HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:22:12 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and
>history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the
>preborn.  

And the life of the woman means nothing, except in that it may affect
the life of the "preborn".  After all, the woman is just currently 
"predead" anyway.

But I'm glad to see you come right out and say that you are not willing
to take responsibility for the consequences of the legislation you support.
It must be nice to be able to load the gun, take the safety off, pull the
trigger halfway - and then hand the gun to someone else and say "I'm not
in any way responsible for what he chooses to do with it."

>The Willke's could make a lot more money supporting abortion than opposing
>it.  

Oh nosense.  This is as silly as saying "You can make a lot more money
by being Republican than Democrat."  There's plenty of money on both
sides of the issue, and the Willkes are hardly living in abject poverty.

>When you are looking at these things, always ask yourself "where is
>the money going?".  

Yes, indeedy.  How sorry I am that I lost a paper I once had that listed
the organizations that were financially linked with Operation Rescue.
Not just religious orgnaizations and right-wing political committees,
but a host of other right-wing causes, like an anti-gun control lobby
and an organization that fought the ERA and other women's rights initiatives.

Much as you'd love to spread the myth that anti-abortion activists are
all poor, simple folk who have given up their material possessions to
devote their lives to a cause they believe in, the truth is that there
are large, well-funded anitabortion organizations who maintain nice
office suites and pay salaries to their officers, and their agenda goes
far beyond "saving babies".  In fact, before starting Operation Rescue,
Randall "Satan" Terry was unemployed, living in a trailer, and depending
on the income of his wife and her parents to survive.  Then the donations
started rolling in, and now he has a nice house and offices.

So please don't try and sell me on the idea that there's more money in
being pro-choice than antiabortion.  The doctors at Planned Parenthood are
hardly getting rich.

>Abortion is big business.  

Do show us your stats on this.

>Anti-abortion is break-even business if you are lucky.  

Wring, very wrong.  Like any political movement, anti-abortion has the
potential to make it's leaders rich.  The movement is hardly starving
for money, what with the Catholic church devoting millions of dollars
to the cause.

>Edward Simmonds

I know you're young and eager, but do try to have more than pamphlets 
to back you up when you decide to come riding in with guns blazing.

             -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54118 talk.politics.misc:66214
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:47:29 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>I'm no legal expert, so I must query: Is that really the philosophy behind
>capital punishment?  It seems to be your philosophy, but is it a prevalent
>legal doctrine?  I ask because I note that the Declaration of Independence
>asserts the existence of "inalienable rights" and, according to the (oh no!)
>dictionary, "inalienable" means "that may not be taken away or transferred".

Hmmm, perhaps they could be forfeited by violating the similar lights of
another person?  (at least I *think* that's the origin of the philosophy of
our legal system)

>Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: That Garvin list, Woodyatt off, Demetrio [sic] on.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:04:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.144404.24143@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
#In article <nyikos.726159529@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
#nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#
##Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
###nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#
###But if you're making a list, checking it twice, I'd be honored to make it
###on as a fan of Susan Garvin's rigorousness and sincerity (if not always of
###her sentiments).

Thank you.  The sentiment, in this case, is mutual.

##I'll check the list as often as necessary.  As of now, it goes:

I guess PHoney has redefined his list to be people who appreciate
my rigorousness and sincerity, given that he's included Suzanne
Lucia.  Wow.  I don't really believe this is true of the entire list,
of course.  I doubt that everyone on it even knows who I am.
PHoney should refer to it as the list of people who aren't
as afraid of me as he is. 

##Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
##Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  [...]  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
##Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
##Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga, Eric Marsh, Galen Hekhuis ...
##
## [...]
##
##not to mention:
##
##Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
##rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham   Suzanne-lucia Demetrio
#
#Why the gender separation, Nyikos?  Will you make us sit at separate
#tables at the fan club party?  Or are the women just B-list?

He doesn't seem to want to answer this question, Suzanne Lucia.

####If I did, my apologies.  
##
###To whom?  Susan Garvin, or me?
##
##To you, of course.  I think your testimony just now obviates the need
##for any apology on my part, but if anyone disagrees, hey, I'll gladly
##apologize to her too.
#
#I think that you should apologize to Susan Garvin.

I won't accept an apology from Nyikos until he apologizes to
Adrienne for falsely accusing her of forgery.  His apologies tend
to blame everyone else but him (remind you of anyone?), in
any case.  

## Subject: That Garvin list, Woodyatt off, Demetrio on
## to the post of Ms. Demetrio
## Obviously Ms. Demetrio
#
#I have an oddly-spelled surname, too, Nyikos.  Please do me the kindness
#of getting it right.  Demitrio.

Oh, he's very forgiving of spelling errors that he makes.  He
will, of course, flame other people for typos.  

Nyikos will probably claim that he never saw your reply.  He has
a magic news server that crashes whenever he wants it to.  

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:01:16 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> >Kevin, in the common parlance of t.a, you are a hypocritical lying
-> >twit. Since you consider common parlance to be sufficiently accurate
-> >for this forum, then you will, of course, stop trying to deny the
-> >labels you have been given, correct?
-> 
-> This is about the flimsiest, most contrived excuse I've ever seen to get
-> in some cheap name-calling. Very disappointing, Mark. Surely you can do
-> better than that.
-> 
-> The opinions of a few idiots on t.a about Kevin Darcy doesn't constitute 
-> "common parlance", Mark. The very notion is absurd.

don't be so modest, kebbie. i believe you're the
sole remaining person still posting who has been
elected to a lifetime term on the council of
net.idiots. your reputations spans newsgroups.
you're famous. takecredit where credit is due
kebbie. there are many idiots on the net. but you're
an elected net.idiot.




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:16:34 GMT

In <1993Jan8.024402.11409@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.013330.3014@netcom.com> 
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):

>>>>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.

>>>>> Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

>>>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>>>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....

>>> But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

Not really, I do it all the time. It usually brings instant rest to
my dear wife, cause it causes me to stop snoring. :-)
It called (mumble) apnea, or something.

>> (1) Hold your breath for ten seconds.  Did you die instantly?

>She said "ceasing to breath" as in "permanent cessation", not
>"temporary cessation".  It may not bring instant death, but
>it's close enough for horse-shoes and hand grenades.

I really hate to do a Dan Quayle, but the verb is breathe. Breath is
the noun. I was going to let it pass, but this one won't seem to die.
Nor is there any inference of permanence in the definition of
cease.


>>Brian Kendig                             


>Doug Holtsinger

REB

I'll probably hate myself in the morning :-P

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:39:00 GMT

In article <lefty-211292095148@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.211554.16596@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <lefty-181292163351@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith
>> >Ramsay) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
>> >> better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
>> >> other to be bad characters, no?
>> >
>> >You're new here, aren't you?
>> 
>> But apparently not so new that he can't recognize how counter-productive
>> all this ad hominem garbage tends to get.
>
>My gosh, you're absolutely right, Kevin.  For instance, there was some
>pasrticularly egregious asshole a while back who called Susan Garvin a
>"lying bitch" with a "gargantuan...ego."
>
>Wait a second.  That was _you_, wasn't it, Kevin?

That remark was posted by me to alt.flame, Lefty, and subsequently dredged
up, against my wishes, into talk.abortion. 

Now, what was your point again?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:22:53 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan4203908@lampasas.is.rice.edu> patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.190129.13383@bsu-ucs> 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>
>   How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?
>
>Not me -- I already *have* a life, thankyouverymuch...

How many are going to OPPOSE the March for Life? I'm interested.

Lost Boy
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:42:51 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan8.220222.27916@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
by sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson):
>> In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com>
>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>> [Deletions]

>>>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>>for more than a few years.

> A commentary on the relative value of human life.  Some will
> respond to the implications of comparing "healthy person"
> with "AIDS patient".  My opinion of the statement, regardless
> of the political content of the people being weighed:
> 	1. Sad.
> 	2. Sick.
> 	3. Frightening.
> 
> Have a nice day.

Uh-oh.  Heh.  Looks like I have some apologizing to do.  I just
read a post by Mr. Pundurs in which he maintains that his
statement above was made for the purpose of illustrating
perceived absurdity in someone else's statement, long since
deleted.  My comments above are therefore somewhat meaningless
(even though they're still technically correct :-).

Sorry, Mark.  I shouldn't have been so hasty.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:12:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.162045.18984@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.142319.12078@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}I have never argued affirmatively for restrictions on abortion, Mark. 
>}Deal with it as best you can.
>
>Then what do you call your lecture to rocker about anticipating problems
>rather than putting out fires?  

It was a mini-discourse on the perceived/possible value of preventitive 
legislation. Nowhere in it did I support any restrictions. Fer christ's sake, 
I was so abstract in that article, I didn't even IDENTIFY any particular 
restriction(s), so how the hell could I have "supported" any? 

Do you believe everything that Keegan tells you, without even bothering to 
check out the facts for yourself, Galen? 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Distribution: usa
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:39:38 CST

In article <C0GEnt.E5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.143250.8078@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
>writes:
>>In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
>Townsend) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan4.205628.11758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>|> In article <1ia3g9INN4nb@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
>Townsend) writes:
>>>|> >
>>>Ergo, the right to live is contingent upon where one lives and receives one's
>>>nourishment.  Hitler couldn't have said it better.
>>>
>>Ergo, a woman's body is just a place.
>>And you'll probably think I'm a 'bitter person' if I
>>point out the inherent misogyny in that POV.  But you
>>_do_ get extra points for comparing a pro-choicer with
>>H_____.  For more extra credit, you should reinforce
>>your credentials by posting your SAT scores.
>>
>Muriel - 
>I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
>doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  

I thought that's _just_ what you've been doing.

>                                                    If the unborn has some
>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>mother's value?  At best, you can only conclude that the mother's inherent
>value outweighs that of the fetus - one factor may be that the unborn is inside
>her.  

You noticed!  Not just 'may be', though.
It is an inherent condition of fetal existence that it _is_
inside a woman.  She's just as much a person as you are, and
has just as much right to say how her body may be used as you
do.  If you look at the fetus and you think its situation
justifies the automatic remaval of rights from women, you don't
value women as much as I do.

>     For me, in some cases, say where the mother's life is threatened, this
>may be sufficient.  

This magnanimous concession is little comfort to me.
There is always a nonzero risk of death for the woman.

>                    To say 'he call my uterus a place, that woman hater!' is
>hyperbole.

No.  Actually, I'd call it active listening.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Suzzie gets confused about sex...
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 16:37:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.015119.223@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1993Jan8.235442.10422@ncsu.edu>,
>by dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>> In article <1993Jan8.230127.21550@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>>> Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.
>
>>>> Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
>>>> Or how 'bout best man?
>
>>> Despite your evident confusion about your sexual status, it is safe to
>>> say you could not be "best" man or woman.
>>> If your current sex is still in doubt, I suggest you check your mucus
>>> again. That always seems to reassure you.
>
>> Hey Steve Matheson!  Here's an excellent example of the pro-choice
>> game of "enrage the opposition" that I was talking about.   Ms. Forgach
>> makes some innocent comments, and right out of the blue, Mark Cochran
>> blithers out some trash and insults!  Of course, she'll get hammered
>> for being "wicked" if she responds with even the smallest flame.
>
>Mark's comment was crude and obnoxious.  
Thanks, it was intended to be. :)

>I detect, however, that it
>was also context-specific.  I note (and perhaps you do too) that I've
>been debating Mark in a branch of the "Spoken like a true prolifer"
>thread for days now.  The only way I could get him to flame me was
>to *ask* him to -- at which point he invented a special insult just
>for me [beaming, bursting with pride].
>
I'm going to make me a bumbersticker, sort of like those "I brake for
<x>" things...
"I Flame Twits For Fun"

>I'm left to wonder whether there's something magically mesmerizing
>about my posts that leads sinister, bloodthirsty thugs like Mark
>Cochran to degenerate into polite milquetoasts -- or whether folks
>like Suzanne are just demonstrating the truth of the Bible:
>One reaps what one sows.
>
Indeed. Intelligent discourse begets intelligent discourse. 
Idiocy begets flamage.
That's simple enough, right?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:52:55 GMT

parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>>Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
>>In article <1992Dec28.200350.23162@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian 
>>Kendig) writes:
>>> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>>> 
>>> >If you wish to nit-pick, be consistent yourself and recognize both 
>>"Pro-Choice"
>>> >and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate 
>>labels
>>> >"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.
>>> 
>>> Ah, yes, this debate again...
>>> 
>>> Yeah, let's do away with euphemisms!  Tell me, are you
>>> "pro-open-heart-surgery" or "anti-open-heart-surgery"? ...

>>(Flippant response)

>>> _/_/_/  Brian Kendig  

>>John - You've called a spade a spade.  Obviously Brian can't sleep with 
>>the pro-abortion label on his head.  Don't be suckered-in to this clap 
>>trap word game.
>>> -- 

>The problem is, there is a bit of a difference between "pro-choice" and
>"pro-abortion".  "pro-abortion" holds that abortion is not wrong.  "pro-choice"
>holds that abortion is wrong, but not so wrong that people should not be
>allowed to do it.

>There is also a slight difference between "anti-abortion" and "pro-life".
>Maybe someone from that side of the fence could describe it better, but here's
>my attempt:  "pro-life" holds that abortion is wrong.  "anti-abortion" holds
>that abortion is so wrong it should be absolutely illegal.  (Most "pro-life"
>are actually "anti-abortion", I would think, but "pro-life" need not advocate
>legal measures; they could be speaking "morally".)

>Of course, that is only my interpretation of "pro-life" vs "anti-abortion".
>Someone from that side may have a better distinction.

>>- Paul

>-Rob


To label me as anti-abortion is accurate, but not the most accurate.  
Pro-life means that I consider life to be the single most basic and
fundamental right of existance.  Not only do I oppose abortion, but I
support standards and policies of morality which seek to improve people's
lives after birth.  Pro-life means that I don't think it is up to anyone
to decide for anyone ELSE what a "meaningful life" means, or to
decide if that person has the "potential" for "meaninful life".

Are not all other rights moot if one is not alive to enjoy them?


Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -

P. S. Everyone watch while I get reamed for this... "improving life by
forcing women to be slaves? You hypocrite, etc..."



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:03:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.185215.12992@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".

> She is now claiming that Ms. Garvin is a lesbian.
>
> Now, I don't know if this is true, since (contrary to what
> PHoney claims) I don't know Ms. Garvin at all, except from her posts
> here. But if it's not, I'd say we've got a fine case of libel going on
> here...

What do you find libelous about falsely labeling someone as being
a lesbian?  Do you believe there's something wrong with someone 
who's a lesbian, Cochran?  


>Mark Cochran


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion