HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martin@world.std.com (Martin J Hannigan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: FLAMING DALLAGATTA IS PASSE'. THERES A NEW BOY IN TOWN - VINNIE
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:51:08 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


I have decided that Michele has become boring and redundant. 

Theres a new idiot in town and his name is Vinnie Scotty Goddard a.k.a.
The Phantom. He has been promoted to Micheles post of net.fuckwad jg.
Twitty has been promoted from Fuckwad jg to full fuckwad.


-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Martin Hannigan, N.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: The logical complement to blockading clinics...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:18:03 GMT


...is not to block access to churches.

Rather, it is to picket and block access to phony `crisis pregnancy
counseling centers' (as they are called here in California, because
state law prohibits them from calling themselves `clinics' when they
clearly are not clinics).

The parallel has a certain charming balance actually -- considering
that, in the light of continuing failures to effect change in the
status quo by blocking access to women's health clinics, the
pro-`life' emphasis from here on out, if one is to believe Cal Thomas
in his latest anti-abortion-rights diatribe, will be a `strategy of
containment', a phrase explicitly lifted from anti-Communist dogma,
characterized by propaganda, and covert activity... exactly of the
nature commonly practiced by the purveyors of such `services.'

I can see it now -- ``Save the innocent from the clutches of evil!
We must prevent BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY these propaganda mills from
disseminating their vicious lies and calculated distortions to
desperate women in need of accurate information and compassionate
counseling!'' Etcetera.  You get the drill.

The choice part of it is... after the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act
of 1993 passes the Congress and the Big Cheeze signs it into law, the
pro-choice people will be able to get federal injunctions against
Operation Rescue types, but since `crisis pregnancy counseling
centers' aren't clinics and don't qualify under the FACA as it is
currently written, WE WILL BE UNSTOPPABLE!!!  [Insert maniacal
laughter here.]


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:22:31 GMT

In article <nyikos.727633101@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}du>
}Distribution: na
}Date: 21 Jan 93 16:18:21 GMT
}Lines: 67
}
}In <PATRICK.93Jan20182357@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
}
}>On 20 Jan 93 21:27:53 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:
}
}><snip, snip, and the bandwidthectomy proceeds...>
}
}Highly selective surgery here...
}
}{Restoration of Galen's text:}
}
}>>> I'd also like to mention that while
}>>>the person who first used the remark avoids it now, and has apologized,
}>>>people like you and our Reverend DoD and even Chaney himself dredge it up 
}>>>at every possiblity.  
}
}{end of restoration}
}
}>[to Galen]
}
}>>On the other hand, Patrick also flames people about all kinds of things
}>>that happened in the past, like in the act of referring to Chaney
}>>as "Dennis Hall".  And the relevant stuff on that happened well before
}>>I joined this newsgroup.
}
}>So what's your point?  You *do* have one this time, I hope?
}
}Sure.  Look at the restoration of what you deleted, and ask yourself:
}1. How bad is my reading comprehension?
}2. How bad are my reasoning abilities?
}3. Why did I think Nyikos would not be able to figure out that I had
}deleted the justification for what he wrote?

Darn.  I've read and reread this a bunch of times, and I can't figure
out how the "restoration" changes anything.  I've been told that my
reading comprehension isn't too bad, neither do I think my reasoning
abilities are below average, although I'll grant there are many people
who might take great issue with that.  What I can't fathom is not why
Patrick might have (or have not) thought that Dr. PHoney Giggles wouldn't
notice, but rather why he did, and why he would make such an issue of it.
Is this making much sense to anyone?  And if so, would they please
explain it to me?  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Re:Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:36:59 GMT
Organization: NRL

In article <C1HDB4.KAG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jj6707@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (John E
Jablonski) writes:
>....
>How about we stop arguing about what we call ourselves and concentrate on
>the real issue--abortion.  I can live with Pro-life and Pro-choice.
>  Any complaints?
>
>----John
>

	Forgive me for showing just a snippit of your last post.  I want to respond to
your remark because I consider it EXTREMELY significant.  For me, this whole
abortion debate is interesting and thought provoking, but I care mainly about
one thing, stopping abortion.  If you think the success of the pro-abortion
side in this country is due to reasoned debate and clearly thought through
conclusions, you are  quite mistaken.  Unborn children continue to be killed,
not because of the reasonableness of abortion, but because of the superior
public relations skills of its proponents.

	If people want to call me "anti-abortion", "pro-life",
"pro-lie","anti-choice", that's their prerogative.  But no one is going to make
me call them something that I know they are not.  The pro-abortion side wants
very much to distance themselves from the act they are in fact encouraging.
Instead they use a word that conjures up images of the constitution and the
American Flag.  To an aborted child, the diffence between a "pro-choicer" and a
"pro-abort" is zilch.

	I'm sorry for ranting on like this, but I would be interested in hearing your
reasons for feeling comfortable with the term "pro-choice".

-Paul
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57620 alt.abortion.inequity:6684
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: 24 Jan 1993 01:50:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.

>Man A and man B have acted identically.  But only man B can be "fined"
>(and indeed possibly imprisoned).  Why the difference?

Because man B has a child that he is obliged to support.  Man A does not.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:07:59 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu


Well.  It's been a whole three days since I last said something on this
newsgroup, and now I see 500 articles.  To warm up, I shall jump into
this thread with a reply to Steve Adams' post, and who knows?  Maybe I'll
even throw in an unprovoked personal attack on him as well, to show I'm
part o' the gang.  :)

To start, Suzanne Forgach, that spirited pro-life debater, said that
people who grieve the Holocaust are now advocating the murder of our
most fragile.  To which Steve replies:

In article <root.727561852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>Come on Suzanne.  The difference is that the Holocaust was a decision of 
>one man, who ignored everyone's opinion, that took millions of lives.  
>Abortion is a decision made by a millions of persons, individually.
>
>While the scales may be the same (ie millions), the ideas and concepts
>behind the two are totally different.  One is the imposition of a single
>person's will on the entire population, the other is individual will.

Entirely true, Steve.  However, as palatable as abortion may be when
compared to the Holocaust, to Suzanne (and myself for the time being),
it is still one person taking the life of another, without the latter's
consent, or dare I say, choice.

And before the rest of the pro-choice presence on this group replies
with a withering barrage of counter-arguments, I shall say that I am
perfectly aware of the common counter-arguments, that they are being
amply discussed in other threads, and that your efforts would be more
well-directed there.


And now for the Obligatory Unprovoked Choice-Advocate Harangue (OUCH):




Ummm...




You stay up too late, Steve.



Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:57:19 GMT

>  = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>  = parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>bk> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>bk> Q1: when did life begin?

> On earth, several billion [outside the USA: several milliard] years ago.  
> But this is talk.abortion.

---------------
>bk> Q2: when does an individual life begin?

> No later than the point where twinning becomes impossible.

---------------
>bk> Q3: when does an individual's (ie. a person's) life begin?

> Sounds like this is covered by the other questions, so I'll skip it for now.

---------------
>bk> Q4: when during individual's life does the individual life become a
>bk>     "person"?

> If you are asking at what point I think the individual life becomes what
> I would call a person deserving *some* legal protection, my answer is
> at sentience.

---------------
>bk> It's all too common that someone will ask Q2, get an answer, 
>bk> and then carry on as if the answer was to Q4.  So what is 
>bk> "THE question" really asking?

>> I don't think something that isn't sentient is much of a "person".  I don't
>> think a single cell can realistically be considered sentient, whether or not
>> it "has a soul".  Doesn't a "person" have a "personality"?  Does anyone ever
>> say that a single cell has a "personality"?  (ignoring anthropomorphism)

> No.  A person does not have to have a "personality" in the sense of certain
> character traits persisting through time.  All it needs is consciousness of
> *something* however faint or fleeting.

---------------
> > When *you* say "person" you mean the same thing as "human".

> No.  The Andromeda Galaxy probably contains lots of persons, but no humans.

---------------
Curiouser & curiouser.  I agree with everthing that's been said here.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:56:05 GMT

In article <C19I0H.6p5.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I wonder why it was so important to him to lie so persistently
> in this thread.  

Garvin, you suggested that the *incidence* of illegal abortion
in 1860 has "something to do" with the Roe v. Wade ruling in
1973.  Now it looks as though you're back-pedaling from that
suggestion.  Instead of whining about me, why don't you admit
that you were wrong to begin with.

>Susan

   "I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."

                                       sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:16:36 GMT

In article <14045@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <22JAN199316264320@oregon.uoregon.edu>, dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>> In article <Jan.20.14.35.49.1993.26756@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
>>  kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>> >In article <1993Jan20.031318.26063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>> >gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
># ## Well, I'm not homosexual, . . . .
># # 
># #But you are an apologist for them.
># 
># I know I shouldn't say this, but why should gays need apologists?  As far as
># I'm concerned, it's none of my business what consenting adults do behind closed
># doors.
># 
># 							Daniel Reitman
>
>It's a shame that homosexuals don't believe that.  Instead, they want
>the government to tell consenting adults what they can do behind
>closed doors -- like employment, rental of housing, etc.

I'm afraid it's worse than that. If only homos wanted these rights, I could
live with it, but blacks? Especially since the US was founded as a
Christian nation, and Christianity gives us the right to own slaves.
No wonder America is going downhill.

Dan

:-) for the humor impaired
From: m1bfg00@fed.frb.gov (Bruce F. Gilsen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Today's Great Pro-Life Quote
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:54:04 GMT
Reply-To: m1bfg00@fed.frb.gov (Bruce F. Gilsen)
Distribution: na
Organization: Federal Reserve Board, Wash, DC


> Straight from the mouth of one of the protesters at the clinic where
> I escort, yelled to the patient as she was approaching the door:
> 
> "Wait - it might be a boy."
> --
>      _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>    |   |      |  \    /        
>    |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
> |__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18
> 
> But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.

Straight from the mouth of a protester nicknamed "camouflage man" 
at the clinic where I escort, yelled to the clinic line defenders:

  "I believe in a woman's choice.  I believe that a woman makes
  her choice when she spreads her legs."

Wow, who'd athunk the OR protesters were sexist?

Bruce m1bfg00@fed.frb.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:30:43 EST

In article <1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Mark A. Cochran) says:

>>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times,
>>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal
>>and safe, but rare.
>>
>He certainly did. Don't you think that's a good goal to shoot for?

Is it? Is it really?

If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then why try to have less
of them?  Heck, -more- abortions would bring down the birth rate and help
with overpopulation, and it's safer than childbirth.  Right?

So why have less, if abortion is OK?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:14:03 GMT

In <C1Bzxo.H0q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>>the opportunity to set one's house in order.

>After all, a fetus has so many things to get settled before it dies.  (?)

>>We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
>>AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
>>confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
>>ignore ours at our own peril.

And those children who got HIV through blood transfusions, no doubt
appreciated the opportunity to repent their sins and get their houses
in order. Hmm, and all this time I thought it went "suffer the little
children, and forbid them not" and not "Make the little children
suffer".

>That may be the *smartest* thing I've ever heard her say (seen her write)...
>(which doesn't say much)

>>S. Forgach

Grouch

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: Kebbie's weakest flame yet
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:23:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.034926.3914@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Sounds like transference.  It's obvious that Kebbin himself has 
>>a legislative agenda, 

No response?  Must be true then.

>>You really outdid yourself with your latest effort, Kebbin.
>>Nothing like invading the reproductive/sexual privacy of mil-
>>lions of Americans ...
>What "invasions of privacy" are you blabbering about? 

Your infamous proposal wrt taxing conception, remember?  The one that
will require citizens to report their reproductive status and behavior
to the IRS.


---------------
Kebbie are you really very very stupid or are you just pretending?
Since you would have to be very clever to pretend to be so 
exceptionaly stupid I think that we can rule out that possibility.
					  -- Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
					  <01GGRFCZWJQ890NTPW@vax58b.desy.de>



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58249 alt.flame:19508
From: serickso@ub.d.umn.edu (Scott Erickson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Logical claims about Kevin Darcy
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:43:54 GMT
Reply-To: serickso@ub.d.umn.edu (Scott Erickson)
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Confused Thought
NNTP-Posting-Host: ub.d.umn.edu


Previously kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote: 
[obviously confused logic deleted]
>
>Q.E.D.
>								- Kevin

The only conclusion that can be reached from the above agrument is that you
are a complete and utter moron.  You pretend to be intelligent with your use
of "logic", but it is obvious that you have no idea what a fool you are. That
you are willing to use logic to prove nonsense only shows that you have no
grasp of how utterly stupid you are.  I suggest that next time you refrain
from opening your mouth and spare yourself the humiliation you inflict upon
yourself.

--
Scott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:04:39 GMT

From article by trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre):
> 
> Actually, you won't find Christ condemning either homosexuality
>      or abortion (even though this act was somewhat prevalent at
>      the time-- funny, isn't it?).  Most of the condemnation 
>      comes from the Apostles, esp. Paul (who, it has been 
>      hypothesized, may have been gay himself.)  

This is absurd.  Since Paul freely admitted to having been a mass
murderer before his conversion, why on earth would he have concealed
something like his past sex-life?


> SRM

SEF
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE AND THE ABORTION TOPIC
Date: 28 Jan 93 12:43:57 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> Polls tend to show 
-> that women want to give the child some legal protection.
-> Simple restrictions like waiting periods and informed
-> consent provisions have especially widespread
-> support. 

i wonder why no credible data has ever been
published to support this assertion.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:11:46 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <93026.112557KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.063222.15317@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>says:
>
>>Apparently because of your bigotry you don't realize that very few
>>people think abortion is a good idea.  It's just that a lot of us
>>think that forced pregnancy is a worse idea.
>
>Bigotry, yeah right.  You're more bigoted against pro-lifers than I am against
>anybody.  There are a hell of a lot of people here who (as far as I can tell)
>feel that there's nothing wrong with abortion, since there's no "person"
>involved.  I would just like to understand why these people really want there
>to be fewer abortions, other than the inconvenience of making the trip to the
>Planned  Parenthood Clinic.

How about the cost and inconvenience of a surgical procedure?  I don't
think there's anything wrong with coronary bypasses, but I think it would
be a good thing if there were less of them.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58109 talk.politics.misc:70000 talk.religion.misc:27659 misc.legal:23384
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:30:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.055119.15266@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.000916.20341@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan23.181412.6771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In a thread he no doubt can't follow at all, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>>>(Mike Cobb) blurts out another inanity:
>>>
>>>>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>>>>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>In order to have bodily autonomy, as it relates to legal protection
>and the issue of abortion, it is first neecessary to be a person.

Why? We legally protect the lives of some animals, trees, whole ecosystems, 
etc. I see no reason why personhood must be a prerequisite to legally 
protecting a fetus'es BA...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion