HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:36:29 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr14.234814.21741@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
#In <1992Apr14.185043.75892@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##No, Franklin, Kellmeyer is as clueless as you are on the issue
##of the laws regarding mail.
##Your determination to demonstrate your ignorance is obvious
##now.  You can stop.
#   moi? Clueless? *sigh* It wouldn't hurt except coming from such an
#authority on cluelessness as yourself. I should just pack in everythin and...
#But no! Wait. I got this funky document on Usenet which is apparently
#the authority on Usenet (anyyone remember what it's called)? which states
#that no e-mail can constitute veritable unless it is documented through
#a certain official media(dunno which one). You see, this would avoid
#the possibility of simple editing and fraud simplified thanks to a little
#bit of editing. Furthermore, the policy on circulating e-mail is that 
#although it is tactless, it is not illegal, and cannot be verified
#until they determine a way to verify and maintain the huge volumes of
#e-mail that circulate throught the net. So - although e-mail
#is circuluated, you can only incriminate an individual morally,
#but not legally... Sorry Sue - the guy can post what he wants.

If you had read what you were defending, Franklin, you would
have noticed that Kellmeyer stated that postal mail that
he received was his property to dispose as he pleased.  This
point has been addressed at least ten times in the last few 
months - the physical letter is the property of the addressee,
and the intellectual contents are the property of the
author.  Pay attention.

Nora has recently said that there are cases involving electronic
mail, and she volunteered to provide citations.  I guess
she should, since you remain unconcvinced.

Certainly Kellmeyer can post what he wants.  When he lies, though,
people will call him on it.  I guess you'll defend his right
to lie.

My name, by the way, is not Sue.  

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14277 alt.abortion.inequity:597
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:15:44 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University


Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
           morals on others. 

If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 


Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
           the right to determine its own set of morals. 

Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 


Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.

Follows from premise A and B.


Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
pregnancy to term.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: richarde@baseball.mentorg.com (Richard Ellermeier)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Originator: richarde@baseball
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 15:21:23 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: /dev/null


The fact that some people that support legalized abortion also support 
weakening current child support law is interesting.  However, I don't know what
one has to do with the other.  What I think the real issue here is 

    Who are the people who support legalized abortion AND the repeal of the 
    Designated Hitter Rule?  

I believe this list has as much "linkage" as Mr. Kellmeyer's list.

In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> People who support both:
|>             * legalized abortion
|> 	              and
|>             * weakening current child support law:
|> 
|>                   Eric Rescorla
|>                   Gordon Storga
|>                   Kevin Darcy
|>                   Larry Margolis
|>                   Jennifer Brown
|>                   E.E. Bartley
|>                   Nora Rivkis
|> 	          Hillel Gazit
|> 
|> Eight so far.  How many more want to join the list?
|> Write and let me know.
|> 
|> 
|> SK

--rich

Just speaking for myself.

The Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908, but hey, any team can have a
bad century.                          --Jack Brickhouse on KFXX radio 4/1/92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 00:32:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.175816.16390@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
>-> >-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the
>-> >-> possibility exists that the potential father, and/or the
>-> >-> state, might get an abortion veto-power, then certainly
>-> >-> the LESS RADICAL possibility of giving this power to a
>-> >-> neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as a compromise
>-> >-> position.
>-> >
>-> >this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak like
>-> >you kevin. now you seem to want so badly to lessen women's
>-> >control of their bodies that you want to give that control to
>-> >a "neutral adjudicator."
>-> 
>-> Keegan, do you understand the difference between
>-> 	"X is a possibility"
>-> 		and
>-> 	"I support X"
>
>why do you call for a "neutral adjudicator" to make decisions for
>what a woman can and can not do with her body and it's contents,
>kevin? don't you think that decision should be left to the woman?

I did not and do not "call for" [sic] this to happen. But, as long as 
it is a POSSIBILITY (and I think it is), we as pro-choicers should have 
answers ready as to why it's such a bad idea. Larry ran away from the 
hypothetical. Shall I assume you will too?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 05:57:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.050142.16637@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes: [to Dean Kaflowitz]

>BTW, proof of hypocracy:
>
>you're human.......hence, you've been a hypocrite in the past and
>you'll be a hypocrite in the future.
>
>It's all a matter of timing.....which is something I NEVER claimed
>to know in your case.

This is not a proof any math prof I've ever had would accept.
I suppose you could prove that this is a proof?

Btw, Matthew, I get the impression from reading what you've written 
that you believe that if others do something bad, then it is
ok for you to do so as well (re: offensive posting style).  If 
this isn't an accurate impression, perhaps you could explain
why you can post any way you like, but others should follow some
unwritten style guidelines.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:25:06 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
(ungrammatical grumbling deleted)   

>   I won't even bother to credit the trash I read about the pope, but I
>will answer your stupid point. You see, the Catholic church emphasizes
>celibacy for the priests/hierarchy because they already HAVE a family.
>On average it's about 4000 per diocesan sector. So, they have NO TIME for
>another family, namely their own. A priest is so exceptionally busy trying
>to undo some of the damage and crap that society has bred, that he would
>have NO TIME to responsibly care for a child of his own. Like I said earlier,
>each individual has his/her own calling in life, and YOU don't have the
>right to deny it.

 So, if a woman has NO TIME for a family (namely her own), and
especially if she is exceptionally busy trying to undo some of the
damage and crap that society has bred (maybe she's a doctor, social
worker, teacher, minister, caregiver, politician etc.), so that she would
 have NO TIME to
responsibly care for a child of her own, and she finds herself pregnant,
it's apparently OK for her to have an abortion. After all, like the man
said, each individual has his/her own calling in lfe, and NO ONE has the
right to deny it.

 >   And by the way darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann), your
>frigging follow-up was weak, offensive, and absolutely lacking in humor.

     What, you mean you thought my original posting WAS humorous? What
are you, sick?
 

>   steve (MICHIGAN LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!! ugh)
>-- 
>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA

Whatever.

                                    MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:30:29 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) asserts:

>The end result, the child has
>lost priority and is often forgotten. That's what having sex is
>for dude.

Jesus H Christ, dude.  The primary purpose of sex is NOT to procreate!
If god wanted it that way, he wouldn't have made it so we could, or even,
WANT sex at any other time except when conception was possible.

Get off your religion and start THINKING.

>   You know why sex is "pleasurable" as you so adeptly summarized it?
>Because if it wasn't, our population would be a bit of a problem.

That's right.  God knew that we were smart enough to see that bearing
children isn't always great and so he made sex enjoyable to give us more
incentive.

>However,
>mother nature hasn't really allowed for Trojan condoms and abortions...

"Mother Nature" didn't allow for open-heart surgery, vitamin tablets, 
aspirin, fingernail clippers, or even clothing, but that doesn't mean
that we can't utilize them, does it?

Are you really in favor of absolutely no intervention with respect to
your own health?  Do you really want to live your life as "mother nature"
intended, with absolutely no assistance from the intellectual achievements
of your species?

>And I'm going to try not to be rude, but don't you EVER treat abstinence
>as an insult again. Lemme guess - you obviously didn't wait till marriage
>for sex, but do you wait till Christmas to open your presents? There's
>a time and a place for everything, and promiscuity is sure presenting
>us with a hell of a problem now isn't it?

I don't think anyone on this forum is against abstinence.  Abstinence is
quite proper for all of us at some time or another.  I think you took the
remarks in question as an insult because you are extremely sensitive.  
Not that there's anything wrong with sensitivity, women find it an attractive
trait, but on this forum, you can't wear your heart on your sleeve.

I also think you're equating lack of abstinence with promiscuity.  While in
some cases, that is true, it is not always, nor is it the norm.  Most people
practice serial monogamy (as I've written to you in email, and you couldn't
be "bothered" to reply).  Serial monogamy is not the same as promiscuity, nor
is it bad.

>   Incedentally, I don't think there is a shred of insecurity in me.

He he. As a psychologist, I can tell you that statement is a red flag to your
insecurities.  A person who is unwilling to admit frailties is most boring
and most frail.

>However, you and your mentality telling people "if you dont' have sex,
>you ain't normal"

Who said that?  Have you been reading another forum?  Try _reading_ for
a change instead of jumping to conclusions.

>I don't wanna hear about it.

Closed mind, eh?


Jennifer


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:19:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.124118.22309@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr14.005534.18330@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr13.222640.11768@odin.corp.sgi.com>, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>>|> Is this why you called Keith Cochran a "fils du pute"?
>>|> Clearly you are using a definition of "respect" unlike
>>|> any one I've ever seen.
>>It looks to me like in Matthew's little convoluted reality, anyone not as
>>violently "pro-life" as himself simply isn't considered a person...
>
>   No Pat... I think Matt was saying anyone who says stupid
>things and lashes out at the other group with mental violence and 
>insult is a fils du pute. Not that I agree with wrong + wrong = right,
>but you misinterpreted what he had to say most heinously.

Party On, Dude! Be Excellent To Each Other!

Steve:  Please see a mental health specialist.  Now.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:31:12 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr10.205227.13929@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>In article <16595@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>>The thing is that not all people (myself included) buys the "fetus is a
>>human, just accept it" argument.  PROVE this assertion is valid and there
>>will be no need for this newsgroup.  (HINT:  You can't prove this
>>assertion.  That's the source of the whole disagreement.  You can hold this
>>opinion and live your life according to it, but you can't get a majority of
>>people to follow you.  No way.  Uh-uh.  Forget it, mano.)
>
>The status of the fetus is not the whole disagreement.  The woman is
>involved in the issue and should never be ignored.
>
>Dan King

I don't think the woman should be ignored.  I am pro-choice also, but the
person I was following-up to had assumed that the fetus is a human with full
rights without proving it and I was just calling him on that point.

My attitude is based on a libertarian point of view that the government
should let individuals decide for themselves what to do with their bodies.

I also believe that many in the anti-choice leadership (e.g. Randall Terry)
do not wish to stop at outlawing abortion but would then press to outlaw
birth control, impose mandatory school prayer, etc.  Abortion just happens
to be the battleground du jour of the war for human and civil rights.

(I do not like "women's rights", "gay's right", or any other subgroup's
rights as I think they are diverting us from the larger picture of universal
civil rights.  I believe the government should stay the hell out of the
lives of private citizens and people should live and let live.)
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: why people should read newsgroups before posting (was Re: Kathi is Anti-Male and Pro-Dennis)
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:32:34 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
In-reply-to: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Originator: keegan@ukulele

franklin@ug (Steve Franklin) writes:
-> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
-> 
-> >>>>You worm.  You grabastic, sorry sack piece of shit.  How
-> >>>>dare you.  You are sooo insulting.  Crawl back into your
-> >>>>hole from where you came.  Violate other's PRIVACY around
-> >>>>you, not around the world (where this one is headed).
-> >>>>Bug.
-> 
-> I couldn't resist. 

too bad. you certainly should have. instead, you made a fool of
yourself and wrote:

-> I hereby nominated this (there's already one other) as the
-> LAMEST MOST USELESS POST

who cares? you haven't been around long enough for your opinion
to matter a whit.

and to demonstrate that, you went on and said:

->    bravo for being a "lame-poster-of-the-year candidate"...

...which makes it entirely clear that the recommendation for
people to read newsgroups before posting is a good one.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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: Thu, 9 Apr 92 00:10:43 GMT

In article <8APR92.16582442@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>(2)I (speaking only for myself here.  Not for Nyx, UseNet, Pro-lifers, pro-
>>choicers, the City and County of Denver, The State Of Colorado, but just for
>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)) have this funny feeling that if we
>>let you "pro-lifers" get rid of a woman's rights just because she's pregnant,
>>the next thing you might decide to do is get rid of homosexual's rights just
>>because we're not popping out those children like "normal" people are.  Or you
>>might decide that we have to get rid of the rights of the American Indians,
>>because they're not "truly" white.
>
>Sorry, but there is a flaw in your thinking there.  "Pro-Lifers" are not
>trying to take away womes rights.  We are trying to protect innocent childrens
>lives.  And if any of those other groups ever started saying they had the
>right to kill other people, you can bet your sweet ass that we would try to
>stop them. 

Let me try again, and I'll type reeeaaaallll sssslllllooowww for you, Loren.

In America, women have the right to obtain an abortion for any reason they want
to during the first trimester of their pregnancy.

Pro-lifers want to stop that.  Pro-lifers want to remove the right of a woman
to obtain an abortion for any reason they want to during the first trimester of
their pregnancy.
,.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr11.233846.13880@csusac.csus.edu>
	<1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu>
	<1992Apr14.202946.1687@csusac.csus.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:17:38

In article <1992Apr14.202946.1687@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?

>Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die? 

>I am not Chaney. I hope you can prove what you say, Patrick L Humphrey,
>otherwise I demand a retraction from you. Either you're listening to a
>liar, or you are a liar. I don't know which, and frankly, I don't care,
>but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
>and you owe me an immediate retraction.  

>And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
>someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
>sysadmin, I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next
>person that gets brought down.

>Comprende?  

>>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
>- Dennis Hall

I don't know, he sounds kind of like DJR to me. With a little bit of the
Kevins thrown in for spice.

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
Subject: Re:  CHRISTIANS AND IMMORALITY/ABORTION BASHING
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 15:16:43 EDT

In article <1992Apr1.145330.3882@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <1992Mar23.063936.18425@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bi477@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil Sherman) writes:
>>
>>To be succinct, abortion is immoral, a mortal sin.  It is con-
>>sidered by the Catholic Church to constitute a muder of the
>>unborn child.  I support this view wholeheartedly.
>>
>>By the same token, no "true" Christian of any denomination
>>would be so immoral as to be uncharitable to the person who
>>had the abortion performed; in that it is incumbent on all
>>Christians to pray for the souls of that person as well as the
>>aborted child.  Not out of a feeling of supremacy, but com-
>>passion and a true desire to see that individual right them-
>>selves with God, through the sacrament of reconciliation
>>(confession).
>>
>>I don't think that this position is either offensive or other-
>>wise deplorable in any way.  You may not agree, but that is
>>your business.  Mine is to persevere in the above manner.
>>
>	Now, I really hope nobody flames this person.  I say that not because
>I agree with this position (in fact, I disagree with it completely) but
>because it's an honest statement of a belief which those of us on the
>pro-choice side must acknowledge as being as deeply and sincerely held as
>our belief that the developing embryo simply can't be treated as identical
>to a human being and that such sectarian religious considerations ought not
>to be enacted into law in a non-theocratic society.  
>	Even if we can't agree on the humanity (or lack thereof) of the fetus,
>embrryo, or zygote, we should at least acknowledge each other's humanity and
>not lose sight of the fact that people of good will can, in fact, disagree
>on this issue.  Just because we're on opposite sides in this political war
>doesn't mean we have to treat each other as les than human.
>	We now return you to your regularly-scheduled flame-fest.
>
>>-- 
>>GIL SHERMAN (c.me.first) - bi477@cleveland.freenet.edu
>>COMBINED RESOURCES, INC. - P.O. BOX 770500
>>LAKEWOOD, OH  44107-0027
>>VOICE: (216) 221-1161     FAX: (216) 221-1186
>Chuck
>
It is refreshing to see posts that aren't acusative or derogatory for a
change.  I think this type of exchange would in general be to everyones
benefit.
				       Mark