HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Meet Peter Nyikos, generator of random posts.
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:23:11 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.724963465@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the formulaic Nyikos
post:  

(1) Produce a random whine about how your posting software and net
technology conspire against you.

>I was going to add "Was: Loren...dictator" but these subject lines tend to
>get squashed in the middle on my "index" [better term: table of contents], 
>rendering them unintelligible.

(2) Generate a random `the-check-is-in-the-mail' statement about
crucial evidence.

> The biggest piece of evidence will come in Part 3, coming
>your way soon.

(3) Randomly accuse others of what you *yourself* are actually doing:

About Larry Margolis:

>regales us with his own brand
>of pseudoscience.  [Note in particular his substitution of "become" for
>"grow into."  Larry is a master of equivocation and subtle terminology
>shifts.]

(4) Randomly generate sentences following rules (1) to (3) until the
number of sentences equals the median number of sentences in
talk.abortion posts during the last two hours.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:30:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.114352.28023@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
Nelson) writes:
> 
> In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:
> >Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
> >In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com 
(Muriel 
> >Nelson) writes:
> >
> >....
> >> In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan 
> >Idler) w
> >> What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
> >> dies?  What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
> >> Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
> >> or self-induced abortion?
> >> 
> >> muriel

> >
> >Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than 
> >now -
> >try a different line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, "back alley, coat 
> >hanger" image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keeps those 
> >undecided folks shaking in their shoes. 
> >

> I'm sure you'll be supporting this claim with documentation
> from unbiased sources, ....

Muriel - you wouldn't care in any case.  You made the assertion first.

> This is not just rhetoric for me, you misogynist twit.

You are a bitter person Muriel.  

> I almost lost my best friend to a self-induced abortion
> in 1969.  I do not want to see one of my daughters lose
> a friend in this manner. 

I'm impressed by your statistics.  T-test anyone?

> I'm prepared to fight your
> agenda in order to protect the rights of young women
> to make choices about their bodies.  

You are fighting Muriel, you are!  Rhetoric is your weopon of choice.

> 
> muriel

Young women obviously doesn't include the very young, unborn women.  God 
capitalizes his name as should you - you yearn to play the role so 
intensely. 

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:54:38 GMT



RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)

In article <28DEC92.21004829@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

> Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away 
rights 
> from the pregnant woman?
> 
> 				.... Heather.


Heather -

Nice "trick" question.  Like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The question pre-supposes the conclusion that

1) all rights by definition are inviolate

2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically conflict with the 
mother.

3) the pregnant woman has, by definition, higher priority rights than 
others.

But, Heather, I'll grant you your question does have a noble ring to it.  
It plays well across the country.  Keep up the double talk.
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 30 Dec 1992 16:56:22 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1992Dec30.044856.20076@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <C01u1B.7H9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>
>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children.  If they could
>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.  You tell me which
>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.  Would any decent
>>person bring children into this world to watch them starve?  I think not.
>
>Sounds like you're suggesting that if the couple wanted a child, but their
>financial situation changed after conception so that they could no longer
>afford to have a child, the responsible action would be to get an abortion.
>
>>Abortion is murder.  It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>the baby's.  The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
>
>But murder is illegal, and abortion is legal.  I guess abortion is *not*
>murder after all.
>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Ah but stealing is illegal except when Congress is involved in the
stealing :-)  The law is full of many loopholes that can make almost
anything legal if done correctly.  What the people vote for is not
nessarily the right thing to do.  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:47:48 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term 
>fetus.

While YOU may try and justify murdering infants, most of US are far
more civilized and wouldn't for a moment consider doing so.

But then, most of US have morals ...

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:25:27 GMT

In article <C001Iq.2ED.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>
>>From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
>>completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? 
>
>Yes.
>
>>Here in Finland, when you join
>>the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
>>have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
>>you are 18, of course.
>
>Wow, I didn't know that.  What if you don't join any church - if you're an
>atheist or something?  Or if you belong to a non-Christian religion,
>such as Buddhism or the Temple of Set or such?

If you don't belong to the church, you don't pay the church tax, no matter
what your religion is.

>
>Hmm...if you're exempt when you aren't a Christian, you might get some
>people who just pretend they aren't for a tax break! <g>

Well, it's not much of a break, but I wouldn't be paying it myself 8)

>
>
>
>-- 
>Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
>Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
>                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:56:17 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>That's not a fetus.

>Right - in most abortions, it's an embryo, not yet a fetus.

Document this.         

>>Don't put words into my mouth.  Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes.
>>They are, however, actions that an adult must deal with like an adult.

>Abortion is one way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion is a way of avoiding being a mature adult, which kills a baby.

>>Don't call it a fetus because I doubt you know what a fetus really is.

>Well, *I* think I do; what do *you* think a fetus is?

A fetus is the prenatal stage of a species in which the unborn offspring
begins to take on the basic physical characteristics of its post birth
form.  In humans this occurs approximately 8 weeks after fertilization.

Would you like anything more specific?

>>Having sex is exactly the same thing.  Once you have CHOSEN (pro-choice?)
>>to have sex, you must grow up and be responsible for the result of that
>>action.

>Getting an abortion is one way of taking responsibility if that action results
>in an unwanted pregnancy.

Call it what it is.  It is avoiding responsibility.  It is also murder.

>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

I now know you don't know anything about prenatal development.


Edward Simmonds- 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:50:56 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->Keep asking him, Will.  It'll be good for him to be on the receiving end
->of questions asked ad infinitum, for a change.

say phoney, have you posted your apology for falsly
accusing adrienne of posting a forgery?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53921 alt.flame:17558 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:671
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:58:25 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> "Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to
-> describe the way I see what I do, Larry. 

sounds to me like your "net.informants" group
revisited.

 'These quotes demonstrate only that I considered your
 (pl.)  rule-breaking public meta-discussion in
 talk.abortion worthy of mention to those who make the
 rules, enforce the rules, run the systems, discipline
 users, etc. I made no private requests for disciplinary
 action. In fact, I made no PUBLIC request for specific
 disciplinary action, either. I presented the possibility
 in the most general way possible. If bringing a clear
 rules violation to the attention of those who created the
 rules, IN THE NEWSGROUP DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, is
 being a net.cop, then I wish more people would be
 net.cops, in that sense and that sense alone. I'd be more
 inclined to call such people "net.informants" or
 "net.reporters", however, since they aren't really trying
 to enforce anything themselves - they're just passing
 along information.'
     kevin darcy writing to susan garvin ---
     Message-ID: <1991Dec27.163135.11530@rotag.mi.org>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:04:37 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
# 
# > Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
# > from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?
# 
# When are we going to see a definition of "bodily autonomy"
# which successfully manages to distinguish between the born 
# and the not-yet born? 

When are you going to answer my question about why you refuse to take
a position on legislation or pending court decisions that might
restrict women's rights to abortion?

I have been asking this question of you for more than a month now, and
you haven't even deigned to explicitly refuse to answer.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:48:28 GMT

In article <C015n2.Ipw@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> 
> 
> RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
> 
> In article <28DEC92.21004829@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
> > Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away 
> rights 
> > from the pregnant woman?

> The question pre-supposes the conclusion that
> 
> 1) all rights by definition are inviolate

No it doesn't.  It clearly refers to a conflict and does not say anything
about rights being inviolate.  Support your assertion, please.
 
> 2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically conflict with the 
> mother.

No it does not.  It clearly speaks of giving rights to a fetus
and asks how to do so without taking rights from the mother.  Your
remark speaks of existing rights.  Heather's clearly refers to rights
not yet provided.  Whatever rights are already possessed by a fetus are
not mentioned in Heather's statement.  Also, you have not, as yet,
answered the question.

> 3) the pregnant woman has, by definition, higher priority rights than 
> others.

No, the question makes no statement whatsoever with regard to
priority.  It asks about a potential conflict.  Perhaps the context
and meaning of Heather's remarks are unclear to you.  I'll try,
though I may be wrong as to her meaning, to explain what I think
she was trying to say.  That is, providing a transendant right to
live to a fetus would remove from the woman the right to control
some aspects of her body, as such a right would be lost in the
conflict.  I think Heather may also have had some fairly clear
and logical implications of such a move, which implications have
been discussed in this forum many times.  For example, once a
fetus is given such a transcendant right, the state must then be
seen to have an interest in protecting the fetus against any
actions which the woman may take that would harm the fetus.  And
while the "clear and present danger" standard may of course
permit a pregnant woman to continue to drive her car or wash
her hair, it could be used to control where she drives and how,
what she uses to wash her hair, and many other activites besides.
The use of alcohol and cigarettes comes to mind immediately.
There are less obvious threats, however, such as whom she sees
and when (someone with an illness), the family cat may have to
be removed (toxicoplasmosis), her work with computers could be
curtailed as CRTs are a health danger, and so on.

I hope that it is clearer for you now.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,misc.legal,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Arranging for "The Care of A Child" as part of Male Choice...
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:23:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1gg8smINN5tc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Pe
>i) writes:
>>Thus, your position seems to be that any man who sleeps with a woman
>>should have the same legal rights as a sperm donor.

>He would be exempted if and only if a specific written agreement for the
>care of the child, existed (and was held valid by the state) prior to
>conception.  You will note that this is currently required of sperm banks.


Ah, Michal, NOW you've changed the rules somewhat...

First of all, I still believe that you consider a man's consent to sexual
activity to be an implicit agreement to raise a child.  Regardless of whether
"a woman's body is involved," I do *not* support the notion of involuntary
consent.  Indeed, if abortion *were* outlawed, and the man wanted to keep the
child, and the woman did not, your own belief that "a child has the right to be
supported" would mean that you believe that the woman should be forced to
parent the child as well, due to the father's decision to raise the child.

Still, I find it interesting that a man *can* have freedom of choice if there
is an agreement as to the care of a child by alternate parents.  To this end,
I would suggest that a man unwilling to parent a child, during the months
before viability, should submit a proposal to the mother, with respect to her
care of the child.  Though I suggest this sarcastically if anything, this
*ought* to convince any woman who isn't capable of self-supporting a child,
that it truly *is* an impossible dream.  Now although the first suggestion
was clearly *meant* to be sarcastic, I *would* like to see couples signing
*some* sort of Pre-Sex Contract, though *not* the kind which is a consent
to sex, but merely an agreement between the partners as to how any resulting
child will be cared for, if he doesn't wish to be a parent, while she does.


Also, I'd also like you to respond to Gordon Storga's request re: securing
proof that "children have the right to be supported by both parents", if you
haven't already responded to him.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this T-shirt
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:37:29 GMT

In article <1142@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.  

Nobody threatened Humphrey, Ms. Garvin.  Humphrey is a
big boy now, I'm sure he can handle Mr. Nyikos' humorous
suggestions.  Humphrey sure isn't afraid to threaten other
posters, so if he does feels threatened, I'm sure he'll
lash out incoherently like he's done on other occasions. 

> Of course, if he follows through on his threat, you already have
> the evidence that his only intention is to harass you.  

Oh, so now we're collecting evidence?  Gee, that kind of
reminds me of someone we used to know.... The similarities
keep growing...
 
>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 16:18:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.051512.62323@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
>mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>: J H Woodyatt (bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com) wrote:
>: : rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>: : # Besides, you could look at it in a completely economic way:  in societies
>: : # where capital punishment is executed quickly and consistently for murder
>: : # the number of murders that are thus prevented by this effective deterent
>: : # greatly outnumber the number of executions.  Even in american, where
>: : # capital punishment is in reality hardly a fact, the numbers are about
>: : # equal.  Just ask any law enforcement official.  I was told directly by
>: : # Gates' former assistant chief that this is true in LA.
>: : Aaiiieee!!!
>: : This guy gets my vote for Most Wiggy Conservative Screwhead on Usenet
>: : for the month of December.
>: Riddle me this, batman!  How many executions in the US since 1930?
>: 3500.
>
>Very nice, facts at hand. For bonus points, riddle me this: How many of the
>3500 were innocent?
>
	Beats the heck out of me.  It's a safe bet that at least *some* of
them were, and that we'll never really know how many for the simple reason
that any criminal justice system is going to be imperfect.  Which is why it's
not possible to support such a system and maintain a consistent "pro-life"
ethic.
	BTW, I'm *still* waiting for someone to explain to me how one
determines a) the number of murders that *don't* happen each year and b) the
percentage of such non-murders that were prevented by the existence of capital
punishment.  Gotta be a tricky bit of data collection, don't ya know!
	BTW, if we move much farther into a capital punishment debate I'd like
to suggest that we drop talk.abortion from the newsgroups line.  Thanks.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"When I came back to Dublin I was court martialed in my
		absence and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they
		could shoot me in my absence."
			-- Brendan Behan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion