HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Who takes care of the unwanted mother? 
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:52:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.125013.27357@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Aug13.234546.6461@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu writes:
>
>> 
>> As you can tell, while the flamewar articles receive a general 30
>> minute to 1 hour response, this kind of post receives none in over 3
>> days. 
>> 
>> Pro-lifers might want to take note that the same group who is trying
>> to flame me (and unsuccessfully since I'm prepared to deal with them), 
>> had also been responsible for blowing Siren (one of their most
>> intellegent allies) off the net with their negativity, and is the same
>> group which is ignoring this article. 
>> 
>> That's because this article fails to meet their Steve Hall Dennis
>> Chaney Numbskull Raving Lunatic propaganda requirements, and they
>> can't twist this post into a flamefest. So they don't respond.  
>[amazingly coherent post deleted for space]
>
>  Well, I'd guess (1) They actually agree with what you said, and (2) They're
>still in shock.  I know I am.  You should stick to this style.

Mr. Miller, all I've got to say is: 

Delete the Pat Ira Roby Gang and you'll see a lot of this style from a
me and lot of pro-lifers who wouldn't otherwise be slamfested right off 
of USENET. 

Until that gang cools their jets or they leave USENET, it's up to
someone to deal with them.  

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy (was Re: BIBLE THUMPERS - ALLIES OF CHOICE!)
Keywords: Cough. Cough. Cough Man.
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:50:57 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <Aug.16.10.51.22.1992.5421@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.213334.11065@csus.edu>, Stephen Chaney writes:
>
>> We don't oppose choice by using any bible. We seek to protect human
>> life from abortion-death by proving just how human and alive the fetus
>> is.
>
>So the fetus is alive and human; so is the woman.  The fetus couldn't
>care less if it was aborted or not.  The woman, on the other hand,
>might care a great deal.  You lose, monkey-man.

Neither could someone who is sleeping. They wouldn't know what hit
them if you breathed over their nose and killed them with your foul
breath. (Or foul logic.) 

Whether or not someone is aware that they're dying, is grossly
irrelevant. Try killing someone and then arguing "they didn't know
what hit them, your Honor!" and see who gets to swing like a monkey
behind big, thick bars. 

It'll be YOU. Monkey-boy.

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, Your
Black Ass, and other scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: What is Wrong with Capitalism????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:31:32 GMT

orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
] stuff deleted to save bandwidth>>>>
] >>Wrong.  The abortionist kills fetuses for money.  Unless the fetus being
] >>exterminated is in the abortionists body, I'm not sure to what your last
] >>clause pertains.
]
] I find it amusing how some people on this newsgroup twist meanings around
] to something else.  Most often, although not always, it is the pro-choice
] person attacking the pro-life person.  It is obvious from the original
] post that an abortion provider is someone who makes money from his/her
] business.  The original post seemed to imply that making money was the
] only consideration of the abortion provider.  This may or may not be true.
] I am certain that he was not talking about a doctor seeing a pregnant 
] woman and saying "ah, another chance to make a buck; let's see how I can
] lure her into my clinic."


talk about 'twisting things around' - have you 
ever noticed that Doctors, lawyers, combat professionals
tend to do things for MONEY?????

ever Notice that The butcher, the Baker,
and the CandleStickMaker do it for Money as well????

So are You just ranting against the fact that some
people make Money by providing professional services
rather than standing on TV and Telling them that 
God Will HEAL! Them for a Large Tax deductable contribution....

Likewise, as has been pointed out, time, and time, and time
and Time, and Time, and TIme, and TiME, again,

The big Money Makers are the BabyIndustry and
the ChildrensStuffMarketeers....

One General, no complication delivery COSTS an
order of magnitude more than a No complication abortion....


So if you want to Go Ranting agains those IkkyYukkyBadPersonsDoingBizzNess,
do be very careful how you go waving your AkademikWandAWound.....


ciao
drieux





-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:20:08 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <1992Aug19.214911.10266@Cadence.COM> 
>phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>> Yes, but the pro-choice position allows pro-life women not to have abortions.

>But apparently the pro-choice position (as espoused by the Democratic party)
>forces pro-life women to pay for someone else's abortion.  

Any government policy forces people to pay for it.  No matter whether you
agree or not.  Just as Harel Barzlai has to pay taxes that support the
military, I have to pay taxes that support welfare.  We don't like
everything, but we still pay for it.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Go read the Constitution
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc 
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:48:07 GMT

In article <og2311c@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
# Maybe it's time to start working for a "right to privacy"
# amendment.

Amen to that, sister.

Wanna bet on how hard it would be to get the 1st amendment past
Congress, the President and the American people if it were up for
debate today?

Here's a repost of a most frightening story:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article: 6728 of ba.politics
Xref: wdl1 ba.politics:6728 ca.politics:13676 talk.politics.misc:88290 talk.politics.drugs:1915 alt.drugs:18067
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Just Say "Know"!
Summary: People Woefully Ignorant of Constitution
Keywords: US Constitution, Bill of Rights
Date: 6 Aug 91 03:36:06 GMT
Organization: Cadence Design Systems

I got this from a humor mailing list I'm on, but I can't decide whether I
should laugh or cry...

  In Fairfield, California, 23 students in the American Studies class at 
  Fairfield High made a door-to-door survey in the residential section, 
  carrying what they described as "a possible amendment to the Constitution" 
  ... "Unconstitutional," was one citizen's reaction after reading it.  
  Another: "Gibberish."  A third volunteered that "This would increase the 
  sale of marijuana" and a fourth scoffed "Sounds like SDS stuff to me"

  ... Of the 850 Fairfield residents contacted, only 290 though the proposed 
  amendment should become part of the Constitution and only only EIGHT PER 
  CENT recognized that it actually WAS a verbatim copy of the First Amendment 
  to the Constitution ... Report John Silva, who wrote an excellent piece 
  about this incident for the Vallejo Times-Herald, adds that "one top 
  Fairfield official refused to sign it, and his wife begged off, explaining 
  that her husband's job forbade it."

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
 deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
			-Benjamin Franklin
			 Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.''

Note Followup-to: line.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"I am fully prepared to anoint myself with the rancid fat of a feral
sow and run naked through town while the villagers throw pot-stickers
at me."
                                                     -- Michael Rigler
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:54:58 GMT

From article <vshyd+a@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>Don'tcha get it, Steve?  Most self proclaimed pro-choicers, say like
>>Rocker/Cathi Cook, are pro-"choice" in name only.   They do NOTHING to
>>provide women with any choice BUT abortion.   
> 
> You are lying, Forgach.
> 
> Just for laughs, I'll ask you to prove this statement or post an
> apology to me.


Cathi, you proved it yourself, in your long article which I just responded
to, that you will not involve yourself in helping abortion alternative
organizations provide prenatal help.   Cathi, even if you donated your
children's outgrown baby clothes, your own used maternity clothes, it
would be SOMETHING.

Do it!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Organization: Houston *Defended* Choice!
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.022135.5684@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <Bt7y3F.FHF@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>To Steve, though,
>>I will NOT apologize -- save on one condition:  he comes down here to 
>>receive it in person.  If he wants my respect, he'll have to put forth some
>>effort to earn it.
>
>"people don't offer to apologize, kebbie. they just apologize."
>				<1992Aug2.124003.24597@crd.ge.com>

So, what's your point?


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                  Support term limitations for politicians:
                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: BUSH FACTSHEET: Abortion
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:14:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug20.013526.33493@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug19.222709.1448@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> Re-posted from alt.politics.bush.  Please try to leave Tom Grundner's
>> attribution in the article.
>>
>> ---
>> In article <1992Aug19.213731.14191@nptn.org>
>> tmg@nptn.org (Tom Grundner) writes:
>>
>> April 14, 1992
>
>> ...He is opposed to abortion except when the life of the
>> mother is threatened or when there has been rape or incest.
>
>Mr. Grundner should update his fact sheet.  Note that it's from before
>President Bush expressed support for the Republican platform, which
>contains *no* rape or incest exceptions.

Actually, Bush did say on Tuesday, I believe, in an interview with Tom
Brokaw, that he *would* allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or
threat to the life of the mother. And it was after the Republican platform
was passed.  It was weird; he said "that's just one thing I don't agree
with the platform on."  I was thinking "whose platform IS it?  Aren't YOU
the one running for President?"

It was also strange how Bush tossed it off. Brokaw said (I'm paraphrasing),
"do you agree with the platform calling for the banning of abortion under
any circumstances?"  And Bush says something like "I've made my position
on that clear."  So Brokaw says "so there are circumstances in which you would
allow an abortion?  What circumstances?"  And Bush says (direct quote):
"Rape, incest, and life of the mother."  That was it.  Next subject..

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

-Kristy
-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:03:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.113555.24114@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Yes, the mother and the child live connected together.  Now why 
>> wouldn't the mother forfeit her right to life because she's 
>> connected to the fetus, rather than vice versa?  

> DOD, you have always struck me as a man who has no compassion
> for women, and who places less value on adult women than on all
> other born persons.  

Pro-aborts often argue that the fetus should not possess the  
right to life because the fetus is connected to the mother. 

Following that line of reasoning, we would conclude that both  
the mother and the fetus would not possess the right to life 
because they are connected to each other.  I reject that line 
of reasoning.  

I believe that when the mother's life conflicts with the fetus, 
then the mother's life should always take precedence.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:14:59 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> = (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>Rule 2) Novak + Cochran WILL be made to come out to California for
>>a visit, under penalty of being sued by DJR.

>Where's Cupertino in relation to LA?
>
>Hey Steve!  How about it?

It would be a blast.  'Specially if it was _cold here_ when we left.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:41:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.221008.1083@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# A person can kill in self-defense only when they can reasonably
# believe that their life is in _immediate_ danger. Most pregnancies
# do not fit that requirement.   

Tell you what, Mr. Holtsinger -- when the lab finishes testing our new
AndroWomb[TM], we'll have you fitted for one at no costs so you can
rethink your opinion on whether the prospect of undergoing surgery to
have eight pounds of bouncing, lovable infanthood removed from your
body is something that involves _immediate_ danger.

In the mean time, what's yer point?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:28:51 GMT

> = Doug Holtsinger writes:

> The next-of-kin of a child killed in an elective abortion can never
> be acting in the best interests of the deceased. 

Why was the child in the room, and what doctor is klutzy enough to kill a
CHILD while operating on a woman?  

Are you sure you didn't read this in the Enquirer?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Florida's privacy ruling
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:52:38 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  <1992Aug15.215157.11739@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.234712.17752@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug13.163513.26063@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Cha
> >> In article <1992Aug12.202927.26253@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com wri
> >>
> >But if a person (minor or not) engages in sex, but is considered to be
> >incapable of giving consent due to intoxication or mental retardation,
> >it *is* statutory rape.  My example was presented to get it through
> >your thick skull that there are still statutory rape laws in effect in
> >Florida.
>
> Translation: You delayed the inevitable.

Translation:  You blew it when you claimed there was no more statutory
rape laws in Florida.

> >> Well, the "pro-choice -> legal adult/child sex"
> >> scenario is no scenario - it's a Florida court ruling.
> >
> >Still wrong.
>
> Unless you're saying right to privacy != pro-choice,

"Right to privacy" and "pro-choice" are clearly two different things.
They might overlap in some areas, but they are not identical.

> But if right to privacy = pro-choice, then pro-choice -> adult/child
> sex (legal), and pro-choice -> abortion (legal)

But since they're different, this is incorrect.

> >I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that
> >"pro-choice -> legal adult/child sex".
>
> I just did.

Only if you can prove that "Right to privacy" and "pro-choice" are identical.

Let me draw an analogy, and see if you can possibly understand it.  The
same rights that let Macy's put on a Thanksgiving day parade lets the
Nazis put on a march through Skokie.  You're attempting to argue that
liking the Thanksgiving day parade means being in favor of Nazis marching.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Polls show Republicans favor abortion rights
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:26:29 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# >bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
# >> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  
# 
# - Epitaph for John Campbell, pro-abort Republican US Senatorial
# Candidate in California, who got a new asshole burned for him by
# pro-life Republican candidate Bruce Herschensohn, in the June primary. 

Idiot.  If Herschensohn had lost by the margin he won by, he would
have demanded and got a recount.  I seem to recall the margin being
something like 3000 votes.

Perhaps you were thinking about how Big Bill Dannemeyer was taken to
the woodshed by Republican voters, who got like 17% of the vote in a
three-way race in which he came in second. But then, Dannemeyer's a
mutant pro-lifer from beyond the stars, and Seymour's been pro-choice
for, what? -- four, five years now?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:10:19 GMT

From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
> In article ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:

> [Loren and Ilana discussing various forms of what they call
>  "non-contact sex", the details of which I just can't bear to repeat.]

My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
"non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
now is it.

Why don't y'all just buy yourselves trashy novels and be done with it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion