HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:31:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.231911.28243@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>Let's face it, the ONLY fail-safe birth control known is abstainence.  
>>>If 'she' chooses to use a form which is less reliable, that's her fault.
>
>Thanks. Obviously Christianity is the biggest fraud on the planet if
>the above statement is true. So who was screwing Mary?
> 
YowZa ... Got me there.  I didn't expect any Christians would be reading this.
In the interest of saving space, I had intentionally left off devine intervention and hysterectomies.
-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (J. Skorecki-Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PatricKKK the Liar Humphrey strikes again! (was Re: threatening larry, again (was Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported)
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:22:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.181813.3752@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu  
(Stephen A Chaney) posts drivel four times, in an attept to make it more  
convincing:
> In article <Bv1A1B.DC9@rice.edu> PatricKKK the Liar Harumphrey posting  
as patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep23.010943.28214@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu  
(Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >>In article <1992Sep22.160218.20366@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr 
(drivel deleted to asve bandwidth_

Memo to Stevis  Chahallayney:
Re: drivel in quadruplicate

Yo, Steverino: garbage is garbage, no matter how many times you inflict it  
on the net, so why don't you just slink off somewheres and give yourself a  
level-3 diagnostic or something?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 02:39:20 GMT

<1992Sep28.201847.16813@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) said:
...
>98% of all abortions are for birth control reasons.  That's too many!

Why do you think it's too many?  What makes your opinion "right"?

>Less than 1% are performed for cases of incest/rape.  I believe that
>the increase in education is responsible for the increase in
>abortions!  

<snicker> 

>            Remember that the schools are "educating" very young and
>irresponsible children.  It's enough to get a teen-age girl to clean up
>her room every day, can one really believe she will be responsible
>enough to take her birth control pill daily.  

Maybe someone didn't tell you when you were getting all that icky
education, but men can use birth control too.  You sound like you are
blaming all those irresponsible girls.  Actually, you sound like that
because you *are* blaming only the women.

>                                              Does she have any idea of
>what to do if she forget to ta
>ke it one day?  

She would if she paid attention to any of that icky education you
mentioned.  She would if her parents didn't ignore her sexuality and
sat her down and discuss the issues directly.  She would if parents
didn't rely on the school system to raise their children.

>                Will she be responsible enough to say "no" for another
>month until her next cycle of pills is on schedule and up to date?  In
>the heat of the moment will the young man remember to don his condom?

Oh, you mean *he* has some responsibility too?

>In the real world, these situations are real and typical.  The 98%
>figure above points to that fact.  Education is NOT the answer.

Really?  Is ignorance the answer?  If we abolish the school system
altogether, will we see a decrease in abortions and unwed mothers?  You
spoke earlier of 'reality'.  I suggest you rethink your position.

>Throwing money at a problem is NOT the way to make it go away.

Oh, I don't know.  Throw enough money at me and I'll go away. :-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Playing with numbers
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 08:08:33 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In article <nvgz6jh@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>
> >Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?
>
> Freud would have a field day.

I suppose it would be declase to inquire if Keith is the head of the class...
:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Pro-life feminism
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Oct3.030456.9739@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
I've tried to get anyone from the Feminist for Life group to explain why the
feel making abortion more restrictive is feminism when there are so many 
other alternatives worth trying first.  So far nobody from that group
has responded.  I figure their whole feminism push is just a facade to
appeal to misogynists who want to deny their misogyny.  It so much easier
to say you couldn't possibly hate or distrust women because you agree
with this group called Feminist for Life.  DOD's post of Melissa Simmons 
Tulin positions helped to convince me of this.  I can not imagine why
a feminist organization would have to rely on such blatant lies about
other feminist organizations unless they have some other agenda.
 
>Melissa Simmons Tulin,  
>President of Feminists for Life of Pennsylvania

>   Planned Parenthood, which claims to be concerned with the  health
>   of women, sees more than 2 million women a year--most of them low
>   income--and is the nation's leading  purveyor  of  abortion  ser-
>   vices, but provides prenatal care to only 12% of its clients. Why
>   must it be up to the  pro-life  movement--us  wild-eyed,  ``anti-
>   choice  fanatics''--to  offer these women emotional and financial
>   support? Perhaps it is because the only ``choice'' Molly Yard and
>   her ilk recognize is the one to abort.
 
This paragraph attempts at deception are laughable.  Planned Parenthood
had 2.9 million patients in 1990, of which roughly 85% were women.  So
they saw about 2.4 million women.  Of these they performed abortions on 
somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 women.  (I have figures from 1980,
that says they performed 77,880.  I have seen other numbers since then
that were not exceptionally higher than this number, but I don't have
them handy.  100,000 seems like a high-end, but if someone has recent
exact numbers I'd appreciate it.) So Planned Parenthood of America 
saw at least 2.3 million women in 1990 that did not get an abortion.
Seems they are providing for many other services than abortion.  It also
seems abortion is only a small percentage of their services.  Why it is 
even significantly smaller than the 12% prenatal care they supply.
 
So can anyone think of a reason why a so called feminist organization
would resort to this type of deception?  Any chance they may not
really have women's best interests at heart?
 
Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38710 alt.abortion.inequity:4062 soc.women:17084
From: haan35681@oswego.oswego.EDU (EDWARD G. FARRELL)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women
Subject: Re: So You agree Women are Still Functionally Second Class...
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:17:48 GMT
Organization: oswego state

In article <1992Sep24.044035.15769@eff.org>, fsquared@eff.org (Fawn Fitter) writes:
> 
> One of the Real Rights I hope that would lead to would be the right to 
> *refuse* to bear arms....
> 
>
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion debates (was: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Keywords: Hate, dogma
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:59:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1041@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

Steve Novak obviously has hit everything EXCEPT for you, here.

Agnostic? I have a person who e-mailed me a while back and bet me $10
a person that I couldn't find a non-religious person in the pro-life
movement. 
So far he owes me $150. Now, it's gonna be $160. Want to share in the
profits? :)

Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that you are only the third (or
even more than that) person to consider Steve Novak for the uneducated
propaganda-fed meathead that he is. 

- Steve
 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:18:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Sep30.023021.9364@midway.uchicago.edu> 
wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

}	Ok, Bartlett, what characterizes the 'mind' for you miss Bartlet?

Who is this Bartlet(t) character?  I do try so hard to keep up.  Is someone
changing the cast?

}                                           Maybe I don't have a mind...

Oh, that explains it...

}				John Peter Wagner


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39052 alt.abortion.inequity:4087 alt.birthright:474
From: tjg2946@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Dealing with the Ultimate Basis of Proof and Proveability
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:49:56 GMT
Reply-To: tjg2946@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

>pps: You post a Lightbulb joke and YOU DIE!!!!

What is the different between a woman and a light bulb?

You can unscrew a light bulb!  (GRIN)

(ducking the death threats)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM ()
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Reply-To: burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM ()
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:05:41 GMT


In article <9365@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>Try this on for size.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>

>You might be more convincing, if you would give us A HINT
>about your point.
 -- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |



Unfortunately, here in california we have a legalized euthanasia initiative
on the ballot in November.




Spike Burkhardt
Systems Management VMS/Unix programming
Internet address - spike@lmsc.lockheed.com
408-756-4790(w)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 23:50:05 GMT

In article <nyikos.717890260@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>I'm really curious to see those pictures.  Please note, I am using the
>FAQ definition of "fetus" as one past the 8th week of development, so
>you need not bother sending the pictures if they are really of 
>pigs in an earlier stage of development, UNLESS they are pictures of
>fetal pigs used in comparative vertebrate anatomy labs for dissection.

Peter, since people and pigs have different gestation periods, the 8th
week of development for each is not going to be the same stage. I think
you want them at the same stage of development, not the same gestational
age.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38934 alt.abortion.inequity:4077
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:09:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <25709@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

>How about spelling it "burden" if you're going to repeat it three times?

Wow, my first typo flame.  Now if you have something that you want to say
I am listening.  We return you now to your regularly scheduled
dictionary.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Anti-Abortion
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 03:17:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>The unborn is a member of homo sapiens.  I don't believe any other
>animal is capable of claming that.  
>
>Why don't members of homo sapiens deserve the right to life?

An egg is as much a member of homo sapiens as is a zygote.  Notice
any problems so far?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:30:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.190828.6554@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>>In <c6_pr7k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>If I were to take what you say literally, the sperm and egg
>>that combined to form you are still
>>alive in you.  Or are they?  Just when do they stop being alive?
>
>Of course they're still alive.  The point being that there is little
>difference between an egg and a zygote, and that the personhood bigens
>at conception reasoning is no less arbitrary than the personhood begins
>at birth reasoning.  Given that they're both pretty arbitrary, and
>that the conception model is really tough to manage, why not birth?

There is a big difference between an egg and a zygote.  In its current form,
put the egg in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.  Any screaming,
crying baby?

Now try putting the zygote in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.
Barring any miscarriage or abortion, see any sign of a screaming, crying
baby?  (or perhaps a stillbirth?)  

Also, I hope you can agree with me here, an egg/sperm/any human cell in my
body is not a member of homo sapiens while the zygote definitely is.
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:26:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Oct6.035312.9543@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>
>>You can also say:
>>   We have removed the rights of the innocent unborn.  Who is next?  The
>>   sick and the elderly?  The deformed newborns?  The criminals?  Deformed
>>   individuals?  The very very rich?  (For those who hate the rich)  The
>>   poor? (for those who think the poor are great burdens to society)  
>>   Your enemies?
>
>I don't care if you're sick, elderly, deformed, criminal, rich, or
>poor -- if you try to violate my body against my will, I'll do
>everything I can to stop you.  If I have to kill you to stop you, then
>I will.  It's all well and good to say, "well, Martin will die if I
>don't contribute my body's resources to him," and it would be nice of
>me to lend my body to you while you need it, but by no means should I
>be coerced by law to do this.
>
>If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?
>

You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of 
trespassing, battery, and various crimes.  Give 'em a break!  They
are defenseless and need our attention!  They don't deserve to die.  They
deserve to live.  Why do we have to be the big bullies to such precious
fragile beings who may easily be our very own sons and daughters?  

We know we are capable of killing other humans.  The question is, do we do 
so?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:53:48 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Martin writes:
>Ray writes:
>>  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?
>
>An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.

That wasn't the question.  Is it a PERSON, in your opinion?

>BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.

Oh, really?  You remember back that far, do you?  ;-)

Here's a small tidbit for you: the unborn at nine weeks has a nervous
system less sophisticated than that of a squid.  Its nerves aren't
sufficiently developed at that age to relay coherent signals to the
brain.  For that matter, there isn't even a brain to receive the
signals.  That's why you can't possibly remember back that far. ;)

I disagree with your assertion.  Can you provide a reference to back it up?

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:30:38 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 4-Oct-92 Re: Threats? by Susan
Garvin@cs.cmu.edu 
> Chaney/Hall, on the other hand, repeatedly and purposefully 
> offends.  He apologizes for nothing.  
>  
> I don't know why you're afraid to admit that you approve
> of (or condone) Chaney/Hall's statements.  Do you suppose
> that you're fooling anyone?

    There is nothing wrong with Mr. Chaney deliberating offending
people.  Freeom of speech implies the right to deliberately offend
people.  In terms of etiquitte, the person being offended is the person
making the unreasonable demand not the person who is doing the
offending.  In that sense, I condone Mr. Chaney's writing.
    On the other hand, Mr. Chaney's writings do not reflect a mind
posessing much intelligence or humour.  I don't bother to read anything
that he writes. Further, I gather that Mr. Chaney's post often include
untrue accusations.  If my information is correct, then Mr. Chaney's
behavior is rude and can not be condoned.  


On a different note, I met Ms. Garvin at the Sarah Weddington lecture at
CMU. I felt comfortable talking with her.  She was different that I had
imagined from her post.  I guess we inevitably invent fictions about
people from their bboard post.

Michael Loomis
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of KillFiles
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:22:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep28.192057.17950@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
#chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
#] smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
#] 
#] > I think that Nyikos just figured out what a killfile is and
#] > feels a need to talk about it.  (I think that Dennis showed
#] > him his, and now Nyikos wants one that's BIGGER than Dennis'.)
#] 
#] We should ask drieux if killfiles are a valid metric in a
#] DickSizeWar.
#
#
#Actually there is an Inverse Factor to be dealt with in
#terms of KillFiles, RealMen[tm] do not need them as they
#do not have any problem constructing, on the fly, the
#necessary Regular Expression, as they are RegularKindaGuys[tm],
#and hence have no Need For them at ALL!!!!
#
#so only persons with small PeePee's use KillFiles.
#
#This is also based upon the clear fact that those persons
#who are at home with Regular Expressions, Sed, Awk, and
#Standard Traditional Family Valued Unix Tools, to do not
#need to go wandering with the Herd of Gnu and Bison and
#use those Hideous Abominations to deal with News!!!!
#
#RealMen[tm] Use vi and rn!!!!!
#
#RealMen[tm] Have Bigger Members!!!!
#
#RealMen[tm] are For WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
#
#		and the restoration of our God given Right to concubines.

Well, that answered that question, I guess.

Now, the next problem I have to drop in your lap is the
question of women and killfiles.  Can we use them if we
have permission from our RealMan[tm], or is it denying
our feminity to use something with such a butch name?
What about emacs?  What does Phyllis use?

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 02:35:02 GMT

In <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>> But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
>> services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
>> I will pull the plug on YOU.

>I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
>Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?

Glad I caught this one at the source.  Margolis, if you try to blow
this up into a case against Suzanne, I'll be watching carefully.  Even
if I put you in my de facto killfile, that won't inhibit me from 
exposing your mendacity in follow-ups to others.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Ny.