HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 19 Nov 1992 08:24:35 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <5aiFuB1w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us> jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>        I believe it is you who has no idea what you're speaking of! You are 
>        ignoring the fact that most of "US" men have been denied visitation 
>        with absolutely no recourse! Call the police and ask them, they'll
>        say it's a matter between the two of you, but should I refuse to 
>        hold up my end of the bargain, I go to jail, period, end of
>        discussion!

On the contrary, Jim, I'm pretty well acquainted with what I'm talking
about.  I think instead that you are jumping to unwarrented conclusions.
It's certainly a fact that many men are denied access to their children, 
and I happen to think that's a pretty gawdawful thing.  But I don't think
it has anything to do with the legal justifications for abortion.  I
also recognise that many parents don't pay their court-ordered child
support, and I think that's pretty gawdawful.  But it doesn't have anything
to do with the legal justifications for abortion, either.

>> >This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
>> >everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
>> >is stopped - permanently.
>> Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!
>        F.Y.I. my ex-$#@$% makes NO financial contribution at all she refuses
>        to get a job and stays in the house I bought, and married a guy who 
>        got her pregnant again so now he's on the hook for this and the future
>        kids, and she just lives off the support money, good scam, support
>        moms, kinda like welfare moms, only more vindictive!!!

As I've said, we all know of anecdotal evidence, but most of us are aware
of anecdotal evidence for *both* sides of the issue.  I'm sure you know of
some deserving parent who DOES do their best toward their children and
doesn't receive court-ordered child support.  Think about it.  

While I can understand the personal anger and frustration individuals have
with their situations (bear in mind, Jim, that I probably have *my* own
anger and frustration about my own situations, too), I don't think that
one's personal anger and frustration makes good law.

>        Most support mothers don't have any of their own, they live off the
>        very thing they hate the most, men!!!

Jim.  Do you have any evidence of your claim that "most support mothers"
don't have money of their own?  That they live off the support that is
designated to support the child and that they hate men?

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Constitutional abortion rights
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:08:50 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# 
# > Here's another such exhibit.  I have noticed, BTW, that Doug is no
# > less pro-choice than Elizabeth Bartley, possibly more since Keegan has
# > not noticed him come out in favor of punishing women who get illegal
# > (post-myelination for Elizabeth, post-viability for Doug) abortions.
# 
# I don't consider myself to be "pro-choice" because I'm personally 
# undecided on the issue of legislation.  I don't consider abortion 
# to be a Constitutional right, and I believe it should be a matter 
# of public policy decided by the states.

Well, Doug, seeing as how the only thing you *will* own up to is that
you don't think abortion should be a Constitutional right, why don't
you give us your reasoning for why you think the abortion right isn't
covered in the Ninth Amendment?

I switched the Distribution to `na.'


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:02:16 GMT

> = Peter White:

>The whole idea that there is an inconsistancy between OT and NT misses the
>you start with the premise that there's a different God in the OT than the
>NT, you're going to have a diificult time ever meeting up with the One God
>of the Bible.

Thank god.  He sounds like a quite malignant jerk to me; I'm glad you just
made him up.

>            His anger lasts only a moment, 
>			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5

Yeah, boy howdy; this is quite the utopia we live in, eh?  I love the way
his "favor" has saved all those millions dying of diiseases, hunger and
violence.  What a guy.  I really love the way "he" programmed us with
powerful sexual urges at age 12, then allows clueless fuckheads to run
around trying to legislate OUT of human beings what your so-called "god"
has allegedly given them.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:14:56 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Nov13.163212.27900@ncsu.edu> <adams.721675706@spssig> <1992Nov17.202633.24525@ncsu.edu> <1992Nov18.221201.17685@ncsu.edu> <1992Nov19.172616.20618@ncsu.edu>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov19.172616.20618@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov18.221201.17685@ncsu.edu>, blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN) writes:
>|> Remember too, that a woman is *always* risking her life during a pregnancy.
>|> Her life is always in danger.  A woman can go through a whole pregnancy
>|> without complications, yet die during delivery.  Forcing a human being to
>|> go through such a risk is repulsive to me, and I will do everything in my
>|> power to keep women from being forced into such a gamble with death.
>
>Yes but there is a "risk" although a small one, in any surgery including abortion
>therefore you repulse yourself on your beliefs.

Nope; early-term abortion is 11 times safer than carrying to term.  Forcing
someone to take the higher risk is repulsive.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: SJM caught in lie - Film at 11
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:12:06 GMT
Summary: Roger Williams posts a lie

In article <BxuA5H.xI@access.digex.com>, roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams) writes:
> In article <32561@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> Stephen J Mezias claimed
> 
> "I wrote none of the above.."
> 
> However, the truth is that he DID write the following sentence:
> 
> "The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be."
> 
> The thing that tipped me off was his use of "Petie".  Most of his fellow
> name-flamers use "Petey" or variants thereof.  As far as I am aware, he's
> the only person to use "Petie".  According to the "Steve Chaney and Dennis
> Hall both spell embarrass the same way so they must be the same person"
> standard of proof held by the pro-choicers, this, in itself, is sufficient
> to convict Mezias of being less than truthful.  However, my own standard
> is higher than that and I retreived the original article.

Your claim about how it was determined that Stephen Chaney (he
spells it with a "ph") was posting the Dennis Hall articles is
false.  In fact, the similarities in misspellings and posting
style were noted, then the system administrator for the Dennis
Hall account was contacted and asked if Stephen Chaney was the
owner of the account.  The system administrator confirmed that he
was.  Nothing definite was said and, my memory is a little fuzzy
here, I don't think anyone claimed they were the same person until
after it was confirmed by the system administrator.  The similarities
were far more numerous than the way one word was spelled, but
nobody really stated that the Dennis Hall poster was Chaney
until after proof, real honest to goodness proof, was obtained.

By the way, Scott Roby got the proof first from the system
administrator, but I confirmed this independently because I
wasn't sure I should be following Scott's lead until I knew
it was true on my own.  I was nervous that I had supported
Scott's statements regarding the system administrator based
solely on Scott's word and the posting similarities.  So I
contacted the system administrator myself, explained what was
going on, and asked him if he could confirm or deny what I had
been told.  He confirmed it.

The standard of proof set by those who confirmed that Chaney was
in fact posting as Hall is sufficiently high to demand a
retraction of your slur on supporters of choice, who were
careful and thoughtful in determining the facts.  I might
also note that while you accuse Mezias of dishonesty because
he actually was the author of one sentence in the posting at
issue, Chaney was practicing a deliberate deception in his
Hall posts, claiming to be a supporter of choice and exhibiting
all the worst characteristics that are so native to Chaney in
an attempt to discredit the pro-choice position.  One might
slur all pro-life supporters based on this deliberate
deception, as you have tried to slur all pro-choice supporters
with your remarks, but then I have a little more character
than that, and my standards are higher.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: In which Nyikos shows some perspective on self.
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:00:21 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.722204053@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes something that shows
more perspective on self than I ever expected:

>... anyone who posts SAT scores is like
>some pompous braggart...
>
>Peter Nyikos

You got that right, Petie.  Unfortunately, for those who would like to
take some hope for Petie from this quote, I have a confession to make:
I had to remove all of the surrounding context from this `quote' to
make it seem as if there were any *actual* sensibility on Petie's part
of what a fool he makes of himself on the net.  I apologize to all of
those whose hopes were falsely raised.

SJM

Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:32:16 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Nov13.163212.27900@ncsu.edu> <adams.721675706@spssig> <1992Nov17.202633.24525@ncsu.edu> <adams.722035768@spssig> <1992Nov19.172239.20448@ncsu.edu> <adams.722211463@spssig> <1992Nov20.155142.2431@ncsu.edu>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov20.155142.2431@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>
>In article <adams.722211463@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>|> Ah, but the government (including schools) should not conduct something
>|> like this.  Religion is a personal, private manner.  Setting up a situation
>|> like you want in school forces it out into the open.
>
>Wel, sometimes it NEEDS to be out in the open, that's how you influence
>more to become christians,

That's *exactly* why it should not be in the public schools.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Tit for tat
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:45:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.151819.28582@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes...
>In article <1992Nov20.150930.374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
>>because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?
>>
>	Why do those who pursue control of other people's lives feel that just
>because they have neurotic sexual attitudes everybody else does?
>[Total information content in this entire exchange: 0 bytes]
> 

To which I'd add, just because thEwIndBag has given up sex, why should the 
rest of us?

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Arson Attempt at Robbinsdale Women's Clinic
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:25:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.102119.15285@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov10.220038.28188@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> There's dirty work afoot, mateys.  It was reported that the Robbinsdale
>> Women's Clinic had to be shut down for a day because certain individuals
>> had drilled a hole in the roof and had deposited a quantity of gasoline
>> into the building.
>
>The fire dept estimates that 10 gallons of gas were poured in.
>
>>                            It's lucky that the gasoline wasn't ignited.
>> The local fire department estimated that it would have exploded with the
>> force of seven sticks of dynamite, which would certainly have killed the
>> persons on the roof and showered bystanders with lethal doses of debris.
>
>They also said that the fumes were so strong that if anyone the next 
>morning had been smoking, it would have started a huge fireball.
>
>> I hope we won't be seeing any more desperate acts like this.
>
>Probably not.  In 1987 the clinic got a restraining order against some
>anti-abortion protesters and the following day the clinic was firebombed
>(though the damage was minor).  The clinic was granted another restraining 
>order days before the most recent attack.

A restraining order was probably in place when these guys poured ten gallons
of gasoline into the roof. Restraining orders don't do a thing. The only
solution is to stop these antiabortion terrorists from getting too well
organized. We don't need a full-fledged terrorist front on this issue, but
it these things don't stop, I can easily see pro-choice groups assembling 
into gangs of armed vigilantes. That's almost what we have to do in response 
to Operation Rescue. The only difference is that nobody has any guns and the
clinic defenders have to sign a contract not to get violent. 

Radicalism breeds radicalism, injustice breeds injustice, violence breeds 
violence. This is the eternal cycle. Someone could stop it, but the other
side seems to refuse to. If the antiabortionists want to resort to violence,
there is no law against self-defence.

Of course, the best answer is not armed gangs of clinic defenders. But neither
is it terrorist antiabortionists.

Lost Boy



Organization: Sophomore, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:21:57 -0500 
From: Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
	<1992Nov19.081726.162676@watson.ibm.com>

Boy do you have some messed up ideas!  
You think abortions should be used as a source of birthcontrol if
necessary?!?  And that the practice of abstinence is a ridiculous
solution?!?!!  Wow you're confused.  

I (obviously) agree with the other side of the argument.

Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
only 100% certain method.  
If a couple considers themselves adult enough to engage in sex, they
should face the adult responsibilities that might accompany the action. 
And making sure that the child that results from your actions is cared
for is an obvious responsibility.  I strongly believe that killing that
child through an abortion is not facing your responsibilities.

Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
No Sex is Safe Sex.  
Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
result from sex, either.

Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
of you?


                          --Elizabeth C Green
                           Carnegie Mellon University
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: 19 Nov 1992 08:26:58 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: talk.abortion
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
>
>   You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
>   authority that grants you this right?


The highest authority that exists:  Ourselves.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:58:38 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov17.124222.165162@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>
>>   The New Tesament CANNOT be reconciled with what you refer to as
>>the 'Old' Testament, and I refer to as the Bible.
>
>I disagree.
>
>>  The whole idea
>>of the New Testament was that the OT was replaced, not augmented.
>                                          ~~~~~~~~
>
>>   I am a Jew.  As a Jew, I have no use for, or interest in Jesus
>>or Christianity.  As the focus of the NT is on Jesus, the form of
>>the NT is 'biographical.'  The OT is a narritive of the growth of
>>the human race as a moral species.  It is the story of God trying
>>to teach us right from wrong.
>>-- 
>>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>>may not be both."
>>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
>
>The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament.  Many of the prophets
>(esp. Isaiah) told of the promised Messiah, who was fulfilled
>in every detail in Jesus.  (I only have a NT with me, otherwise I would
>quote some verses.)  I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this,
>because I believe that you are still expecting the Messiah to come.  I am
>also interested to understand why.  Feel free to email me at
>jsm@aeg.dsto.gov.au if you don't wish to discuss this over alt.atheism.
>
>
>Yours in Christ,
>James.

What foetid, smelly rotten RUBBISH is this? If this fundie moron had actually
read his supposed prophecies, he would notice that they all predict a 
militaristic messiah. The jews of the time of Jesus had this idea, as did the
jews at the writings of the alleged prophecies.

Then we get to the question of his alleged direct decent from king David.
Ever notice in Matthew it traces Jesus ancestry through JOSEPH to David?
Ever notice the contradictions in the geneologies given in the other gospels?

Whine all you want about what Jesus allegedly said, he said it AFTER the 
prophecies were made, which invalidates any self-service his statements had...

May Cthulhu use you for an afterdinner mint...
-Misquamicus
















Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:20:04 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->Many people have made compelling arguments against banning late-term
->abortions, and so I'm not going to propose any such thing.  However,
->neither do I see as justifiable any abortion which deliberately kills
->a late term and viable fetus when alternatives exist.

what you see as justifiable isn't important unless
you're willing to impost your opinion on others, which
it appears that you are.

->What I would like to see are laws that allow a woman to terminate a 
->pregnancy at any time, but requires that an attempt be made to save 
->the life of the fetus when practical and when it does not place the 
->mother at great additional risk.  Granted, this may not always be
->possible, but when it is, it should be required.

->What punishment?  I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
->manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime.  And yes,
->that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she be so
->convicted.  While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I don't think
->that women should be treated like children just because they are
->pregnant.  I expect _equal_ justice under the law.

you sound terribly confused. two paragraphs back you
say you'd like to see "laws that allow a woman to
terminate a pregnancy at any time." then, in the
previous paragraph you indicate you'd imprison women
for having abortions. in order to imprison those women,
ray, you'd have to make it a crime to have an abortion.

so which is it: do you want to legislate against some
abortions?
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Keywords: campus joke, little bit, lying, false accusations, empty threats
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:00:10 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
# nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# >But the cause of my complaint still stands.  Susan Garvin did indeed 
# >omit a # (or> as the case may be) in front of the bard@cutter attribution, 
#   [...     104 more lines deleted]
# 
# I guess not.  Sigh.
# Have we wasted enough time, yet?  :-)

Hey, if y'all are gettin' all up in the air about whether or not *I*
wrote something here -- why dontcha jus' aks me?

This is the first I've tuned in to this silliness.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48607 alt.flame:14965
From: mglads@catbox.cc.uni.edu (Melvin Gladstone)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: projection of the week: this week's winner!
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:36:51 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Indiana

In article <spy1kr@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>mglads@catbox.cc.uni.edu (Melvin Gladstone) writes:
>->It looks like someone has taken Kevin's special 
>->place in the Keeganator's heart.  
>
>don't worry, mel, i'll always have a special place for
>kebbie.
>
>->So there is hope for me after all.
>
>let's see about that.
>
>->Well here are some things which may win your affection.
>-> [various kevinesque quotes]
>
>kebbie did this one.
>mel, are you modeling yourself on kebbie?
>
Well I don't pretend to understand the dynamics of your interaction
so I'm just going with proven tactics.  I'll try again after more
study.

Melvin M. Gladstone

p.s. Hey Kevin, you could help me out here with some advice, you know.
     After all I did offer you a cabinet level position in my unsuccess-
     ful run for the presidency.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion