HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:20:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.215042.15358@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.185339.28770@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>You are still into the sperm/egg are humans (is a sperm a member of
>>homo sapiens?  Com'on now) aren't you.  Well they aren't.
>
>Who says?  You?  Why is it you're right and we're wrong?
>

Do you seriously think that sperm/eggs a human?  I don't think so.
Why do I think that sperm/eggs are not human lives?

Well, I come to the conclusion based on common sense and reason enlightened
by science and biology.

>
>Why is it that so many pro-lifers seem to assert some kind of moral
>superiority and absolute righteousness?  I have to make sweeping
>generalizations like this, but I've found VERY few pro-lifers willing
>to even really consider pro-choice arguments and respond meaningfully
>>to the key points of the issue.
>
The contention is based on the existence of a human life at conception.
What's so moral about that?

And you wouldn't necessarily call scientists people with some kind of moral
superiority or absolute righteousness would you?

>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
> _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
>                                                                 -- Rousseau


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.163642.31234@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In  <1992Sep22.145142.12511@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep22.052211.14940@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >In  <1992Sep22.012523.25142@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Cha
>> >>
>> >>            For heaven's sake, Dan, it's only a TELEVISION SHOW...
>> >
>> >Going to war with a fictional character is certainly bizarre.
>>
>> >> -----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
>> >
>> >Not like being assimilated by a fictional race, eh, Mr. Lo-I-Qutious?
>>
>> I most certainly hope to meet you at Jerry Brown's house on the Moon,
>> but at present, yours truly is rather busy...
> 
> Do you believe that Jerry Brown has a house on the moon?
> 

True, just sent me a blank cheque and I'll get you a weeks reservation,
with Dano in atendance to ensure you don't run out of vacuum... ;= )

~Paul

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:48:46 GMT

In article <BvpnLC.CMJ@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>Oh, more was done than just that -- what is basically being said is
>that only men have the right to enjoy sex.    
I thought everyone knew that.

Have YOU been enjoying sex, Cynthia?
If so, please report yourself to the nearest church for reprogramming.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an abortion two days ago]
Date: 30 Sep 1992 10:44:40 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep29.201537.25354@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>> I dunno about you, Martin, but I'd rather see my children thrive 
>>>> than fail.
>>> And if it looks like they will fail...
>More 24-carat Ad Hominem from Dr. Science!  He's buried the needle on my
>rhetorical fallacy meter!

>I gots to hand it to you, Adrienne.  If there be an Official Virus[1]
>lurking in the heart of a pro-lifer, you draw it out somehow.

It's pretty simple.

Restrict yourself to the principle of only using the ammunition they
provide.  People will eventually post their thoughts to the net.  If
their thoughts are insightful or interesting, you get one good posting
out of a mass of stuff.  If their thoughts are not well considered,
you have only to point out:
	(a) there are gaping holes in their arguments or
	(b) the arguments that exist are stinky cheese.

They cannot claim they didn't say it.
They can claim they didn't mean it 'like that', but that excuse only has
currency once.  By the third time it's used, the net participants will
translate it into a pretty clear "I haven't a clue and now I'm just stubborn."

Some people who post to the net do so so badly that it isn't even sporting
to go after them.  Chaney and Holtsinger may be the current examples, but
trust me, in 6 months it'll be three new guys.  (-:

Other people are a little more sporting, but still easy game.  How long
does one have to wait until Forgach or Nyikos says something ludicrous
after all?

It isn't necessary to know anything about them as people (and I'm sure
they are all perfectly fine people), nor to make up things about them, nor
to make up arguments for them (horror of horrors).  All you have to do si
pay some attention to the arguments presented.  For many of the folks here,
you don't even need a long memory.

It's not difficult to make someone look bad if all you really do is give
them the opportunity to reveal that they *are* jerks.  For some reason,
jerks leap at the chance to identify themselves.

Adrienne Regard

 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:25:07 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep24.233104.19883@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.143921.52374@gmuvax.gmu.edu> sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu
writes:
>> If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
>>in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>of income in our relationship..  Should she get pregnant, she would have
>>to quit her job or take an extended leave of absence.  Thus causing a 
>>substantial impact on our financial situation.  Plus, she would have
>>to pay for prenatal care (which we cannot afford..)  
>>So don't tell me that she must have a baby, thereby ruining two lives
>>in the process of creating one....
>>
> Why do our children always have to be the ones to suffer.

Yeah, it would be *so* much better if the parents would just slay
themselves after the birth of their child.  That way the child
wouldn't suffer at all, right?  Charming logic, dontcha think?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39839 alt.abortion.inequity:4179 alt.birthright:496
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:48:04 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep30.214722.12081@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>It only proves that legal abortion is utterly anti-American in principle,
>historically. In addition to it being logically discriminatory.

I suggest you study the history of abortion laws in the US. Outlawing
abortion was a mid-19th C thing that was promoted by white protestants
who feared that Irish and German Catholics would soon outnumber them.
They were also afraid that the 'darkies' would soon outnumber the white
folks.

>NOT. The Nazi's ALLOWED it. There were a few cases of coercion, like we
>have here now.

God, you are historically illiterate, aren't you. Why don't you read the
Nazi penalties for aborting an Aryan woman? Like the Nazis, the modern
anti-choice camp wishes to determine who has children, and when.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:50:11 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote (in article <nyikos.718164045@milo.math.scarolina.edu>):
>But wait.  If abortion would be illegal, would you support the law 
>that makes it so?  No? Then why do you support the law that makes
>killing this MISTAKE (!!!!!) illegal? 

Simple.  Before birth, a woman is, biologically, a baby machine.  She
has to dedicate her own bodily resources to the sustainance of the
fetus.  As the pregnancy progresses, she tires easily, usually has a
sore back, experiences morning sickness, and undergoes mood swings
because of the chaos of hormones in her body.  Birth means a lot of
pain at best, and permanent damage or death at worst.  There's no way
that she can pass this burden on to another person.  If she really
wants a baby and is willing to go throuh this, more power to her; if
she really doesn't want the baby and never chose to go through this,
then she should be allowed to stop the process.

After birth, the infant is no longer bodily dependent on her.  Heck,
she can even give it up for adoption if she wants to!

When the baby is born, the mother can opt to give away the infant.
Before birth, though, her only possible options are to abort it, or
else carry it through the full term of pregnancy.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:54:24 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:

>> As the subject line says, I had an abortion on Tuesday.  I guess I was about
>> 8weeks along, I don't know.  I went to the clinic two weeks ago to have it
>> done, but the pregnancy was so early that my urine test was negative.  I had
>> failed two home tests, so that's how I knew.

> I have saved this post.  There are a great many lessons in it for us, 
> pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, and they are not quickly digested or
> assimilated.  I will be following up to it for a long time to come, I
> think, and may even re-post the whole thing at a future date if the 
> discussion seems to call for it, although I will not use Karen's name
> in these re-posts unless she assents to it.  

> A preliminary comment: from the description below it would seem that
> anesthesia was not given.  I wonder whether this was a Planned Parenthood
> clinic, and how much they charged for a miserable little urine test.

Argumentum ad ignorantum again, eh Peter?  If it was a PP clinic, you should
know that they have a sliding fee based on ability to pay.

> At the rates Planned Parenthood charges for these, one would think it
> could give a blood test, reliable as early as two weeks after fertilization.

Why make an issue over charges for medical procedures?  If you have a point,
I'd like for you to talk to my dentist about the bill for my crown.

>> I am not pleased with myself.  I am not posting this to brag.  For one
>> thing, the abortion itself was the most physical pain I have ever felt in 
>> my life (I'm sure there are some of you who are satisfied by that). 

> I sure am not, it is one of the things I am angry at abortion mills for,
> not offering anesthesia as a matter of course.  As one can gather from
> my SUFFERING OF SOME... post and follow-ups, I care very much about
> women going through abortion, and this post only reinforces that 
> attitude.

You still haven't proven that PP clinics do not offer anesthesia.  Remember
making that assertion and then dropping it?  Btw, the root canal therapy I
underwent 10 years ago was the most excruciating pain _I've_ ever gone
through, and that includes getting stitches without novacaine.  Shall we
express some self-righteous anger at the dentistry mills now?

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

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:33:28 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Eric writes:
>Lori writes:
>>Eric writes:
>>>This is bogus.  Birth has got to be the most arbitrary thing on the face of
>>>the earth.  Not only can it happen naturally at almost anytime, but other
>>>persons are able to also pick, unnaturally, when the baby is to be "born." 
>> 
>> The same is true of conception.  What is your point?
>
>How is conception arbitrary?  It is the specific point when a sperm and an
>egg are joined.

How is birth arbitrary?  It is the specific point when the human is
removed from the mother's body and begins to obtain oxygen and
nutrients on its own, rather than having the mother's body supply them.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:34:49 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  <1992Sep26.010755.2885@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes...
> SN> > = Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> SN> >> = (Janice Kendall) writes...
>
> SN> >>  I don't think the man has a right to know if the woman feels the best
> SN> >>  action for her situation is to abort.
>
> SN> >Well, as my good friend, Locutus of Borg :-), might say : "Feelings are
> SN> >Irrelevant".
>
> SN> Your "good friend" *has* said:
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Hold on there, Steve... Just because I made a joke about something which
> Patrick Stewart said on television, does *not* make me "buddies" with Steve
> Chaney.

