HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 19:26:45 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    supporting allegations


in article <1b265mINNlka@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj silverio writes:
>In article <mpsz7r=@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu writes:

>> you disgust me.
>
>Let the galled jade wince.

As you should my dear.

>I refuted Keegan's allegations at Eric Rescorla's request.

My, my, is Ms. Silverio now doing Rescorla's "dirty work".

You refuted nothing.

You have shown that you knew your allegation against
Suzanne Lucia was false. To date I have seen no
retraction.

It was Keegan who showed your allegation against
him was false.  To date I have seen no retraction.

At one time Mr. Rescorla argued with me that unless
the proof was solid he could not accept it.

>Since he tells me he is satisfied with my refutation,

I see that the California sun has done something
to change Mr. Rescorla's criteria for evidence.
How sad.

>"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the
>same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many
>idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will
>lead." --Jane Austen

Jane Austen  was a woman of honesty and integrity.
She would have admitted to an honest mistake.  She
would never have continued to perpetuate a falsehood.
Ms. Silverio does this honourable woman a disservice.


Linda
--
"It is easier to fight for one's principles
 than to live up to them" Alfred Alder
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:05:57 GMT

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. 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.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:58:57 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bvrnnx.3vu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.184949.5694@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>Okay here goes.  I am not saying anything about where I stand on this
>>"personhood thing." But would you say that a "person" begins at birht
>>or after birth?  Would you be willing to protect "persons" from being
>>killed?  Would you be willing to protect non-persons who are humans?
>>(i.e.  the time from conception to the time you perceive to be the
>>age when a human life becomes a person.)

>In some religions "personhood" isn't optained until after 3 months
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of gestation.  For these religions that is when a soul is bestowed.  
>For these religions abortion in the first trimester is fine as the   
>z/e/f is still a non-human.

And in some, not until the head is born. If you are Hindu, there is
nothing wrong with killing a baby girl after birth. If you are !Kung,
and you have a baby that is nursing, then any newborn that comes along
is killed as a traditional REQUIREMENT!
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41341 talk.politics.guns:21886 alt.conspiracy:11065 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5095 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6471 talk.bizarre:33293
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:22:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: UB

In article <1992Oct2.212633.1847@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
>my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
>and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....
>
>So I will work on typing slower, and using only 
>big block letters, so as not to intellectually 
>stress their Over Workded little Minds....
>
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>ps: are their any TechNical Writers out there with
>prior experience explaining things to MangleMent who
>will be able to offer me some assistance in this area?

From someone with a similar request at one time, although
technically not a TechNical Writer, don't bother.  Once
you begin down that slippery slope it is so very difficult 
to reach the heights of yesturday.

Compare the requested alterations to...say...gun control.

Vote No in the '92 presidential elections.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: bob@medrcw.b17b.ingr.com (Robert Whitehead)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: bob@medrcw.b17b.ingr.com
Organization: Vulcan Science Academy Foreign Student Union
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:10:18 GMT

|> |> >Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
|> |> >is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
|> |> >middle of the night.

Specifically, you have the right to use deadly force to prevent the commission
of a felony in your home.  At least, that's true in Alabama.  "Home as Castle"
is not just a phrase; it's a very real legal concept.

|> |> >In many states it is quite legal to kill someone who is 
|> |> >sexually assaulting you.

True; rape is a crime considered so heinous that it automatically entitles you
to use deadly force to stop or prevent it.

|> |> BTW, is it trespass if you invite the burglar into your home.

Once you tell the person to get out, it becomes trespassing if they refuse to
leave.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Robert C. Whitehead       |
| Intergraph Corporation    |
| Mapping Sciences Division |Remember, if you do it yourself, sooner or 
| Technical Documentation   |later you'll need a bigger hammer.
| Mailpath: bob@medrcw.b17b |
| Phone: (205) 730-1923     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Real World: bob@medrcw.b17b.ingr.com



"Ensign, if you encounter any holes...steer clear."
    -- Riker to Wesley, "Where Silence Has Lease",
Stardate 42193.6
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:29:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct11.084401.98012@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct9.203639.19616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.p
>> >there are infertile couples waiting in line
>> >to pay for the expenses of pregnant women who will then let those
>> >infertile couples adopt her baby.
>>
>> So you see, there are better alternatives.
>
>You're wrong.  Adoption is an alternative to keeping the child.  Both
>options involve going through pregnancy.  Abortion is the only way to
>*stop* the pregnancy.
>
Except, of course, not getting pregnant in the first place.

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Summary: Don't look at *me*. 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:06:01 GMT

In article <Bw4s3A.Izw.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>
>Patrick "I love cats" Humphrey said:

Have you been talking to Dale Ann again? :-) 

>#So who said having children made people unhappy?  Susan didn't.  I can see
>#why you think you're writing a novel -- you certainly have an active
>#imagination...
>
>I guess that's one of the occupational hazards of believing that
>a z/e/f is a child - they can't tell the difference between spending
>eternity pregnant and spending eternity with children.

If they were *really* dedicated, they'd claim the fetus as a deduction on
their next 1040...


>#--PLH, not exactly anticipating a signing at Bookstop any time soon
>
>Susan, who wonders if Booth will be able to read his own book

Well, I'm not volunteering to read it to him.  :-)

--PLH (I have enough to do around here as it is)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:35:36 GMT

In <1992Oct14.081220.19333@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Oct9.193604.208@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>This is posted for Peter Nyikos, whose netserver is down today.
>[post deleted]

>Suzanne, Peter is having fun at your expense.

More justification for the title of this thread.  Read on.

>  This post he asked you to
>send out was already posted here.  It seems from the evidence that Mr
>Nyikos was a might dishonest about his needing your services, so to speak.

I checked with Kevin Darcy, who said that he had not seen anything from
me in the table of contents dated beyond October 6, before asking Suzanne
to post it.  It did not even show up on MY table of contents, which it 
would have if it had defaulted to the local net.  How and when it got
out, with my netserver down for five days beginning early October 7, is
a mystery to me.

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42313 talk.politics.guns:22066 alt.conspiracy:11227 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5311 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6763 talk.bizarre:33969
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mississippi Doctors want Supreme Court to end 24-hour delay
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:28:02 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct9.200401.942@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>More likely a drain on the pocketbooks of Mississippi abortionists!

Nonsense, Suzanne. If you were an OB_GYN, which would you prefer?
To be paid $250.00 for doing an abortion, or to be paid $2000.00 for
a delivery, plus the charges for prenatal care?


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Defying Physics (Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:10:34 CST
 <1992Sep30.050730.10253@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Oct9.154351.12787@athena.mit.edu> <1992Oct9.191443.11469@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct9.191443.11469@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In response to the sperm/egg debate again:
> 
> Can a human individual be at two places at once (when alive)?  Can
> Joe Blow be in La Jolla, and in Anchorage at the same time?  Of course,
> not.  Humans can only be in one place at one time.

Except before they are conceived.  Right?  Right.
(we won't mention out of body experiences though)
 
> You cannot be two places at once, just like
> the sperm (which is you) and the egg (which is you).

What makes you think that?  Aren't you being a little narrowminded,
assuming that we may only exist in one place at a time simply because
currently, that is the physical state of your body?
 
> Another way of looking at things:
> 
> Is it possible to have two humans in the same space...
> I don't think so.

Believers in the Bible should think so.  What about posession?  What
about Vulcan mind-melds?  What about dual personalities? Hmmm?
 
> So let us assume that the assertion that eggs/sperm = human life (members
> of homo sapiens) with the added assumption that the eggs and the sperm
> are two different human lives.  Since this is true, then at conception,
> two different human lives come together.  But the problem is, you are
> exactly one human entity.  So how can two separate human lives produce
> exactly one human entity?  

Simple:  Take a sperm, and an ova, and allow them to conceive a zygote.

>Didn't we say that it is not possible to 
> be exactly two humans at one exact time?  

No, you said that.

>From two human lives, there
> results only one human life.  This cannot be.  

But it can, can't it?  Too bad for you :)

>How can Joe Blow merge
> with Susan Parker (random name) to produce Joe Parker only?

Do you name each one of your sperm?
 
> Thus, since a human cannot exist as exactly two humans, we have a 
> contradiction.  

Only if "we" hold the same opinion as you do.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:06:09 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>In <1992Oct6.211859.11882@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Try looking in the dictionary.
>
>	I have - my dictionary give the definition of murder as
>"the killing of one human being by another". Given that a fetus is a human
>being, and so is the mother, abortion is murder (or not depending on
>what dictionary you use, and which definition you prescribe to). 

Then either you're lying or you have a bad dictionary.  Would you 
please let us know which dictionary you're using?

The correct definition of the word murder is "the _unlawful_ killing
of one human being by another."

>>>>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>>>	It will - someday - some glorious day when all human beings
>>>learn to respect each other's right to live.
>>Hypocrite.
>Excuse me? When have you seen me advocate killing people?

Many women who face pregnancy in college are forced to drop out,
sometimes for a semester, sometimes permanently.  I infer from your
address that you are a student at Purdue.  Drop out now and give all
the money you would otherwise spend on your education helping to save
the lives of people who would otherwise die.  You will be able to
survive on welfare.

>>Since anyone who has not been born is not legally a person, abortion
>>is clearly not murder, and murder cannot not involve anyone who has
>>not yet been born.
>
>	Again - you are making up your own definition of a person.
>You are taking "human being" to mean "someone who has been explicitly
>given rights as a human being". I take it to mean "an individual being with a

Well duh.  A human being is someone who has the rights of a human
being?  No shit, Sherlock.

>human genetic structure". I consider that the unjust killing of black
>slaves early in our history was murder, even though it was not legally
>defined as such.

You haven't even a clue what "human genetic structure" IS.  If you
don't know what it is, or how to measure it, how are you going to base
anything legal on it?

>>As opposed to "IDIOTIC FUCKHEADS WHO LIKE TO LIE ABOUT THE DEFINITION
>>OF THE WORD" MURDER?
>	I never once lied about the definition of murder. See above.

And what dictionary did you refer to?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.004408.13860@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.221124.27909@news.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> Why? It IS a parasite. It's living off the woman in who's body it
>> is living. It is damaging her body and giving her nothing  if she does
>> not want it.
>
>Then you must also agree that an infant sucking on a woman's breast
>is also a "parasite", since the infant is living off the woman, 
>damaging her body, and giving her nothing if she does not want
>the infant.
Yes, I suppose I would. What's your point?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:54:55 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Oct1.223007.26873@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote:
> 
> We are heading down the path by not protecting our most innocent members of 
> society.

Okay, I'd enjoy seeing this statement explained.

In what possible sense do you consider a fetus to constitute a "member of
society"?

> I don't intend to be a non thinking drone al my life.

You certainly seem to be one at the moment.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:28:58 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <Bw457A.ELq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
writes in response to Holtmussen:

>Personally I think that the foetus' demands on the mother *are* reasonable.
>But I must concede that I am treating the human foetus as a priveleged class.

I really admire people who decide that the burden someone else must
bear is `reasonable.'  

>Nor do any other persons - except foetuses if an anti-abortion law was made.
>I *have* to acknowledge that I am discriminating *against* women
>*for* foetuses. 

This is a refreshing piece of honesty from tommy (or anyone on the
pro-life side).  Discrimination against women can reasonably be
interpreted to be a symptom of misogyny.  The fact that it is a fetish
to protect fetuses and that the anti-choicers don't want to force
fathers to donate blood, organs, or tissue to save living children
further demonstrates the inherent misogyny of the forced-birth camp.

>In order for a foetus to be protected in the womb, it has to be treated
>differently from a rapist, or any other invader of the woman's body.  It has
>to have special treatment.  It has to be treated differently from every other 
>"person".
>Only foetuses would get the right to draw on a woman's bodily
>resources - noone 
>else.
>So they would be being treated in an unprecedented way.
>Such treatment is discriminatory.

Yes it is.  And it is directed solely against women.  Hence, it is
misogynistic.  

SJM
From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:32:54 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <mpsz7r=@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
|you have demonstrated that you possess no
|personal character. when you first posted your lie,
|a couple of people who knew it was a lie urged me to go
|public with the posts. i disregarded their advice and
|crafted my comments on this subject in such a way as
|you leave you a credible out. looking back, i wish i
|had exposed you immediately.
|you disgust me.

It used to be considered a sign of immense personal character to form
alliances with parties one doesn't entirely agree with, so as to
provide mutual effort for common goals.

In the '90s, it's time to change that definition. Now to form
alliances is a sign of personal weakness.

Indeed, personal character is now marked by rapid response: in
particular by recognizing one's so-called "allies" as in fact enemies
the minute situations change, before they can hurt you, without any
fettering by shreds of conscience or altruism.

Mr Keegan, clearly, is a beacon to us all.

mr HEINOUS
who does not discuss his abortion opinions on the usenet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:57:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.121159.28594@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

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

>> They're saying that a woman can kill a human being as long as that
>> human being resides within her body.

> Yes, they are saying women own their own bodies and should
> have the legal right to control their own bodies without
> others telling them what motives are acceptable for doing
> with their bodies what they wish to do.

I agree.  But a fetus isn't part of a woman's body.  There are two
bodies involved.  

> Yes, women are containers and much more.  


>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:44:25 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <26081@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>Einstein thought he was correct.  Heisenberg thought he was correct.
>Martin Luther King thought he was correct.  Gandhi thought he was correct.
>Thomas Jefferson thought he was correct.  You think you are correct.

>They must be pompus too, right.

The first two proposed theories. MLK worked for equality, which is what
the law demanded, Ghandi I'm not too familiar with, so I pass. Hawkings
thinks he's correct too, but he also provides a theory.

All miss the "damn the rest" portion that would make this type of thinking
pompous.

>>ignorant (have an obvious lack of information)

>Very debatable.  Think what you like.

Is it? It has been posted using numerous references by several posters
that your information was incorrect. You have not altered your statements
of that initial information.

I do think what I like, and I aim to continue doing so. Unlike you,
however, I can admit that I might be wrong occassionally, and have done
so here when it was so pointed out. I have yet to see you evidence the
same grace. Oaf.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Alan Smith, PMS, Newbieness
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:28:16 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:

> Well, this begs the question, do *I* have the right to abort a fetus
> I am carrying?

Certainly, Alan, although if you're past your first trimester,
I'd advise you to talk it over with your doctor _and_ your SO.

> If I get to have an abortion, can I have PMS too?

There's this Big Difference between Boys and Girls, Alan.
Girls are in the Reproductive Mode about once every 28-29 days;
Boys are _always_ in the Reproductive Mode.

Hence, Boys are always prone to PMS.

Thanks for playing.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
Newsgroups: talk.abortion