HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Nyikos and e-mail
Date: 7 Jan 1993 07:50:40 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com


My email to the nitwit of the net.  Phoney seems to want other people
to handle his business for him, and I refuse.      

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 07:48:06 -0800
From: Adrienne Regard <regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Return-Path: <regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Message-Id: <9301071548.AA04395@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
To: nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Subject: Re:  Adrienne rewrites USENET history

Mr Nyikos,

I have absolutely no desire to converse with you in e-mail as I have
stated in the past.

Your flaky newsreader is not my problem.
Your inability to make your points clear is not my problem.
Your inability to own up to your own foolishness in the past is not my problem.

You made your statements in a public forum, and your retraction should appear
in a public forum.

I will not *bother* showing you the *courtesy* of sending further e-mail
to make up for your flaky newsreader, or your foolish vanity for about 
another .... hmmm ..... nearly 3 months.  And *that's* assuming you actually
manage to apologize for _your_ slander of me, idiot.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:33:20 GMT

In <29528@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <29511@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>]>> Mark

>[...]

>]>>I have no "punishment theory."

>>>Seems to be what your opinion is based on. Nothing else holds water,
>>>no matter how you try to disguise it. What else accounts for the fact
>>>that you'd allow elective abortions in the cases of rape and incest
>>>(where incest may have been consensual) and not for other pregnancies
>>>that do not threaten the life of the mother? (A free clue to go with
>>>your marshmallow, the fetus doesn't care how it was conceived, not
>>>does it care whether it endangers any other lives, as a matter of fact,
>>>it doesn't care about anything.)

No; it doesn't; but the mother's implicit consent to the possibility
of lost bodily autonomy (to which she has a presumptive, but not an
absolute, right) DOES depend on the circumstances of conception. Also,
she may ethically choose her own right to life over the fetus'.

The fetus' right to life is a VERY important consideration -- but NOT
the only one.

Mark Pundurs

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>			     Make a U-turn to God.
>The irony is priceless.

(Help me out, here; where's the irony?)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:16:05 GMT

In article <C0EKLv.CI@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> I'm not sure why you left off the invective Muriel rattled off just prior to me
> making that comment.  I don't doubt her humanity, but I'm surprised at how
> quick people are to jump to name-calling as a first resort.  I'm sorry, but
> that sounds pretty bitter to me. 

In our recent exchanges I was courteous, addressed the issues and
arguments only, and refrained from personal remarks.  You even,
in one of your first follow-ups to my posting (which followed one
of your own) remarked on the lack of "invective" and thanked me
for it.  In my next posting, I did point out that you had not
maintained the same lack of invective and suggested that you do.
You immediately started responding to my postings with insulting
and sarcastic language.  Now I'm no angel, and I get as nasty
as you please sometimes.  But you have absolutely no grounds
to act like Calpurnia here.  In our exchanges it was you who turned
on the nastiness first and, in fact, pretty much only as I tried
to stay above it.  I realize that you only did it because your
arguments were a complete failure, but that's not an excuse.  You
have no moral ground from which to criticize anyone else for
calling you names, or to cal anyone else "bitter."

I think Muriel's kind of zesty, myself.  Piquant.

Dean Kaflowitz

I suppose if "Doctor" Giggles Nyikos sees this, he'll claim
I was kowtowing to Muriel in order to gain access to her inner
circle.  I am sure that's exactly what I am doing.  Yeah, that's
it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:35:29 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>Regardless of who your "scientist" friends are, there's just as many
>>who hold the opposite position.  Always keep one thing in mind, scientists
>>need money just like the rest of us.  When funding time comes around,
>>they'll say whatever it takes (like all this Ozone hole garbage).
>>Experts are human, just like the rest of us.  They need to survive in 
>>our capitalist, free market society.  

>You can say this, and then quote Wee Willie Willke with a straight face???
>This is the only source I've seen for your ridiculous claims wrt illegal
>abortion.  Just who do you suppose pays Willke's bills?  Somehow, I doubt
>that he maintains a thriving medical practice.

>You need a bandage for that foot there, pardner?

>>Edward Simmonds- Honest, but getting depressed about it

>                 -rocker


I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and
history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the
preborn.  The rest is just a smokescreen thrown up by abortionists to
protect their atrocities.  

The Willke's could make a lot more money supporting abortion than opposing
it.  When you are looking at these things, always ask yourself "where is
the money going?".  Abortion is big business.  Anti-abortion is break-even
business if you are lucky.  



Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -   



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 08:22:44 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0FE8G.EDC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>I think the problem here, Mr. Kendig, is that morals, by nature, require
>one to believe that those who do not follow those morals are inherently
>inferior to some extent.  

What leads you to believe this?

I could pick out a few folks whose moral code seems so silly, narrowminded
and foolish that I feel superior in contrast, sure.  but I can pick out a
whole mess of other folks who have a different moral code than I do, who 
are admirable, perfectly sensible and responsible people, toward whom I
don't feel superiority based upon my moral code.

Now, that's just my personal experience.  But I wondered what I was missing --
since it seems to obvious to you, by nature, that I should go around feeling
head and shoulders above other people.

Why is that?

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Lets String 'em up
Organization: Clark University
Date: 6 JAN 93 13:27:44 GMT

In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>In article <1993Jan4.195541.12488@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>Loren has lost the vote.  Despite the fact that he has apparently
>>already found a suitable hiding place away from T.A., the reader ship
>>of T.A. has decided it is suitable to strap the bugger down to a 
>>chair.  The final tally is:
>> 
>>13 Yes votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.
>>2  No  votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.
> 
>Thank you, Dan, for tallying the vote.
> 
>Now, is Loren going to consider himself bound by the will of the majority,
>or is Loren going to recognise that the majority vote has diddly to do with
>strapping an individual to a chair?
> 
>I know what MY guess is:  none of the above.  Loren's going to keep his
>head in the sand.
> 
>Though, if I were optimistic, I'd hope that Loren has left off posting in
>this group because he's actually READING that copy of the Bill of Rights
>sent to him, and MAYBE even READING some history of the formation of this
>country, to boot.
> 
>MAYBE!!!

I don't think that's what he's doing.  I have a feeling he's still among us, 
only now he's posting as an3329@anon.penet.fi instead of lfinkelstein@clarku. 
I guess he's too ashamed of his views to use his real name.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- nietS T yaJ)
Subject: Conflict! (formerly: What can we expect from President Hillary...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Wash. Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF), Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:50:02 GMT

[alt.sex, soc.women, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.child-support dropped]

What: <1993Jan9.064023.20291@noao.edu>
Who:  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)

>> = James G Keegan Jr

>> and here i thought the
>> rcc disapproved of oral sex.
>
>No, in fact between married folks, it sure doesn't.

Suzanne, one of the protesters at the clinic where I escort is a
Catholic.  He swears that oral sex, even within marriage, is immoral.
He says that anyone who says otherwise isn't being true to the Church.

What would you say to him?
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:35:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.104355.24368@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <aidler.725614614@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>>>I have to disagree that the pregnant woman or her physician 
>>>>alone have the right to terminate the life of the child. 
>>>>The child has a right to life (and quality of life) that must
>>>>be balanced with the mother's right to life (and quality of
>>>>life).
>>>>
>>>So, if a few women more women lose their lives, or
>>>their 'quality of life' would that be more 'balanced'?
>>
>>An independent party needs to consider the opinion of
>>experts along with the interests of mother and child and 
>>evaluate how realistic the woman's desire for an 
>>abortion is compared with any reasonable alternatives.
>>
>You seem to think that women are not capable of
>making decisions for themselves.  

Capable, yes. But what I think Mr. Idler is saying is that the decision
a woman makes is likely to be the one that furthers _her_ personal 
interests, whereas the decision that an independent party makes is more 
likely to be one which furthers _society's_ interests. There's a 
big difference between "capable of making a decision" and "capable of
making the BEST decision".

>>>>Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
>>>>ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
>>>>is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
>>>>evaluate the situation.
>>
>>>This is not best for the woman.  Even when her request
>>>is granted, she would be subjected to humiliating and
>>>demeaning inquisition by strangers who may not always
>>>have her best interests at heart.
>>
>>If there is a procedure to make this operate while
>>preserving the dignity of those involved, I'd certainly
>>entertain it because it would be more likely that
>>people would support it.
>
>If someone wanted to be your dictator, but promised
>to be a benevolent despot, would you be more likely
>to support it?

If I had the practical option to overthrow the despot if he or she ceased 
being benevolent, sure...

>>Could the woman be given the option of remaining
>>anonymous?
>>
>Why not just let her keep the option of making
>her own decisions?

Why not fly to the moon?

You could at least LISTEN to his proposal, Muriel, before launching
into the standard rhetoric.

>You cannot give legal rights to fetuses without
>removing rights from born women.  Would there be any 
>equivalent forfeiture of rights for males under your 
>system?

Have you got any constructive suggestions in mind? (Forced, unnecessary organ 
donations, and/or body mutilation are NOT constructive suggestions, IMO).

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: Abortifacients
Reply-To: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:02:43 GMT

In article <C0K60D.11z@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, dart@fugue.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan) writes:
>listen folks, this is a self-followup to my husband's earlier posting.
>we've gotten lots of letters saying to go to a doctor asap.
>well, we don't happen to have med. insurance OR the $500-600 it will take
>for an abortion.
>we may be able to come up with said money, however, >I< would much rather
>find a more effective, safer, and inexpensive way, first.
>if we can't find a satisfactory alternative to abortion, then i .will. seek
>treatment at a clinic.
>
>please, if you can give us .helpful. information, then you have our thanks,
>otherwise, please file your response to /dev/null
>
>--
>dart
>--
     Planned Parenthood is much less expensive than a hospital..(Price range
more like $300 or a little less.) and you don't have to have a file with them
to have one. (They will make one up for you, though, and offer contraceptive
choices after, as well as antibiotics for a fair price.  They are also very
sympathetic, and very helpful.)  I had a friend who needed one, and didn't have
a lot of money, and Planned Parenthood helped.  You do have to make an
appointment fast, because they'll only abort within the first 13 weeks.
     As for Herbal remedies... the friend looked long and hard for some good
ones, but as stated before from this newsnet, the Herbal stuff is very rough on
your system...it has to be, else it wouldn't work very well.  It CAN kill you
if you're new with herbs.  The only really good chemical that can be used is of
course, illegal in the U.S, and can only be used in the first few weeks.(RU486)
     I know this is kinda disappointing, and hard on the pocketbook.  
But we'd rather see you poor than dead by a bad recipe...or even sick, for that
matter.  Even if the abortifacents work like they should, you likely will have
to spend at least a few weeks in bed, and it sounds like you need to work.

                                I hope this helps a little, (and apologize
                             if it doesn't help.)

                               La Mort.
P.S.  I think Yarrow might be illegal in the U.S. too... Definitley not a good
idea.  Sorry.






--
This post made possible by uphrrmk and the letter 'C'.
Not all opinions expressed are those of the account owner, so please do not
send flames. If you don't read & accept this disclaimer, BITE ME!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:13:27 GMT

This boring thread with a million lines of included text for 2
lines of original drivel is getting out of hand. Nobody knows how
to edit on this net?

I know that their exists some hollow minded no life twits that 
would desperatly want to get to number one in alt.flame by including
a ton of text from other people, but even if I am sorry for their 
lack of all writing skills, I can't let this pathetic display continue.

Lets clarify this shit off the net and flush it down the toilet along 
with net trash extraordinaire Walshy boy himself.      
--
Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:43:20 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.224938.4424@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle
>) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark P
>undurs) writes:
>>>
>>>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>>>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. As for probable death to the mother: when
>>>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>>>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

>>In other words, the woman got caught doing something she shouldn't have, 
>>and we need to punish her for it.  If she wasn't "doin it" voluntarily, 
>>then there's no need for punishment.

>Straw man alert! That's not my argument.

Um, Seems to be the case, Mark. Except for you additional stipulation
that she can choose to save herself. If she chose sex, she gets pregnant,
she can't have an abortion. That's pretty much your position, with the
one exception noted, you kind-hearted soul, you.

>I have no "punishment theory."

Seems to be what your opinion is based on. Nothing else holds water,
no matter how you try to disguise it. What else accounts for the fact
that you'd allow elective abortions in the cases of rape and incest
(where incest may have been consensual) and not for other pregnancies
that do not threaten the life of the mother? (A free clue to go with
your marshmallow, the fetus doesn't care how it was conceived, not
does it care whether it endangers any other lives, as a matter of fact,
it doesn't care about anything.)

>Wrong -- as my initial argument showed.

An initial argument would say that you stated something with backing,
you have not done so.

>Please demonstrate (you haven't yet).

Please do. I'd like to see an argument from you. It would be much better
than Blatant Assertions [Tm] garbage you've been spouting. (That's a
statement made without any backing, and offered as an argument in the
hopes that your opponent will be so flabbergasted by your seeming intelligence
to spout such nonsense that he'll take it at face value.)

Ron
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:48:50 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> >I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
-> >her extremely credible.  
-> 
-> Do you believe her informed claim that she is
-> "pro-choice"?

don't know about susan, but i think anyone who would
ask if someone who openly supports anti-choice
legislation (and who would go as far as imprisoning
women who have abortions) as ms. bartley does is
pro-choice is a complete and utter fool.

i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people considered
you to be a complete and utter fool, kebbie.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:23:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.124438.25101@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan05.065315.27243@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>Wimmin is sweet.  You ain't.  QED
>
>Hmmmmm.  First I'm bitter, now I'm sweet.
>
>muriel
>off to find a copy of _The Edible Woman_.
>
Sweet and sour Muriel...
Sounds liek an oriental dish. I wonder if I can get some at the local
Chinese take-out place? :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:03:55 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan8.225949.8242@ncsu.edu>,
by dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
> In article <1993Jan8.220222.27916@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>> In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com>
>>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>> [Deletions]
>>
>>>> I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>>> AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>>> for more than a few years.
> 
>> A commentary on the relative value of human life.  
> 
> The statement which you've quoted above, like so many other
> statements quoted by pro-choicers, has been taken out of
> context.  From the reference line, it appears as though
> either Mark Cochran or Keith Cochran quoted Mr. Punders
> out of context, but I can't find an article which matches
> <1993Jan8.190010.13178@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>. 

I discovered the error almost immediately (when Pundurs responded
to Cochran) and posted an apology.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 01:53:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.032836.24345@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.054631.10651@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
 
>>Kevin, if you're accusing Larry of having multiple personalities, I'm
>>afraid I must again correct you. MPD and schizophrenia have
>>absolutely nothign to do with one another. MPD is a neurosis,
>>Schizophrenia is a psychosis. They are totally unrelated.
>
>In common parlance, i.e. the _appropriate_ lexicon for the broad spectrum of 
>people who read t.a, "schizophrenic" denotes a person with multiple 
>personalities. If you want to be more precise than that in your medical
>journals, by all means do so...

Why can't you just admit that you're wrong, Kebbie?  Do you have some sort
of denial complex?

(Psst.  Mark.  Ask Kebbie about what the flack he raised when alt.fan.kevin-
darcy was first created).
--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion