HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:50:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Sep04.161117.2870@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>
>> >And if you are honest with yourself, I'm sure that you would admit that
>> >you support other laws that restrict people's right to practice their
>> >beliefs.
>>
>> Yeah, that human sacrifice stuff is definately out.  Of course, we do
>> allow Catholics to practice cannibalism...
>
>Now Gordon, just because Doug Holtsinger ridicules the beliefs of Judaism
>in his .sig doesn't mean that you should stoop to his level.  Besides,
>it's only cannibalism if you really believe in transubstantiation.

Hey, even if you don't believe, it's still ritual cannibalism. Then again,
ritual cannibalism probably falls under the protection of freedom of
speech.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Organization: Theoretical.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:24:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.213323.8345@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BuBuHz.8w4@rice.edu> 
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>
>>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>>> Patrick didn't call Chaney a "fat black ass".  He told him to get
>>>> his "fat black ass" over to Houston if he wanted to see him.
>
>>> Eyuuuiilllk.  Still pretty racist if you ask me.  Apologise and get it over
>>> with.  Sheesh.
>
>> Already did.  
>
>No, you didn't apologize. 

Your opinion, DOD -- and as I've made perfectly clear (except, of course,
to folks like you), your opinions don't mean anything to me.  So ask me
if I care, eh?

>> Just not to Chaney, though, because he wouldn't accept
>> anything from me in anything but bad faith, anyway.  
>
>How do you know he wouldn't accept an apology?  He's asked you for one.

What has he done since my offense to *deserve* an apology?  He's so "offended"
by what I said that he's only reposted it several score times -- if it was
so bad, you'd think he'd have enough sense to keep from re-splattering it all
over the newsgroup every time he opens his mouth.  He's so "offended" he's
goddamn BRAGGING about it!  He had his chance -- and in true Steve Chaney
fashion, he threw it away.  That's his problem, not yours -- so take the hint
already and stick a sock in it, will you?

>> Watch and see how
>> Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up 
>
>I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.

Hey, if you want to look like as big an idiot as Chaney, be my guest.
It ain't my concern.

>> -- mainly so he can *brag*
>> about it...
>
>I don't think anyone would like to brag about being ordered to 
>march their "fat black ass" to visit the likes of you.  

You don't think.  Period.  Typical of you, Holtsmussen.  Your mind's
already made up -- don't anyone dare to confuse you with *facts*...

-- 
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. 
             The opinions presented herein are *mine*, not Rice's.     
 (I'd say something tacky about Doug here, but I only have so much time to do 
                                this, you know...)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:17:09 GMT

In article <nyikos.715887698@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <Bu43sJ.792.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##In article <nyikos.715650036@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
###In <1992Aug31.201542.26881@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
###
####Act of 1989, has an ERA in its state constitution.  So
####much for the ERA protecting abortion rights.
###
###
###On the other hand, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled, citing that
###state's ERA, 
###"Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy
###by not funding abortion...is sex-oriented discrimination."
#
##That's nice, Nyikos.  I applaud the Connecticut Superior Court.
#
##Of course, I was responding to a claim that an ERA would guarantee
##abortion rights, so all I needed was one counterexample.  (Are
##you really hoping to convince us that you're a mathematician?)
#
#I am. If you doubt my word, go upstairs and talk to any number of
#math professors, especially Juan Jorge Schaffer, with whom I even
#co-authored a paper while still a CMU grad student. [Small world,
#isn't it?]  Both he and "Ozzy" Wyler have kept up fairly well with
#what I've been up to since then.

Someday you'll learn about making assumptions, won't you?

#But to get back to your claim about needing only one counterexample,
#I'm afraid the issue is whether the United States Supreme Court
#would see it the way of PA or the way of Conn.   And back in 1983,
#when _Thornburgh_ was still in the future, I'm afraid it would have
#sided with the Connecticut court.  Even today, with the 5-4 majority
#in _Casey_ reaffirming practically all of _Roe_ while overturning
#most of what was left of _Thornburgh_, it's not at all clear what
#the outcome would be.

That's right  - the U.S. Supreme Court would need to make the
determination, and it's not clear what the court would do.  That
contradicts the claim that an ERA would neccesarily guarantee
the right to abortion, though.  

("We're not misogynists," they say, while insisting that women
are only entitled to a subset of rights that men enjoy.)

#M. S. CMU 1968
#Ph. D. CMU 1971

That's nice, Nyikos.  Do you think that you could tell us
your SAT scores, too?  

Susan
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sex, Sacrifice and the U.S.A.
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:48:51 GMT
	    <1992Sep4.234553.18896@noao.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Sep4.234553.18896@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):

>> Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
>> pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
>> reliable.

>This, Mr. King, is garbage.

Suzanne, even a woman who abstains from sex can get raped.

Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Yikes! Zombie Centers! (& Selfishness) 
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 09:15:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.014947.174@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>> 
>> ....And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:
>> 
>> "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
>>  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"

> I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
> likely counselling and rehab.

And you come from the same stock of people who call Democrats      
"soft on crime"? Right.

I personally would never need an abortion, but if I did, and the world
worked according to your laws, I can't think of anything more chilling
and scary than to be "counselled and rehabbed" by people who think as
you do. I can say Becky Bell (Becky Bell) just fine. Can you say
"Brainwashed Zombie"?

Oh, my system expired your response to my "Selfishness" post, but I
know about it. I know all about Family Love and I *still* think your
great aunt was selfish. She lived, so the point was moot, but she 
took the risk of leaving the children she had without a mother. Dying,
from any cause, is horrible, not beautiful. If your great aunt (if i
remember the relationship correctly, sorry if I have that wrong) *had*
died in childbirth, after *willingly* becoming pregnant *and* being
told by doctors time and time again that it could kill her, then her
death would be equal to SUICIDE. Isn't suicide one of those "go-to-hell"
sins in your religion? Now that I think about it, I was far too soft
in my other post. Your great aunt was actively courting a date with
the devil. Shame on her! Selfish **and** sinful! Other than that, I'm
sure she was a wonderful woman who loved her children. We all have our
faults.
 
(sorry this is in the wrong thread, but I couldn't get the other article
back to add it in)

Vickie
Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education, Pro-life

       *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***
 
>Suzanne Forgach


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 08:48:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.205530.10799@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Wrong. It's a highly accurate, invaluable method which works 99.999999% of
>cases, but unfortunately not in this one. 

Nonsense, it worked extremely well in this case, Kebbin.  You
wanted to be the object of everyone's derision and that's ex-
actly what you got.

>dishonest enough to deny that I get more than my share of attention from
>those folks, are you? Even when I post innocuous stuff, I typically get
>floods of insults, lies, hypocrisy, etc. from them.

You're a lot of fun to poke sticks at, Kebbin, why shouldn't
people make fun of you?  And besides, you love it, you silly
old bear, you.  



----------
Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game is that the
sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe him.

"Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...
					-- lefty@apple.com
					<9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36558 alt.abortion.inequity:3755
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:24:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Note follow-up.

In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>Gordon Storga

>>This argument has been used before.  My reply is this:  You contributed
>>1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  At the eight week abortion point the fetus
>>consists of millions of cells.  For sake of argument let's say 3 million
>>cells.

>Fair enough.

>>You get 1/3000000 worth of the decision.

>And the woman only contributed 1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  So her share
>in the decision is, Ummm . . . (click, click, click of mouse using X
>windows Hp calculator program . . .) 1/3000000 of the decision.

>Wow!  Look at that!  You've mathematically proven that the contributions
>are equal!

You failed elementary school math and high school biology one, didn't
you?

>So the the other 2999999/3000000 worth of the decision is the babies, since
>he/she grew those cells, not mom or dad.

Where did the material for those other 2999999 cells come from? WHy
I do believe you'll find that *all* that material came from the mother,
as well as *all* of the material for the original cell, except 26 (normally)
chromosomes. So that actually makes your contribution <1/3000000 of
the whole, and the mother's contribution >2999999/3000000.

Now who should get to make the decision? Since a fraction >2999999/
3000000 ~= 1 and a fraction <1/3000000 ~= 0, a woman gets to make the
entire decision. And that's just based on mathematics. Then we go to
pain, suffering, discomfort, bodily alterations, etc. The man's share
of these: 0, the woman's share: all. Shall we continue, or do you get
the point?

>>See how insignificant your opinion is?

>Yup.  Just EXACTLY as insignificant as the womans.

Really, you should get your math straight.

[...]

>And the next time you try a mathematical argument, you might try remembering
>that data and information are two different things.

After looking at your representation of math, I wonder if the members
of Congress went to your school. The way they treat the national debt
is similar. BTW, data is information, and information is data, they
are synonyms. You do need more information before you post, and I'll
be happy to supply the data. :)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:38:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.716069936@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep08.042250.39734@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margoli
>
> >In  <nyikos.715895819@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >>
> >> "Value the unborn so much more than the born"?  Do you regularly
> >> misrepresent the pro-life viewpoint to this extent?
>
> >Presumably "the born" refers to women, which is that subset of "the born"
> >that "pro-life" people want to remove rights from in order to give more
> >rights to fetuses than are held by people.
>
> This is Adrienne's little pet theory, and I see you still buy it.

Hey - it followed me home.  Can I keep it?

> >  I agree that it would be
> >misrepresentation if you assumed that "the born" referred to men.
>
> And you don't think it's misrepresentation when referring to women?

No, I don't.  If I did, I wouldn't be using it.

Currently, it's not legally possible to force someone to provide
bodily resources.  You can't force someone to give blood, or donate
an organ, or anything.  No matter what the relationship between the
donor and the recipient; regardless of whether the donor caused the
recipient to be in the state they're in; regardless of whether the
recipient will die without the bodily resource.

People wanting to legislate against abortion would force the woman
to donate bodily resources, meaning she'd have *less* rights than
other people, and this forced donation would be to a fetus, giving
it *more* rights (the right to demand bodily resources from someone)
than are currently enjoyed by people.

Where do you see misrepresentation?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:20:39 GMT

In response to Steve Chaney's length discussion of his flames:

Suit yourself.  I'm feeling relatively anti-flames at the moment, but
I have moods when I enjoy flaming and reading flames, and your tactics
rather guarantee plenty of flamage.  I do think that your tactics do
the pro-life side of the argument considerably more harm than good,
but as I'm pro-choice this doesn't distress me.

However, I do want to note that the tactic of fighting fire with fire
wrt flames on talk.abortion has never worked in the past, and I do not
expect it to work now.  What I've seen on talk.abortion since
beginning to read it has been a viscious circle of flamage:
pro-choicers flaming pro-lifers because of pro-lifers flaming
pro-choicers because of pro-choicers flaming pro-lifers, all the
flames slowly escalating all the while.

Actually, a possible tactic for everyone trying to flame to counteract
other's flames: put "this article is a flame" in your header as a
keyword.  That way, anyone who wants to avoid the flames can simply
put /this article is a flame/h:j in their KILLfile, and miss all of
the flamage from those considerate enough to label their flames as
such without missing any other articles except those mislabelled
intentionally (since the string "this article is a flame" wouldn't
occur accidentally in a subject line).

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

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:57:04 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes about Scott Safier:

>> Your puppy is undeniably cute.  

> Is that his "golden retriever of love"?  Or was that 
> Chris Lyman's?

Labrador.  A nice, friendly dog, but kind of a mooch for attention.

Is the guy with the 'tiny sex animals' rat still around?


-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:03:24 GMT

In article <24642@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>>If you don't want to outlaw alcohol, fine -- but then you have no logical
>>basis for outlawing marijuana.
>
>>Incidentally, the discussion is now academic to me.  I haven't used either
>>substance in over 7 years.
>
>A question: Is having a glass of wine with dinner "using" alcohol, or
>is it merely the enjoyment of fermented grape juice?

If you are asking whether I drink wine or not, the answer is I don't -- 
it's alcohol.

If you are asking whether you should drink wine or not, I can't answer 
that -- that's something you have to decide for yourself.

I did not mean to imply anything by the word "use" except, perhaps, 
that both alcohol and marijuana are recreational drugs.

>
>Ron
>
>Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
                                  ^^^^^^^^
I read somewhere that due to the large amount of preservatives in 
the American diet, American corpses don't decay as quickly as they 
used to.  Yes, I really did read that!  (Don't know how true it is, 
but sounds possible...       :-)


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:22:22 GMT
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <mmzn2fr.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
   John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
			      | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
   74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
   jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's true.  No one remembers the popular entertainers of the Middle
Ages, but everyone knows about Vlad the Impaler.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36229 alt.discrimination:4347
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:35:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <BuDHo2.A2p@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
#In article <1992Sep9.213323.8345@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[text deleted, before and after the quote]

>>I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.

So, Holtsinger, if I ask Chaney to apologize for the sexist comments
that he's made, will you continue to bring *that* up until
he apologizes?  If I ask you and Chaney to apologize to
every Jewish reader of talk.abortion for all of the
the anti-Semitic things that you both have said, will you
broadcast your continued bigotry to the net and also complain
about your failure to apologize.

>Hey, if you want to look like as big an idiot as Chaney, be my guest.
>It ain't my concern.

Holtsinger is displaying a common characteristic of bigots.  
He is trying to direct attention anywhere but towards himself.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 06:28:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Difficult question: doesn't this make this position the most
>>miogynistic position around, as its premises are misogynistic (women
>>don't have a right to control their bodies)?
>
>Look up "mysogyny" in the dictionary.  How is it +necessarily+
>"woman-hating" to defend what one believes is one's child?  Or to defend
>what one believes is his/her own right, when that right is in conflict
>with the right of a woman?

While "mysogynistic" may well be overused in this forum, it is not hard
to see why it gets used.  

The clearest case of pro-life mysogyny is the exception in case of rape 
or incest to a general ban on all abortion except in the case of rape or 
incest.  This appears to mean that the so-called pro-lifers are interested
in little more that punishing women for having sex; since the fetus is not
responsible for the crimes of its parent, why should there be an exception?

As for defending one's child: well, it would make everyone much happier if
people who held this beleif were as zealous about defending their mate as
they are about defending their child.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36470 alt.abortion.inequity:3712
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 20:18:56 GMT

In <1992Sep08.042250.39734@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <nyikos.715895819@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> "Value the unborn so much more than the born"?  Do you regularly
>> misrepresent the pro-life viewpoint to this extent?

>Presumably "the born" refers to women, which is that subset of "the born"
>that "pro-life" people want to remove rights from in order to give more
>rights to fetuses than are held by people.

This is Adrienne's little pet theory, and I see you still buy it.

>  I agree that it would be
>misrepresentation if you assumed that "the born" referred to men.

And you don't think it's misrepresentation when referring to women?
Using some of the words Adrienne said to "Jammer Jim" in one of her rare
lucid moments, `more rights to fetuses than are held by people' is "just
the private little spin you put on" the pro-life position.

Peter Ny.