HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Rich Lee
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:19:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.024036.5942@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>I believe that a lot of pro-lifers who think that a human life
>(regardless of whether or not this human has a mind) is worth just
>about anything and so would be opposed to legal abortion even if they
>understood how major an upheaval pregnancy can be still trivialize
>pregancy so that they can pretend they aren't doing any significant
>harm.
>
>I find the tendency (present on both sides of the issue) to say "I
>have the one truth and am entirely right and need give no apology for
>anything" instead of admitting they're choosing the lesser of two
>evils rather distressing.

What?  A rational person on the net?   :-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: shallow thoughts by bill overpeck (Re: And now, Deep Thoughts by Jim Keegan...)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:38:54 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <0r1zvnj@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->In <1992Oct10.024526.16500@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
->   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
->>>>First, I don't think Susan does see misogyny 'round every corner,
->>>>but she certainly does see it enough on talk.abortion, as do I
->>>>and quite a few others.  
->>
->>>I think invoking "misogyny" is a convenient attempt to undermine
->>>the credibility of any substantive arguments.  
->>
->>can you list the criteria you evaluated to reach this
->>conclusion. 

->Yes, Jim, I can, and have done so in other places.  

then it should be little problem for you to reproduce
it here, yes?

->However, 
->I'm unlikely to provide *you* with much of anything substantive

yes, i've noticed, nor anyone else for that matter.

->>from what i've read, i think invoking misogyny happens when 
->>misogyny is evident. a good example of what i'm talking about 
->>is when someone replies to one of your posts and sees misogyny 
->>in it.

->Oh yes, that's ever so substantive an example. 

that's true, particularly when you can't seem to give
any at all.

it's ok bill, if you can't answer the questions, just
say so.

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: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:41:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.182626.16111@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.
>>
>>Role of the government: forcing someone to donate parts.
>>
>>>Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.
>>
>>Role of the government: Prevent someone from killing the human unborn child.
>
>No.  You are mistaken here.  The objective is =>NOT<= to kill the
>embryo/fetus.  The government is =>NOT<= specifically allowing 
>people to kill fetuses.  The objective is primarily to END THE
>PREGNANCY.
>

The government very definitely does allow abortions to take place.  Certain 
politicians even want to make the right of an abortion to be law and even
have abortions funded by our tax dollars.  Not only are we allowed to have
abortions, we can get funded by other people's money through gov't.  


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 OCT 92 18:00:36 GMT

In a previous article, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>In <1992Oct1.064201.767@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>[stuff deleted] 
>Anyway, I question your competence to make judgments as to what is and
>is not the "actual translation" of Exodus 20:13.
> 
>In my Hungarian (Magyar) bible, a 1972 translation (20 years ago, like
>the one you allege up there), this verse reads, literally, Don't kill.
>[Ne o"lj.  The " should go over the  o  and be two dots.]  If it had
>been translated to the equivalent of "Don't murder," it would have
>read "Ne gyilkolj".  "Thou shalt not commit murder" would be translated,
>Ne ko"vess el gyilkossa'got.
> 
>I am curious to know how it has been translated into other languages.
>I have a sneaking suspicion that "Thou shalt not commit murder"
>is ideologically motivated.

Give me a break.  Why should I care how it has been translated into other 
languages?  I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding the text in 
it's original Hebrew.  The commandment is "Lo Tirtzach", which means do not 
murder.  If the original authors had wanted to say do not kill, it would have 
been "Lo Taharog", but that is not what they wrote.  

Or do you think you know something the original authors did not?


                               .... Heather.
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:33:42 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Oct11.154305.4095@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) said:
><Bvt53o.KC4.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>><1992Oct8.003210.3373@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>## In article <1992Oct2.004310.953@noao.edu> 
...
>>#Perhaps our resident African-American, Steve Chaney, could
>>#contribute to this discussion.
>>
>>Your assumptions are telling, Suzanne.
>>
>>(Do you imagine that Dennis has given birth?)
>
>No, but the fact that I'm gay automatically means that I'm "Politically
>Correct".  Suxanne told me so.  It also means I'm automatically aware of
>everything that NAMBLA does, and instantly aware (via telepathy?) of every
>statement made by ACT UP!

Oh, don't forget that you also hate all women because they won't have sex
with you.


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 all.
-- 
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: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:48:59 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
->>->No.  As I am of the opinion that women are intelligent, responsible
->>->people who make their own opinions, I think that women who get illegal
->>->abortions (which I think third-trimester abortions should be) should
->>->be punished.  Admittedly, due to some mitigating factors universally
->>->present in pregnancy, I don't think the punishment should be anywhere
->>->close to that for murder, but I do think it should exist.

->>you once posted what you thought these punishments
->>should be for the women who would be victimized by
->>the anti-choice legislation you want.

->>have you modified your views on what these punishments should be?

->For the benefit of us newbies, James, could you tell us what punishments
->she posted?  You are in her killfile, so she probably won't be posting
->them herself, except perhaps if she sees this follow-up of mine.

sure, although this has been posted more than a few
dozen times, i'm happy to repost it as long as someone
is interested.

	"For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of
	at least a month, probably somewhat more, (six
	months to a year if we had unlimited space in
	non-hellhole prisons, but we don't), with hefty
	community service tacked on to that."
		<1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>
				 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:59:08 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct15.215252.25376@acd4.acd.com>  wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Oct15.032145.26287@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
>   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
>
>>Soon as those two  loony-tunes get carted off to Happy House
>>(did I use the correct scientific terminology, Bill?),
>
>Happy House is fine, but is often confused with Happy Land
>which is where one goes when placed on a healthy regimine
>of anti-psychotic meds.  Most people seem to prefer the
>Land option, and the food is better there, too.

I suppose that's why you're a net.shrink and not a net.lawyer -
Looney-Tunes is a trademark of Warner Brother's cartoons, and
can not be used to refer to any old daffy person (although a
Daffy Duck is cool).

Th-th-th-that's all, folks.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:05:17 GMT

In article <Bw49xJ.B2G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <Bvx7Bo.DzG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>
>>>Ok.  But the delivery of the raw material HAD to be accepted by the
>>>receiver in order for child manufacture to take place.  The supplier is
>>>legally forbidden to have a legal voice in manufacturing decisions.
>>>Thus, any damages which may ensue from manufacturing a product from 
>>>a freely accepted supplier of raw material can only be the manufacturer's.
>>>The supplier loses all control, and all rights, at the moment of delivery.
>>>
>>> [...froth, drool...]
>
>>What the hell are you talking about? "Child manufacture"? "Raw materials"?
>>We're talking about HUMAN REPRODUCTION, fer crissakes, not heavy industry!!
>
>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 merely agree
>with the abortion rhetoric by using this sort of language.  

Wrong. You exaggerate the position so that you can attack a straw man.

>I'm 
>trying to do you people a favor by using language you won't find
>offensive.  

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, sir, are a babbling idiot with nothing but a pro-life agenda and some 
>>cheap scare tactics. Please demanufacture yourself into raw materials, and 
>>leave us alone...
>
>How can you refer to your own rhetorical devices as "cheap scare tactics"?

To repeat: they are not MY "rhetorical devices", nor any pro-choicer's that
I know. Please desist with the exaggerated rhetoric.

>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.
 
>I use language which agrees in every particular
>with that insistence, and you label it froth, drool, and cheap scare tactics.
>Why???

Your language EXAGGERATES that view, Kellmeyer. It is intellectually dishonest
to try and equate a view with its agenda-laden exaggeration. You do NOT think
for pro-choicers. You do NOT speak for us, either. Stop pretending you do.

								- Kevin
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: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:15:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.221358.6585@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (J.K. '[7mTGaPC[0m' Schechner) writes:
>also my theory and the theory of a whole LOT of the political
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>scientists I've talked to.
 ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>-Jason

I guess that hoghlighted should sound like: a whole LOT of the LEFT
poilitical scientists

-- 
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
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:49:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.215934.25523@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
me> >Why can you not accept that one of the consequences of pro-lie
me> >legislation will be an increase in deaths of young women due
me> >to illegal abortions?  If such legislation is passed, and
me> >the deaths start to happen, some responsibility for it belongs
me> >in the hands of those who pushed for and got that legislation
me> >passed.
> 
bill> It's arguable.  But it's also arguable that families 
bill> are directly responsible for the health and safety of 
bill> their children.  That's where the primary responsibility
bill> lies, IMO.  My reasons for supporting consent/notification
bill> laws don't involve the Bells or other victims of tragic
bill> abortion related deaths; they involve my family and what
bill> I believe is in the best interests of society.  Your ex-
bill> perience may be different than my own, but most of the
bill> adolescents I've dealt with simply lack the maturity to
bill> make such a difficult decision.  


I think we've got about three or four threads all arguing
the same point.  I made my answer to this in one of the others,
in which I talk about responsibility and trade-offs.  Since this
one is the most succinct, I figured I respond here as well, but
just refer you to there so we don't have to argue the same
point all over the place.

And Dan Quayle is a jerk. (Just thought I'd add something
substantive.)

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: No Reply  Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Keywords: philosophy, ignorance
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:15:44 GMT

I posted this article on Monday, now it's Thursday.  Peter Nyikos has yet 
to respond while responding to other posts.  Just thought I'd post it again, 
in case he might want to respond.

In article <BvnpHK.15H@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
|In article <nyikos.718154974@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|  [stuff deleted]
|
|>Date: 17 Sep 92 15:46:28 GMT
|>Message-ID: <nyikos.716744788@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
|>
|>In <1992Sep13.155019.38256@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
|>
|>>In  <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|>
|>>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
|>>> science and philosophy.
|>
|>>You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
|>>to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
|>
|>Note that Larry's first clause already accuses me of "showing ignorance,"
|                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>with the "in fact" going a good bit further.  Larry tried to wiggle off
|>the hook several times, saying that the ONLY thing he accused me of
|>was to have "showed ignorance", but the "in fact" clause uses the words
|              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>"showed yourself TO BE rather ignorant."
|  ^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^
|
|Excuse me, but the operative verb in the above quote is "show", not "be".
|Larry summarized his previous statement correctly.
|The second clause merely adds new information about the subject area, but 
|does not initiate any changes in the verb.  In fact, the same verb (show) 
|is used in both clauses.
|
|If he had wanted to say that you are indeed ignorant rather than just 
|appearing (showed) ignorant, then he would have said:
|
|** You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you are 
|** rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
|
|Then the operative verb would have been "are" (as in "be"), but Larry 
|did not say that.  In this example, the verb has been changed in the 
|second clause, unlike Larry's original quote.  
|
|See the difference?
|
|I hope this clears things up.  
|
|And as far as "showing" things goes, YOUR interpretation (above) of his 
|statement is a good exhibit.  :-)
|
|Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc 
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:14:06 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
] In article <1992Oct14.084856.16835@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >Minor Technical Point: the 'six hundred ship navy' was a Reaganism,
] >that many of us in the Fleet Giggled About, 
] 
] Aparently Bush joined you in the fleet and giggled about it as well
] since he refused to fund it. The person who wasn't laughing was Crowe
] who resigned because he wanted the 600 ship navy you thought was so
] funny.

Now that is FUNNY.....

You do Know that the Fleet was 'shorted' to 599 
by support of an Iraqi Exocet.....

Now, when You wish to come back to dealing with
life on the same planet as the rest of US.

And You wish to deal with the Fact that BUSH
wanted Crowe to 'ship over' - then we can
try to take this conversation forward.

But as Long as everyone associated with a 
NonBush position has Horns and a Long Pointed
Tail.... I think we will hve complications
dealing with reality.


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Where's Eric? (OOPSLA)
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:14:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

I have recently posted some messages that some people may decide to respond to.
However, I will not be able to respond in turn, since I will be attending
OOPSLA the week of the 19th. For that reason, I request that any responses
to my postings either be saved until after the 25th, or sent to me
via email.

Thanks,

Eric
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42514 alt.flame:13554 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:456
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:47:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <lefty-131092103350@lefty.apple.com> 
>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>
>>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>> so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
>>>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> to get up off the operating table to pay more money. 
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>> I've been laughing at this line ever since DOD first posted it.  What
>>>> was he expecting?  That the "sedated" women would just run over to their
>>>> purses and pull out wads of cash?  That a sedated person is actually
>>>> coherent enough to write a check?  Maybe DOD thinks these women just
>>>> gave the doctor their credit cards, along with a signed note saying that
>>>> he was authorized to use them?
>
>>> A person who laughs when women are placed in such horrible circumstances
>>> might be accused of being a misogynist.  
>
>> Mr. Cochran is not laughing at women "placed in...horrible circumstances,"
>> you nitwit.
>>
>> He's laughing at _you_.
>
>Cochran quite clearly states that he had been "laughing at this line...",
>not that he had been "laughing at me...".  That line wasn't funny or
>dumb, and only a very sick person would laugh when women are placed
>in such horrible circumstances.  

Wrongo boopsie.  That line was both funny _and_ dumb.  And we're not
laughing at this alleged women's alleged misfortunes, either.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Summary: And Teddie is just a blithering idiot... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 23:58:06 GMT

In article <qsyzy7=@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>Listen to Rush's show and you may learn 
>
>Somehow, I doubt it.

Actually, you might.  Remember Teddie posting that "87% of all americans
have comphrensive health plans", and me asking him for his source?  Well,
he sent me e-mail saying that his "source" for this was Clinton, on Sunday's
debate.

He originally posted the article on last week.

Is he Clinton's debate manager?

Does he read minds?

Should he be writing for the Enquirer?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion