of this?  I'm pro-choice, and I support the woman's right
to make a choice for herself -- whether that choice is abortion, or
childbirth.  Looks like you just missed the boat on that one...

>I think life is a good choice.

So do I.  What's your point?

>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.

If it works for you -- great.  Don't force others to use it, though, because
you don't know what's best for them.

>BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>sarcasm of the replies I get???

It doesn't make them any more rational.  If you're going to insist that you
know what pro-choicers stand for when you're not one yourself, then you'll
have to expect getting wigged for it.  Stupidity is stupidity, any way you
slice it.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

      "God just THINKS he's David J. Rasmussen." -- me, on 1991 June 5th
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:17:51 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  <1992Sep27.212523.9626@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.033824.28685@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >
> > In  <1992Sep25.164536.18161@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Go
> > > In article <1992Sep24.222132.130562@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > In  <1992Sep24.010702.7332@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoreg
> > > > >
> > > > > How in the world could anyone consider a sperm or egg a person?  Makes
> > > > > absolutly no sense and would be rather silly.
> > > >
> > > > I totally agree.  Whether or not the egg is fertilized, considering it
> > > > a person makes absolutely no sense and would be rather silly.
> > >
> > >
> > > huh?  Why?  (In reference to when conception occures)
> >
> > Why are you confused?  I was agreeing with you that considering an egg
> > to be a person would be rather silly.
>
>
> I guess I am so used to people disagreeing with me that I didn't realize
> that someone actually was...

(Fertilized or unfertilized; equally ridiculous.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:19:34 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Sep29.160700.17996@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> I say we should write a general law that says that unless you get consent,
> you cannot put an innocent life to death, in any fashion. If they didn't
> give consent, tough. No killing.

Then what are we all going to eat?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:54:59 GMT

In article <vb_pbfc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> >In article <c8!pdw_.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes ...
> 
> >> >IMHO, yes.  It was conceived and therefore a person, IMHO.  
> >> 
> >> Irrelevent.  Pigs are conceived and are not persons.
> >
> >Why are pigs not persons?  Please explain...I would be interested...and
> >yes, I am serious - I would really like an answer.
> 
> Practically because they don't have the necessary intelligence and 
> language skills.  They don't act like people.  Neither, by the way,
> does a zygote.

Why is this important?

> >In any case, the reason why a human is a person is because that human
> >was conceived.
> 
> But pigs, fish, rats, cows, and insects are also conceived.  What 
> I suspect you're trying to say that a person is anything that is 
> biologically human, was concieved, and is alive.  Yes?

If I understand you correctly, yep.

> >> >Do you deny that there is research, that will someday be successful in
> >> >allowing all conceptions to come to term?
> >> 
> >> Yes.
> >
> >Would you like me to do some library research and give you reference
> >articles on this topic?  I unfortunatly do not have them in front of me,
> 
> Yes.  Please make sure it supports your assertion that it will be
> possible to ensure that ALL conceptions come to term.

But this is not possible, as I stated in another message.  No matter
how fullproof someone says something is, an accident can always occur.

but if you still wish, I can find references to articles which demonstrate
research to minimize the possibility of an accident.
 
> >Why is a rock not a person?  Please explain.
> 
> Pretty much the same reason a pig isn't a person.  It doesn't appear to be 
> sufficiently intelligent.

What exactly is "sufficiently intelligent?"

> Actually, the question most on my mind at _this_ moment is why your 
> posts have such odd line breaks.

My
newsreader...sorry.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:09:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.000647.26246@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>>> = (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>>>Adrienne was obviously refering to an old joke involving Tonto
>>>and the Lone Ranger.  It's a very well-known joke.  It was
>>>clearly not a flame based on race, and if one knows the joke,
>>>which I am sure most people reading this group do, there is a
>>>point to using the punch-line here.  
>
>>I don't read misc.humor and I never heard the joke.
>>Would you publish it?
>
>It goes SOMETHING like this:

[deleted]

Thanks.  Larry Margolis' version was humorous and I thank him for it.

>Get it?  The "white man" reference is to point out that L.R. is white,
>and that ol' Tonto the Indian has just changed allegiances.

Thanks again, but the explanation is not necessary after the joke is told.


>>>  I haven't read any other follow-up
>>>articles to this one yet, but I won't be surprised to see a
>>>good deal of that stretching as soon as I send this article.
>
>>I'm not stretching, and I found it to be a reprehensible remark
>>not even worth a reply.  
>
>It'd be nice if you blasted the "reprehensible" flood of shit from the
>Chaneys and Holtsingers of t.a., ripping some of their misogynist
>ravings, for instance.  But, you seem to have trouble recognizing that
>trait in the obvious cases of, say, John Stevens and Suzanne Forgach.

I don't read talk.abortion, precisely because of the apparent
"flood of shit" from many sources on all sides -- to use your terms.

As for Adrienne Regard, she wrote, *without* a smiley-face (the usual
indicator of humor):

    Who's "we", white man?

As for John Stevens, I don't see any "misogynist ravings" to "rip."

Some writing styles that have appeared here (a.a.i) very recently 
seem to be clearer examples of "raving" than others.


>>If indeed there is a common joke, then
>>I'd be "happy" to change my conclusion -- although there wasn't 
>>any context to suggest otherwise.
>
>I would have thought it didn't NEED context, and I'm sure Adrienne
>thought the same.

Then omitting the smiley-face was at her own risk.  A simple three
characters would have avoided any misinterpretation of her statement.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
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 01:39:23 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> so, if you are really interested
->>in the facts, you can ask suzanne lucia as i suggested. if
->>you'd really prefer to hear from me, send me email. i'm not
->>going to get into it further publically.
->I'd prefer to hear it publicly, Mr. Keegan. 

you said that before. and i commented.

-> You accused CJ of lying
->publicly, I think you should support it publicly.

you said that before too. and i commented.

it would appear that you're less interested in the facts of the
matter than you are in responding to me. i'm not surprised.
i've said what i am going to say to you on this matter.

->If you can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider retracting
->the accusation.

sure i'll consider it. but i really don't think my position
will change. why don't you ask cj? i'm curious if she'll
tell you the truth.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Question, especially for Religious Pro-life
Keywords: surrogate motherhood
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:33:33 GMT

My sister asked me to post this question:

What do you think of surrogate motherhood?  Is it moral, or
not?  Should it be legal or not?

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:22:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.001448.19558@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Steve Arnold writes:
>>Brian Kendig writes:
>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure.  
>>
>>	Besides, Brian's statement is exaggerated, anyway.  Unborn
>>children have one thing in common with every born human being: we
>>are both LIVING HUMAN BEINGS.
>
>And unborn pigs are living pig beings, too.  So?  Does the humanity of
>a human fetus alone make it more important than a woman?  If not, then
>what other feature of a human fetus (not what it WILL become, but what
>it IS NOW) makes it so crucial?
>

What it is now?  A Human life.  Pure and simple.  Is the destruction of
that human life worthy of the reasons for aborting?  I don't think so.
98% or so of abortions done today in America are done for social reasons.
Social reasons certainly do not justify taking away the life of a
CONTINUING Human life.

By the way, why switch species on us?  Steve refered to Humans.  You
referred to pigs.  In your mind, is a pig comparable to a human?!?
If so, then perhaps the stand of those who want legal abortion is 
a bit easier to understand.  

>>That is a MEDICAL FACT.  If you
>>require sources, I'll give you a list the length of your arm; if
>>you deny my assertion, I challenge you to provide ONE reputable
>>source who will say that the unborn child is NOT a living member
>>of the species homo sapiens from conception until death.
>
>I don't question this fact; I just question its relevance.  Just
>because it has human DNA, which makes it a human being, doesn't mean
>that it necessarily bears any other features that would distinguish it
>from animals.

That which exists at conception is certainly a member of homo sapiens and
no other.  We definitely are in a position to control the lives of
the unborn and the animals.  However, killing a human life is not comparable
to killing an animal.  Thinking this way certainly verifies the fact
that the value of human life is certainly dwindling.