Steve Novak probably thought you meant Lo-I-Qutus.  :-)

> SN> Abusive males are hardly "rare"; and anyone can see that such a situation
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> SN> would likely INCREASE the possibility of abuse.
>
>
> You called my comments about *one* woman, "anti-women," yet you make a gross,
> *sweeping* statement about all men (or at least the perceived characteristics
> of men).  Just *who* is gender-bashing here?

Saying that abusive males are not rare is *not* saying that *all* males are
abusive.

> SN> >(Note my words carefully : I am stating
> SN> >that I believe that it is advisable to tell beforehand, but that I would
> SN> >*require* it to be told afterwards).
>
> SN> Why?  What except possible disappointment, hurt and abuse could
> SN> possibly result from such a repressive law?  Why do you feel the need
> SN> to so totally control a woman who doesn't agree with you, rather than
>
> Since when is being told about a decision that affects your life, "control"?

If you're not told, how does the decision affect your life?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:26:27 GMT

In article <kt_prfb.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) wrote (in article <1992Sep28.120859.17515@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>):

> 
> Owch, good point!  Geez, I'm almost starting to sound like a
> pro-lifer, aren't I?  Not good.
> 
,
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:13:13 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <6911@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
>Couldn't be bothered to work out who this was

It was I, Colleen's Fourth Disciple and Prophet.

>>>> Jesus from Nazareth.  (Yes, I mean all those quotation marks).
>So who was Jesus from Nazareth if Nazareth didn't exist
>until after his death?

Jesus from Nazareth?  Easy.  That's the only man of whom it is known
that he was from Nazareth.

Nazareth?  Easy again.  That's the town of which the only thing known
is that Jesus lived there.

Jesus most probably never existed.

So you were asking about Nazareth?

-- 
 `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: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:20:40 GMT

In article <6734@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> double standards.  DODie has said publicly that he won't
>>> criticze another pro-forcer on the net - he'll only
>>> do it in e-mail.  

>> This is a lie.

> Okay, DOD, you just said that you "don't normally" do it.

Thanks for correcting yourself.  One nitpick though: I said 
nothing about criticism, only "substantial disagreement".  

> Since you would prefer to have the exact quote re-posted,
> here it is.

I'm kind of flattered that you would save my posts, Ms. Garvin.
Just how many posts have you saved?

>"I am not "pro-life", and I don't normally express substantial disagreement 
>with pro-lifers in my posts because I know pro-aborts like you will gloat 
>over it.  I do sometimes send e-mail to pro-lifers when I disagree with 
>their views."
>-dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) in <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu> 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:58:20 GMT

In <1992Sep28.164857.15534@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <ssgz25g@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->> you're lying, bill. i answered your question(s)
->> several times. you responded to my answers. why
->> are you lying, bill?
->> 
->> here's one such answer of mine, bill. do you
->> remember replying to it?
->>
->>	Message-ID: <1992Sep18.234833.12160@crd.ge.com>
->>
->>	since dean expressed this with such clarity and flair,
->>	he can speak for me in response to this specific
->>	question (sorry galen).

->I thought this was "one such answer of [yours]", Jim.  

of course you did. it was. are you now admitting
you were lying when you repeatedly claimed that
i hadn't responded to your question?

->Looks like it's from Dean to me.  

i should hope so. i took great care to see that
you wouldn't miss that. unlike some, i take great care
in not taking credit for things written by others.

i should hope you are not suggesting that it is
inappropriate to quote the opinions of others.

->Heh, heh.  Dean's clever response is the equivalent of 
->responding to a "Why?" question with "Because!".  

i certainly hope your interpretations of what
your patients tell you is more accurate.

->If that
->is how you wish to characterize yourself, so be it.  

what do you mean "If?" you denied in several posts
that i responded at all, even though you responded to
my response. i don't think you have any wishes on
how you're characterized.

->You 
->(in your inevitable response) may have the last word.  I
->am done with this nonsensical conversation.

heck you could have done that weeks ago and just admitted
that you had erred. instead you dragged it out until you
got caught lying. better late then never, i suppose.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Science Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:19:36 GMT

In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com>, "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com> writes:
> 
> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will experience
> doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford an unwanted child..
> Your smug all-knowing attitude turns my stomach..I WANT TO SPEW! 
>
Catholic Social Services will gladly find a family pay for all 
medical expenses occured during the pregnancy provided they can adopt the child.

This is how my sister & her husband adopted two of their children.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion