HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Man With No Brain (Was: The world...)
Keywords: imbicle, and other spelling disasters from Keith Cochran
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:48:04 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Aug21.003643.3975@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.070559.4635@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.015507.4422@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>[Oh, boy.  This is gonna be such fun....]
>>>
>>>In article <1992Aug8.211228.6510@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug5.233416.17391@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me guess:  it's the same type of verbal music you make when Kevin's trying
>>>>>to find his miniscule penis so that he can put it into your anus, right?
>>>>
>>>>Just what we need... another damned homophobe crawling out from under his
>>>>rock... sheesh, where do these neanderthals come from anyway?
>>>
>>>Um, Kevin.  Go find your mother, and ask her to explain what the word
>>>"homosexual" means.  I'll even give you a *FREE* clue.  I don't hate myself.
>>
>>Then why do you spew homophobic shit that ranks with the Artimus Pages and
>>Phil Stromers and Danny Karneses of the world?
>>
>>Ever hear of a racist black? An anti-feminist woman? An anti-semitic Jew?
>>
>>Homophobic shit deserves as much criticism regardless of its source. Or is
>>it your claim that it was all just playful sarcasm? Yeah, right.
>
>I love it.  I make a half-assed description of anal sex, ...
                    ^

Stop lying. The article was liberally sprinkled with homophobic drivel. I
only quoted the first instance.

>Kevin calls me a homophobe, and rather then admitting his mistake ...

You have yet to prove that it was a "mistake".

>...attempts to equate me with Artimus, Phil, and Danny.

You certainly sound like them sometimes.

If the shoe fits...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31491 talk.religion.misc:13928
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:44:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

Speaking of bumper stickers, I saw one that really says it all about
the religious right's goals:

                 Praise the Lord, and Damn the Constitution

Eric
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:42:27 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug "No Comprehende" Holtsinger) writes:
>> = (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>> Speaking of bumper stickers, I saw one that really says it all about
>> the religious right's goals:
>>
>>                 Praise the Lord, and Damn the Constitution

Exhibiting his usual gnat-level reading comprehension, DOD tries to be
witty:

>Considering the shakey foundation upon which the Supreme Court
>discovered the so-called right to abortion, I would think this
>bumper sticker would be better suited for describing the 
>goals of the pro-abortion movement.  

But Doug, look way-ay-ay-ay back to Eric's statement, and you see that
this is religious fanatic's goal.  It was a BUMPER STICKER.  Do you
consider that statement over the line _as it stands_?  Don't you, as an
alleged atheist, find this enraging?

(BTW, please point out one pro-choicer who would utter this idiocy.)

Try not to be defensive; I understand how EMBARRASSING it is when one of
your "side" shows him/herself to be a buffoon.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:27:40 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug16.000147.28172@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug15.190117.5666@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>> I was expecting what I got: proof, via this thread, that the only
>> thing that pro-aborts want, on this net, is a flame war.
>
>What you got was proof that, if you don't act like an asshole, you won't
>get *flamed* for acting like an asshole.

Which would lead to the conclusion that you would respond to the
non-flame articles. 

Which, in the case of the "unwanted / single mother" thread, you
didn't. 

Proof by contradiction shows that, by example, you apparently flame
when you can flame, and then ignore what you can't flame because to
get involved in those postings of mine, weakens you because while I
can exist outside of the flame wars, you can't... 

Just a well-founded hypothesis which has held given that it's quite
consistent with the course of action to date. 

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


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Extremism
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.024103.12611@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>No, pro-choice is hardly the opposite of the "pro-life" thought, it
>is merely in opposition to it.  

The Master of Confused Doublespeak strikes again!

Say, Galen, are you still simultaneously both in support of, and NOT in 
support of, the FOCA? How's that support/non-support going?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32394 alt.politics.elections:10897
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:34:38 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>> I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
>> pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
>> adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
>> and incest.  

Same here.  This does look like a rather clear-cut choice.

>> The Republicans are extremists.  Abortion opinion
>> polls tend to vary wildly depending on the wording of the
>> questions asked, but they don't vary on incest & rape.  The
>> American public wants exceptions for rape & incest.  So much for
>> that Republican "big tent".

>A pro-life delegate was interviewed on-camera last night.  When
>asked if there was a place for pro-choice Republicans, he said
>(and I'm quoting from memory, so please excuse me): "Sure, the
>Democratic Party."

Ooch.  I'm willing to bet THAT line wasn't pre-scripted.  

>Btw, I disagree that the Republicans are extremists.  I would say
>that the Republican leadership is composed of extremists.

I would agree; I have several Republican friends who are not extremists.
However, the current leadership is turning most of them away.  

(I had an interesting conversation this evening.  My mother's office is a 
pretty heterogeneous group, especially politically.  Debates usually abound,
and there are certainly a fair amount of Republicans there.  However,
every one is pro-choice; and as of today, _every_ _single_ _one_ of them
is planning to vote for Clinton.  I think the Bush team is in a lot more
trouble than even it thinks.)

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:10:09 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> Only about 30% of Americans support unrestricted abortion on demand,
-> which has been defined by Keegan et. al. as the only position which
-> is truly "choice".

i don't know about those "et. al."'s but i'll bet
you can't come with a quote from me that says support
for unrestricted abortion on demand is the only position
which is truly "choice."

i think, dod, that this is another one of those things
you post that simply isn't true. your ability to
produce a supporting quote will, of course, determine
if you're making things up again, won't it?


-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:21:57 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug19.164453.24383@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes writes:

> > = (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >> = Tim Lynch writes:
> 
> >> Is there any black
> >> person who's speaking at the convention, for that matter?  I'm not up on 
> >> the scheduling, since I plan to stay far away from most of the coverage.)
> 
> >  Louis Sullivan spoke last night.  And the tv guys made (IMO) a point of
> >showing several black delegates.
> 
> I swear, they had one black for every circle of 25 whites, perfectly
> spaced.  It was weird, like seeing Phyllis Schlafly at a NOW meeting. 

  You were watching much closer than I....:-)

> >  Huh?  Yeah, I watched some of it in between chapters of my Civil War book.
> 
> Would this be the Shelby Foote classic?  (I started Vol. II of III last week.)

  As a matter of fact, it is.  Almost done with Vol I.  Good stuff.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:46:19 GMT

I wanted to agree with the poster who said that there are pro-lifers,
like myself, who do believe in doing all that we can as a society to
remove the need for abortion.  This includes financial, emotional and
spiritual guidance (if desired).

I believe the fetus to be unquestionable human.  I believe in its
right to life.  I believe the right to live supercedes the right of
another to kill it.  If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.
I probably will adopt someday for this reason.Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 21:01:42 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

In article <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> You seem intent to make this a religious argument.  Whether or not 
> you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
> that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
> is based solely on emotional responses of humans.  

That's an interesting claim; I'm not quite sure yet how to respond to it.

> Yes, I believe abortion is wrong.  I do not think it is right to take 
> a potential life because you were not prepared to deal with that life. 
> Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does 
> not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
> that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my unwanted,
> illegal or immoral actions from a man.

Hmm.  What you're saying, then, is that a fetus has a right to life
always, but depending on the circumstances in which it was created, we
may or may not have the right to kill it?  If a woman entered a sexual
encounter freely and of her own volition, she then deserves to be
forced to suffer a pregnancy she might not want and go through the
trauma of birth, but if she didn't have the sexual encounter
willfully, then we may kill the life growing inside her?

Or, how about this: There's been a lot of talk that 'consent to sex
implies consent to pregnancy'.  What if a sixteen-year-old girl who's
very naive about sex decides that, well, she can only get pregnant on
the first week of every month, so she has sex with her boyfriend on
the last week of the month and, much to her surprise, ends up
pregnant?  She certainly had _no_ idea this would happen, and if she
had known, she certainly would have made her boyfriend pull out in
time (remember, some people are *very* naive about sex -- particularly
the poorer population of this country).  Are you going to make her
carry the child to term, give birth, and raise it?

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Twin Peaks Junkie    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More lies
Date: 19 Aug 1992 06:29:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: 0R Busters -- they're still 0-for-Houston

In article <1992Aug19.015202.24618@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <28732@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
>smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>> DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
>> is challenged.  
>
>Pro-aborts are pursuing the strategy of character assassination. 

You'd have to have a character, first...


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  Support term limitations for politicians:
                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:03:20 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug15.233842.15382@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Aug14.172126.26493@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> >
> >(1) I have NEVER heard a well-reasoned anti-abortion argument.  At least
> >religious fanatics have an excuse.  What's yours, atheist?  
> 
> Sounds like you've been in outer space next to Jerry Brown.

Well, _that_ was certainly "well-reasoned", Dennis. 

> Fetus = member of human species != skin cell and alive = personhood
>         because they're alive. 

I _like_ that.  "Personhood because they're alive"; in the immortal words
of Bob and Ray, that's certainly a paraphrastic bit of casuistry.

> Freedom of choice != right to kill -> ban on abortion
> 
> Novak: Here is a puzzle: 

The only puzzle here is why you're so intent on making yourself look
foolish.

> Find the biblical reference in my above argument. 

First he'd have to find the argument.

> Until then, your argument is dust. 

I think you've been putting too much dust up your nose, Dennis.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:20:25 GMT

In article <usglkrx.714260356@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>>	I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
>>of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
>>actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
>>necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
>>consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  Abortion is NOT
>>a valid method of birth control.  If neither the man nor the woman has the
>>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>>have sex regardless of the cost?  
>
>   So, in other words, my husband and I should have been celibate up until
>now (the first 2 years of our marriage), and should remain celibate for the
>next 4 or 5?  We have been taking turns finishing up college degrees, and
>are unable, finacially, to support a child (heck, there are times we can
>barely support *ourselves*).  Maybe it works for some people, but I really
>don't think that 7 years of celibacy would be the best thing for a marriage.

  If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
  of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.  From your reply
  I assume that you plan on having children some time.  Is it right then, to 
  abort an unplanned pregnancy because it is convenient?
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Keywords: Suzie Q proves her skull is full of cream stuffing and not brains.
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:25:18 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <Bsz7Cr.2K7.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

Suzie Q steps in her own shit by claiming that Mark Kaufman is still
in my killfile when I said before that I took him out of the killfile.

===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:26:56 GMT

In article <Bt388r.CH0.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:

>>	I already have.  Read FOCA sometime.  Consider the broad sense in which
>> the court interpreted "health" in Doe v. Bolton.  That's pretty close to proof.

> Neither you nor your pal Holtsinger nor anyone else has provided
> any proof whatsoever that health is interpreted as you say it
> is.   

This statement is not correct.
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:47:48 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Bt9CMn.C0D@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
><1992Aug17.191523.6408@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>>When it comes to an issue of life versus choice, Cough Man, go check
>>your law books and show me where choice > life. That's why legal
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>abortion is so badly endangered, Cough Man.  
>
>Roe v. Wade.

Not to mention that the USA has entered into a great deal of military
conflicts that resulted in a great number of enemy deaths, merely because
the "enemy" espoused different political beliefs.  Or, in the case of the
American Indian, just happened to be in the way of the white man's
"progress".

All these things were "legal" at the time.

This statement of Chaney's ranks up there with Rasmussin's declaration
that no western government ever advocated genocide.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:57:25 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In  <1992Aug17.171730.1392@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>> Memorialize the man; I'm about to burn him white-hot when I switch
>> from flames to nuclear fusion to plasma energy.

>Maybe you should crosspost to alt.flame and rec.arts.startrek, and
>leave talk.abortion out of it.

Whoa, whoa!  

Larry, you have no idea what you may have just done.

Please.  Leave the r.a.startrek.* hierarchy out of this; as an active (perhaps
overly so, according to some :-) ) poster over there, I can assure you that
he would *not* be at all welcome unless he changes his posting style to 
recognize the existence of other people.

Please don't suggest that again.  

Tim Lynch

(Insert :-)'s liberally throughout, BTW.  Here, for instance:  :-) )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion