HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:47:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <BxBtpv.E5@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> [ On whether the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Rehnquist in
>   particular, would uphold the Constitutionality of Maryland's abortion
>   law, which essentially codified Roe v. Wade: ]
> 
> >Renqhuist's position is always pro-states against central
> >rule.  That was the basis of his dissent from Roe v Wade
> >in 1972.  I think, as a basic philosophy, decentralized
> >power is a sincere position of the Chief Justice and not
> >something he used to dissent in the RvW decision.  If
> >all fifty states passed laws codofying Roe v Wade into
> >law, Renqhuist would likely see that as appropriate.
> 
> I disagree with that assessment; Rehnquist seems to favor government
> power over individual liberties, rather than supporting States' rights
> over Federal power.  But in any case, if he were inclined to overturn
> a *State* law permitting abortion, he'd have a tough Roe to hoe.

From The Brethren, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (largely these
passages deal with Renqhuist and the 14th Amendment):

"Even more chilling to the liberals was Renqhuist's ideolodical
commitment to keep the federal courts out of certain types of cases.
He argued that state legislatures, state governments, and state
courts should be given the benefit of the doubt when it came to
defining the individual rights of their citizens.  Only the most
extreme abuses could be corrected, he felt.  The Court had no
business forcing its views on the states; it was not the voice
and conscience of contemporary society." (p. 262)

"Renqhuist was also convinced that the Court had helped the federal
government usurp too much power from the states.  Unhappily,
there was little he could do about it since most of the states'
rights issues had been settled by the Court a century or decades
earlier.  Sn important impediment to limiting the federal
government's power was a 1968 Court decision (Maryland v.
Wirtz) that upheld application of a federal minimum wage law to
nearly 3 million employees of state hospitals and schools.  In the
previous term, Renqhuist had argued, without much luck (Fry v.
U.S.), that the Court should consider overruling Wirtz."

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Was Pitts Out of the Loop During the Persian Gulf War?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:05:59 GMT

In article <73744@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) 
writes:

}For THE Christ and His Kingdom,
}Richard Pitts

Richard Pitts will kill you if you don't heed him.

Actually that might not be true.  Richard Pitts will probably have 
somebody else kill for Christ, and stand by and applaud.

Note to Father Doug:  I didn't bring religion up again.  Richard did.


--
       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!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46621 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:565
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:51:26 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
->Pop quiz time, Kevin!
[...]

->(2)Have we ever seen you advocating "forcing" 
->a woman to give up her child?

kevin just reaffirmed that position a day or two ago.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney needs a lobotomy 
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:57:53 GMT
 <BwJ8DG.31s@rice.edu><nyikos.720065439@milo.math.scarolina.edu><SCOTTS.92Oct29
 105701@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU><nyikos.721002730@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <nyikos.721002730@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

   In <SCOTTS.92Oct29105701@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

   >The only threats I've noticed recently on TA have been from you and
   >Chaney. 

   What threat have you seen come from me?  

I guess maybe one of the other people posting from your account posted
this.  At least the hypothesis that more than one "person" is posting
from nyikos@math.scarolina.edu explains the inconsistencies in your posts.

Here is your threat.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Chaney needs a lobotomy (was Re: I need a new flyswatter! (was Re: Hear this, Rocker.))
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 24 Oct 92 03:59:39 GMT

...

For your information, all you reading this, some of us do a lot of
traveling to conferences, giving colloquiums, taking sabbaticals,
etc., and might find ourselves on one of you'uns's [as they sometimes say in
Pittsburgh; down here we sometimes say y'all's] campuses.  To know that I might
bump into a weirdo like rocker or Scott or Keith Cochran  on one of 
these visits is not the best feeling in the world.  Or even one of the 
halfway tolerable ones.

----(end inserted threat)----

Why bring up that you travel if not as a threat?  Why bring up that
you may bump into us, if not a threat?

(but then again, why bring up SAT scores unless you are an idiot....
Hmmm, that would explain a lot too)

   > It appears the "pro-life" position you advocate for people
   >that disagree with you is "kill them".

   A vile slander, except for the saving clause, "It appears".  You've
   been hallucinating, Scott, get a grip on yourself.

Pro-war, pro-death-sentence, anti-abortion is not "pro-life" nor is it
a slander.

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I see a divine hand in this AIDS thing." Dr. John Wilke, President
                                          National Right to Life Committee
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:55:25 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Ray Fischer
>> Keegan

>>where does it do that, ray? it looks to me like it
>>refers to positions, not labels.

>Clue:  I don't care what you think Ms. Bartley's position is.  I
>can find out for myself from Ms. Bartley's posts what her opinion is.
>If you disagree with her, say so and say why.  If you agree with her 
>say so and say why.  If all you want to do is try and establish that 
>Ms. Bartley is anti-choice, go somewhere else.  If you don't have an
>opinion of your own, go somewhere else.  alt.flame seems to be far
>better suited to your style of posting.

Ah, how the mighty have fallen ...

>If you can't have a life, at least pick on someone else who doesn't
>have a life.

Most of Keegan's crap is directed at Darcy.  Those two are guilty of the
same sins: endless name-calling in huge meta-discussions that have little
to do with abortion and a lot to do with ego inflation and a battle of
who can be the most self-righteous and condescending.  So I'd have to
say that in most cases, Keegan is already following your advice.

>>do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
>>abortions, ray?

>Do you want a woman in labor to be able to have the doctor kill the 
>fetus just before it emerges if labor becomes too painful?

This is not only a non-sequitur, it is also insulting.

1.  Most abortions done in the late 2nd trimester or later are done by
    labor inducement.  So the labor is going to be painful, whether
    the fetus is alive or dead.
2.  You have undermined the pain that women go through durinng labor.
    When you spend 12 to 16 hours passing a bowling ball from your
    ass, I'll retract that statement.
3.  It is insulting and ridiculous to think that women ask to kill the
    fetus while in labor, and shows that a) you are wildly out of touch
    with reality, b) you are shooting off at the mouth about things
    that you are completely ignorant of, or c) you have some sort of
    flaming-death wish.

-- 
"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:07:51 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.721351262@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> {BTW the spelling is "mite".}

In article <nyikos.721426547@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> The spelling is "asinine"...

Famous Math Professor Does Spelling Flames.  Film at 11.

Why, I wonder, does this fail to surprise me?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46675 alt.flame:14452
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity post:
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:24:51 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <kph1n_l@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>...I've seen Keegan harass and verbally abuse
>>women for no reason other than their moderate positions on
>>abortion, in threads where he and his buddies weren't involved.  
>
>Then you'll be happy to post examples of this, won't you?  Surely
>you wouldn't, like Darcy, make an assertion you can't support.
>My my, it WAS amusing to see Darcy try and redefine "harassment"
>to mean "Asking abortion-related questions in a newsgroup dedicated
>to abortion."

Then you'll be happy to post examples where I characterized Keegan's
posts as "harrassment", won't you? Surely you wouldn't, like Garvin,
make an assertion can't support ("Darcy has been [...] arguing for
abortion restrictions"). My my, it WAS amusing to Keegan try to redefine 
"hypothetical" to mean "only things that are loudly and explictly 
bannered as hypothetical".

On a related note...

ANOTHER LIE FILED

---

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:54:11 GMT

rocker> When someone tells me I will have 'blood on
rocker> my hands' if I don't support THEIR version of abortion legislation 
rocker>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^
rocker> ... you are prefectly free to try and convince me that you have an 
rocker> excellent reason for overriding the medical judgement of doctors and 
rocker> legislating that some certain technique MUST, IN ALL CASES be used. 
rocker> ^^^^^^^^^^^
rocker> ... I have no use for 'feelgood' legislation. 
rocker>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
rocker> ...  you're certainly free to try and get YOUR medical judgement 
rocker> written into law.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
---

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:34:39 GMT

(To Kenny Hamer)

keegan> you're the only person who raised the question
keegan> of legislation, other than kebbie, of course.

---

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:36:15 GMT

In article <Nov.4.02.42.37.1992.17090@pilot.njin.net> vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes) writes:

>Hooray for the people of America! (anti-choicers, is it clear now?)
>Hooray for the people of Oregon! (gay-bashers, go screw yourselves!)
>Hooray for the people of Missouri! (Webster, you're not wanted)      
>Hooray for the people of Illinois! (proud to be one of 'em)
Hooray for the people of Colorado?
I wouldn't get too excited just yet.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More victims of Socialism
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:37:42 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

] In article <1992Nov7.214241.24357@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] > decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
] > ] In article <1992Nov3.195041.2701@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
] > [ too many canuks speaking to each other... ]
] 
] HEY!  I'm not exactly sure of the spelling of Canuck, but I *know*
] it isn't "canuk".  Not even capitilized???


GEEEZ!

I need no more proof that you NEED to become a Full BORE
American so that you will KNOW that canuks is the plural
of canuk.....


It comes from a security classification:

Canada UK.....


NORCANUK is Norway Canada UK

and if I were to have to explain to you why,
I would have to burn you and eat you....


ciao
drieux


ps: DON'T EVEN ASK ABOUT: "Burn before reading."



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: an anti-choice post
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:03:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.005611.24054@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.003429.9833@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>> But women don't have the right to third trimester abortions NOW.
>> Roe v. Wade is quite clear on this issue. 
>
>No, women do have the right to third trimester abortions now. 
>Roe v. Wade does not allow the states to prohibit post-viability
>abortions which are necessary to preserve the woman's ``health'', 
>where the term health is given a very broad definition, including
>emotional and psychological health. 

You have yet to prove, however, your implications that "emotional and 
psychological health" is in fact an open door to allowing third-trimester
abortions for any reason whatsoever. Yes, I'll gladly admit, for the sake of
argument, that the RvW court "passed the buck" of the third-trimester 
decision to the medical establishment. But they did so KNOWING that the 
medical establishment is self-regulated by steadfast principles thousands of 
years old, and that doctors will exercise prudent and informed judgment in 
these matters. There is no slippery slope, Doug. There is no explosion of 
unnecessary third-trimester abortions, or, at least, you have been singularly 
unsuccessful in proving that such an explosion exists (have you found more 
than three doctors who perform third-trimester abortions?). It's POSSIBLE for 
such an explosion to occur, sure, but I have no reason to believe that it's 
happening right now.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: today's lunch: domino's pizza and snapple.
Keywords: pro-life supporters. dominos. snapple
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:04:38 GMT

In article <markts.721352691@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>
> why don't they rename those life ads: "life, what a
> conservative, white choice."?
>

A little divisive here, eh?  It isn't just a "white" movement...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Keegan excludes anyone from being prochoice if they support restrictions on abortion
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:53:20 GMT

> Darcy

>The fact remains, however, that Keegie, one of our resident net.label.cops,
>would disqualify someone from the label "pro-choice" merely because of 
>differences between their view on third-trimester abortions and his own. 

Of course, this begs the question, "Who gives a flying fuck what Keegan
thinks of them personally?"  Now can we just drop this thread before it
becomes a meta-discussion, or is it already too late?

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:48:56 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov5.205434.369@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
||>>I value both lives and as I've stated in an earlier post I havbe now come
||>>to the conclusion(although I don't like it) that if there is a choice
||>>between the mother's life and baby's life I will grant the mother an abortion
||>>to save her life 
>Please Please  No Applause No really Please no Applause
>Well Thank you Thank you Very Much !!!!! :-)
 (Dan King fries his ass.)
>What exactly is your problem I try to make a concession because I feel that
>it is important and you try and make me into a fool? I must admit i do 
>appreciate what an ass you are.

Jeff, let me attempt to clarify it for you.

Who the hell asked you for a concession?

Why the hell is it your concession to make?

*You* don't 'choose' between the mother's life and the 'baby's'.

It's none of your business, bub.

Adrienne Regard
>
>-Jeff Price
>
>	"What is legally permissible rapidly comes to be seen as
>	 morally acceptable" 
>			- Cardinal Cahal Daly of Ireland
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why genetics can't be used to determine personhood
Date: 6 Nov 1992 12:20:03 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov6.013604.13955@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>In the news recently has been a baby girl who's had five organs
>replaced: the three I can remember are her liver and intestines.
>Assuming the five new organs are all from the same donor, she now has
>two distinct DNA mappings within her.
>
>Does this mean she's two persons?  Or does this mean that part of her
>is "person" and part of her isn't?

Well, if anything born of a woman is a person, maybe she's six people :-)

When she grows up, she still has the right to obtain an abortion without
apology of course...

>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Spelling flame was(Re: Charles Don Hall -- are you paying attention?)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:19:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.150017.18630@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
}  _____      The Darwin fish
}\/    o\
}/\_____/
}  bb bb

See?  You can't even spell "frog" right, you spelled it "fish."  At least
you got the first letter right.  Maybe you should follow the example
of our resident genius (just ask him about is SAT scores) and just say:

The Darwin f.



--
       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
Subject: Re: A POLITICAL SOLUTION
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:16:26 EST

How many groups did you POST this in??? Geez.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: FACTS wanted
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:41:05 GMT

Sorry Myra, I couldn't resist.

<96149@netnews.upenn.edu> myra@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Myra VanInwegen) said:
>Howdy. I would like some statistics, or would like to be pointed to a
>reference that will provide them. I would like to know:
>
>Who gets abortions? 

Women.

>If abortions are outlawed, what percentage of those who would have
>gotten a legel abortion will get an illegal one? 

Less than 100%.

>Of the women who have illegal abortions, what percentage of them have
>complications or die as a result?

Greater than 0%.

>PLEASE, I want FACTS, not guesses (however educated they may be), and
>I would also like to know the source of your information.

These are all facts, based on common sense.


"It's a joke, son, a joke."  -  F. Leghorn
-- 
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
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Selfishness?
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:57:04 GMT


In article <oexkq9e00WBOE6YsVY@andrew.cmu.edu> Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 
>I have often heard the claim by pro-lifers that women who obtain
>abortions do it for purely selfish reasons; I have heard pro-lifers
>label pro-choicers in general as selfish (and materialistic, callous,
>self-centered, etc.).  I am reading a book right now called _The True
>Believer_ by Eric Hoffer, and it is very good, and quite interesting.
>This book is basically Hoffer's analysis of mass movements, why people
>become involved in mass movements, and what kinds of people tend to join
>them.  
 
>Thoughts and comments would be welcome.
 
Okay.

The pro-life movement likes to bandy about selfishness and convenience
when talking about women getting abortions.  I believe it is the pro-life
movement that is much more guilty of selfishness than these women.
The pro-life movement wants to see an end to abortion, but they do not
want to do the difficult task of removing the need for it.  That 
would require too much work and giving of themselves.  It is much
easier and convenient for them to use force of law to accomplish
what they want.  That is the method that requires the minimal 
personal sacrifice to accomplish their goal.  If they want to save
fetus's, there are many ways to accomplish that goal with out 
using force.  Pro-choice women in this forum have stated for the
right price, there is a very good chance they would  continue
a pregnancy.  But rather than pro-lifers paying that price, 
they want to use governmental force to save the fetus.  Hard to 
see this as anything but selfishness.

>Alison Colman
 
Dan King