HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: dead dead things
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:49:40 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr10.161328.6106@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00jlrushton@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:

>hey bible slapper......................
   yes?
>who made you god......................
   huh?
>anarchy.....................
   Oh, so you're one of those...
>do fetus taste good or does the doctor throw in the trash...............
   I can see where this post is going... going....
>wondering...
   gone...
   Another example of pro-choice logic and wit?
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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14857 alt.flame:6667
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Organization:  One of these days.
Subject: Re: linda bags kevin (was Re: The Ego that Ate the Net)
	<1992Apr2.054200.10383@rotag.mi.org>
	<92100.114119ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
	<1992Apr12.170548.11840@rotag.mi.org>
Reply-To: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.00 Rev. Jan 16 1992
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:52:42 -0600

In <1992Apr12.230417.19560@crd.ge.com>, James G Keegan Jr writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>-> >In  <1992Apr2.054200.10383@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:
>-> >> In article <92091.165901ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
>-> >>>Idiot.  The net is not here to serve you, and you alone.
>-> >>
>-> >>Where did I imply that the Net existed to serve me ALONE??
>-> >
>-> >"What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve
>-> > TO ME?" Kevin Darcy <1992Mar29.182951.28031@rotag.mi.org>
>-> > ^^^^^^
>-> 
>-> "To me" is clearly a subset of "to everyone", Linda. This
>-> quote therefore does -not- imply that the Net exists to serve
>-> me ALONE.
>
>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
>sure kebbie. now tell the readers about the GROUP kevin darcy and
>the INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.

    Actually, Kevin conducted a poll of all memebers of the net, 
though he neglected to actually ask anyone to respond. Just a
lack of response, as he has stated in his demand for archiving 
services, is not actually a refusal.
>
>        'Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game
>        is that the sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe
>        him. "Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...'  


    
-- 
       John Henders      jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
    I think your "evolutionary scale" needs an adjustment.  Either 
      that, or you've got your thumb on it. -> (lefty@apple.com)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:17:59 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

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

>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>> Hi everybody,
>> 
>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Big Al  


>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.

Actually, those of us who were there know it was much more like 3/4 of a
million--plus.
All of these were born, thinking, feeling, emoting human beings.
And while we're at it, how about those millions of potential human
beings so cruelly deprived of a chance for life because a) their parents
did not take every possible opportunity to have sex with as many
partners as possible, or b) those same parents were using
Forgach-endorsed natural family planning methods. Just think, how old is
the Pope? At least 70, but probably older. If he had had sex with a
fertile woman every day from 15 until 70, instead of callously remaining
celibate, 20,075 babies would have had a chance at life (and that's even
without leapyears). Even master abortionists would have problems beating
that figure. And as for Cardinal O'Connor...In targeting the clinics,
Randall Terry seems to be way off, using your kind of logic. Shouldn't
he be targeting the Vatican, Suzanne?

                                        MP


P


  >Suzanne.
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pro-whatever
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:03:37 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr14.152547.694@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
             mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

> Well....take at look at yourself today.

Yes, let's take a look at you.  

From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)

> I'm pro-choice and not a virgin. 



> [I'm] not pro-life.....sorry



> Kicking my girlfriend in the stomach so that she miscarriages is birth 
> control too. 



> remove the uterus while you're at it.



> Funny..... abortion seems to be used by a certain type of person



> A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
> sleep around and/or are sluts. 

> 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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:19:59 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In  <1992Apr9.204909.3490@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) wri
->tes:

-> Be proud of it.  Just don't come in here and tell us what sex is all about
-> when you've never experienced it first hand.
				    ^^^^^^^^^^
>Perhaps you should phrase that a little differently, in order to avoid
>tempting those of us who are weak in spirit:
>  when you've never experienced it in person.
				    ^^^^^^^^^
Uuuhhh, Larry, to be really accurrate, shouldn't that be
   when you've never experienced it with another person.
				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ron.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Pope's self-control
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:29:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.200223.9427@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Listen you two clowns, the Pope does not ask anyone to do that which
>he is not willing to do himself: 

>          that is, exercise a little self-control.

Hm.  Does the Catholic Church permit abortion in cases of rape?

--
"Duty is what one expects from others."                    - Oscar Wilde

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Oops; KEITH Cochran (WAS Re: A question for any MALE 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: Fri, 17 Apr 92 02:57:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.184117.10186@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:
>> = ( Steve "Get the Names Straight" Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:
>
>>(Juuuuust kiddin', Kevin Cochran.  I'm still harumphing Gordon.)
>
>Sorry, Keith.  Must've been Friday night brainlock.
>
>I'd like to say I spotted this error of mine, but my wife noticed the
>discrepancy while reading the net Sunday.
>
>Luckily, I know you're an understanding sort, and..GLMPH! GGHH! ACK!
>
>...
>
>Hmm - this reopens the mystery of the Pro-Life Kevins.

That's cool.  However, for penance, you and your wife will have to meet me for
coffee sometime soon.  You do work downtown, don't you?
--
=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, Linda, and Larry.  Damm Proud Of It, And FWA!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15754 alt.abortion.inequity:960
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:38:55 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr12.190500.918@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.165452.17782@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:

>Yea, sheesh, Gordon.  Just because the Catholic Church "did" the Spanish
>Inquisition is *NO* reason to go around broadcasting that fact.  Just because
>the early american settlers slaughtered the American Indian is *NO* reason to
>say that they actually MURDERED any of them.
  No - that was not his point. He is not denying that the Inquisition occurred,
or that it was a malicious waste of life to satisfy the power-hungers of a
power-minority. Instead he is pointing out that the actions of the past
when different individuals are concerned cannot give an effective judgement
of the future.
   The suitable logic would be "Just because the early american settlers 
slaughtered the American Indian is *NO* reason to say that all Americans
would kill anyone who was an inconvenience to them..." (as they had considered
the Indians who hindered their goals of plunder and conquering...)
You answer that one for me...


>War is Peace.  Knowledge is Ignorance.  The Computer is your Friend.
Nice oxymorons...How bout this:

War is Peace.  Knowledge is Ignorance. Kcochran has good points... NOT!

>(Note:  Insert as many smilies as needed to understand that this isn't a slam
>against Gordon, or the respondent.  It's a slam against PC people who are
>trying to sound like they're not PC...)
   NO smilies can make up for you erred logic friend...
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: You want to win.
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:32:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.021311.29110@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.215648.1029@javelin.sim.es.com> tpehrson@javelin.sim.es.com (tim clinkenpeel) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> BTW, abortion is obviously legal.
>>>But not for long >:-)
>
>>you've been saying that for years now, suzzanne.  but then again, spouting
>>nonsense is your specialty.
>   Actually, some of us find flaw to your post tim.
Why is it that it's only pro-lifers that say that?

>I have a lot of
>respect for Suzanne's posts, not because she is pro-life but because she
>is fair.
Heh. It's really only pro-lifers that say that.
Suzanne, fair. Right.
We're talking about the woman who characterized women who have
sex outside of marriage as lower than prostitutes. Not to mention
her "proof" that a circle has two sides. Fair. Hell, the woman can't
even think straight.

> But I guess I should listen to you. Hell, with an authoritive sounding
>name like Clickenpeel (sp?) you MUST be right. 
It's Clinkenpeel. When you make fun of someone's name, you should
at least spell it right.

>   Until I see a half decent post from you friend, you won't have any
>respect from me... Please try and contribute to the group once in a while?
You must not read the right newsgroups. Tim just wrote one of
the best articles I've seen in alt.tasteless in a long time.
-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
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 01:21:35 EDT

I see a lot of paranoia in regard to the idea that Roe vs. Wade would
be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Know how many abortions would be stopped in the first week if RvW were
overturned? NONE! If Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would still
be legal in all fifty states until such time as the individual states
decided to outlaw it (and many have already gone down on record as
stating that they will NOT outlaw them. New York, for example.).

I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
travel to any state that still allowed them.

What is the problem with that?

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Has anyone seen this ad?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 20:03:48 GMT

<Mar.27.22.23.49.1992.1676@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) said:
><1992Mar28.000702.12337@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>> Waitaminnit, here.  I'm confused.  First the Save the Haploid
>> Life! people tell me that masturbating is immoral, and now
>> you're telling me that NOT masturbating is immoral.
>> Make up your minds!  Which is it?
>
>Hey, Christine darling!  If your finger turns you on, don't let me
>spoil your fun!  Dig in and enjoy!  (But honestly, I have something
>here that will make you feel much MUCH better!)

Not only are you being 'immoral' in your attempted denigration of CJ, but
you are also being unintentionally funny - as if anyone on this net thinks
you have something that would make CJ feel better (sexually).  I'm sure
she's not interested in masturbating with your tire-iron.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, 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: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rape, Incest, and Abortion
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:43:57 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


    I'm reminded of the Louisiana legislator, arguing for no rape or incest
exceptions, saying: "What's the problem with incest? After all, that's how
we get champion race horses, right?"

    Yeesh.

                                                    kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:23:55 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr12.225456.2931@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:
|In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:
|>Adopted any kids lately, MaThiEu???
|sorry you fils du pute......

Matthew A. Lewis seems to have only two response
modes: 1) insults, and 2) violent suggestions.  Hey, 
Steve Franklin: What do you think of your fellow 
pro-lifer?  Do you like his methods?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 2: Life begins at viability
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:25:29 GMT

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

>In article <1992Apr1.175718.29402@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>> Legal protection, privileges and rights are granted according to arbitrary 
>> lines, but constant ones. 

>Agreed, however you have made an argument FOR the granting of legal status
>based on fetal viability, not against (see below). 

This will be most interesting....

>In other words, you are saying the following:
>
>(A) No one knows when a specific person has the "maturity to drive", and
>  since the general time of "maturity" changes, age IS used as an
>  arbitrary line granting some sort of legal status. 

Yes.  Age, from birth, is always used to grant legal privileges and rights.  
It is a known entity for everyone.  

> No one knows when a specific fetus is "viable", and 
> since the general time of "viability" changes, it CANNOT be used as an 
> artibrary line granting some sort of legal status.

Yes, that's correct.  

>You've mistakenly substituted "it [viability]" for age in this last statement,
>and come to the wrong conclusion as a result. Here's the corrected wording 
>of your last statement:

I don't think so...

>  No one knows when a specific fetus is "viable", and
>  since the general time of "viability" changes, age IS used as an
>  arbitrary line granting some sort of legal status.

No, that is not what I said, nor what I meant.  I didn't say or mean "since
viability was inconstant, age is used".  I said that since viability is
unconstant, viability isn't used.  

>Compare this last statement with statement (A) given above; they're 
>logically identical.

The two statements are not logically identical.  The primary reason why 
age is used to grant legal status, privileges, and rights IMO is historical.  
I said (in the previous post) that isn't necessarily right, but the way it's
always been done, and IMO, is good because age is a known constant entity.

I lost the rest of your post.  Was this it?  If so, then what have you
proven?  If not, kindly repost and I'll answer more.


Jennifer








Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14127 alt.flame:6342
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: birds 'n bees (was Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>)
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:33:13 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> The woman did not, in volitional terms, necessarily CREATE her
-> pregnancy. She CREATED an orgasm, which had a use.

pssst! may i suggest that you speak to a woman or two privately
about this matter.

or, ask drieux.


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:36:22 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr13.115437.26551@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>   The day society starts abusing and rejecting the good works of groups
>such as the Knights of Columbus, we'll feel it instantly. These groups
>do SO MUCH (at least up here where I come froM) for us that I couldn't
>begin to summarize. Yes, they are pro-life, but they have concerns that
>go beyond that. Obviously you judge them by their one belief, not
>by their wealth of goodness...

I judge them because their tax-exempt status hinges on being a non-political
organization.  In many areas they step over the line with their political
activities.  They advertise on billboards and small-town newspaper ads.
These activities should get their exempt status revoked.  Enough said.

>>If on the other hand, you want to stop abortions by saying no one can have
>>them, hold it right there buster.  The right to control one's own body is
>>fundamental.  The right to make reproductive decisions is a private matter
>>and not in the domain of the state.  Period.

>   Buster? No... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions. Not even
>through contraception, but through proper education . It can be that simple.
>One's own body is not just one's own body when you share it with another
>sentient being...
>   steve

How, pray tell, do we halt the need for abortions through "proper education"
alone?  What is this "proper education"?  How can we help people prevent the
need for abortions, as you advocate, without making an effective birth
control availible?

Also, not everyone thinks that a fetus is a sentient being.  It certainly
isn't before mylenation(sp?), which occurs at about 24 weeks.  Less than 1%
of all abortions are performed after the 24th week (I don't have the
documentation on this.  Any help?).

If it is not a "sentient being", how do you justify preventing someone from
doing as they will with their own body?
--
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:51:17 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr15.194237.16141@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Your argument above is that killing a fetus is "safer" and perhaps 
>more convenient for the mother; I could argue that killing a person
>to obtain their property is "safer" and more convenient to me than
>any other method. 
>
>No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
>the fetus.

The point is not to obtain the property of the fetus.  The point is that two
people (the futus and the woman) are competing for resources that belong to
the mother (her body).  She can choose to share those resources, or she can
chose to withold those resources, even if the fetus needs those resources
for survival.

In order to justify making abortion illegal, you must bestow rights upon the
fetus that other humans do not have.  No human has the right to force
another to be their slave.  No human has the right to use your resources
without your consent.  To say that a fetus has these rights is tantamount to
saying the unborn are a superior class of people to the born. 

Of course, if you do not accept the personhood of a fetus, then you probably
don't need the pro-choice viewpoint explained to you...

-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion