HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:13:26 CST

In article <1992Dec26.190138.5201@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.104329.21553@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>
>>>> *You're* the one who casually asserted that (see above)
>>>> "there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant".
>>>> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>>>> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>
>
>>> There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>>> and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>>> from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>>> facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>>> between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term 
>>> fetus.
>
>> Doug, you've just asserted that there is no '*moral*
>> weight' involved in posing a possible threat to a woman's 
>> life.  
>
>No, I said that there's no moral difference between
>a late-term fetus and a newborn infant.  

A statement that does a pretty profound job of
ignoring the woman involved, and the pain and risk
she faces.

>                                         If a woman's
>life were immediately threatened by either a late-term 
>fetus or a newborn infant, I would feel that she would
>be justified in taking human life.

<Sigh.>  Back to the island again, huh?

The default condition of a late-term fetus is that
it poses some threat to the woman, whose body must
suffer some violence of one sort or another in order
for the life of that entity to continue.

But you've heard all that before.  Too bad you don't
want to talk about the women in your life.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: spinnin'
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:21:56 GMT

poor darcy.

he has been consistently criticized for labelling
himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions 
on abortion.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Also Worth Noting about the Nykios/Siren confusion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:20:27 GMT

keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
] nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to patrick:
] [...]
] |>Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
] |>address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  Your old nemesis, Chaney,
] |>once said she was flamed off the net by the politically correct
] |>pro-choicers.
] 
] you poor silly twit. you again display your ignorance of the
] net and of this newsgroup. and, to make yourself look even
] more foolish, you believed airplane boy.
] 
] Siren was originally a group of four people who decided
] to post in a specific style. when three of the four had
] departed, the last of the original group tried to carry
] on the personna. she failed. she wasn't up to it. she,
] for one reason or other, never posted in her own personna,
] whatever that was/is. Siren wasn`t chased from the net.
] she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
] her failures.


I must disagree with your conclusion jim,
She sort of went onto other things.....
I've had some email from her, off and on, and like a
lot of folks who post out of *.edu domains, getting
their thesis published and the like leads to changes
in lifestyles.....

If we want to talk about folks running away from talk.abortion,
who can forget Phil S. who was such a major trumpeter of the
traditional 'thou shall not kill' moral dogma right up until
the Persian Gulf War..... Then His confussion about 'killing'
vs. the use of Air Power lead him to opt for other tompics....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Is Fire Bombing a Legitimate Form of Free Speach.
Date: 28 Dec 92 01:36:46 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] In article <1992Dec25.191755.12514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
] clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
] 
] > The *really* interesting thing is that [Mr. Holtsinger] apparently regards
] > firebombs, death threath, vandalism, and couragous acts such as pouring
] > gasoline into the ceiling of a clinic and dropping in a match as acts of
] > "civil disobedience".  
] 
] Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
] recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  The article that
] I posted mentioned nothing about firebombs or death
] threats, but it did mention several instances where
] Operation Rescue had its free speech rights curtailed.
] 
] >The_Doge
] 
] Doug Holtsinger


point of order, there are active OpResKrew members who
are proud of their convicitons as Bombers. To deny this
is to Deny mere legal facts. { a point we all know you
would NEVER wish to do. } 

The point brings you to Defend the Actions of the OpResKrew
IN the Breach, as well as in the Rhetoric.

Now, We return you to the Question:

Do You support Armed Terrorism as a Form of Free Speach?

Or are you still confused and hoping to dream of 
the Happy Land of Nick_at_Nite as a Political Reality?


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
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: Sat, 2 Jan 93 03:53:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.000606.29441@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.191937.5513@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.180548.22049@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.202908.11125@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec28.170536.18455@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>... ask yourself "Does 
>>>>>the term 'Kellmeyer and Darcy' denote a group, or an individual?". Assuming 
>>>>>you pick the correct answer, then the ignorance dissipates, and all is well 
>>>>>again.
>>>>>
>>>>I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
>>>>one Darcy. 
>>>
>>[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
                                    ^^^^^^^ substitute "Kellmeyer and Darcy"
>
>>Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
>>going to post that much junk about it.
>
>Intentional ignorance blared forth for several months does tend to get just
>a _little_ irritating, Mark.
>
You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between intentional
ignorance, and simply giving somebody a hard time.

>>You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. 
>
>Fine linguistic distinction went right over your flat head, huh? Pearls before
>swine...
>
Kevin, I presume you realise that if you did not react so predictably
to the baiting, it wouldn't be worth the effort of baiting you.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:41:16 GMT

<nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
...
>I posted "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1" just now.  There will
>be SEVERAL more parts to this series, unlike the one-post shot against
>Gordon Storga, who is turning out to be much less malicious in his 
>accusations than Susan.  I've even developed a bit of fondness for him,
>as for a wayward child.  And he is the child of his parents, and of the 
>universe, as pointed out in the fictional dialogue with Suzanne.  He is 
>also a child of the 20th century, of which you will be reading more in
>upcoming posts, but y'all will have to wait a while unless bozos like
>Novak and Garvin and Mezias and Lefty and Kaflowitz decide to post 
>*documented* accusations against me, thereby reducing their number a
>hundredfold.

I'm truly touched by your open admittance of your feelings for me, Uncle
Peter.  May I call you Uncle Peter?  Thanks.



Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:28:01 GMT

iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

>From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
>completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? 

Yes.

>Here in Finland, when you join
>the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
>have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
>you are 18, of course.

Wow, I didn't know that.  What if you don't join any church - if you're an
atheist or something?  Or if you belong to a non-Christian religion,
such as Buddhism or the Temple of Set or such?

Hmm...if you're exempt when you aren't a Christian, you might get some
people who just pretend they aren't for a tax break! <g>



-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52731 talk.religion.misc:24463 alt.atheism:24208
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Suzanne's Widdle Apologist (WAS Re: Reconciling OT with NT)
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:23:26 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> = (Maddi Hausmann):
>>>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes: 

>>>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>>>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>>>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>>>>>someone who prefers suicide.

>>>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>>>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.

>>>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

>>There is no such thing, twit.
>>  And thanks for admitting the religious basis
>>for your fanatical anti-abortionism.

>Thanks for showing us your ability to jump to conclusions on the basis
>of insufficient evidence.

You have got to be the stupidest professor in this country, "Doc".

Now...I'll try to do this slowly for you, Math Whiz...see where Maddi asks
Suzanne not to force her religion on "us good-hearted atheists"? It's right
there, 16 lines up from this one.  I think you can handle that.

OK; see Suzanne's answer that she will IF "you stop forcing death on unborn
children"?  Very good, Professor Plum.

It seems the only way to interpret Suzanne's (rash) statement is that
she, indeed, is forcing her (odious) religion on everyone.

Boy, that's rare!  Nyikos, or "Ny.", is shown to be a blithering idiot by
someone (me!) not even trying very hard.  And I'm not even a professor, much
less of math.  I don't even have a doctorate.

Go figure.          

>>Gotcha!  

>Likewise.

Yeah, right, Petey.  You keep living in the ozone, thinking you're making all
these great posts and imagining you're a professor at some university.  We
don't mind.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52584 alt.flame:17239 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:647
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:46:09 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
->kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote:
->> But apparently not so new that he can't recognize how counter-productive
->> all this ad hominem garbage tends to get.

->My gosh, you're absolutely right, Kevin.  For instance, there was some
->pasrticularly egregious asshole a while back who called Susan Garvin a
->"lying bitch" with a "gargantuan...ego."

->Wait a second.  That was _you_, wasn't it, Kevin?

it certainly was. having been elected to a lifetime
term on the council of net.idiots in 1991, it now
appears that kebbie is trying for a new net.title of
net.hypocrite.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
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: Sun, 3 Jan 93 01:33:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.222342.9380@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Do you have an objective definition of "rampant twits"? Or is that just
>something you conveniently pull out of your hat when you lose a rational 
>argument on the merits, and wish to mask your ignominious defeat behind
>mindless flames?
>
Oh, I don't... How about this? How about if we label all people who
argue in favor of restrictions on abortion, while denying that the
yare, in fact, doing so, rampant twits.
Or, we could append the label to those who think they've won some sort
of rational argument on merit, when they have completely failed to do
anything of the sort.
Those sort of fit, don't they Kevin?
They fit you at least, which is close enough for the current
discussion.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:37:50 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
>Generally, I don't respond to points if I don't feel like responding to
>points.  That might be because I agree, or because I disagree.  If I don't
>respond to your point, you get to pick (-:.

Well golly gee.  So you only respond to points you want to respond to?

So do I.

>>Three examples, right off the top of my head, and ones you've probably
>>read about yourself.  Granted, they are specific examples and don't
>>necessarily indicate a trend, but they do indicate that such
>>situations are not rare.
>
>Examples don't cut it.
>
>I can just as easily post 6 counter-examples.

Quite possibly.  But between newspapers and stories posted by readers
of these newsgroups, I've seen 10 or so examples of men getting their
rights trampled, and none of women getting similar treatment.

Granted, women get their share of hardships.  But is the issue merely
a matter of getting even?  Is child support primarily punishment?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More Bare-Fased Lies from the Reverend:
Date: 25 Dec 92 16:30:16 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec24.181531.5792@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes the lies to
prove my case while claiming to argue against it:

>>> I have stated numerous times I am undecided on the issue of 
>>> legislation, but that I do oppose Roe v. Wade and the FOCA.
>
>> In the context of talk.abortion, it is incomprehensible to me that one
>> could claim to be undecided on legislative issues and opposed to FOCA.
>
>It's only incomprehensible to idiots such as yourself.  I haven't
>taken a position on legislation that would restrict abortion.

DODIE seems to be hiding behind the veil of a very weak only-direct-
effects count argument.  To oppose FOCA gives support to those who act
to restrict support for abortion restrictions in the sates.  

>> Last time I checked deliberate misrepresentation and lying were
>> generally considered immoral.  
>
>Well, that makes you extremely immoral, doesn't it?  

I'll happily stand on my net reputation for lying versus yours.  I
think most readers know which of us engages in practices like
selective editing of quotes and manipulating news commands to try to
divert responses to posts away from appropriate bboards.

>> Is that a clue about how to
>> characterize your side of the issue?
>
>Your delusions seem to be getting worse; I'm not on any 'side'.

There's a weird consistency to this lie: If it were true that you were
on no side of the issue, I would be worried that I was suffering a
delusion.  Unfortunately, since DODIE is so clearly on the side of the
fetus fanatics, it is he who bears the brunt of evidence of delusions.

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53035 soc.men:21829 alt.dads-rights:3111 alt.abortion.inequity:6192
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: On this Father's Rights Issue
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:45:08 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
]
] Pardon me, but it seems that this discussion has moved away from the
] issues of the rights of fathers to their children. Perhaps this may
] have a better forum elsewhere.


just catch me up here bob, I may have missed it in the flow,
but is your argument that a father has a 'right' over that
which is not yet?

like unto this, do you feel that outlawing abortion will
resolve the problem of "father's and their children" in any way?


As a child of a Pre_Roe.v.Wade Divorce in which my father
gained custody of the children, by mutual consent, I've noticed that
the change in the abortion laws have NOT radically altered
the general pre_disposition of courts, and socity, to presume 
that the father is the Ikky Yukky.

From the recent row over the 'pre_sex contract' it seems clear
that there are still women out there who are more than willing
to play the game of "If I get pregnant I am going to hang you
out to dry Sucker...."

So I thought I would request that you please clarify what
position you would prefer.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: If you don't know by now...
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:57:26 GMT


In article <1992Dec22.203130.12300@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

   From article by eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
   > In article <1992Dec18.001750.13308@noao.edu>
   > forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
   > 
   >>Since fetuses are children, abortion kills children. q.e.d.
   > 
   > Since fetuses aren't children, abortion does not kill children.
   > 
   > Now if you'd writen "babies", I would have had to grant that the
   > statement was literally true.

   Since you are granting that fetuses are babies, are you denying that babies
   are children?

   Abortion kills fetuses.
   Abortion kills babies.
   Abortion kills children.

   Take yer pick.  All of these are true.

So?  I take it you *do* have something to say that you haven't previously
said a few thousand times on this issue.  What's your point?

(Incidentally, my scorecard shows you hit one of three, for 33.3%.  That's a
bit better than your long-term average. :-)

--PLH, so it's not an easy job.  Someone had to ask.

--
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:28:06 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <C015F4.IMK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.200350.23162@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian 
>Kendig) writes:
>> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>> >and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate 
>labels
>> >"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.

>> Yeah, let's do away with euphemisms!  Tell me, are you
>> "pro-open-heart-surgery" or "anti-open-heart-surgery"? ...

>John - You've called a spade a spade.

No, he has called someone who thinks a woman should be allowed to choose
for herself whether not she will carry a pregnancy to term "pro-abortion."
This makes as much sense as calling someone who thinks swimming should
be legal "pro-drowning".  Or calling a free-speech advocate "pro-nazi".
It's an outright lie.  That you would call a direct lie calling "a
spade a spade" indicates that you are unable to tell the difference
between lying and the truth.  I'm going to find it difficult to give
any credence to any future posts from you.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:48:01 GMT

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

->kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

->Just a check, Kevin.  Is the following statement a subtle call for forced 
->abortion laws?

->> That's a crime that the mother commits, of course, by bringing the child
->> into the world prematurely, instead of waiting until her social and/or 
->> financial circumstances are more conducive to the having and raising of 
->> children.

kebbie has repeatedly posted that he opposes abortion
legislation, but not nearly as often as he has argued
anti-choice positions.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53214 talk.religion.misc:24668 alt.atheism:24389