HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Excuse Please, But who Be conservative?
Date: 10 Oct 1992 19:34:52 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Oct10.185634.5692@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
>] In article <1992Oct9.155924.8972@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>] >
>] >No guts, period.  No logic either.
>] 
>] Such is the life of a conservative...
> 
>Excuse me, but as a Card Carrying Republican
>Ever since I lived Under Franco I does Take
>Umbrage at your proposition about 'conservative'
>and their 'guts and logic.'

I am sorry to hear your political affiliation... (I do like your style,
nonetheless).  I find most conservatives lack logic, they do have guts
generally.  Most arguments that EXTREME to MODERATE conservatives/republicans
give are without logic.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:24:40 GMT

In article <Bw0ECs.2DL@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.035443.9243@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <BvxKoy.6sq@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct10.051757.29571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>In article <Bvt2tH.H4G@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Oct8.082415.1797@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In response to Garrett's comment's that my info on abstinence was
>>>>>>perhaps flawed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not personally trying to tell people what to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure you're not.  You're just advocating enactment of statutes that'll
>>>>>accomplish the same thing, while you say "but *I'm* not forcing anything on
>>>>>anyone!".  It don't play in Peoria, kid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
>>>>>>based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
>>>>>>what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
>>>>>>be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.
>>>>>
>>>>>What you feel about sex is your business -- so it's your job to find someone
>>>>>who shares your view.  It's not your job to try to force everyone else to
>>>>>share that view by law.
>>>>>
>>>>>--PLH, lived with my wife for two years before I married her, and I'll be
>>>>>damned if anyone will force me to apologize for it -- especially some
>>>>>wet-behind-the-ears brat at a cookie-cutter school...
>>>>>
>>>>Now since when did I attack ANYONE'S personal life???
>>>
>>>Every time you open your mouth to preach about the evils of sex in any form
>>>YOU don't approve of, you're guaranteed to be taking a pot shot at someone.
>>>You're advocating using the force of law to make sure everyone else should
>>>follow YOUR views -- so, while you didn't direct it at me and my wife
>>>specifically, we happen to be two of the group of people your little tirade
>>>is directed towards.  You don't like my response?  Then don't listen -- but
>>>keep in mind we'll be listening to you.  After all, the price of freedom is
>>>eternal vigilance...
>>>
>>Now when have I said that sex was evil??  Unless me saying that sex is ok
>>between two people in a monogamous relationship is somehow an attack on ll
>>sex.  Is their anything in what I said that specifically says to outlaw sex??
>
>Specifically?  No.  By implication?  Yes.
>
>>I think not.
>
Ok, read this: I never said or implied, in any way shape or form, that
sex should be outlawed.  Deciding to wait is not the same as being against
it.  Nor does it mean that waiting is a vote for its prohibition. OK??
Got that??

Simon
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:39:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.195424.24856@athena.mit.edu>
purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:

WRT: some of the Christians on talk.abortion

>From this behavior it appears that they believe that one of the
>chief joys in heaven is to watch the suffering of the damned.

One of the foremost theologians (Aquinas, I think, but I'm nothing
like certain) said something to that effect ... I believe it was that
one of the joys of heaven was watching the suffering of their former
tormentors.

This isn't the version of Christianity I subscribe too....   <sigh>

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41239 alt.rush-limbaugh:6817
From: mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:35:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct8.024829.24681@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> 
>Sure seems like your in pain little guy.
> 
How can you not be in pain, knowing that uncounted MILLIONS of children
were murdered since RvW
MS
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:36:01 GMT

In <bg2z-9_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>The proponents of consent and/or notification laws did not kill
>>Becky Bell. 
>
>for a person who so casually tosses inferences about,
>you seem to be having a lot of trouble dealing with the
>concept of responsibility. 

Only when others insist that I am responsible for their
tragedies.

>becky bell might very well
>be alive today were there not a consent/notification
>law. who knows how many others that remark might be 
>applied to.

It might be applied to the thousands of drug abusers that 
would be alive today were they not forced to resort to 
illegally produced substances.

>>Some of us (proponents) have daughters of our own
>>whose health and safety we are responsible for.  
>
>and some of us have daughters who we trust to make the
>best decision for themselves. perhaps the difference is
>a matter of upbringing.

Yes.  Only this morning, as I handed a set of car keys to
our 11 year old, I thought "I trust her".

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:39:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.141936.10746@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>>
>Catholic Social Services will gladly find a family pay for all 
>medical expenses occured during the pregnancy provided they can adopt the child.
>
>This is how my sister & her husband adopted two of their children.

Is this called "buying" a child?  Gee, I wish someone would have volunteered
to pay my childbirth expenses as it cost me quite a bundle, but since I
am not willint go "sell" my child, I guess I'll have to handle it alone.
Why shouldn't CSS be willing to pay all medical expenses period if they're
so anxious for all women to give birth?  Why put any requirements on the
woman to sell?  I would think they would oppose the "ripping" of infants
from their mother's arms, instead of financially supporting it.

Sorry for the language--my only excuse it that's the way Suzanne would
have said it (I know, that's not much of an excuse...)

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Summary: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! 
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.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 00:40:50 GMT

In article <Bw457A.ELq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.171504.18846@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <Bw20Cz.HI2@dcs.ed.ac.uk> 
>>tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

IT'S TOMMY AND DOUG IN THE SAME THREAD!  AAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
--
=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
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:46:25 GMT

Ahh, but Clinton tends to look a bit arrogant, and Gore has be very
stiff style when speaking.
:-)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:31:38 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>Abortion is active killing.  I don't think anyone is intentionally starving
>>>people.  If anyone was actively starving people, I would want to do
>>>something to help, no doubt about it.
>>
>>So then, you willingly let people die on one hand, while inflicting
>>hardship to prevent death on the other hand, and claim this to be a
>>morally superior stance?
>>
>>This is the most disgusting thing I've seen in a while.
>
>I never said anything about letting people die.
>
>Abortion involves active killing by a human individual.  Starving may
>or may not involve active starvation by human individuals.  Abortion
>is a means, the end is the death of a human.  Starvation is a state,
>the means may or may not be brought on INTENTIONALLY by certain human
>individuals.  What gov't can do is to prevent the means, the active 
>killing of humans.  If starvation is an active action by certain human
>individuals, then gov't can step ion an stop the means.  It is doable.

Politely, this is known as sophistry.  More colloquially, it might be
referred to as kissing one's own butt.  More simply, you're just
trying to justify your own convenience.  Go away.

>>>BTW, Your lovely use of colorful metaphors is slowly catching on.  However,
>>>you still haven't mastered the art yet.  Good luck! :)
>>
>>Here's some bad news for you.  They aren't metaphors.  They are quite
>>real.  30,000 people starve to death each DAY.  That's one every three
>>seconds.  Done anything about it?
>
>I was talking about 'Sanctimonius Hypocrite' and such.

Buy a dictionary and learn to use it.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: why mr. bill doesn't do this stuff full-time (Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:13:57 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(Susan Garvin) writes: >
->>Unlike some pro-forcers, I don't see a need to discuss my profession
->>on the net.  

->Are you ashamed of your profession?

this is why.

[...]

->I'll bet you don't see yourself as hateful, do you?

and this.

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: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:26:57 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->>since you mentioned me, i'll be happy to comment. you
->>are usually less "nasty and condescending" to me and
->>novak than you are to women, imo, and more "nasty and
->>condescending" to me and novak than you are to other
->>males.

->Opinions vary.

that they do. it must trouble you much that all of the
women who comment on your posts seem to agree with my
observations about how "nasty and condescending" you
are. does this problem hurt your business much?

->>my observations are based on a reading of your posts to
->>me, to novak, nadja, adrienne, cj, linda birmingham,
->>susan, rocker, dean, bense.

->Ooh.  Substance.  Or at least a reference to your
->method.  I'm both surprised and impressed.

try it yourself sometime. you'll feel much better.

->>but you probably can't help yourself.

->Oh, you mean I don't have a "choice"?

no, i mean you probably can't help yourself.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: psychological effects of abortion
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:22:46 GMT

"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Author       Leary, Warren E
>Title        Koop Says ABORTION Report Couldn't Survive Challenge
>Source       New York Times,  Mar 17, 1989,  A, 12:5
>Features     Photograph
>Abstract     C.  Everett Koop, the Surgeon General, testified in a
>             Congressional hearing that there is not enough evidence to assess
>             the PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of ABORTION and an unimpeachable
>             scientific report was not possible.
>Subjects     ABORTION; Congressional investigations; Psychology & psychologists

>Author       Okie, Susan
>Title        ABORTION Report Koop Withheld Released on Hill
>Source       Washington Post,  Mar 17, 1989,  A, 3:1
>Features     Photograph
>Abstract     A report on ABORTION prepared by Surgeon General C.  Everett Koop
>             recommended that the best way to reduce abortions is by educating
>             the public about birth control, and by promoting contraceptive
>             research.  The report concluded that the frequency of long-term
>             PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of ABORTION is uncertain.
>Subjects     ABORTION

>Author       Leary, Warren E
>Title        Koop Challenged on ABORTION Data
>Source       New York Times,  Jan 15, 1989,  1, 1:1
>Features     Photograph
>Abstract     Surgeon Gen.  C.  Everett Koop's contention that data on the
>             physical and PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of ABORTION are inconclusive
>             is challenged by experts in reproductive health and psychology.
>Subjects     ABORTION; Mental health; Women
>PersonalName Koop, C Everett
>ISSN         0362-4331

>Title        Koop: HEALTH effects of ABORTION unknown
>Source       Chicago Tribune,  Jan 10, 1989,  1, 2:1
>Abstract     Surgeon Gen.  C.  Everett Koop reports that no conclusive
>             evidence exists on how abortions affect a women's MENTAL or
>             physical HEALTH.
>Subjects     ABORTION; Women; HEALTH; MENTAL HEALTH

>Author       Brotman, Barbara
>Title        Both Sides in ABORTION Issue Also Remain Divided Over Post-
>             Operation
>Source       Chicago Tribune,  Apr 15, 1990,  4, 4:1
>Abstract     Post-ABORTION stress divides pro- and anti-choice groups as much
>             as the issue of ABORTION itself.
>Subjects     ABORTION; MENTAL HEALTH; Stress; Women


It might be noted that one of the reasons the effects of psychological
sequelae are uncertain was outlined by Koop in a letter to the President
which accompanied the report.  It seems that it was impossible to get
women who had had an abortion to talk about the experience.  They simply
refused to co-operate with the data collectors.  Quite an unusual reaction
considering that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure
involving the removal of an unwanted, unviable tissue mass.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:55:20 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct7.205817.10780@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
#nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[text deleted]
## Now, if she had gone to a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, she
## could have had the same urine test for FREE.
#
#Sure.  If she'd gone to, say, the "Robbinsdale Women's Health Center,"
#where there are _no_ health professionals available, just volunteer
#"counselors," that's about all she would have gotten.  Oh, and maybe
#incessant phone calls telling her not to abort her baby. I got this
#information from the 9/19/92 edition of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, btw.

In fact, it's not "the same urine test."  PP clinics, like other
clinics staffed by medical professionals, do not use over-the-
counter pregnancy tests.  They're also equipped to do other
types of pregnancy tests.  (PP Pittsburgh, by the way, charges
a maximum of $5 for the test.  The three clinics here in which
a woman can have an abortion performed all provide free pregnancy
tests.)  Neither PP nor the three abortion providers in Pittsburgh
lie to women about the results of their tests, either.


Susan
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:37:10 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <mpsz7r=@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu writes:
> you disgust me.

Let the galled jade wince.

I refuted Keegan's allegations at Eric Rescorla's request.
Since he tells me he is satisfied with my refutation, I will not
respond to Keegan's lies any more.  I don't need to test his
Everready Bunny batteries the way Overpeck did.  I know he'll
just go on and on and on endlessly, thumping his little drum.
Bye, bye, bunny!

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rushlimbaugh,alt.rushlimbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking about those Horror Stories From Literature
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:09:43 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
] Wait a minute, go to the action/adventure section of your local bookstore.
] Some of those books have similar scenes in them, and no flak has resulted from
] them.  And watch Kubrick's 1971 film "A Clockwork Orange".  Now if Kubrick
] was allowed to make that movie, I think my story abut the dangers of fascists
] rising to power as a result of a backlash against liberalism would be allowed.
] BTW, I'm not promoting fascism.  Wht my story is  is a criticism of liberalism,
] showing what could happen if Liberalism is allowed to run amok in our society.


1. have you considered reading any of the historical
works on the threat of democracy, and thus why the
USA was most likely NOT a good idea.

2. Speaking of those 'horrors' of "liberalism run amok" why
not also add to your reading list a little bit about the
reasons why offering enfranchisement to women was also a
threat to 'the good people' and the inevitable cause of
the collapse of 'western civilization' if it were to be
perpetrated by the 'liberals' upon society.

3. Now For the Intellectually Challenging Question:

"Did Kubrick present his film 'A Clockwork Orange' as a 
positive GOOD that would be the Right Way to go?"

4. Now That you are Aware that the AntiAboritonist
Movement is predicated upon rewriting American History
and Destroying the Republic. Do You consider that a
Good thing too?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:06:12 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
# ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
# >Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  
# 
# Huh?   Let me get this straight.  Abortion will kill women?  I didn't
# know abortion killed women.  Oh, I take that back.  Abortion does kill
# unborn females directly.

Mr. Guerrero, did you have to practice to be such a loser?  Or are you
an idiot savant?  You most certainly did *NOT* get it straight.  Mr.
Fischer clearly wrote that making abortion *ILLEGAL* will kill women,
not that abortion itself will kill women.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Oct13.181026.22134@jetsun.weitek.COM>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:21:04 GMT

<In article <1992Oct13.181026.22134@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
< In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<><In article <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com> inb@creare.com (Ian Brown) writes:
<>
<><   Anyway, that wasn't what I was intending to argue about.  Liberals don't
<><   like rules that don't make sense or favor people who need no favors over
,><   those that do.  

<>	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
<>	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
<>	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
<>	and criminals....

<Since when is Brady and his bunch liberal? Brady was an official in Reagan's
<white house, and is hardly liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Reagan
<supported the bill, too.
	
	Begging the question; the majority of congresscritters
	who are identified as "liberal" voted in favor of Brady.
	Indeed, the majority of people polled by Gallup who
	self-identified as "liberal" support Brady: thus,
	the previous posters assertion about "liberals" is
	false.

<   I am considered very liberal, and I oppose ALL restrictions on any civil
<   right. I like all 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, not just nos. 2 and
<   4.

	Fine. That makes you a non-average liberal; it proves
	nothing about the vast majority of people who self-
	identify as "liberal"...those people *like* rules
	which favor the politically connected.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion