HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research, Nathanson, etc.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:08:53 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>[-- massive deletia--]

>Let's get to the point, ok Steve?  My only issue with your favorite
>Third Reich article is that, as well documented and annotated as it
>is, it is propoganda.  It is propoganda because of your selectivity
>wrt to the facts you choose to emphasize.  Another historian, Claudia
>Koonz has written a book that refutes or at least casts serious doubts
>your claims.  Despite the fact that Dr. Koonz's is thoroughly 
>researched from primary sources and personal interviews, you dismiss
>her without even a cursory reading simply because she disagrees with
>you.  If that isn't a definitive instance of an "intellectual blind
>spot," then I guess I don't know what one is.  As they say in alt.flame,
>have a USENET day.

>-- 
>Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
>opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
>email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers

As it happens, the "article" is basically a short synopsis of Dr. 
William Brennan's book "The Abortion Holocaust", with a few extra
references I discovered through my own research thrown in.  The 
difference between Dr Brennan and Dr Koonz (apart from the fact that
Dr. Brennan is right) is that I supplied all his references, as well
as my own.

You just supplied Dr. Koonz's opinion.  The single reference you supplied
(no footnote, just a quote) merely proved Dr. Koonz to be a fool.  Not a
difficult task, I grant, but it certainly explains why you only supplied
her opinions.

I also dismiss the claims of Nazi apologists (who insist the Holocaust
never happened) with just a cursory reading.  Call me biased, but when
I know someone is egregiously, obviously wrong, and I have the data to
prove it, why should I waste my time on them?

I think I'm done wasting my time on you.

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Cappin' Evil <bagchi@eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:19:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>[...]  I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders
>Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this country's
>last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.

	And we're coming for you, Lil' Johnny.  Work camps and purges
galore!  

>If this country
>is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, and it will not be pretty.
>

	It's ok.  We're using SDI to trace a pentagram about the planet.  Keep
that nasty do-stuffer away.

	Be afraid.

--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: boutell@cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Re: WANT YOUR OPINION HEARD?
Summary: Ya Gotta Point There
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 18:06:25 GMT


>I'm criticizing your editorial skills, not your lack of
>censorship.  You seem to not know the difference.  

Actually this is a relief. Criticism of my editorial skills doesn't
offend me (though obviously I disagree, or I wouldn't be here; I
do, however, cheerfully admit to being a rookie editor - give
me a shot; y'ain't seen the magazine yet).

A few points of clarification:

1. Chaney submitted two pieces to me. One I'm not especially thrilled
by. The other, however, is the Susan B. Anthony piece, which does
in fact raise interesting issues, which is why I like it. Whether
or not I agree with its thesis, the factual details are intriguing.
I consider this a valid reason for printing it.

2. Very few people have submitted material, making it difficult for me
to apply a high editorial standard. It is indeed possible that,
given a larger number of articles to choose from, I would make
different decisions. But ya gotta start somewhere. I can't just
throw up my hands because I'm not being snowballed with high -
quality articles. My hope is that with some persistence I can
eventually reach that point. 

Today I received an excellent set of diaries written by a person who 
defended clinics against Operation Rescue, which I intend to print. 
I doubt I would have received these if I hadn't been persistent; 
if anything, getting into this wrangle seems to have finally 
increased the volume of submitted material. The magazine can't 
possibly have a perfect first issue. And by accepting Chaney's 
material and challenging his opponents to counter him, I have indeed 
obtained some quality material I wouldn't have received otherwise!
There's a madness to my method. (:

My apologies for misreading your message as an attack on my
lack of censorship.

>
>Susan

Tom Boutell (Editor, VOICE; yes, we're still accepting articles!)

-- 
My return address now works!
Believe it or not there is life after college. At least if you live
near NYC.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Summary: Some people!
Keywords: adult child sex pro-choice classroom cucumber
Organization: You see...  Burke Lee
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 08:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.004750.14804@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <p2hm#g_.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
SAC>Your intellegence has devolved to the level of a paramecium, not to
SAC>mention your blatant, in-your-face lies. 
> 
SAC>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>
RF> Anyone _else_ notice any inconsistencies here?
>
SF>If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
[Sneering and smirking?  Really?]
SF>his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child
   sex,
SF>what the hell is?

And if your parents were showing you at home, it'd be incest!  (Adult/child
sex education, probably...  But sex?)

SF>                    If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!

Porno movie?  Why, are you getting turned on at the thought?

>SF

Now _there's_ a liberal kinda place!


-Richard
Ohh, that's quite a large cucumber you've got there!  I wanna...  I wanna...
I wanna make a salad.
(Or roll a condom up it.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:46:39 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Btw, the birth of my daughter could be considered an abortion...

> Oh, did you want her to die?

Of course not.  We wanted the pregnancy to end.  Barbara had spent most
of the pregnancy teetering on the brink of contracting toxemia and her
physical energy was 'way down.  Finally her ob/gyn asked her, "I think
it's about time to put an end to all this misery, don't you?"  We readily
agreed, and the surgery was scheduled for that afternoon.

Say, Steve, maybe it's about time you stop masquerading as a concerned,
loving pro-lifer and embrace the label you've earned: frothing bigot
and ignoramus.  I've separated each of the questions you've spewed below
to make it easier for others to flame you.  As for me, I couldn't be
bothered.


> Did the ob/gyn try to strangle her with surgical sutures and fail?

> Did s/he cut off her buttocks in order to speed her bleeding to death?

> Or did s/he wrap the baby in a newspaper and put her on a side table,
> while ordering everyone to stay away from the bundle 'til it stopped
> moving?

> How many of the baby's limbs were cut off doing the attempted D&C
> (the little girl in New York is onlymissing an arm)?

> Or did your wife get a hysterotomy?

> Did you dig yourdaughter out of the trash can on the way out of the
> clinic (I say clinic because most abortions are not done in hospitals)?

> Does your daughter now have cerebral palsy due to the violence done her
> during this "considered abortion" (many do)?


> If she does, you must feel like hell.

I would indeed feel like hell if you ever managed to fool anyone in this
newsgroup that you were a concerned, loving pro-lifer.

> I extend my sympathy to you and your wife, and I hope your daughter 
> learns to understand why you might want to consider her birth an
> abortion.

Thank you for your utterly insincere expression of sympathy.  I'd flush
it away but I'm afraid that it would clog the pipes.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: INFO: Professional Women's Network
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 22:05:16 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@



The only contact that I've had with this group was when about
twenty of them marched around in front of a clinic, dressed
in business suits, pushing empty baby carriages.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Willing to discuss with Novak, off-line only
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:56:41 GMT

In article <24JUL199209420823@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>Mr. Novak has criticisms of the info I posted to this newsgroup yesterday.
>I will discuss them with him one-on-one.  He must provide a valid e-mail
>address.  It serves no purpose to holler and scream that I am not listening
>and then dodge a response.  I dodge no-one, and even Mr. Novak should know
>that by now.  -  RG 

And that ought to earn one of the highest awards of them all: 
"I dodge no-one." 

Novak and his low intellegence self doesn't stand a chance when
someone like this, takes the battle to close-quarters... 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:58:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul24.165454.9517@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>But women who choose to have abortions are dealing responsibly
>with the result of their actions.  They examine the options and
>make a responsible decision based upon their uderstanding of
>the facts and circumstances.
>

Often women who, in desperation, seek back alley abortions do so
because there are no other options for them. A poor woman in a crisis
pregnancy (where abortion is illegal), has three choices : [1] have an
abortion, [2] carry the child and try to raise it in poverty [3] or
give it up for adoption.

I do not believe a woman ought to have to deal with such bleak
choices. Giving a child up for adoption is no easier than the decision
to terminate a pregnancy, yet our society does little to make it
easier for women to keep their children and raise them without
suffering poverty. 

I suggest you read my post "Creating Real Choices". I won't go into
the details, in order to keep from using even more bandwith.



-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:35:40 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul20.181756.14315@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.164748.17527@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>sgarvin@nyx.UUCP (susan garvin) writes:

>>Having an abortion was a dangerous proposition in Anthony's
>>time.  Chaney keeps forgetting that historical context
>>is important.

>>My feeling, though, is that if the pro-forcers want to
>>claim Susan B. Anthony as one of their own, they must
>>also claim Margaret Sanger.  Sanger was anti-abortion.

>SUSAN GARVIN!!! 

>You crack me up! You crack me up so badly I may have to go to the
>hospital to keep from dying of laughter! 

>This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 

Would some kind soul repost the article about pro-life women
having abortions?

(That is, if they haven't already.  The news system I'm reading from
until I get telnet working isn't threaded, so I can't tell except by
reading *all* the articles on talk.abortion.)

--
Pro-Choice    Anti-Roe   Pro-Freedom-of-Choice-Act    E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:36:07 GMT
Keywords: From: decay@

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Jul25.054019.15284@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>#Larry, put a sock in it. You _know_ how much I hate to agree with Kellmeyer,
>#but he's absolutely right here -- in LEGAL terms, "abortion" always means an 
>#intentional, deliberate act. Since we discuss the legal and somewhat-related 
>#aspects of abortion here, "induced" would be redundant in the newsgroup name.

>Prove it, Darcy.  

>Show us some laws that refer to abortion alone, without speaking of
>"procuring" or "inducing" or without using an adjective such as
>"criminal" or "induced."   Show us where the legal definition of
>abortion differs from the medical definition.  

>Susan

Hey, Susan, you may have a point!!!!  Maybe the CDC *IS* counting *ALL*
abortions, not just induced abortions!  That would explain the low
mortality rate from abortion, huh?  I mean, women who have a *spontaneous*
abortion aren't likely to die, and spontaneous abortions are a *LOT* more
common than induced abortions.  That would lower the overall rate of
mortality, artificially disguising the *HIGH* mortality rate from 
induced abortion!  :)  

Boy, I guess I'll have to agree with Susan and Larry on this one!  
They just *proved*, that surgical abortion has one hell of a whopper of
a mortality rate.  I never would have known this without help from
Larry and Susan about definitions :)

Boy, you guys do GREAT work for the pro-life movement!
Say, you wouldn't be plants, would you?????
(nah, their intelligence is too low)

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 05:34:04 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Summary: Even Suzanne says DOD's dishonest
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.222142.8174@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Jul23.184628.5599@wam.umd.edu> 
#judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- staying within the lines) writes:

[text deleted]

## Yes - I'm saying it's a religious issue for the anti abortion protesters.
## Which falls right in line with my observation (and gripe) that the pro-life
## movement seems to have strong religious connections.
#
#Now you're back promoting the idea that abortion is a religious issue.
#In the second sentence, you insinuate that no pro-lifer can hold
#non-religious views on abortion. You should know that's false. 

He insinuates no such thing, Holtsinger.  Are you really incapable
of reading what is written?  He said that the anti-abortion
movement seems to have strong religious connections.  How on earth
can you twist that into "no pro-lifer can hold non-religious views
on abortion?"  

If you're trying to convince people that you are stupid as
well as dishonest, you're doing a great job.

[text deleted]

## I would really appreciate a retraction.
#
#For what?

Why, for misrepresenting his views, what else?  I'm sure that
Jay has a long, long wait ahead of him.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Catholics: Is the Fetus Ensouled?
Originator: steven@jaynes
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:10:59 GMT

Do Catholics on t.a. agree that the fetus is not ensouled?  This was the
position staked out by Pope Pius IX.  I've seen several Catholics say
otherwise in t.a.

Now, The Pius IV proclamation that said this was a change to the C.C.'s
abortion position; I'm not aware of a further "ruling".


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:45:53 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul22.141018.3802@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>In article <64007@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>Fear (reverence) of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.
>
>We do not, generally, consider those who are afraid to walk under
>ladders or break mirrors or cross the paths of black cats, on a path
>to wisdom.  Why should we consider those who are afraid of imaginary
>beings any differently?  

You are quite correct with respect to ladders, mirrors and so forth.
However, you have neglected one aspect of the word fear.  Also, do you 
recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than yourself as a 
conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding or do yourself?

definition: (from The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary)
fear n 1. emotion characterized by dread or expectation of harm, 2. REVERENCE
     FOR A SUPREME POWER, ...

This is the only dictionary I have handy.  If you have one, you may want to
check the definition yourself.

>
>And why should anyone revere an imaginary being that behaves like an
>asshole?

Could you given an example of this and explain how it pertains to the
discussion.

Do not be decieved - God is not mocked.

>Jim
>
>Once I was single.  Now I am married.

How does religion figure in your marriage (or your wedding day)?
do your wife agree?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29748 alt.birthright:210 alt.abortion.inequity:2806
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:28:18 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <j7nm6p+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
>>since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
>>got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
>>child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
>>it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
>>pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>>end of discussion :-)
>
>Assuming that you're not parodying pro-life rhetoric ...
>
>You are a sexist, hypocrite, and a coward.  

Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. 

Devastating. 

>You're a sexist because you would punish women for having
>sex while avoiding any consequence for yourself.

Strike One! 
Nope. I'm willing to gamble that he has no problems catching deadbeat
fathers, too. 

>You're a hypocrite because you expect other people to live to 
>standards you are unwilling to adopt for yourself.

Strike Two! 
I'm sure he, I and everyone else with a head on their shoulders,
will not go by the standards of the pro-abortion movement, that it's
okay to kill for sex. 

>And you're a coward because you're unwilling to support and 
>defend your comments.

Strike Three!
I believe I've seen him on this newsgroup since that post. 

>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
>ray@netcom.com

You're OUT! 

Try fishing, Ray. It's a much more successful hobby for you, than the
abortion debate. 


===============================================================================
1) Why is it that the pro-aborts are the least educated human beings in
the world when it comes to scientific facts? 
2) Why is it that pro-aborts were never raised to read an embryology
book before they debate? 
3) Why is it that pro-aborts never want embryologists around? 

Why ask why? --- 
- Last sentence deleted due to possible legal ramifications... 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men