HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:29:46 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

What was that article that started this thread, anyway?  Spy Magazine's
Hit List 2??

In article <1993Jan20.181004.191@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <root.727512244@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Jan19.033211.3923@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan19.023357.28403@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>[Insults directed towards various t.a. regulars. Notably, airplane
>>>>boy doesn't include me. Needless to say, I'm hurt.]
>>>>
>>>You know, I got left off the list too. I guess PHoney hasn't gotten
>>>around to telling ChaneyHall that I am actually the Anti-Christ yet. I
>>>suspect that's the next profession he'll attribute to me now that he's
>>>tried to claim I'm a practicing abortionist.

Heh.  That's nothing.  My drama teacher is a practicing thespian.  And
worse, he does it in public.

Besides, Mark, he probably left you off because of all that Layman
Repellent y'all sprayed all over the Neuroscience Forum on the
"Mark and Steve Show".  :-)

Now granted, I've only been here a week, but I like to think I made SOME
impact here - where was my name??  C'mon, you can find SOMETHING annoying
about me.  Am I too wordy?

>>He didn't get me in this list, either.  HEY!  WAIT A MINUTE!  You can't be
>>the Anti-Christ!  See, I read this book that says he's, nah, never mind.
>>You wouldn't believe it if I told you...;-)  Safe to say, he's not you...;-)
>>
>It's easy to convince me that I'm not the Anti-Christ. It might be a
>bit harder to convince the DODie/PHoney type of idiot though.
>Besides, wouldn't the Anti-Christ sort of *have* to believe in a god?
>I don't think I qualify on that one point alone....

We'll clear this up right quick.  I'll pray to Christ, telling Him we got,
oh, some tax collectors settin' up in the neighborhood church.  Meanwhile,
Mark, you and Steve Adams hide behind the door, and when He comes in, you
both touch him.  If one of you IS the Anti-Christ, you'll be converted to
pure energy....

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Interesting Point
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:07:43 GMT

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>> 
>>> [the "choice" wordplay]
>
>>p2: are you talking about all those EVIL NASTY
>>folks who do not wish to 
>
>>	2.1: Have State Sponsored Religious Institutions?
>
>        Too late, Attended a required meeting for all "candidates" to the
>        school of education, to hear a new-age psychologists talk to us
>        about education being a spiritual experiance.  Sounds like some
>        type of religion to me.

Funny, how fundamentalist-types jump all over themselves to call
everything "religion."  Any right-wing Christian worth her salt should
be able to point to six scientific references in which a Scientist makes
a remark like "believing in evolution is like a religion."  She will
then draw the conclusion that we should forbid it in school.  Science is
religion!  Computers are a religion!  Education is a religion!

But when you point out that Satan-worshippers don't get to put up their
religious icons in the park come Christmastime, they suddenly get all
uppity!  The word "religion" has a pretty flexible meaning, depending on
who's using it, eh?

But I digress.  Was this "spiritual experience" stuff taught to
schoolkids, Craig?  No?  What was your point, exactly?

>>	2.2: Support Racist Segregationalist Policies
>>	masking themselves as "educational alternatives"?????
>
>    When public schools 1. Teach on the morality of
>    Homosexuality (rather than the principal of treating all equal)

The teachings you're referring to, I believe, are exactly that:  that
homosexuals are people too, and should be treated equally.  (Roughly.)

And at my school, our principal sure didn't treat anyone equally.
Boy, did he ever go easy on the brown-nosers.  He sure wasn't a man
of principle.

>    3.  Ban all prayer(Kids will always
>    pray, so banning it won't help, we need prayer education classes!,
>    gee the argument sounds different when we use prayer rather than sex.)

Hm.  Let's see.  "Kids shouldn't be allowed to pray in school."  "Kids
shouldn't be allowed to have sex in school."  Nope, seems fine to me.

You lost me again.  What was your point?

>        I have a problem with that, so what are my "CHOICES".

Send your kid to a private school!
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "Vegetarians always ask about getting enough protein.  But I don't know any
  nutrition expert that can plan a diet of natural foods resulting in protein
  deficiency, so long as you're not deficient in calories."     - N. Pritikin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
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, 24 Jan 93 21:28:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.164230.23254@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.052258.14213@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.012006.20871@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>>>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her 
>>>>>that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>>>>made such a statement. Or retract it.
>>>
>>>Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
>>>abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
>>>cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.
>>>
>>No Kebbin. Work on your reading skills. He quite specifically is
>>talking about an abortion performed during a full term labor.
>
>That falls under "at any time", does it not?
>
Back to living ini your fantasy world again, aren't you Kebbin? or is
this just another attempt by you to argue in favor of abortion
restrictions? Certainly, at any time means exactly that. is this a
problem? No, since the rest of us don't live in a fantasy land where
peopel delude themselves into thinking that abortions are performed
for trvial reason in the late term, or that people seek abortion while
they're actually in labor.
Care to address the parts you so-cleverly delted? You know, the parts
where I asked for documentation on:
1 - Documentation that any pro-choicer has advocated an abortion
during labor.
2 - Documentation that any woman has ever asked for an abortion after
starting labor.
3 - Documentation that an elective abortion has ever been performed
during labor.

Are you going to address this? Or sqiurm away via one of your little
semantic quibbles? BTW, since you seem to be in the mood to insit on
correct word choice, are you now ready to admit that schizophrenia is
not the correct word choice when one actually means multiple
personality disorder? You can't have it both ways Kibble. Either stick
to the same standards you try to hold others to, admit your error, or
admit you are a hypocrite.

--
                  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,news.admin.policy
From: irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:48:21 GMT

As a shareholder in Kodak, and hence (part of) the ultimate 
authority and employer at the company, I thought I should share my 
perspective on this.  

1.  Kodak should immediately fire any employee who criticizes it in
public, except that the reporting of a crime or suspected crime to
a law enforcement agency shall not constitute public criticism.

2.  Any use of company property or resources for non-company 
purposes must be purely personal and not for a side-business, 
another affiliation (even if charitable or religious), etc., and 
additionally must be with permission.  (Typical suitable examples 
are printing your family's annual holiday letter to friends and 
relatives and copying your personal tax return.)  Violation is
grounds for dismissal, but any penalty may be waived if the person
involved can convince his supervisors either that the violation was
unintentional due to a reasonable misunderstanding of the rules or
that it's in the company's interest to keep him on because of his
otherwise superior job performance and promise not to repeat it.

3.  Such use is on an employees own time, not company-paid time.

I hope Kodak will be generous in sharing these resources with the
employees, because they are part of the Kodak family, but I also
hope Kodak will be harsh on any abuse, and especially on anyone who
erroneously thinks that disloyalty to the family is tolerable.  It
is not, except, as I said, in the case of an actual or suspected
crime to law enforcement authorities (not the press).
-- 
 Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x101
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399   fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.   NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20.  Send POSTAL addrs: Solid-Value@Happy-Man.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58229 misc.legal:23424 alt.abortion.inequity:6748 alt.child-support:4705 soc.men:23364 soc.women:23126
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: TheNews 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:58:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.164230.23254@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.052258.14213@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.012006.20871@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
Cobb) writes:
>>>>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>>>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her

>>>>>that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>>>>made such a statement. Or retract it.
>>>
>>>Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
>>>abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
>>>cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.
>>>
>>No Kebbin. Work on your reading skills. He quite specifically is
>>talking about an abortion performed during a full term labor.
>
>That falls under "at any time", does it not?
>
>							- Kevin
>
Kevin -

Aren't you aware of the latest varient of BA, "QBA".  That's Qualified Bodily
Autonomy. Consistancy takes a back seat - so what else is new? (Sarcasm
intended).

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:26:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.213641.11219@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.153318.10342@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.090739.1885@netcom.com> 
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Conan the Grammarian) writes:
>>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>>>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>>>>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>>>>>   steralized to enter school."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>>>>>>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>>
>>>>> I still don't agree with it, but suddenly Mark's suggestion doesn't seem
>>>>> quite as severe, or as offensive.  
>>
>>>> I don't know why it sounds better to you.  I think both ideas
>>>> are equally disgusting. 
>>
>>> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?
>>
>>No, I don't believe that people should be forced to have sexual
>>intercourse against their will.  Rape is a crime, and I'd like
>>it to stay that way.  
>> 
>Which of course is merely your way of wriggling away from the direct
>question DODie. Pregnancy is reversable, and yet you support forcing
>women to remain pregnant, don't you?

So, have we already established that Keith's mandatory sterilization
position is at least EQUALLY as pro-force as Doug's presumed mandatory
continuation-of-pregnancy position?

Or have the Cochran twins (joined at the asshole) managed to obfuscate the 
issue enough to patch up the latest yawning crevice in Brother Keith's 
pro-choice facade? 

First an abortion restriction, now this. How long before you show your
_true_ colors, eh, Keith?

							- Kevin

"...Kevin is now going to franticcally scurry along until her can find a
 10+ month old article from me where I said that I would support some
 legislative stuff wrt abortion.  And last year, I did."
				Keith A. Cochran, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu
				Sun, 31 May 92 03:50:15 GMT
				<1992May31.035015.28326@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:47:43 GMT

> = (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (craig sivils) writes:

>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>>private or public of their choice.

>>Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
>>dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
>>PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.

>Well, you aren't spending YOUR tax money on PRIVATE schools.  

However, Craig's point *was* about using tax money for private schools,
and was what I was answering. 

>See, I can capitalize WORDS in the middle OF sentences TOO.

*I'm* impressed.  Is there anything else you can do?  

>We're spending public money on education for students.

Very good so far.

>That they go to private schools is
>irrelevant, since you're paying for the education, not the school. 

Same thing.  If that private school "education" includes religious
bullshit, racial bigotry and exclusion, or such other weirdness, then 
that is EXACTLY what I fear about school "vouchers" for private schools.

If such crap is part of ANY school curriculum, private or public, then
it has no business being supported by taxpayer money.

>Or do you complain about those Pell grants to students attending private
>universities?

Good point that I can't answer.  I hope that Pell grants are awarded to
private universities, which universities satisfy basic criteria
eliminating religious indoctrination or racial hatred such as Bob Jones
University.

If not, then I do indeed have the same objection to Pell grants.

>>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
>>should pay for religious instruction...

>Now this, I'm a little less happy about...



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:22:11 GMT

ohoward@matt.ksu.ksu.edu  writes:

> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> 
> >     Most of the condemnation 
> >     comes from the Apostles, esp. Paul (who, it has been 
> >     hypothesized, may have been gay himself.)  
> 
> Yep, but hypothesizing don't make it so.

Ah, so why the hypothesizing about abortion, especially
     when there are no passages in the Bible condemning 
     the act?  If there are, please specify (oh, and I
     do mean real passages, not ones you *think* 
     condemn abortion.)

> Todd
> -- 
>  "The statistics on death are in, and they're pretty convincing.  One out
>   of every one people die."   -Unknown
> 
> Todd O. Howard (ohoward@matt.ksu.edu)

SRM
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:21:48 GMT

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

> You forgot Muriel's immortal words descibing the unborn's use of a
> woman's "body as its sewage system"

So where do the bodily wastes of a z/e/f go?  Does the z/e/f keep
a garbage bag handy and then pack out his/her trash during birth?

I think you're still bitter about how your comment about Muriel
boomeranged on you.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:24:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.220659.25439@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <C0MyzH.Bxv@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>
>>Further, if abortion is not a medical issue, why should the taxpayer, whose
>>religious morals disagree with abortion have to pay through the state for
>>abortions?
>
>Because it's far more economically-efficient than paying for the resultant
>welfare, etc. of all those unwanted children. If you want to take the taxes 
>you save, and use them to provide healthy happy homes for unwanted children, 

Indeed, I have provided a home for one such child - my oldest son is adopted
and we would have adopted more had abortion not come along and made it
difficult to do so. We did discuss going off-shore to find a child but
decided to keep it as is given the problems inherent in doing so. There are
families without children who would galdly give homes to these children.
What are we doing - cutting off future potential contributions to society
including our future CPP and Old Age Pensions for these children would have
contributed to those when we are ready to retire.

Note, I did not say that I did not want my tax dollars to go to abortion - I
asked about the one who declines on moral/religious grounds and it seems to
me they have that right even if there are people like you who would deny
them that right.
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Holtsinger: offspring of Kaldis & Chaney
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:43:06 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan26.152333.8373@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu writes:
|Gosh, CJ, I didn't realize you enjoyed my posting from alt.flame
|so much. 

Gosh, Holtsie, I don't read alt.flame.  Perhaps you should
start checking your newsgroups line before you post.  

|I think I'll start posting there more often, and e-mail
|you my posts so that you can re-post them here in talk.abortion.
|How does that sound to you?  

Well, Holtsie, it sounds like email harassment & terrorism to
me.  If you do any such thing, I'll be in contact with your
system administrators.  Consider that a warning.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Not only are you obviously a boring conservative twit with sexual 
dysfunctions beyond the dreams of analysis, but also the proud possessor 
of a one track mind that just keeps going and going..." --Rebecca Ching
on David Rasmussen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:05 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <C1D6qo.8rv@cs.psu.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:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>You've restated the problem, not answered it.
>
>In case A there is no child.
>In case B there is a child.
>
>If there is no child to support, there can be no child support.

Okay, now suppose:

Man C with woman E, condom breaks, E aborts;  another woman C aborts.
Man D with woman E, condom breaks, E aborts;  another woman D has child.


The law states that any man must support the child of a woman
who shares his last name.

Man C must not pay woman C;   man D must pay woman D;
the two men have acted identically.


Your "answer" explains that this law is fair and just:

 If there is no child to support, there can be no child support.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion