HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: a new net.vendetta?: darcy vs kathi mills (was Re: Kevin Welch: ethics)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:42:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.235652.7888@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> -> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> -> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> -> >When Kathi described Kevin Welch as a rapist, she also
> -> >supplied her definition of "rapist," which was non-standard,
> -> >but in the situation, applied.
> -> 
> -> She made no attempt to redefine "rapist"; 

She defined rapist as one who uses or attempts to use another'ss
body against the will of the used.  And she explained that this
iss how she saw Welch's position on abortion.
> 
didn't you read the preceeding paragraph. try it again. no wonder
> -> I certainly think a retraction and/or apology is in order.
> -> Kathi clearly got carried away and didn't realize what she was
> -> saying. Let's see if she's big enough to admit her mistake.

Well, as I said earlier, you're a sstuffy little martinette and
the above remarks show that pretty clearly.  Neither I, Kathi,
nor anybody I can name and probably nobody you can think
of besides yourself gives a damn what you think Kathi ought to
do or apologize for or whether you think she's big enough to admit
anything.  She made no misstake, so there's nothing there to
apologize for.  I will, however, just to make you a happy
little prig, apologize.  I am very sorry that you are a lonely
little prig without character, credibility, or enough sense to
stop spitting into the wind.

Get a towel, kibble.  All that noise you make is just drenching
you in your own spittle.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:02:16 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Apr9.204909.3490@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>
>> Be proud of it.  Just don't come in here and tell us what sex is all about
>> when you've never experienced it first hand.
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
>Perhaps you should phrase that a little differently, in order to avoid
>tempting those of us who are weak in spirit:
>  when you've never experienced it in person.
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^
Bonehead Logic Alert:  Hey Larry, ever been in a Shuttle?  Bet you have
an opinion on NASA though.  Can you have an abortion?  NO.  You have
an opinion don't you?

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:43:32 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  <1992Apr12.164925.11673@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Apr12.023124.8952@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.c
> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >->
> >-> The mail which Kellmeyer posted was "private", was it not? If
> >-> not, why did you title your article "Kellmeyer posts private
> >-> email"???
> >
> >you've heard of mailing lists, haven't you? (that was in the oist
> >you replied to [see below] but you seem to have not grasped it's
> >implications).
>
> So your assertion is that Steven Kellmeyer is a mailing list, right?

By what giant leap did you arrive at that conclusion?  Seems as though
he's saying that Kellmeyer posted private email, as opposed to email
that was sent to a mailing list and so semi-public.

Perhaps Linda is right about your reading comprehension...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:20:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax.14APR92.03201184
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:
>In article <1992Apr7.190628.12162@noao.edu>
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.
> 
>A child is a born person.
> 
>-    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -
>_Dictionary of Contempory American Usage_
> 
>    infant; child; baby.  An *infant*, in the general usage of the
>word, is a *child* during the earliest period of its life when it is
>still being carried about, "a babe in arms."  *Infant* and *baby* in
>current American usages are synonymous, though *baby* is the everyday
>word and *infant* would seem formal or a little archaic.  A *child*
>is a baby or an infant but in general use it applies to persons below
>the age of puberty and since *baby* is generally used of the very
>young, a *child* commonly designates someone anywhere between weaning
>and puberty.  In law an *infant* is a minor, a person under twenty-
>one, and a *child* is any descendant, regardless of age.  *Baby* is
>not recognized in the law as designating a category.
>-    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -
> 
>--
>"Let us speak plain: there is more force in names than most men dream of; and
>a lie may keep its throne a whole age longer if it skulk behind the shield of
>some fair-seeming name."         - J. R. Lowell
>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley


Isn't there supposed to be something in there about a child being someones 
offspring?

When someone is pregnant we say that she is "With Child?"  Hmmm.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:17:55 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr7.122924.14488@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr07.083059.19851@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >Why not try posting something intelligent for a change?
>    Okay - I'll try posting something which you deem intelligent. WOuld
> you prefer me to just chant "Every sperm is sacred"?

No, that's what I'm suggesting you *stop* doing.

>    In any case, if I get enough requests to leave , then I will okay?
> Until then, I keep posting...
>    steve
> p.s. - incedentally, there's no way in hell I'll leave. That was just
> to get your hopes up good ol' larry...

Why would that get my hopes up?  If you said you'd start posting something
based on logic so that we could have an intelligent discussion, *that*
would get my hopes up.  But if you're going to base your beliefs on your
mythology, then there's not much room for rational discussion.  No matter
how fervent your beliefs, I don't share them, so I'll just say "that's
nice, but keep them to yourself."

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: return of the flying pigs (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:24:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: rotag.1992Apr11.182418.9168
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Apr8.222845.18019@crd.ge.com> keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> In article <tzwts8p@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>-> >Darcy, please discontinue this tedious refrain.  You appear
>-> >to be the only person in this group who perceives two wrongs
>-> >here.
>-> 
>-> And if truth could ALWAYS be decided by concensus, you'd have
>-> a relevant point.
>
>if truth were -never- decided by consensus, you'd have some
>credibility.

Truth is independent of concensus, Keegan. I don't expect you to
understand that statement, though.

>-> And pigs might fly, too...
>
>interesting comment kebbie. do you know what infamous t.a. poster
>used to write this? you should. you and he have a lot in common.

Try to imagine how little I care for your tenuous connections and
guilty-by-association, Keegan. Really, is this childish crap the _best_ 
you can come up with?? 

							- Kevin
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:22:30 EST
Distribution: na

In article <92106.104517ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>, Linda Birmingham writes:
> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) says:
>><keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>>someone posting as  cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes
>>>cut it out chaney.
>>
>>And now you, too, owe me a retraction.
> 
>>Once again, I am not Chaney,
> 
> Oh cut it out Chaney.  If you were a little more
> creative you might have pulled it off.
 
You know, if he denies it one more time, his cock will crow:)

(Seemed like an appropriate day to post this:)) -J.J.
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reflections on the March
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:15:21 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr9.180553.2732@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) said:
>In article <1992Apr9.040654.25512@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
...
>>(who's feeling mighty jealous of Muriel and Susan and Cathi and Nora for
>>having all these cool ex-boyfriends)
>
>I would be thrilled to tears to be your ex-boyfriend.  Sure Gordon is
>racking up them ex-girlfriends like crazy, but Dean and I are the
>originals.  I'm sure if my buddy Dean hasn't already responded, he
>would also groove on being your ex.

Don't listen to them Sarah.  Heck, _my_ ex-girlfriends get together for
beer and pizza slumber parties.  So you can see what being my ex does for
your social life.  I can always make a little more room in my .sig if you
want.  Don't just be a "pity-ex-girlfriend" of Dan's.

BTW Dean, I'm sure glad the optimism is returning about the pro-choice
future.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Subject: Dances with Catholics (WAS THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION...)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:23:32 GMT

> = (Conrad "Genuflect or Die" Vincent) writes:
>> = Ray Rischer writes:
>>> = (Conrad "Incense and Dogma" Vincent) writes ...
>>>> = (Ray Fischer) writes..... 

>>>>Given its past record it is not unreasonable  to infer that the 
>>>>Church  is _likely_ to be incorrect

>>>Catholics believe that the Pope's support of the heliocentric
>>>theory was outside the realm in which a Pope could expect 
>>>divine guidance in his rulings . Abortion has moral and
>>>religous overtones - the domain in which a Pope's ruling 
>>>is guided by Divine will.

And...DODGE and swish, sidestep and WEAVE and jump...

The Catholic Apologist Cha-Cha.

>>How about the crusades where the noble
>>Christians invaded, murdered, and robbed the heathen Arabs
[...]
>>Or what about the Inquisition where people were tortured
>>and burned at the stake in order to save their souls?

>THE Inquisition and the crusades were not religous 
>incidents. They were events with political overtones.

This dishonesty, this delusion and refusal to face *plain facts* is why
I consider you and your church crutch such lies.  Thanks for reminding
everyone how dishonest fervent Catholics can be.

Face it.  Your Pope ain't invincible.  Your Catholic "laws" on abortion
weren't formulated until 1869.  Even as "Christians" you don't pass
muster, with that "only true Church" arrogance you snobs exhibit.

Yet you'd make these moronic religious delusions of yours law.  That's
pathetic; and, over my dead body.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:06:33 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>In article <17805@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
>says:

>What about not killing it at all unless it's absolutely necessary?

Absolutely necessary, in what sense? It is absolutely necessary, IMO,
when the woman doesn't want to be pregnant. If she doesn't want to be
pregnant, a fetus can't be inside her. So it has to go.

To me, since I don't believe it is a sentient being, it resembles the
sixth finger or toe that some are born with. With your reasoning, it
should not be removed, with mine, I have no problem with removing it.

>>have made the leap of faith here that you are not bothered by killing
>>the roach or fly or flea, organisms that are much more complex than
>>an 8 week old fetus in that they are fully functional and can fend for
>>themselves.

>Neither are newborns fully functional and able to fend for themselves.

First impression, you have no problem with the concept of death in general,
the problem lies with when you define a human being as existing.

>Yet we don't condone killing them.

Yes, correct, but they are not parasitic on another person. Plus, the
*willingness* of someone to carry a a baby to term implies (at least
to me) a *willingness* to accept responsibility for it. In times past,
before ultrasound and other diagnostic tools and  abortions, people
would wait until the birth of a child, if it didn't meet their expectations,
including gender, they would leave the child staked to a hillside somewhere
to starve to death. This is no longer practiced, nor do I advocate it,
as I, and I imagine the rest of the world, find it unnecessarily cruel
and inhumane. One of the reasons I find it so is because we do have
the option of abortion, so are no longer required to 'wait and see'
what comes out, a happy healthy child, or a mortally deformed  baby
that will die.

>If we look at the fetus alone, the only thing protecting a human being
>from being killed is its stage of development.  I'm not sure that's the best
>criterion.

This depends on your definition of human being. I don't think an 8 week
old fetus qualifies as anything other than human, I certainly would
not rank it as a human being, as this implies many things to me, not
least of which is a sentient being.

Ron
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15500 soc.men:8513 soc.women:9022
From: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: lisa@zeppelin.UUCP (Lisa Corsetti)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Climate Model Intercomparison Group, LLNL

In article <1992Apr15.005354.14991@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>
>What I think would actually happen is that women would be left entirely
>without recourse because they would be too busy trying to feed, house
>and nurture the unwanted child to spend any time enforcing whatever
>supposed legal rights they might have.
>
>paul

How true!  A girlfriend of mine is a single mom, and she gets no child
support payments from the father who is a loser.  She used to tell me about
wanting to get a lawyer to go after him, but she's just too busy to
hassle with it.  Plus, the father is not living a "stable life" himself.
It's a very tough situation.

Lisa
    I walked alone through the blackest night
        I felt the cold I felt the bite
            I took the high road, But it ain't right
    ...It's just the low road in disguise
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: 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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:09:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.215435.21559@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.182357.9777@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr12.204155.28349@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr12.191044.1137@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>>=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
>>>Nope. I don't get it. Why not explain this for us? I don't find it funny.
>
>>It's not supposed to be funny.  It's BearCode, as anybody with half-a-clue
>>would understand...
>
>Okay then rocker... Let's see how many people have half-a-clue. ANyone
>who knows what the hell this bearcode means, mail me. I'll count the votes
>and post the results at the end of the week. We'll see just how many of
>the hundreds that read this group "have half-a-clue". 
>   I won't expect my mail to be overflowing, and then we'll see about getting
>you a new .sig "rocker"...

Steve, why are you calling me by my Ex-Girlfriend's name?

Maybe somebody should give you some reading comphrension for your birthday...
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The March in D.C.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 9 APR 92 06:40:17 GMT

>>We are trying to stop the termination of children.  You think that by calling 
>>it "terminating a pregnancy" you can hide the fact that you are talking about 
>>killing children.  If you would stop hiding behind semantics and accept that 
>>you are taking about ending a life, then you might just change your mind on 
>>this issue.  
> 
>	Hi Loren! I just have a question for you. When do you consider the
>fetus life? At conception? 12 weeks? The problem is that people have different
>views on when a fetus is considered a "living being". I think that's one of
>the main reasons why Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers disagree. If someone does
>not think a fetus is consider a living being, to him/her an abortion is 
>indeed the "termination" of a pregnancy. Hope you understand! :)

It is my belief that most people know that a fetus is alive, and human, from
the moment of conception.  The question of when something turns into a human 
is ridiculous.  Either someone is a human, or not.  Fetus's grow into babys 
who then grow into adults.  They aren't some hideous monster that suddenly 
changes into a human any more than a baby is some animal that suddenly turns 
into an adult.  A fetus is just a human that has a lot of growing to do.

I think that the reason some people (Pro-Choicers) deny that a fetus is a
living human being  is because if they accepted that a fetus is human, then
that would make abortion murder.  They need to convince themselves that a
fetus isn't human, so it is o.k. to kill it.  Abortion is an easy answer to a 
lot of problems.  People who get pregnant (or who get someone pregnant) and 
don't want to deal with the responsability think that the best way to solve 
their problem is to get rid of it.  If that's murder, then they are stuck, so 
they call it "termination of pregnancy" and all problems are solved. 

				Loren Finkelstein


P.S. I have 2 favors to ask.  

	1.  I haven't flamed anyone, so please don't flame me.  I am just 
	    trying to have an intelligent conversation.  If your views are
	    different then tell me why.  I am not close minded.  But I find it 
	    very difficult to pay any attention to anything in a message that
	    starts "Dear stupid, pro-life, ass-hole,..."  :-)

	2.  If your are going to respond to this message, please respond to 
	    the whole message, rather then breaking it up into specific 
	    sentences.  Things taken out of context might have different 
	    meanings then I have intended.
	    
Thanks.  :-)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Posting Fraud on t.a. (Please Read)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <28656@brahms.udel.edu>  roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>         Careful investigation has shown that the Dennis Hall posts
> are indeed a fraud.

Interesting - I had come up with this "conspiracy theory" before you
posted the April Fools message.  I sent notes to Siren and Nora asking
about "Dennis Hall", and suggesting that it could be someone attempting
to take the heat off of Kevin Welch's obscene, threatening mail, but
they both told me that "Dennis" had posted *before* the Welch's note,
so I dropped it.  Thanks for pursuing the matter.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:35:25 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

> Have you considered the implications of what will happen if population
> growth continues unhindered?

That sounds like an argument for protecting the lives of humans
who have yet to be born. Hmm, that argument sounds familiar...
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 14:08:31 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    DeMoss Foundation

In article <1992Apr8.133213.27994@acd4.acd.com> Bill Overpeck
writes:

>Whoa.  First, I was referring to the pro-choice agenda, not
>Susan's in particular.  Second, there is no implication that the
>viewpoint of the DeMoss Foundation is religiously motivated.  I
>personally don't know; it may or may not be, but it's misleading
>to assume it.  Not everyone in the pro-life movement bases their
>position on some theological tenet.

"The Arthur S. De Moss Foundation is almost invisible
to the public, since it shuns publicity and doesn't
issue annual reports.  Named for its founder, a born-
again Christian who made a fortune in the insurance
business and died in 1979, De Moss funds various
causes, most of them evangelical.  In 1989 (the most
recent year for which figures are available), its
donations included $2.4 million to Campus Crusade for
Christ, $500,000 to Walk Thru the Bible Ministries,
$225,000 to the Pat Boone Foundation and $130,000 to
the Fellowship of Christian Athletes"

Newsweek, April 6, 1992, "A Hymn to Adoption - Or is it?"




Linda
--
"There is many a married woman to-day who envies the
happy state of the girl who can make her own living and
follow her own inclinations, and need beg for money
from no one... I tell you what girls, luck's coming our
way at last!"  Toronto Star, July 8, 1913
Newsgroups: talk.abortion