HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Time to toast the twit...
Organization: Patrick, Dale Ann, and his Claymore mine
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:41:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202811.16719@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <Bw0Eq2.2H0@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>><BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) :
>>>>...
>>>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>>>
>>>>We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
>>>>get you to your god that much faster. :-)
>>>>
>>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>>>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.
>>
>>Funny, I'm one of those "PC" people you rant about, and I've never felt
>>*any* book should be burned.  That seems to be more the province of you
>>folks who scream about how "liberals" should be suppressed, or silenced, or
>>somehow neutralized, for the "good of society".  The pro-choice contingent,
>>in general, aren't the ones advocating throwing the Constitution out the
>>window to get rid of those nasty little annoyances like the first ten
>>Amendments that keep you from doing what you *really* want to do to those
>>who don't agree with you...
>>
>You seem to be afraid of a science fiction novel that is still being
>worked on.  Now, repeat after me, "It's only a story, It's only a story"....
>For now, anyway :)

I'm not afraid of any book, even one as badly thought-out as yours -- this
is a free society, remember?  Letting people see for themselves what you
want to do to them should they not blindly follow your "ideal" will provide
a pretty quick cure to your delusions of adequacy...

--PLH (just remember the words of that other Booth...)

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:39:01 GMT

In <yp1zglh@rpi.edu>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
   (rocker) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>> That's right, Susan, we are the bad guys and you are the good guys.
>> You have the high moral ground and we are the harbingers of hate 
>> and evil.  Isn't it wonderful to be involved in such an altruistic 
>> movement?  
>
> Isn't it wonderful to be able to post by computer so that you
> can be as nasty and condescending to women as you want without 
> running the risk of being slapped?  

How would you characterize it when I argue with Jim Keegan or 
Steve Novak?  Believe it or not, I realize that these people
are *not* women, yet I don't alter my style simply because of
their gender.  Maybe you could explain that?  Perhaps your silly
inference is related to some antiquated belief that men should
"go easy" on women.  Perhaps you have a double standard.  BTW, 
do you think women should be able to slap men without concern 
that they'll be slapped right back?

> Looks like these broads are really pissing you off, eh Overpeck?  

Broads?  You surprise me.  I don't use such nomenclature.

> Perhaps we should all swear off our computers and go settle down 
> with a good man? But of course, _you_ would never be one to mutter 
> "all she needs..."

If you want to insist on gender martyrdom here, that's up to you.
It certainly is a convenient issue for you (et al) to hide behind.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:03:11 GMT

(Little Kenny Hamer) foolishly writes:
->(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>legislation wasn't the issue. force was. see?

first, he seems to grasp it. but then .....

->Well, if you want the issue to be force, than the issue is force

->On that note, the exact issue was:  Did or did not Kevin Darcy say
->somthing to the effect of "it would be justifiable to force the woman to
->continue the pregnancy."  And in that wonderful excerpt from these huge
->archives you apparently have, there was no mention of forcing a woman to
->continue the pregnancy.

no you silly git; the issue was force. force. force.

whether kebbie would force a woman to abort, or force
her to carry to term is not the issue. the issue is
that he would force her to do something against her
will.

->Only two types of force were mentioned in Keith's excerpt:

right. force.

->Legislative force to force an abortion, and financial force to give up the
->child.  

right. force.

->But no mention of forcing a woman to continue her pregnancy.

how much force do you want, little kenny?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: To Bruce, who can't help but rant and rave
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:08:34 GMT


Bruce,

Unfortunately the system to which I subscribe only keeps articles around
for three days, and your 'reply' was lost before I could respond.  However,
I see that more than enough people have responded to your shouting, ranting,
raving, and general misbehaviour.

Shame on you, for being such a bad little boy.  By putting on your little
tirade, you have insulted your 'cause' forever.  But then I'm not surprised.
Sooner or later all of you pro-forced-birthers resort to name-calling
and emotional rantings.  You just can't help yourself.  You have no real
arguement, and when pressed for an answer for which you are unable to
provide, you have no choice but to act as you have.

I would also like to thank you for showing us, once and for all, the
true nature of you pro-'lifers'; you have once again demonstrated that
you have absolutely no respect for life once birth has occurred, and even
less respect for people who disagree with you.  Tell me, do you only
treat net-folks like this, or do you not work and play well with others
in general?

And, finally, I want to thank you for reminding me to double my
contribution to Planned Parenthood and NOW this year.

Adios,
Jennifer
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:28:53 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct6.221308.16445@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
|> >Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
|> >Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
|> 
|> Sanctimonious hypocrite.  Why don't you give all of your money to save
|> the lives of people who are starving?  After all, getting an
|> education, reading t.a., watching TV, and the like are also just
|> "social" reasons.  Do _your_ social reasons take precedence over human
|> life?

	This is a particularly ignorant posting from Ray...he must have smoking
some bad dope or something...
	Ray, neither Martin nor I nor anybody else proposes that we all are
responsible for the health and safety of all other human beings on earth.  But if
I particularly bring a human being into this world, THEN I am responsible for the
life and safety of that person.  You've been involved in this argument for a long
time; you should know better than to say something like what you said above.

|> >The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
|> >out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
|> >whatever.  
|> 
|> Unmitigated bullshit.  To suggest that there are, or ever have been,
|> embryonic pianists is too ridiculous a claim for even this forum.

	Martin is right.  You have missed his point entirely, whether
intentionally or out of ignorance I cannot tell.  Beethoven at 30 was the exact
same individual human being (biologically speaking) as Beethoven at a month after
conception.  The earlier Beethoven had the same potential to be a great musician
as the latter Beethoven.  If you deny this you're simply denying known facts.

Steve

Why settle for the lesser evil?
	Cthulhu in '92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Well, now, isn't that *SPECIAL*???
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.225743.8353@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.022422.6902@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct06.184340.113616@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Oct6.052642.26825@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Oct6.035312.9543@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
>>>> >
>>>> >I don't care if you're sick, elderly, deformed, criminal, rich, or
>>>> >poor -- if you try to violate my body against my will, I'll do
>>>> >everything I can to stop you.  If I have to kill you to stop you, then
>>
>>>> You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of
>>>> trespassing, battery, and various crimes.
>>>
>>>You avoided answering the question.
>>>
>>The question was:
>>   If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?
>>
>>To those women who are pregnant, it is their body.  However, there is 
>>another body in there too, a special human life.
>                              ^^^^^^^
>
>Gee, now it's not just "a" human life, it's a *SPECIAL* human life...
>
>Would you mind telling me what that makes the pregnant woman?
>

A very very special human being who is taking care of one of our most
precious human resources, our children.


>>
>>Why fight?  Why struggle?  Why exert control over another human body?
>
>You really _are_ clueless, aren't you?
>
>>What about sharing?  What about cooperation?
>
>What about intelligence?  What about thinking before you open your
>mouth?
>
Well what ever happened to sharing and cooperation with humans who
don't want to hurt you but instead are begging, pleeing for compassion
and mercy.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Adrienne's use of "asshole" is unwarranted
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:43:29 GMT

In <nyikos.718309756@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>I hope Keith Cochran does not get involved in this one.  Let's keep it
>between Adrienne and Martin, shall we?  {Now do you see why I changed
>threads?}

Well, this is a public forum.  It's actually open to anyone who cares to
post in the ENTIRE WORLD.  Who appointed you referee, anyway?
						Beth

-- 
"This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
	-Arthur Dent, on being told that the Earth is about to blow up.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:01:14 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes ...
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>If it were Guerrero who was at risk, he'd probably understand.
>>>Since it's some hypothetical woman, he could care less.
>>
>>Why choose death for both human individuals when both can be alive and
>>well?
>
>Given the infant mortality rate, and the rate of deaths from childbirth,
>there is NO guarantee that they will both be 'alive' let alone 'well.'
>
>====> Conception does not guarantee a healthy, live child. <====

Furthermore, prenatal care and chilbirth is going to cost at least
$10,000.  Plus the cost of raising the child to self-sufficiency will
probably cost another $250,000.  There has been a notable lack upon
either Mr. Guerrero's or any other pro-lifer's to help out with a
significant part of this expense.  The usual refrain has been "well
she got pregnant so she should pay."

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Rich Lee is an idiot
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:40:36 GMT

In article <exukjb.282.718222974@exu.ericsson.se>
exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.152344.1261@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
>f_williams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>In article <Bv49L3.FtD@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>,
>>rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:K> 

>>> I'm a baby worshiper.  That may be but look.  We are talking about a
>>> life that will be born if we no NOTHING.  If the mother continues and
>>> has no abortion the baby will be born.  When you RIP it from her womb
>>> that is murder.  You are cutting it's throat for all intensive purposes. 
>>> So how can you justify 9 months of inconvience for the mother with a 
>>> humans life?

>>Nine months of inconvience [sic]?  Let me tell you about my "nine months
>>of inconvenience."

[story about a hellish pregnancy deleted]

>>But how in the hell can this jerk Rich Lee say that pregnancy and birth
>>are a mere "9 months of inconvenience"?  Do my experiences sound like a 
>>trivial thing?  I lost my livelihood and my health during the pregnancy, and
>>believe me, neither of those is an "inconvenience".  How dare some creep
>>who will never face a pregnancy trivialize the amount of blood, sweat, and
>>tears that goes into creating a new life?

>>Wise up, Lee.  You've thoroughly alienated every woman in this discussion
>>group.

>But my question is, is the implication or suggestion here that *if* you 
>hadn't wanted the baby, then you would have been justified in aborting it?  
>[Is it just fortunate thing for your ten-year old that you did want it,
>the suggestion being that if you hadn't, it would have been OK not to
>carry her to term?]

>That's what I seem to be hearing from some of the women posting here.  I hope
>I'm wrong. Please advise.

Sounds like she's saying that referring to pregnancy as "nine months
of inconvenience" is as inaccurate and offensive as referring to rape
as "an unpleasant sexual experience".

I believe that a lot of pro-lifers who think that a human life
(regardless of whether or not this human has a mind) is worth just
about anything and so would be opposed to legal abortion even if they
understood how major an upheaval pregnancy can be still trivialize
pregancy so that they can pretend they aren't doing any significant
harm.

I find the tendency (present on both sides of the issue) to say "I
have the one truth and am entirely right and need give no apology for
anything" instead of admitting they're choosing the lesser of two
evils rather distressing.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
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: Sat, 17 Oct 92 02:15:07 GMT


Because Overpeck has been a bit paranoid lately, I thought that
I would publicly state that I saw no misogyny in this article.
I saw no condescension, either.  

On the other hand, I didn't see any signs of "I refuse to take
any responsibility for their behavior."  I don't think that 
Overpeck is responsible for the actions of O.R. and such groups,
of course. 


Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:44:28 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  <9535@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
> Suppose your house is a boat.  You invite someone onboard.  You go for a
> sail.  After a while you get tired of this person, so you ask him to leave.
> The problem is that you are now miles from shore.  To leave the boat is
> to die.
>
> It has been mentioned that when you ask a guest to leave and he doesn't
> this constitutes tresspass.  This is probably correct.
>
> In the above scenario, forcing the trespasser to leave will kill him.
> Do you have the right to kill this trespasser?

Support you *don't* invite them on board.  Suppose you block off the
gangplank with a big rubber sheet, and you slather the perimiter of
the boat with stowaway-icide, but he still manages to sneak abord.
Do you have any responsibility to him?  No.

Now, suppose there's a limited amount of food on board, and you don't know
if there's enough to make it back to land.  If you let the stowaway share
your food, there's a good chance both of you will starve to death.  Do you
wait and see, or do you toss him overboard in a life preserver and say
"You're on your own"?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Your Biblical Support ISN'T.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:51:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.130424.20793@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu 
(The Rink) writes:

}           In short, the person who posted these references claiming them to
}be scriptural support for abortion IS A DIRTY LIAR.

DIRTY?  Did you say dirty?  Heavens, who is this person, that we might
get some soap.  I think we might be able to clean this person up
so they tell only little white (whiter than white with the proper soap)
lies.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:48:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct8.165908.29429@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>note followup
>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes ...
>>  Please watch next time any state 
>>tries to enact things like parental notification or waiting periods 
>>which just might have the chance of reducing the numbers of abortions.
>
>And watch next time any school district tries to implement
>contraceptive availability or comprehensive sex-ed which just might
>have the chance of reducing the number of abortions.
>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche

Listen to Rush's show and you may learn that in schools where those 
were done (the object that Rush used was a school that was a pilot for 
those programs) the pregnancy rate skyrocketted.

Ted

p.s. This summer I posted a four-page, annotated report which showed 
that the many sex-ed programs are not teaching anything like what 
most people think they are.  They are teaching deviance like sex with 
animals and legal, honorable prostitution.  Are those the things that 
you want taught in public schools?


-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:01:20 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Not only does Adrienne's arrogance make her think she is above everyone
>else in the net

Pot.  Kettle.  You know the rest.

>Suzanne Forgach

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:22:15 CDT

In article <1992Oct14.005454.22989@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bw2oIo.Mz7.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>> People who support a woman's right to decide for herself on the issue of
>> abortion aren't ignoring the woman's reasons, they're accepting
>> whatever reason the woman may have.  
>
>They're saying that a woman can kill a human being as long as that
>human being resides within her body.  They completely ignore the 
>woman's actual reasons for wanting an abortion, and focus only on 
>the location of the fetus in relation to the woman.  They attempt 
>to reduce pregnant women to fetal containers. 

Not.  DOD, you are really twisting in the wind with 
this one.  Do we ask the reasons why folks want an
education before we bestow the right to obtain an
education?  Does that mean we're reducing our kids
to 'informational containers'?  READ what Ms. Garvin
is telling you.  There's a difference between ignoring
reasons, and accepting a choice for whatever reasons 
the woman might have.  The reasons for finding a
certain behavior acceptable do not have to be identical
to the motivations behind the actual behavior.
>
>> The only people who quibble
>> about which particular reason applies in a given case are those
>> who believe that women shouldn't be trusted with important
>> decisions.
>
>Women should be trusted with important decisions.  But society doesn't
>have to respect their desires to have other human beings killed.  
>
There is something about the concept of 'otherness' that
does not completely jive with the concept of 'within'.
I have a hard time accepting 'trust' if it doesn't go
far enough to allow me to make decisions which have
profound impact on my body.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: I guess Simple Simon is too obvious, huh?
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:56:11 GMT
Organization: Univ of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct16.023558.8935@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.235241.14221@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.ut
>a.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>And you think I'm being silly????      Oh- I'm looking fora modem softwa
>e
>>package with the right terminal emulation to allow actual editing of pos
>ings,
>>so eventually this problem will be solved.
>
>This is my favorite Boothism so far - somehow, the right software
>will make Booth stop being silly.
>
Above message should read :I am, in the process of gettiinal the right
modem software to enable better online editing.  The orgi

Simon
>
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41567 soc.singles:27345