HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Keywords: Bogus
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:46:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

Is it possible for bullshit to wave the red flag in front of
a bull?  Stedennis Chahallney does just that.  Oh well,
once more unto the breach, dear friends...

In article <1992Oct16.165819.24190@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> Even though Susan Garvin has no evidence to support her "Dennis" claim
> - no evidence that shows I wrote like Dennis or any documentation
> beyond Scott Roby's claims.. she continues to go on with that lie.
> Oh, well.

Not exactly.  The system administrator for the account in
question called me, personally, when I wrote to him and asked
who owned the Dennis Hall account.  The system administrator for
the account in question said the owner of the account was
Stephen Chaney.  Oh, and "Dennis Hall" both wrote like
Stephen Chaney (if that is his real name) in style and,
curiously enough, misspelled the same words and confused
Usenet with UNIX.  There were other indications as well, but
I tend to think the word of the system administrator pretty much
settles the matter.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:02:47 GMT

In <=bxzy+m@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>I agree that many 14 year olds are capable of making good decisions,
>>but the decision to abort is very difficult for many experienced 
>>*adults*.  What makes us think that the typical young adolescent 
>>has the requisite experience and maturity to make such a decision 
>>unilaterally?  
>
>>Beyond that, though, as a parent *I* have rights, too.  Since I am 
>>legally responsible for my children, should it not follow that I 
>>also be legally permitted to govern their activities?  If they incur 
>>a debt, or destroy private property, or require emergency medical 
>>treatment, the bill is ultimately mine to pay.  If, subsequent to
>>a legal abortion, my daughter developed complications, the cost of
>>treatment would also be my responsibility.  I don't want my right
>>to influence my minor children's decisions taken away any more
>>than pro-choice women want their right to abortion taken away.
>
>>conclusion:  I have rights that I'm not willing to give up.  Does
>>that sound familiar?
>
>familiar? sure. it's the attitude that becky bell's
>parents believe killed their daughter. it's the kind of
>attitude that could kill a lot of young girls. 

It's also the kind of attitude that kills a lot of in 
utero humans.

>i truly
>hope that you never have to look back like becky bell's
>parents have.

Thank you.  Me too.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43088 talk.politics.misc:52518 alt.sex:33213 alt.rush-limbaugh:7659 alt.politics.elections:17366 alt.politics.clinton:11044 alt.politics.bush:9531
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:49:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Oct7.085552.7325@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>>In <Bvq88E.9B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>>
>>>A woman's rights with regards to abortion are protected by the Fourth 
>>>Amendment.  An unborn child's rights with regards to abortion
>>>may be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  If that is the
>>>case, then it becomes a question of whose rights take precidence --
>>>the born person's or the unborn person's?
>>
>>	Which could also boil down to:
>>Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. I certainly
>>can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
>>because they have "invaded your privacy". 
>
>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.  In many states it is quite legal to kill someone
>who is sexually assaulting you.
--------
And in all states it is legal to kill someone to escape being
kidnapped for use as an organ-surrogate for dialysis or as a source
for blood or the use of any part of your body for the sustenance of
another, even if your escape from this condition of servitude kills
them, whether they are a fetus, and Einstein, or Mother Teresa!
-Steve

>Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
>ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!  
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:32:49 GMT

In article <Bw2oDD.JGp@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
}In article <1992Oct13.172426.22616@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}>In article <1992Oct13.151521.15156@advtech.uswest.com> 
}>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
}>
}>> Honorable mention in this category goes to Holtsinger, Arnold,
}>> Schweikert - and other t.a. members of the Religious
}>
}>I'm not religious.
}
}Does anyone else find this statement slightly amusing, in the way he repeats
}it so religiously?  :-)

Not only that, he slings around the term "pro-abort" with abandon and then
gets huffy about this.  If you ask me, he's a Roman Catholic.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
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: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:06:03 GMT

In <1992Oct13.114518.19471@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Oct12.215240.3561@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

[Becky Bell's parents]
>>> I believe that their agenda is to prevent any more needless
>>> deaths of teenagers.  
> 
>> If it is, they have an odd way of expressing it...
>
>I don't at all find it odd that the parents of a young woman who
>died from an illegal abortion because she was afraid to tell her
>parents about her pregnancy, and could not get a legal one
>without telling them, should feel very angry and bitter
>towards those who brought pressure to have such a law
>passed.  I cannot understand why you don't understand it,
>Bill.  I can think of  anumber of reasons why you might
>not understand it, but then I wouldn't want to try to
>analyze your motivations.

That's real big of you, Dean.  I can certainly (as I've
indicated elsewhere) understand why someone might tend
to displace their anger when faced with such a situation.
What the Bells (seem to) fail to do is accept any personal 
responsibility *at all* for their daughter's death.  It is
all laid at the doorstep of evil legislators, evil laws 
and evil pro-lifers.  You may think that's perfectly ap-
propriate, but I do not.  I think it's kind of sad.

Bill
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:07:11 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct16.014238.7081@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
>> = (Steve Novak, MBA) writes:
>>> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>># = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>
>
>>>#Margolis, Rescorla, Nadja and Cochran, in no particular order, get
>>>#Honorable Mention.
>>
>>>What about you?  
>>
>>Gawrsh <*Blush*>  I'm just too danged modest :).
>>
>I wanna.  Now, get on with the acceptance speeches.
>
>Susan

OK.

I love my flag, I do, I do, Which waves upon the breeze.
I also love my arms and legs and neck and nose and knees

One little shell could spoil them all and give them such a twist,
That they would be of no use to me, I guess I won't enlist.

			- Wobbly song, circa WWI
-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42433 alt.abortion.inequity:4398 talk.politics.misc:51518 soc.women:17679
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politics.misc,soc.women,misc.legal.virtual.reality
Subject: Modern Science solve Ethical Problems
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:52:28 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
] dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote (in article <1992Oct13.005329.14189@ncsu.edu>):
] >In article <1992Oct8.224810.24975@netcom.com> 
] >bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
] >
] >> Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.
] >>
] >> Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.
] >
] >This analogy fails since the "donation" of resources by the woman
] >has already commenced in the case of pregnancy. 
] 
] You mean that since she's already started donating her resources
] against her will, she's not allowed to stop?


Brian,

We can excuse your youth and innocence,
but WOMEN CHOOSE to have z/e/f emplant,
it is a part of the Virtual Contract
Signed Between a Woman and Her Overies.

Thus, Those women who FAIL to Gestate after
engaging in SEX, are in DIRECT VIOLATION of
this Virtual Contract With their Overies.

DON'T Let those RadFemSurfNazies fool you!

When a Woman FAILS to Gestate IT IS PROOF
of Her Total MORAL FAILURE!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: this Virtual Contract Void where prohibited by
Law or REALITY.

pps: Persons engaging in FUN need not worry about this....




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A Minor Complication here...
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:25:29 GMT

jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
] From article <grendel.719003246@camelot>, by grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea):
] > 
] > You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
] > wants to reduce troops in Europe.
] 
] Hmmmm, I believe LBJ said things like that about troops in Asia,
] specifically, Viet Nam...


Is it Just me, or Are We NOT at War in Euorope
defending it from the Internal Disruption of
an Armed Revolutionary Struggle......

Its Possible That George Has NOT been telling us
something about all of this, and the LapDogLackies
of the White House have been withholding this
NEWS from the MEdia.

Its Also Possible that George Was Near the Loop
when this war in Europe Started.

It Could Happen.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:52:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom San Jose

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>>>Even though I have not yet done so, I feel it can be shown that the baby and
>>>fetus are ONE IN THE SAME.  I think this can be done using reasoning that is
>>>both  scientifically sound and based on common sense.  So it is not that I am
>>>trying to apply the same value to "A" and "B", rather, "A" IS  "B".
>>
>>I, for one, am looking forward to this demonstration.  Presumably
>>you'll also be showing that a zygote and an embryo are also identical
>>to a baby.  I see considerable difficulties with this endeavor, so your
>>attempt is eagerly awaited.
>
>My argument is nothing new, I'm sure, except that I try to apply the rules that
> scientists use consciously and most people use subconsciously on a daily basis
>in their acceptance of something as being true or false.  Although I will
>expand on this, for now let me just say that whether a fetus is the same as the
>currently protected baby can be viewed probabalistically.  What you do with
>those probabilities is your choice, but if you want to be consistant, your
>decision or conclusion based upon those calculable odds should also be
>consistant.  If nothing else my view may help `quantify' our differences.

Of course there is a non-zero probability that an adult is identical
to an embryo (if that is your argument).  But then, there is a
non-zero probability that I am a gold-brick.  Relevence?

>You are correct; circumstances count.  Just because the world is cruel and
>unfair does not imply that "cruelness" must be incorporated into law for the
>sake of consistancy.  Some circumstances are beyond our control, others are
>not.  We do our best.

Agreed.  For that reason I would not want to see abortion made illegal
just to enforce some notion of consistency with regard to human life.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Don't ask me.  I just work here.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:28:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.044434.14387@newshost.unh.edu>, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>     Deuteronomy 30:19 reminds us:  "I have set before you life and
>>     death, the blessing and the curse.  Choose life then so that
>>     you and your descendents may live."
>>
>>Your biblical quote actually supports a woman being able to choose
>>abortion if she wishes, although it indicates that it is not the
>>desired choice. Since you offer it as an argument, I ask you
>>whether you will directly contradict it and choose for others, in
>>effect not letting them choose?
>
>We've got a choice to do *anything*.  Deuteronomy 30:19 is a commandment
>from God to choose life, just like He commanded us not to kill or commit
>adultery or steal or lie.  Yeah, we've got a choice to all these things.
>That doesn't mean I'm pro-choice.  I'm pro-life because I believe choosing
>abortion to be wrong.  Deuteronomy 30:19 commands us to choose life.

Okay -- now point out where it says you have any call to force YOUR "choice"
on anyone else...

>Understand the distinction, now?

It's obvious you don't, that's for sure...

--PLH (thank "Bob" for Slack[tm]!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Willmeister Hall on Biology
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:24:26 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Will Hall writes:
-
-In article <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
-regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
-
-> And if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, decided that pregnancy
-> and childraising was too much of a burden, and was FORCED to have me,
-> I'd have a lifetime of apologizing to do.
-
-This is why all of you liberals are so whacked-out. 

What's truly whacked out is the fact that some people are deluded
enough by their fanatic affiliations and idealisms to actually
label themselves and others as actually being either "conservative"
or "liberal".  I guess you aren't much of an individual, you're
just like the rest of the "conservatives".  Guess everyone is a mindless
zombie.

-Allow me to give
-y'all a lesson in Biology 101. When a baby is conceived, his/her
-genetic blueprint is formed. He (or she) is unique, and so are his/her
[blahblahblahblah]
-
-When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
-terminated... because one was never made in the first place!

But you prevent two unique gametes from uniting to form one unique
individual.  Maybe you should review your Biology notes, Prof. Hall.
Thanks for the worthless lesson.

-Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.

Ditto.  :)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!  
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:15:21 GMT

> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
># = (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>## = (Susan Garvin) writes:

>##No, she doesn't.  Regardless of Eric Rescorla's claims that
>##he owns the title, your bizarre versions of the cause of
>##male homosexuality, fundamental economics, and life in
>##general lead me to believe that you're the most twisted
>##person on the net.

>#Now, now, I didn't claim that I own the title. I'm not THAT arrogant.
>#I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.

(Hitching up pants...)  Ya got that right, pilgrim.  

>#But Suzanne. Nah. She's not half as twisted as me. Just ask Novak.

>Okay.
>
>Steve, who's the most twisted person on the net?  (I'd even
>be willing to limit it to the most twisted person on t.a.)

I'll stick to t.a.:

In terms of "bizarre" twisted, our resident ZAP comic.....drieux!  (Clap,
clap, clap, clap, clap...)  R. Crumb has to go a ways to catch up with
THIS guy.

Margolis, Rescorla, Nadja and Cochran, in no particular order, get
Honorable Mention.

In terms of mentally twisted, I'd say Forgach is a distant second
to....Chaney! (Clap, clap, clap, clap....).  Suzanne's chances in this
category were hurt because her strangeness comes in frenetic spasms,
while Chaney is weird all the time.

The little Propellor Piglet has mood, intelligence, and
rationality swings beyond scientific measurement.  Take a bow,
Denni...er, Steve! 

Honorable mention in this category goes to Holtsinger, Arnold,
Schweikert - and other t.a. members of the Religious Coercion Squad.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:10:52 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>>>Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
>>
>>Sanctimonious hypocrite.  Why don't you give all of your money to save
>>the lives of people who are starving?  After all, getting an
>>education, reading t.a., watching TV, and the like are also just
>>"social" reasons.  
>
>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.

>>Do _your_ social reasons take precedence over human
>>life?
>
>If my social reasons are directly starving certain people (like me buying
>a better car at the expense of not getting my son or daughter some food)
>then my social reasons are definitely not going to take precedence over
>the life of my son or daughter.
>
>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?

-- 
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: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:45:36 GMT

In article <7m2zkgb@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>->In <yp1zglh@rpi.edu>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
>->> Isn't it wonderful to be able to post by computer so that you
>->> can be as nasty and condescending to women as you want without 
>->> running the risk of being slapped?  

>->How would you characterize it when I argue with Jim Keegan or 
>->Steve Novak?

>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.

Actually, he isn't as condescending as the man who suggested that
all I needed  was to talk nicely to boys, and then Prince Charming
would sweep me off my feet and I then I would live happily ever after 
picking up dirty socks and washing dishes. I guess he hasn't noticed
that wages haven't kept up with the cost of living and that few women
ever really enjoyed that sort of thing.

The worst part of this all is that people still really believe that 
stuff...
-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Logically speaking, Bush must issue an exec order!
Keywords: never mind, he is that dense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:08:14 GMT

In article <7191@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.184424.10476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>[text deleted about the inconsistency of the Bush administration's
>stand on abortion and its IRS policies]
>
>>Well, it seems as if we should afford some tax exemptions on pregnant
>>women and their families.  Sounds like a pretty decent idea, actually.
>
>Now I see why I was ignoring you.  
>
>No one mentioned "some tax exemptions," Guerrero, the question
>was, "Should a family with a z/e/f in utero be allowed the
>same exemption on their income tax as a family with born
>children?"  
>
Even then, it still is a good idea.