HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 20:08:14 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  <1992Apr8.122354.12540@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>    No, you're WRONG. No discussion about it. The Catholic church
> tells us how precious it is to have children, and that every one (almost)
> should nottbe deprived of this opportunity.

Why "almost"?  The bible says "be fruitful and multiply".  It doesn't say
"be fruitful and multiply, or be a priest and don't multiply".

>    As I said, less abortions, miore happy mothers, less unwanted
> children. It's a concept battle now. We have to get rid of the notion
> of the unwanted child.

But if the mothers don't want to *be* mothers, they won't be happy, and the
children won't be wanted.

>    We know that having abortions will become an easier process.
> But, we want to lessen the NEED for abortions first and foremost.

The way to lessen the need for abortions is by making birth control
more available, through sex education, and by developing better
methods of birth control.  Attempting to BAN abortion will do *nothing*
to lessen the NEED for abortion.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
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: Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.162800.22842@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
                                   ^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^^

I _thought_ something about these posts looked familiar...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: kevin and the "Moral High Ground" (was Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 06:17:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.213636.11114@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>(this about susan garvin):
>
>        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
>        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
>		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>
>
>did kevin ever support his comment about susan garvin? no!

(Are you trying out for the TSAKC cheerleaders, or what?)

Of *COURSE* I supported my statement, Jimmy! I always do, when support is 
necessary. Specifically, I supported the statement in article 
<1992Mar17.064101.22838@rotag.mi.org>. You want more detail? Fine. Sue's
original lie was made in article <201230@unix.cis.pitt.edu>. The subsequent 
apology/admission-of-lying was made in article 
<1992Jan22.113421.209522@cs.cmu.edu>.

Why do you keep saying that my statement is "unsupported" when you *KNOW*
that isn't true at all? Look up the articles in your archives. Read 'em and
weep....

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 01:08:38 GMT


>|> >|> Is this why you called Keith Cochran a "fils du pute"?
>|> >|> Clearly you are using a definition of "respect" unlike
>|> >|> any one I've ever seen.
>|> >It looks to me like in Matthew's little convoluted reality, anyone not as
>|> >violently "pro-life" as himself simply isn't considered a person...
>|> 
>|>    No Pat... I think Matt was saying anyone who says stupid
>|> things and lashes out at the other group with mental violence and 
>|> insult is a fils du pute. Not that I agree with wrong + wrong = right,
>|> but you misinterpreted what he had to say most heinously.
>|>    steve
>

Steve hit the nail on the head.

Watch more ZOO TV

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu
Organization: Ferrari International

> Franklin
>> Brian Kauffman

>>BTW, are you willing to reject all books of the bible that endorse polygamy,
>>or do you pick & choose bible verses to taste?

>   I have a habit - I read the message of the bible, and avoid the
>specifics. 

So in other words, you *do* pick and choose bible verses to taste.  If
*you* don't like it, then, well, gee, it was only a CULTURAL quirk,
not the "divine inspired word of god."

>The concept and value of LIFE is a message. 

This statement is so blatantly wrong it's funny.  More than half of
what most people consider the bible is composed of the Old Testament.
I defy you to come up with so much as TWO PAGES of ANY O.T. book
that do not contain any reference to gratuitous violence, especially
killing.  Most "christians" conveniently ignore the mind-boggling
crimes their god committed in that part of their holy book by saying
"The O.T. is no longer valid," then hypocritically bringing up the
OLD TESTAMENT commandement, "Thou shalt not commit murder."

I'll admit the New Testament is better, but it still has its weak
points on the matter of "life" being important to god.

>Polygamy,
>mentioned in oh so obscure and third-hand perspective is not
>what I consider important. God never preaches of polygamy, yet it
>is mentioed in the bible because the bible's details reflect the time
>and age of the society. 

So polygamy is *mentioned*, but it's *not important*, whereas
abortion is *not mentioned*, but it's *overwhelmingly important*.
Very logical.

-- 
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts.  It is only nine months."
-- Kevin Welch in talk.abortion
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
SEND MAIL TO: mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu, NOT uga.edu, YOU PINHEADS!
From: smccabe@franklin.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:35:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>to answer:
>
>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?
>
>>And people wonder why I have little respect for pro-"life" males.
>
>>                           -rocker
>
>
>The reason for so little response would be self-evident to the rational
>person.  In preparing for this "debate" you force the respondent to 
>automatically take up the defensive position.  Hardly an intelligent way
>to start any argument or debate.  So if you are so proud (haughtily) of

This from a man who consistently refers to people who disagree with
him on the question of the legality of abortion as "pro-death".  Gee, 
that sure doesn't start out by putting anyone on the defensive or
anything.  

>the ammo you wish to annihilate the respondent with ... you answered the
>question first with some proposals and we'll go from there.  If you have
>posted some of these ideas before then please reiterate as I have not
>seen any.  And people wonder why I have so little respect for pro-death,
>over-emotional, gullible females.
>
>Kevin Brawley (not afraid to use my real name)

Well, Kevin, maybe if you had spent a leeetle time reading this newsgroup
you would have seen some of the common issues that certain people
consistently bring up.  One of Cathi's favorite is basically that pro-lifers
often argue that a woman has a physical responsibility to the z/e/f
(that's zygote/embryo/fetus) which she has helped to concieve.  If
you support this argument, what equivalent physical responsibility does 
the male who was involved in this conception carry?  And for future
reference, Adrienne usually points out that pro-lifers who exhibit signs
of fetus worship are often guitly of mysoginistic (I *know* that's not 
spelled correctly) behavior.  Nora is usually apt to point out that 
Nazi analogies (as used by either side) are not only incorrect, but 
insulting and potentially harmful.  I happen to firmly agree with all three 
of them.  (Apologies if I have just put inappropriate words in anyone's 
mouth.  Not very tasty.)  

Sarah McCabe
"Stop the slaughter of skin-children.  Stamp out scratching."
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: RIs this guy pro-control, or what?
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:56:56 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.003646.131922@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.215435.21559@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>#In <1992Apr13.182357.9777@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>##It's not supposed to be funny.  It's BearCode, as anybody with half-a-clue
>##would understand...
>#
>#Okay then rocker... Let's see how many people have half-a-clue. ANyone
>#who knows what the hell this bearcode means, mail me. I'll count the votes
>#and post the results at the end of the week. We'll see just how many of
>#the hundreds that read this group "have half-a-clue". 

>Okay, he asked for it.
>I already wrote Franklin and told him that I knew what Keith's
>bearcode was and that I knew that Keith and Rocker were two
>separate people.  I suggest everyone who knows these facts do 
>the same.  
   Okay -well, I've had two votes so far, and I think you can guess who
those are from. 

>Anyone else think that Franklin is purposefully mimicking the
>worst characteristics of the talk.abortion hall of shame
>members?  I saw the Rasmussenlike attack on Muriel, and
>here he is copying Darcy.
   Well, it seems like eric wants me out of talk.abortion, so if you
see fit to have me leave, then mail him with your concerns. Boycot
steve franklin! Otherwise Susan, Keep yer damn analogies off of
talk.abortion. I have read Rasmussen's posts, and I can assure you
we have little in common. Although I can see how people like you
drove him to post as he did...
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:15:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.211119.16390@cs.dal.ca> hardy@ug.cs.dal.ca (Simone J. Hardy) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>
>>>Kurt - I can tell you now. If abortions are made illegal, there will be 
>>>a hell of a lot fewer. Sure we will have to deal with the coathangers and
>>>[back alleys, but there will be thousands and thousands and thousands 
>>>of alive babies to show for it.
>>>   SOunds like a good trade to me
>>>steve
>>  
> I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that, Steve. How can you say
>"Yeah, sure, let them use coat hangers, it will save more babies anyway!", 
>when in actuality, you will never have to face the decision of having an
>abortion, or not having one? You'll never get pregnant. You'll never know.
>The whole abortion debate to me is a lost cause, because there is no
>middle ground, no compromise. Any law put out on abortion will have to
>BE a compromise of principles, but with abortion, there can be no compromise.
>This is why I am neutral on the topic. Let mothers do what they want, and let
>THEM live with it. 

	Sounds like pro-choice to me.
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:19:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr7.131923.21191
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

|> 
|> Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
|> even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
|>

Bit off on the figures. Estimates topped 800,000 (a bit larger then
1/4 million). Then again, since the 1.5 million abortions last year
constitute less then 25% of all fetal deaths, errors in mathematics
are excused.
 
|> 
|> Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.
|> 

Then again, what are you doing to defend the majority of fetuses 
that died last year? There seems to be a great emphisis on the minority
(abortions) but little on the more easily preventable deaths (at
risk pregnancies). Any dedication to providing pre-natal care,
pre-natal & pre-pregnancy education, or hospital care for at risk
mothers?

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: pmmuggli@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Pauline M Muggli)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:08:50 GMT

  kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>>  mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
 
> [ deletions ]
 
>>>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>>>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>>>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.

ok, how about if you have sex only 2/100 relationships?  does
that make you a slut too since it's not sex in every
relationship?
 
> Let's see, by your statement above :   Magic Johnson is a slut.

oh, my, am i blushing yet?
 
> In my opinion, I may not have forgiven him if I was his fiance,
> but I would not call him a slut.  I would not call him a role
> model, either.
    
pauline
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:38:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: oasys.18117
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>Funny, but wasn't the letter sent to ME?   That makes it MY property
>and I can do with it whatever the hell *I* want.  Or don't supporters
>of legal abortion like using their own logic?

Larry, Keegan, and Susan were right about you. In three sentences, you've
managed to show that you are completely clueless.

>Isn't that neat?  I've sat back and watched this debate for quite a
>while, and it's another perfect example of the abortion controversy.
>Someone ejaculates a letter to me, I do what I want with it, but since
>it isn't what THEY want me to do with it (they wanted it quietly killed)
>THEY scream and yell about how irresponsible I am.

And then you make it worse. You've watched the debate? You certainly
didn't listen to it. The point of the whole thing, and I'll spell it
out sslloowwllyy ssoo You'll understand, is not that you posted the
email, but that Darcy did not jump all over you when you did, because
Darcy is now claiming that it is wrong to post any email for any reason
in his self-assigned role as net.cop (really net.idiot.hypocrit) wrt
Susan's post.

Or was it another fabrication that you've been following the debate?
Hard to believe you could have gotten anything else out of it, since
that was the main topic.

Ron
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 09:04:45 GMT

<1992Apr14.001357.26579@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) said:
>In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:
>>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HIV/AIDS is *NOT* just a "gay
>>disease".  Anybody can get it.
>
>I'll tell you this.
>
>AIDS, aka side-effect of the ME generation's hedonistic lifestyle, will

Pretty assinine.  You think a bunch of gay geneticists got together and
gene spliced the HIV virus?

>statistically probably never be "my disease."

As long as your wife to be never lied to you about who she slept with, or
you never need a blood transfusion.  I certainly hope that you don't get
the disease.  I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

>                                              Sure, anyone can get
>AIDS, or any woman can get pregnant, but certain factors have HUGH
>effects on probability.

We should probably find out who this Hugh guy is and arrest him since he's
causing so much trouble.

Can I have your brain when you die?  It's pretty obvious that it's hardly
been used.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:00:08 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 
>
>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 

BZZZT! TILT!  Rigged game, "Have you stopped beating your wife" alert!

Change "human life" to people, or persons.  Then we can continue.

>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 

Premise B is wrong with the substitution.  A fetus is not a person, it has
no volition.  Therefore is has no "right" to inhabit the body of another
person against that person's will.  BTW, the way your original argument is
posed you allow for an 8 year old to decide to not go to school, not obey
it's parents, etc...

>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 

But not a person.

>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.

Next time you see a fetus walking around town ask it what it's morals are.
Sheesh!

>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.  

So *have* you stopped beating your wife yet?  Substitute "SO", or "mother"
if you aren't married.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:10:10 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr11.233846.13880@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney) writes:

a lot more of his special crap.

Cut it out, Chaney.

Susan
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:17:10 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr12.163843.17077@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:


>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:

>>Certainly you couldn't be trying to tell us that you think a fetus is a
>>child?  That doesn't fit any dictionary definition I've ever seen.

>Why don't you tell that to the woman who just had a miscarriage.
>I'm REAL sure she'll agree with you...

A great point Matt... basically we argue over the status of the fetus here
but the point has come out. A fetus/inanimate_lump_of_cells (?) has no
value because the mother gives it none. A mother who loses her unborn
baby to a miscarriage feels she has lost a CHILD. A woman who has an
abortion has lost a NUISANCE. The woman who chooses the abortion is a victim
of society herself just like aborted unborn child. Society has implanted in
her the notions of success and stability, and pregnancy does not fit
within this definition. Many of us see pregnancy as a pain in the uterus,
and not as a gift or an inevitable stage of life. Women must realize that
one of their great gifts is their ability to CREATE. We must thank women
for this, and heighten our support and admiration of the mother. It is
society's fault and it is now society's resonsibility to help all women
through their pregnancies and beyond. 
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:10:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.190634.25027@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Maybe you guys could form a club or something?
Yeah, me Ronald, Larry, and DJR.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion