HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 07:22:10 GMT

<nyikos.718388155@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Oct1.220046.8952@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
...
>>    I'm afraid your own caveat excludes you.
>		^^^^			 ^^^
>I stand by what I have said, except for that lapse of memory.  If you
>were to read the New Testament at all carefully, you would realize
>that "your" and "you" could best be applied to Jesus and his followers,
>by Storga's atheistic standards, and quite possibly your own carefully
>concealed ones.
>
...
>PS Anybody who deletes "by Storga's atheistic standards..." and smears
>me with smearing Jesus and his followers, can expect the same 
>"castigation" I am now directing at Storga and M. Price.

Perhaps, oh wondrous mind-reading one, you could explain how it is you
claim to know my "atheistic standards".  I don't recall posting anything
describing them.  Please, tell us how you came by this information.


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.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:33:21 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <1bhrs9INNc9a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>(Adrienne Regard) writes: 
>>Scuse, please.  How is this forced upon you?  I don't see you accepting
>>this particular set of beliefs......
>
>It's forced on me because I am a member of the society in which the
>ruling was made.  The ruling clearly (IMO) considers abortion to be
>an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy, and as a matter of
>constitutional law, implies that this is a belief endorsed *by the
>entire society*.  

No it does not.  It says that the right of a woman to have an abortion
is considered by the Supreme Court to be protected by the Constitution.  

It by no means implies that people endorse the idea.  Under our system, the
rights of minorities are supposed to be protected from popular opinion.
That's one of the duties of the Supreme Court.  To make sure that the other
two branches stay within the bounds of the Constitution.

>>Scuse, please: how does Roe force upon others a set of values?  If it 
>>*DID*, we probably wouldn't see so much discussion here.....
>
>I think my response above answers this one, too (at least to my
>satisfaction :-) ).

Not to mine.  Unless you are being forced to have an abortion, or someone
in your family is being forced to have one, it by no means forces a belief
nor practice on you.

Using your argument, since Islam is protected by the Constitution, it is
forced on me.  Hardly.  People who practice Islam are entitled to equal
protection under the law, even though they comprise a minority.  Similarly,
if the set of woman who want abortions comprise a minority, they still have
a right to equal protection.

In fact, many, many things you do not like or approve of are likely
protected....you are neither forced to believe or practice them.  You ARE
expected to tolerate it.

Our system of government was set up to make sure that unpopular ideas were
not supressed, and people who were different were treated equally by the
government.  It takes a while to get it right, and we're still working on
it.

In this case, though, I suspect that the pro-choice position is the
majority.  By this I mean that a majority of people support abortion in at
least SOME cases and/or with some restrictions.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Answer to Woodyatt's 'jisms (syllogisms, that is)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:20:14 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <Oct08.005257.18791@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:
> 
> To offer an analogy frequently used on t.a, if I hit someone else's car, I
> must do everything within my power to save the people I injured, but this 
> does not mean I must donate my kidneys.

Nonsense.  If you hit someone else's car and cause injuries, you are
generally enjoined from leaving the scene of the accident before the
authorities arrive.  Period.

You are certainly _not_ required to do "everything within [your] power", or
even _anything_ within your power to "save the people [you] injured".

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:43:17 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <7139@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <adams.718638072@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>#c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>#
>>##Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>>##does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>>##women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>>#
>>#Direct or indirect, you're still dead.
>>
>>No, Steve, you said it wrong.  It's, "Direct or indirect, *she's*
>>still dead."
>>
>>If it were Guerrero who was at risk, he'd probably understand.
>>Since it's some hypothetical woman, he could care less.
>>
>
>Why choose death for both human individuals when both can be alive and
>well?

Given the infant mortality rate, and the rate of deaths from childbirth,
there is NO guarantee that they will both be 'alive' let alone 'well.'

====> Conception does not guarantee a healthy, live child. <====

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:44:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.223039.2638@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <6739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> that she devalues motherhood, and
>> that she's the most twisted person on the net?
>
>Adrienne herself proves these with every post she makes.
I'm hurt. I thought *I* had your vote for the most twisted person on
the net.
-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."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:18:59 CST
 <1aaa0gINNq5a@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Sep30.201359.16425@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep30.201359.16425@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
[...] 
> BUT THAT IS YOUR CHOICE!  No one is asking the baby.

Maybe because there are no babies involved in the decision to abort?
Even if you ask a late-term fetus, s/he isn't going to answer.  Maybe
that's why they don't get to vote (but what about 17 year olds?
They're nearly 18, why don't they get to vote?)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:54:26 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes ...
>In <bg2z-9_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
>   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
>wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>
>>>The proponents of consent and/or notification laws did not kill
>>>Becky Bell. 
>>
>>for a person who so casually tosses inferences about,
>>you seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with the
>>concept of responsibility. 
>
>Only when others insist that I am responsible for their
>tragedies.

Do you insist that you are responsible for the availability of
(tragic) abortions?  Do you insist that you must do something to
change the availability of abortions?  If yes, then it hardly seems
unreasonable that people also consider you to be responsible for the
consequences.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.034034.23325@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.023459.7473@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.232122.13523@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct8.073626.1003@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, there will be ice floes on the River Styx before THAT happens.
>>>
>>>Please post your documentation showing that the River Styx doesn't have
>>>ice floes...
>>>>
>>>>Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>>>>circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it.."
>>>
>
>******************************************************************************
>* SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!!    *
>******************************************************************************
>>>Ok, Simon, let's get to the "extreme" circumstances.  If my Aunt Ann gets
>>>pregnant and tries to carry to term, she *WILL* have her spinal column snap,
>>>and wind up being paralyzed and in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
>>>
>>>She's on the pill.  Ed (her husband) uses a condom every time they have
>>>sex.  They don't want to go in for steralization on the hopes that they
>>>will come up with some sort of precedure that will fix Ann's back, in which
>>>case they'd love to have another child.
>>>
>>>She gets pregnant.
>>>
>>>Would you let her have an abortion?
>>>
>>>Why should she have to ask you?
>>>
>*****************************************************************************
>* DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT???? *
>*****************************************************************************
>
>Simon's response so far:
>>
>>About my River Styx comment: Anyone familiar with Greek mythology will know
>>where that River is supposed to be, and will understand that remark.
>
>I'd say he's six years old.  Or maybe a really bright five year old.

Well, actually you're way off--I'm 22.  A five or six year old would only
spout the liberal junk taught in schools today.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov)
Subject: Re: Let us Unto history Rewrite
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.121534.2363@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>2. It is True that Stalin, while alledging to be the head
>of a 'leftist' organization did in point of fact establish
>not the 'dictatorship of the prolitariate' but the simple
>DICTATORSHIP OF STALIN.
As you can see from the moderm history the DICTATORSHIP OF STALIN(replace
with a name you like) is the ONLY possible form of existence of dictatorship
of proletariat. Remove DICTATORSHIP of say STALIN and dictatorship
of proletariat will disapper by itself.

>3. It is true that in the formative days of the NSDAP they
>were considered a leftist organization, but by June 30th 1934
>all such 'leanings' and ambiguity was cleared up.
It was just a personal cleaning (you saw them in xSoviet history
in great number), it does not change anything in the nazi movement.
Did the communism in xSU change its nature due to murdering of say Bukharin ?


>with 12 years of the Glorious Reign of the Reagan Revolution
>coming to reap its rewards, I can understand how some of this
>may be very confusing. There is a very simple model that will
>help you understand all of this. Attach the end of a line together
>and you will get something approximating a 'circle.' Where the
>'party on the right' meets the 'party on the left' you will
>find that their Agents of State Security are playing HugsyKissyFace
>and the remaining defenders of the Republic are going to the wall.
>

What about this simple model:


More order,                                              More individualism,
more state involvment into                               and wild capitalism
economy and private life

<-----------                                   -------------------------------->

Communits           Democrats                    Libertarians       Anarchists
   Fascists            Republicans


There is no circle here. I guess  that anarchia and concentration
camps cannot coexist. 



-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:15:54 GMT

In article <9535@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>This post is in response to the person I have been debating as to whether
>pregnancy is trespass.
>
>I lost your post but I wanted to respond anyway.
>
>[Comment about having to wait 36 weeks before trespasser leaves missing.]
>
>This analogy is getting a little silly, but in the interest of getting
>the last word.  I will extend it a little further.
>
>Suppose your house is a boat.  You invite someone onboard.  You go for a 
>sail.  After a while you get tired of this person, so you ask him to leave.
>The problem is that you are now miles from shore.  To leave the boat is
>to die.
>
>It has been mentioned that when you ask a guest to leave and he doesn't
>this constitutes tresspass.  This is probably correct.
>
>In the above scenario, forcing the trespasser to leave will kill him.
>Do you have the right to kill this trespasser?

Is this YOUR analogy to pregnancy? (Gee, I've asked that a lot lately.)
Where is the WOMAN?  Where?  I can't see her, just as you apparently can't
see her in the REAL pregnancy.

Jennifer
>
>I think not.
>
>-- 
>Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:59:35 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->What is this?  Politically Correct Sociology?  

why don't you define "Politically Correct Sociology,"
bill. then there will be little possibility that anyone
could misunderstand you.

->These may be your provincial observations, Nadja, 

please list the criteria you used to determine that
nadja's observations were "provincial," bill.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Keywords: Bogus threats
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:14:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct16.165819.24190@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
(Stephen A Chaney) writes about the article in which he responded
to a reply to Larry Margolis:

#Sounds like you fudged the file, Bogus. This was not the article I
#responded to. I think it's time to contact your administrators. This
#has ceased to be funny, Bogus. 

I'm not Dan Bredy, and I don't work for Kodak.  My sysadmins read
the net.  They know how to check archives, too, so they won't
just take your word, Chaney.  

I'm quite comfortable with the idea of anyone checking the original
article.  Are you?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:22:53 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <-gvzp7g@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>And it is somewhat surprising that Eric would be "satisfied"
>>with your evidence, given that Eric himself once stated that
>>the only possible means of judging would be to produce the 
>>letter in question (that would, of course, be the letter to the
>>_mailing_list_) and let people judge for themselves whether it
>>supported your claim.

>That's not what I said. I said that I didn't think that Mr. Keegan
>would be able to show that he had NOT made such a request without
>producing the letter in question. Sorry you fail to recognize the
>difference.

----------------
Article 26867 of talk.abortion:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:19:46 GMT

So... The way I see it, both you AND CJ have made substantive allegations
which are unsubstantiated. I think you should substantiate that you
did not write such a mailing and that she should substantiate that you
did. 
----------------

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

                      -rocker
From: kwelch@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:19:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Abortion is available to women because it is a woman's body (and only a
>woman's body) that supports a pregnancy.  Child support, on the other 
>hand, is required of BOTH men and women when a child exists.  And
>while it may be a burdensome thing, is not 'inequitable' in it's legal
>assignment.

So which body ends up dead, Adrienne?  Is that your body that ends
up aborted?  Or is it another body that ends up aborted?


>>The woman's unalterable obligation to support begins, 
>>at the earliest, after the last legal moment to abort.  
>>This is usually 6 or more months later than the moment 
>>the man's rights are restricted.

>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.

This is part of what I think is amazing about the whole issue of
"reproductive rights" and "a woman's choice".  In the case
Griswold v. Connecticut, I am sure you are all aware of this case, the
majority opinion stated that the decision to have a child lies in
the most sacred and private realms of marriage, that it is a decision
by the man and woman to have or to not have a child.  Now, it is
legal to obtian contraceptives for married couples because they
both have a Constitutional right to decide whether they want to have
a child.

Now Roe v. Wade just throws that premise out the door, say the decision
to have a child is a woman's right.  So if you look at a run down of
the matter, before conception, the decision to have a child is
the fate of both parents (married couple).  During pregnancy, the
decision is that of the mother, as if the whole issue of child rearing
has become more "personal and private" for the woman during pregnancy.
And after the child is born, the legal rights to the child are
reinstated to the husband.

I am not well versed on the laws of wrongful death or child custody,
but it seems very inconsistent and illogical that the mother (woman
if you choose) should have more of a right to determine whether or
not to have a child than should the father (man if you will) in a
married relationship.



[...]


>Adrienne Regard 


kevin
--
I need something to fly over my grave again . . .  I need something to breathe.
				    r.e.m.
			        Kevin C. Welch
                         kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: It Sure ain't no Zen Thing
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:31:02 GMT

jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:

] >it wasn't that subtle.
] >you're obviously another flag waving, law abiding, epsilon.
] 
] First off, what is an epsilon?  That is the fourth time you have used this
] word.

its a little greek letter.

I think He may have you confused with Jason the Argonaut.[1]

] >the point is that a dictionary of law is not necessarily the final word for
] >any definition, it's merely one reference source.
] 
] True, but it is the only one that counts when law is concerned...
 
Well Not Really.

Obviously You have not been listening to Rush 
and learned all the true and important things
about why the Bush-Quayle Team is Ok, even
if they would allow abortion, even if their
wives do not agree with them, and that they
are not really hen pecked pussy whipped whiners,
and really we need to change those silly things
that get in the Way of Traditional Family Values.

Do You see now. Those Kultural Eleetiste Snobs
who rit them bigger words are just gonna have
to learn that there is Natural Law and that 
that is What God Wanted.


ciao
drieux

ps: all those of you dweebs who went to a school
funded by the government, as opposed to a decent
Public School Education, this is a Very Important
Greek Tale... and a great B-Movie.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:06:36 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->You win the prize for creative editing, Susan, with your entry
->where you compared me to "pro-life loonies,"

that probably is the nicest thing anyone has posted
about you since you arrived.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Abstinence isn't effective or dirty
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:54:27 GMT

<1992Oct10.023042.10047@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Oct8.121732.2455@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> Abstinence is not 100% effective.  Notnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnot.
>> Even for people other than Lisa and myself.  Even if they try it, and
>> want it to succeed, it won't necesarily happen.
>
>Brian, I'm serious here.  In what way could abstinence POSSIBLY FAIL
>for you and Lisa??

You must ask this question so often because you like to hear the answer:
rape.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41030 talk.politics.misc:49923 alt.rush-limbaugh:6706 alt.politics.elections:15413 alt.politics.clinton:8799 alt.politics.bush:7980