HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:37:49 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>  Ahem.  Am I chopped liver? 

I thought you more resembled ground, as in pate.

>Or just not pro-life? 

I don't know, are you? Do you hold that the fetus has a sacrosanct right
to life, regardless of the woman involved, generally liberally strewed
with religious doctrine throughout?

>Or is that anti-abortion? Not-anti-choice?

Do you sit in the middle of the street going "ablke-teugh-morothro-fulle"?

>Hell, just WHOSE side am I on today...?

Probably not on Hell's.

Ron

PS - those needing smileys for this post should immediately consult
with G Gordon Liddy, he needs your support.

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32498 alt.flame:12190
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:38:53 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party
>have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position.

Mr. Holtsinger, can you cite one written (ie verifiable and credible)
source which lists pro-abortionists?  I've never heard or seen one.
I'm sure that the pro-life people out their have no intention
of forcing all couples to breed, although the same distorted
logic that leads some to call pro-choice voters "pro-abortion"
could also be used to call the pro-life "pro-forced-breeding".

Am I taking this too seriously again?  Darn it!
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 22:25:14 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
 <omq5tlo@fido.asd.sgi.com>

In article <omq5tlo@fido.asd.sgi.com> C.J. Silverio says:

>In article <1992Aug16.155304.2078@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:

>|So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't respond, it's not
>|because he's right and I don't have a defense; it's because I
>|didn't see the attack in the first place.
>
>Wise move, and one that will greatly help your peace of mind.
>That debate would be just as stupid in reruns as it was the
>first time.

It is surprising that you would oppose questioning
someone's views, particularly when that person's views
include supporting restrictive legislation, jailing
women who obtain illegal abortions and a desire for
the recognition of fetal rights.  I find it even
more surprising that you attack those arguing in
support of a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Acceptance of fetal rights in particular is, imo,
extremely dangerous.  At any stage, this would have
ramifications far beyond women obtaining abortions.
Already there have been women forced, through court
order, to under go c-sections they do not want, and
in some cases, do not need.  Women have had to fight
to keep custody of their children after taking prescribed
medications or behaving in a manner deemed unacceptable
for pregnant women.  Finally women who are not even
pregnant and using contraception have been denied
jobs in positions that are declared "unsafe for future
offspring".

All this supposedly in the name of protecting, not only
present but future, fetuses.  Surely you, of all
people, can understand the danger of accepting fetal
rights taking precedence over the woman's?

>Usenet is full of posters expert in the one-note samba, who'll
>rant and rave on their topic long after anyone else is
>interested.  Let them drone on all they want-- just refuse to
>listen.

You both certainly have the right to refuse to listen
to whomever you please.  However I appreciate seeing
that there are people willing to argue for a woman's
bodily autonomy over fetal rights any day, particularly
after reading so many posts where the woman isn't
mentioned at all.

And is there really a need to announce killfiles,
particularly more than once?  Does anyone really
care?   In my opinion the whole announcement
trend has become rather meaningless and tiresome,
especially with Chaney's killfile antics, but to
each their own.


Linda
--
"We recognize that this may infringe on the scope of jobs
 available to the individual woman, but in our judgement
 this is certainly the lesser of the two evils"
American Cyanamid, fetal protection policy memo
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:19:27 GMT

Normally I read and don't comment, BUT this is too good to pass up!
Childbirth as a suicide attempt!?! A new all-time low for "Pro-Life"!!!
In article <1992Aug20.194554.9645@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>> 
>>>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.
>> 
>> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.
>
>
>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>more beautiful way to go."
>
>She did die young, but not in childbirth.
>
>
>Suzanne Forgach
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:12:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.161402.14153@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

}My only comment Galen is:
}"Well, you aren't free to murder
}someone, are you?"

I am not disappointed...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.130408.17310@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>
>  Allow me to state that the views expressed by the very strange and sad
>Mr. Chaney in no way reflect the views of the rest of the more rational
>members of the pro-life movement, which I'm sure I fall into somewhere.
	Yeah, we know that (or at least *I* do..).  The problem is that the
twits and the ranters tend to get the most response in almost any forum due
to the sheer outrageousness of their statements.  Lots of folks know who
Randall Terry is; fewer could identify the folks behind the Common Ground
movement.
>
>  This guy is either very good at playing demented (not that it's hard)
>or he's had a *really* bad childhood.   The most I ever got for a political
>disagreement at home was a dirty look (and for all those interested in 
>the religious question, my family and I are Christians--though not fundies).
	Nearly every movement has it's lunatic fringe.  It's hard for me to
tell just how much of the pro-life movement consists of hatemongers like
Terry versus folks like yourself.  The majority of the pro-lifers I run into
on Usenet and various BBSs tend to fall into the former category, but that's
an inherently biased sample.
	In one sense, of course, it doesn't matter; the beliefs of each side
ought to be considered in isolation from the personality characteristics of
those presenting them.  Alas, it's not always so easy to separate the
messenger from the message.  And from a purely tactical political standpoint,
it's useful for one's opponents to have a lot of visibly wacko folks on
their side.  >:-)> 
>
>  We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamewar.
>
	Not much doubt about that, I'm afraid....
>semper fi,
>
>Jammer Jim Miller 
>Texas A&M University '89 and '91
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Oh, Dougie...
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:08:44 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

      [re: Roe v Wade]
>The fetus was a person and a child before that,

This statement is not correct.

                     -rocker
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:21:39 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
> ...Whether or not 
> you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
> that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
> is based solely on emotional responses of humans.  

Reproductive organs don't need to be justified. They, and the uses to which
they are put, simply ARE, whether you approve or not; the only question is
whether and/or how much you intend to PUNISH people for those particular 
uses of which you don't personally approve, and what the hell gives you the
right to do so(?)

BTW, did it ever occur to you that the scientific moniker "reproductive 
organs" is every bit as much an "emotional response" as those non-
reproductive uses you are trying to denigrate, i.e. specifically, that they
spring from a negative emotional response to non-procreative sex? Scientists 
have emotions too. And biases. 

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32093 alt.flame:12133
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Ziggy takes on the militia (was Re: hallchaney caves in
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:20:22 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug16.001053.1309@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

Ziggy's intellegence just dropped an entire digit. 

Get help, Keegmeister. 

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (The guy holding Chaney's strings)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Date: 16 Aug 1992 04:53:04 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug15.232541.4976@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
 
>
>                      What's your point?
 
You're asking *Chaney* what his point is?
Talk about boundless optimism...
 
--PLH (guess I won't be buying anything at Egghead any more)
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
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: Tue, 18 Aug 92 03:56:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.214802.21811@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[Deleted:  Suzanne claims to be able to read minds, again...]

Notice how Suzanne fails to get the clue, once again?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Summary: Get Doug a calendar. 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.195854.9353@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.181641.38727@watson.ibm.com> 
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>   "The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is,
>>>    like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part,
>>>    a product of Christianity."
>
>> Says nothing about Judaism.
>
>No, but the other source which you deleted does mention Judaism.

And they're both from the last half of THIS century -- the trouble is, since
you're talking about *early* Judeo-Christian thought, you're missing the
mark by, oh, 2000 years or so...


-- 
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. 
  * * *quintessential * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.sig!* * *
   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *warlordable* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:47:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.050615.24966@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T  
Stein -- @link sausage) writes:
> What: <1992Aug09.180304.110291@cs.cmu.edu>
> Who:  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)  [quoting a bumper sticker]
> 
> >"If you can read this, thank the doctor who didn't abort you."
> 
> I've seen this bumper sticker too.  I was struck by the thought that
> the mother was not even mentioned.  Not 'thank your mother' but 'thank
> the doctor.'
 
There seems to be an implicit assumption in that quote that all women
_want_ to abort, and it was only the doctors' refusal that saved us
all. My personal favorite one-liner, and the gut-level reason why I 
am pro-choice, is "I would have never wanted my mother to be forced
to give birth to me." 

> What was that someone was saying about people not seeing women in the
> abortion debate?

Who? WOMEN?!? Those sluts who want a future for themselves? Who
demand control over when and when not to breed?!? ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:44:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.161132.631@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> The Western ethic against infanticide gained its roots from
> early Judeo-Christian thought. 

Substantiate this accusation or retract it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:34:45 GMT

Patrickkk:

You are a jerk for not apologizing.  If your so tough why don't you 
march your caucasian ass out here where we can "talk."  That is
if you aren't "chicken" (using your own words).  BIG WORDS=
BIG TALK.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32406 alt.flame:12180
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:27:07 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug19.011810.14987@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 
>
>In article <lefty-170892095020@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.002316.16782@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <l8lb54INNqbs@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>>> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>> >
>>> >|I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species?
>>> >
>>> >Yet to be proven.
>>>
>>> Proven. Now, it's up to us to prove if _you're_ of the human species.
>>>
>>> If we go by the pro-choice stance of being "intellegent" or "with a
>>> brain," that would exclude you in an instant.
>>
>>If we hadn't seen this already about 6,000 times, it would be hilarious.
>
>And hasn't just been said by me, about you.
>It's been said by others about you, too.
 
Would you have any documentation of that assertion?  (Your other
personalities don't count, of course.)
 
>>As it stands, it's simply pathetic.
>
>Yes, it is pathetic. In how more than one person on this newsgroup,
>thinks about _you_, Lefty.
 
"more than one" -- meaning you and who else?  (and which newsgroup, for
for that matter?  This thing *is* cross-posted, if you didn't notice.)
I wonder what a *lot* of people in this newsgroup -- t.a, for your
enlightenment -- think of YOUR juvenile antics...
 
(so -- when are you coming down here, eh?  This isn't a daily opportunity,
you know.  :-)
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Inturdgent bangs out lies on his Commodore
Keywords: Dennis, your parents are going to wash your mouth out with soap
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:02:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <78073@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew) writes:
> For the record, when I'm not at work, I post from my Commodore 128 at home.
> It has good VT-100 emulation and...

Congratulations on having posted the all-time Who Cares? article.
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:48:23 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Aug20.143920.4375@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

>  On the subject of celibacy between married couples.  Why is it that 
>  we seem to think marriage is something less without sex?
 
Why is it you feel this is any of your damn business?

Dan King
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:09:47 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of the 
animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".  When will YOU 
understand that YOU must take responsibility for YOUR actions.  If you 
are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term then maybe you should 
not be having sex.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:37:34 GMT


In article <1992Aug19.191054.24902@crd.ge.com>, cook@sunloan.crd.ge.com writes:
|cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
||>Wise move, and one that will greatly help your peace of mind.
||>That debate would be just as stupid in reruns as it was the
||>first time.

|Many of us did not find the debate, nor the topic thereof, to be
|"stupid".  I think it would be highly unrealistic to deny that
|there are those in the abortion rights movement who feel great
|resentment over people who wish to restrict abortion rights, as
|well as those who feel great resentment over people who wish to
|have unrestricted abortion rights.
[...]

I found the debate in its early stages interesting, though not
particularly constructive.  It reminded me that the pro-choice
movement is not monolithic, by any means.  It also reminded me
that there are people here whom I respect but disagree with, and
people whom I cannot respect but find myself agreeing with.

The debate also reminded me that this is essentially a political
issue, a political fight.  Some people on my side don't seem to
want to play politics.  I dislike politics, but I'm willing to
play the game to preserve my life.  I'm willing to compromise,
as a purely political move, on less important issues in order to
preserve the rights I consider most important.  Some people on
my side, I learned, are not.

The lessons were political & personal, for me.  You might have
learned something about abortion rights specifically, but I
didn't.

|In any event, I disagree with those who said the discussion was
|pointless or damaging, I even disagree to a certain extent with
|those who called it a flamewar.  Certainly people got pissed
|about it, but the central point of the discussion was not
|simply to attack.

I certainly feel that it became that, for certain people.  Not
for all of us, though.  Like Beth is doing now, I bowed out when
the one-note samba crowd started playing, and constructive
dialog seemed impossible.

I haven't got the time or the stomach for personality-based
flame-wars with people I mostly agree with.  I haven't got time
for Pro-Choice Purity Putsches, which is what I perceived this
argument turning into.  I've got misogynist maniacs to worry
about-- people who'd cheerfully ban abortions for victims of
rape and for women whose lives are endangered.  My energy goes
to thwarting THOSE menaces to my life & health.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Emma felt [...] that to be the favourite and intimate of a man who had
so many intimates and confidantes, was not the very first distinction
in the scale of vanity."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:12:21 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <7989@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes as part of a
long thread regarding the rights of a woman and the fetus she is
carrying:  

Deletia to get to the point to which I want to respond.

>*IF* the fetus is human, than the right to life *must* take precedence
>over the right to privacy.  Without life, none of your other rights
>mean much.

Demonstrably false.  You have a right to make a private decision
regarding whether or not to donate blood, tissue, or organs to save
the life of your child.  Why should a pregnant woman be denied the
right to make the same decision with respect to the fetus she is
carrying?  In essence, this would be awarding rights to a fetus that a
child does not enjoy.

>Life's a bitch, sometimes there are no good answers.  

Life is made tougher when those who will never face a particular
choice act to take that the right to make that choice freely away from
others.  

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion