HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:29:04 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:
>In article <pmar1vs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

]>Gosh, Nyikos, why don't you name for me a contraceptive
]>that's 100% effective?  That is, a contraceptive that will
]>prevent pregnancy for sexually active het women 100% of the
]>time.  Can you name one?

>Pants ( for both ).

The crotchless kind??? :-)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:01:10 GMT
Keywords: blasphemy

In article <1992Sep14.185053.12354@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> In the late 1800's, a Captain Dreyfuss was railroaded into prison by the French
> Army for espionage, although no credible evidence was presented at his trial.
> It actually seems that Dreyfuss' sole crime is that he happened to be Jewish. 
> The sordid details of his trial and conviction were eventually published in a
> Paris newspaper under the banner headline "J'ACCUSE!"  Because of the powerful
> repercussions the story made in French politics, the phrase "J'ACCUSE!" took on
> an almost incantatory meaning.  "J'ACCUSE!" has been used to headline stories
> of prejudice and injustice many times.

My recollection is a little fuzzy on a detail or two, but I
believe the phrase "j'accuse" came from a letter written and
sent by Emile Zola to the emporer of France in which Mssr Zola
deplored the horrible miscarriage of jusice perpetrated on
Captain Dreyfuss.  Dreyfuss' case was a source of great controversy
in France, and eventually he was released from prison.  I do
not recall if he was pardoned or if his name was cleared
entirely.  I believe his name was cleared.

Dean Kaflowitz


Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed,  9 Sep 1992 00:17:21 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Germany Abortion Law and (was: Observations)
	<Bu9w3K.Fvp@cs.psu.edu>
Distribution: usa


 Don Beaver@castor.cs.psu writes
>Interestingly, the Nazis would have admired Margaret Sanger: 
>abortion permits the inferior to eliminate themselves.


Not only did Margaret Sanger and Hitler have mad passionate sex in rooms
lit by Jewish hide lamps, but Hitler was a vegetarian.  The vengeful
vegetarians in this country would push us over the slippery slope which
will mean concentration camps for more than canned soup.  Meat for
dinner is the only way to stop the killing.

Michael Loomis
Quickly learning pro-life logic
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A little bit of calm thinking
Date: 11 Sep 1992 23:37:21 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu
Keywords: abortion,human,rights

In article <BuFJpx.6wu@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>
>Most so-called pro abortion folks would still advocate effective birth
>control as prererable to abortion. Unfortunately, the anit-aborts do not
>reciprocate reasonably. Proof? Say RU-486 in their presense, then duck and
>cover.  The vocal anti-aborts (I won't call them pro-life), or at least a
>substantial majority, would impose their cookoo notions of ensoulment,
>then invoke same to oppose the use of RU-486, because it is an
>abortifaceant. This troglodites beleive that once sperm and egg are
>unitited, a fully souled person exists. If they believe so, let them. They
>shouldn't have abortions or use RU-486. But what about the rest of us?
>These proto-Ayatolahs are not content to have an opinion, the must insert
>their beliefs into the moist orifices of everyone in reach.
>
>A pox and a plague on them.

Once again, a wedge is put on the pro-life side:
  Pro-life base their opinions mostly on religion and since there is 
  separation of church and state, it is abhorrent for them to "impose"
  their religious views on us.

Why wedge the pro-lifers?  There are many non religious folk, and even
athiests who are pro-life.  Do they base their opinions on some 
"religious notion?"  I don't think so.  

Perhaps there is more to this debate than calling pro-lifers a bunch
of religious fanatics "imposing" their religious views.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter, don't presume to talk for the pro-choicers. (Was: Badges)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 20:55:52 GMT

In <1992Sep6.163951.11388@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715734898@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep05.081218.12140@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>Let's see...  You're saying that if the hang glider was a person, it
>>>would have the right to kill Galen if it wanted him out and that was
>>>the only way to get him out?  I don't think the analogy holds, since
>>>it's possible to just unbuckle some straps and get Galen out alive
>>>and well without causing any trauma to the hang glider.  Did I miss
>>>something?
>>
>>You're putting in a lot of implied restrictions to abortion.  Some
>>pro-choicers in this group, assuming they can follow the analogy this far,
>>might want to rake you over the coals for that.

>Peter, "we Pro-Choicers" are quite capable of deciding who to "rake over the
>coals" outselves, thank you.

I suspect Mr. Keegan would decide differently from you, were he
able to follow the analogy this far.  Seems you could not.  I think
tomorrow may be the day I post,

"You Should Have Known I'd Do This (For Galen et.al.)" 

>And personally, if all an abortion was was unstrapping the "WarmCuteFuzzy
>UnbornBaby", and not causing any harm to the woman or z/e/f, I don't think
>there would BE an abortion debate.

Peter Ny.
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Date: 10 Sep 1992 17:31:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 15914@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official researcher of USENET's Astro_Boy virus) writes:
> 
> 
> Rumor has it, he's got a TV show coming soon. 
> 
> What does Gloria Steinem have? 


Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with

1.  Dignity.


Anyone wanna add to it?


Bob De Guc
Pro-Choice
Father &
Father to be (30 Nov 92)




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:57:32 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>There have been cases of children being born at 20 and even perhaps 19
>weeks and surviving.  

Surviving for how long?  An hour? A year?

Please provide a citation or two for these cases.

>According to Bernard Nathanson, there was a case
>in a Chicago (!) hospital of one Madeline Mann, born on June 27, 1989
>weighing all of 280 grams; she spent 4 months in the premature nursery
>and was 

I have real problems believing ANYTHING Nathanson claims, ever
since I read an article he wrote where he claims that people
who receive fetal brain tissue will have two personalities.

>Peter Nyikos

                    -rocker
                     who will post the quote if there is sufficient interest
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:37:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.014238.5614@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> Baileys distortions don't even compare to Budweisers.  I go and crack
> open a cold Bud, and I never get surrounded by a bevy of bathin' 
> babes.  Okay maybe one or two, but never a bevy.  

That's nothing.  How about that Miller commercial where they
pop open a Miller on a hot day and it starts snowing?  Now I
like Miller Draft a lot, but if I'm sweating my butt off and
I crack open a Miller, most times I keep right on sweating,
and no, no snow falls.

How many babes in a bevy anyway?  I know there are seven geese in
a gaggle.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Summary: So tell me something I *don't* know.
Date: 9 Sep 1992 20:05:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <5758@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <fdjngwa.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>You are now aware of why Doug has such a "sterling" reputation in this
>>group.  Patrick didn't call Chaney a "fat black ass".  He told him to get
>>his "fat black ass" over to Houston if he wanted to see him.
>
>Eyuuuiilllk.  Still pretty racist if you ask me.  Apologise and get it over
>with.  Sheesh.
>
>--Teddi

Already did.  Just not to Chaney, though, because he wouldn't accept
anything from me in anything but bad faith, anyway.  Watch and see how
Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up -- mainly so he can *brag*
about it...

-- 
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. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35450 alt.flame:12602 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:392
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:25:54 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

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> |> Kevin Darcy wrote:
-> |> -> I support the idea of a moderated group. 
-> |> 
-> |> of course you do. no one would ever question
-> |> that.  as ms. birmingham said above:
-> |> 
-> |>         "That it is not surprising that someone
-> |>         who desires to control what women do with
-> |>         their bodies would wish to control the
-> |>         content of people's posts.  I can't
-> |>         imagine any other reason for restricting
-> |>         freedom of expression."
-> 
->      If you're adopting this position James, you're
-> being ridiculous.  You mean you can't imagine any
-> good reasons in any context for restricting freedom
-> of expression?

are you not aware that the subject of discussion is to
moderate a net.newsgroup; a talk group specifically?

->      A moderated abortion newsgroup has advantages
-> and disadvantages.  Among the advantages is a
-> screening-out of the bile, the insults, and the
-> pompous rhetoric.  What remains would be the actual
-> substantive arguments, the serious contributions to
-> the discussion.  

then you should add your support to the two or three
others who have expressed interest in censoring the
abortion discussion. not so oddly, all of those
supporting the concept for a moderated newsgroup also
support restrictions on a woman's right to abort.

-> What person who supports a rational discussion of
-> abortion could oppose a moderated newsgroup?

then you'll no doubt see scads of support for such a
proposal when it is made. not so oddly, the discussion
on creating a moderated newsgroup seems to have died
out as the result of lack of interest.

->      I'd add that the existence of a moderated group
-> does not rule out the continued existence of t.a.

oh goodness, you really look stupid here. did you not
read the proposal which you are supporting? it called
for a new moderated newsgroup, not a replacement for
the existing group.

-> But everyone knows that more flaming gets done on
-> t.a than anything else, and it would be refreshing
-> to write and read only substantive material without
-> having to wade through the drool and the flames.

then i'll look forward to seeing your formal proposal
and call for discussion.

here, let me help. the person making the proposal
suggested that the group be formed to eliminate flames.
he then asked darcy (excuse me for a minute, i'm
laughing too hard to type. there, i'm back.) to
moderate. darcy declined. prior to his asking darcy,
ms. bartley volumteered to moderate but stated that she
wouldn't censor flames, just the number of articles
posted.

i'm sure you can take things from here.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 19:50:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes ...
>Shame, shame, Ray.  You incorrectly failed to mention that people who are
>above the law would be specifically excluded from this acceptance...

Aw shucks.  I shoulda known.

> I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.

Damn straight.  Them forcasts is _never_ right.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Questions about "consensus"
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:02:50 GMT

In article <BuDIC4.AD9@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.151814.16918@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
>>simply because the majority decided something was wrong. 
>>
>>By the way, this is a trick question. 
>
>'sall right -- that's all you've ever asked around here, anyway...

So you don't even answer the question - you dodge it, as usual.

>(so, brave little warrior -- I notice you sure have been quiet after that
>shameless commercial for the LDS that supports one of your "pro-life"
>groups...are you too busy with running away, again?)

Why should I be worried about Coast International? 

YOU, on the other hand, have the honor of being part of AT&T, which
turned its funding OFF for Planned Parenthood. 

I felt so sorry for Planned Parenthood when AT&T cut off their funds.

N O T !!! 


=============================================================================
                   /\
                  /  \
                 /    \
                /      \ 
               /  KKK   \ 
              /          \ 
             / ---   ---  \
            /  [ ]   [ ]   \ 
           /                \ 
          /                  \
         /      --------      \  
        /       |      |       \ 
       /        --------        \ 
      /                          \ 
     /                            \ 
/--------------------------------------\ 
|      |Come on, Steve.  Let's  |      | 
|      |see just how much of a  |      | 
|      |boy you are.  March     |      | 
|      |your fat black ass down |      | 
|      |here and tell me I'm a  |      | 
|      |liar, to my face.       |      | 
|      |  - PatricKKK Humphrey  |      | 

-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: "Mystic" predicts Virgin Mary appearance in Kentucky!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:16:25 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: world 

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to the folks on
talk.religion.misc and alt.pagan.  I didn't realize that Steve "If I only
had a brain" Chaney would follow up to those groups with no relevence.

I set followups to talk.abortion.  If he appears in these groups again,
it's not my fault.

<1992Sep10.001437.16206@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><1992Aug31.203930.17405@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>[Religious information not relevant to talk.abortion, deleted.] 
>
>>I wonder if Suzanne and Chaney are buying their tickets.  They should
>>have gone to the Watsonville sighting, it would have been cheaper air
>>fare.  Maybe they're waiting for a "private" visitation...
>
>Gordon Storga obviously can't read and his electronic reader was
>broken on those days when I posted that the Church and I go on wildly
>separate ways. 

I saw your denial of following church teachings.  I haven't seen you deny
being a Catholic.  You admitted to me that you were a Catholic which makes
the BVD relevent to you.

>Is your electronic reader fixed or will I have to tell you again one
>day? 

You can "tell me" til you turn blue in the face (please).  You still
haven't denied claiming to be a Catholic.  Until you do Catholic issues
and icons will be seen as relevent to your life.

>>It must seem to a lot of people that I only listen for BVM news (I
>>assure you I am not interested in thousand year old virgins), but I
>>just happen to be listening to KCBS (local station) for traffic reports
>>when these little tidbits come across.  Yeah, lucky me.
>
>More religious slurs. Damn, we can find these little slurs just about
>anywhere. 

Could you please point out the slur you think you see.  Oh and please tell
us why you believe it to be a slur.  I see nothing but fact in my
statements.

>Maybe you're a closet follower of Scott Roby or the Church of Bob. Who
>knows? 

You obviously know very little.

[Chaney's 17 line signiture deleted]

Isn't he a kick folks?  Were going to try and see if we can make him sing
and dance too.


Gordon
-- 
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: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:52:21 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep11.175555.41443@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes: 

>I think it's about both.  There's a definite semantic difference; in the
>first case, a portion of anatomy is being referred to by a slang expression,
>while in the second, the person is being referred to by that expression.
>I see the second as being worse than the first.  The fact that I interpret
>one as being worse than the other is why I point out that the rephrasing
>is incorrect, and makes it sound worse than it was.

Agreed.  I read your first response to the incorrect characterization
of the actual exchange in my first post to say that the former did not
reflect on the speaker.  I do not agree with this.  I agree it
reflects less negatively than the latter, but I think both are
inappropriate.  I believe a line is crossed when one brings up
demographic characteristics of an individual to insult them.  Whether
they are delimited to particular parts of the anatomy or not, they
characterize the entire person and, more importantly to my judgment of
their inappropriateness, they characterize a whole class of persons.
I have a problem with this.  I bring this up with respect to
statements about Chaney just as I have brought it up with respect to
statements by Chaney.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 22:50:21 GMT

In <Bu37tD.610.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715645080@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <Bu14nJ.LK.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#
>##In article <1992Sep02.233517.35825@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>#
>##[massive deletions]
>#
>###Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
>###of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
>###veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
>###"pro-abortion organization".
>#
>##DOD never answered this, did he?
>#
>##I wonder why.
>#
>##Susan
>#
>#I don't know why, but seeing as how you've dismissed every single one
>#of my sources (even pro-choice ones like Janice Raymond and Luhra Tivis)
>#as propaganda, you certainly have no cause for complaint.

>I have yet to see your quotes from either of these women.  I
>don't know who they are, and I have only your word as to
>what their stand is on legal abortion.

But you dismissed anything I may quote from Luhra Tivis as
propaganda.  In advance of seeing any of it.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: control
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:57:21 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  <88947@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
> Eric
>
> >So, Kevin, are you going to apologize to all the rape victims that
> >you insulted in the above post?
>
> Hey, Eric.  What is your problem?  Are you just plain stupid?  Or ignorant?
> First you misconstrue my response (which was just another way of saying
> abstinence - with no reference intended whatsoever to rape); then you ask
> me to apologize to raped women for congratulating a woman for getting pregnant.
>
> I see you enjoy throwing my words back at me.  But since you are having a
> little trouble understanding my statements, I'll spell then out for you.
>
> Number one, abstinence is a sure way to prevent pregnancy.  I do NOT believe
> that it is any deterent to a deranged rapist.  I never said that abstinence
> had anything to do with being raped, nor did I intend it.

Hey, Kevin.  What is your problem?  Are you just plain stupid?  Or ignorant?
Since you are having a little trouble understanding, I'll spell it out for
you.  Abstinence is *not* a sure way to prevent pregnancy.  A woman can
remain abstinent, or voluntarily refraining from sex, but still become
pregnant by virtue of being the victim of rape, or involuntary sexual
intercourse.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion