HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Wow, isn't MissBitch just *SO* caring???
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, 15 Sep 92 23:19:29 GMT

Showing once again how hypocritical the "pro-life" viewpoint is, the first
runner up for "fecal slimeball of the .net, 1991" writes:

In article <1992Sep12.012239.1391@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>It's my choice.

Wow.  Gee.  And *NOBODY* else gets a choice, do they?
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:23:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>In article <3arnw4#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>>> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>
>>>># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
>>>># have babies without the kindness of a man.
>>>>
>>>>You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
>>>
>>>Yes, I did.  What do you think, my fingers slipped? :-)
>>>
>>>>I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
>>>
>>>Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?
>>
>>Many women (and men) would (and do) find deeply offensive your apparent 
>>belief that rape could in any way be considered "the kindness of a man."
>
>I'll pay YOU the $5.00 dollars if you can find ANY posting of mine that
>EVER says that 'rape could in any way be considered "the kindness of a man."'
>
>You won't collect, though, as you (and another person who leaped before
>they read) have only the above statement to refer to and anybody (except
>you, obviously) can see that rape is not mentioned at all in that statement.

You said that NO (none, nada, null set, zero) woman could have children
without the "kindness" of a man.  You also said that this was the literal
truth, meaning that you intended this exactly as written.  Further, you
did not exclude the case of rape producing children.

Therefore, since women _do_ have children as the result of rape, your 
statement implies rather strongly that rape is a kindness.

Since you obviously do not personally equate rape with kindness,
the $5 you can donate to the Red Cross.  Let me know when you've 
done so.  And be more careful with what you say in the future.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:05:12 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep11.100334.5288@sniap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
> : >: In article <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
> : >: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
> : 
> : >: >The consequences of the so-called "pro-choice" argument being wrong 
> : >: >seem rather more damaging than the consequences of the so called
> : >: >"pro-life" argument being wrong.
> : 
> : Um....  *Which* pro-choice argument?  And which pro-life argument....?
> : 
> : I agree that more damage is done by assuming z/e/fs aren't people if
> : they are is greater than the damage done by assuming z/e/fs are people
> : if they aren't.  On the other hand, I think the probability of
> : something with neither memories nor a functional past being a person
> : is infintesinal (sp?).  Remember to take the probabilities of the
> : propositions into account, not merely the damage done by guessing
> : wrongly each way....
> 
> Probability doesn't enter into it.  The proposition "a fetus is
> a person" is either true or false.  

If you choose true, chances are you chose due to personal religious
convictions (things that shouldn't be made into rules for entire
countries of people).  If you choose false (for whatever reason),
then the probabilities that you take into account are those of 
the potentiality of the fetus to later become a person.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: 10 Sep 1992 08:03:46 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep10.010430.20308@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>> Ferrari to Peter
>Quite the contrary.  The POINT is:
>You would allow abortion if the life of the mother is at stake.  You would
>not, however, have any qualms about dooming her to a life of abject poverty
>due to loss of job or education, and the many miseries that accompany such
>a scenario.  In other words, you suffer from the delusionn that "life" can
>be defined as a mere heartbeat, not as the whole set of experiences that it
>is.  "Life" transcends the physical. 


Nice post, Kathi.

It is in fact one of the saddest things about the pro-life stance that they
do indeed see 'life' as merely the number of human organisms that can dance
on the head of the western hemisphere.  And, of course, that's often reflected
in their indifference to the life of the fetus they fought so hard for after
it has finally been born.  Quality of life means nothing, and anyone who 
would argue for quality of life is being 'selfish'. -- Beside the fact that
all of those who argue on this net have access to the net by virtue of some
magical combinations of privilege or hard work -- you know, quality issues.

A heartbeat just isn't enough.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: wise words, sort of (was Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act)
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:03:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.015136.24099@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>You remind me of the stereotypical leader of the Temperance League at the
>height of Prohibition who glugs down several glasses of whiskey every day
>"for medicinal purposes", Dean. "Do as I say, not as I do", in other words.

But you do this all the time, Kevin.



---------------
Kebbie are you really very very stupid or are you just pretending?
Since you would have to be very clever to pretend to be so 
exceptionaly stupid I think that we can rule out that possibility.

1) You do not own Usenet. You do not set the rules, Spaf does - and
	we all know what spaf told you.

2) If you commit shoplifting you are charged with a criminal act, not
	breach of contract. The case is `Regina vs Kebbie
	Dweeblebrain-Pillock-D'asshoe' not a civil case.

					  -- Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
					  <01GGRFCZWJQ890NTPW@vax58b.desy.de>
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: 5 Sep 1992 20:26:37 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <nyikos.715650400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>In article <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep1.134433.12701@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>>	"It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
>>>>	husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
>>>>	witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]

>>>Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves.  On the other
>>>hand, the quote does not say which "movement" he is referring to.  From
>>>the wording, I would guess that he is talking about a book, and what it
>>>is about, and my one remaining question (unless the answer raises new ones)
>>>is whether this movement is the whole feminist movement, or some subset
>>>of it, like Wicca.

>>As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
>>your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.

>Are you saying that it is impossible for a male to be part of the 
>feminist movement?

No, but that has nothing to do with the statement that you made, and
I responded to. You stated that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement,
and I said that as someone who is qualified to know, it is not. I also
suggested that in the future you will have better credibility if you
got your facts straight in the future before opening you mouth.

Both of these statements still apply.

>Peter Ny.

Eric
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36486 alt.abortion.inequity:3727
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:50:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloody likely.

In article <1992Sep7.211043.18646@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.190944.21948@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <gzlnb8_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>>>In article <1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>John, you still have a most unique definition of abortion. I have not been
>able to find a single person who sees it possible for a man to have an
>abortion.

I have, however, found a number of people who can understand it after it
is explained to them.

>On the other hand, if the *father* was the one carrying the fetus and the
>woman couldn't, the *women* would be out of luck.

On that basis (special rights based on sex) then the father should not
EVER be held responsible for anything that occurs after coitus ends.

After all, since the man is biologically capable of walking away, he
should have that right.

And since the fetus is a part of the woman's body, she should be
utterly and solely responsible for it.  After all, why should a
man be held responsible for the products of a womans body?  Would
you think it fair to hold the man responsible for a womans blood?

>You are forgetting that you have all the freedom in the world to find a 
>woman that *wants* to have your child.

But I don't have the right to guarantee that she cannot change her mind
and renege on her agreements.  Something that a woman CAN do.

>David Knapp

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 08:12:14 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep4.233740.18662@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
><lefty-310892165951@lefty.apple.com>, by lefty@apple.com (Lefty):
>> <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
>> Holtsinger) wrote:
>>>       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>>>  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>>>  we want to be precise)..."
>>>    -- Gloria Feldt,
>>>       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
>>> 
>>>   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>>>     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
>> 
>> I see no evidence that, unlike you,
>> Ms. Feldt is attempting to impose her point of view on anyone else.  
>
>As with every other pro-abortionist, she is attempting to impose her
>view on the unborn and newborn children of our entire country.

Suzanne, you shouldn't lie so frequently.  I think you are supposed to
show actual repentence for a sin before it gets forgiven.  I do not speak
for every pro-abortioner (or did you mean *every-other* pro-abortioner,
as in skip every-other one) but I can categorically deny that I attempt to
impose any viewpoint on an "unborn child".  Since no "unborn child" exists
it is impossible for me to do so.  As for newborns, please explain how one
imposes a viewpoint on one?  Are you referring to *babtism* perhaps?
Christening, maybe?

Please explain how you've *never* forced your viewpoint on a newborn
through these methods.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and 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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36483 alt.abortion.inequity:3725
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:23:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Organization!  We don't have no stinking Organization!

In article <1992Sep7.033921.8119@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com>
>>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>Pertinent fact: your "father's consent" wished-for-law ignores the
>woman's right to control her body,

No, it doesn't.  It just creates an exception for the case when the woman
is making decisions that affect more than just her body.

>since it divides control over her
>body equally between the two people who have created the z/e/f and
>ignores the fact that the body is hers.

The body being aborted is not hers.

>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)?

No.

For the logic impaired, the desire to control does not imply hatred of the
person being controlled.  I control my baby, and I love him more than
anything else.

>You ... hypocrite!

Smug smile:  Thanks, I needed that.  Now all you have to do is support
that accusation. . .

>Child support contracts are unenforcible, which creates an
>infringement on men's rights, so instead of changing this you want to
>destroy women's rights to control their bodies?!!

Yup.  Once again you use your dirty little fingers to attempt to stuff
words into my mouth.  Watch out, though, I bite.

I have never stated any intention to 'destroy women's rights to control
their bodies'.

>Excuse me if I think this shows total disregard for women's rights.

I will NOT excuse this childish attempt at a straw man argument!  If
you want to be taken seriously, then start responding to what I say,
not to what you SAY I've said.

As I suspected, you didn't support that accusation.

>Yes.  Both Larry and I have said that child support contracts should
>be enforcible as a general rule long before you poked your nose into
>talk.abortion.

Actually, I'm not poking my nose into talk.abortion, I don't even
subscribe to talk.abortion.  Every post on alt.abortion.inequity
seems to be crost posted to TA, which kinda ivalidates the whole idea
separate news groups, doesn't it?

>E. Elizabeth Bartley

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:29:31 GMT

In article <88949@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Eric
>
>>I understood it, Mr. Welch. It's very difficult to be abstinent when
>>a man is holding you down to the floor, ripping your clothes off,
>>and forcibly penetrating you. Your snide comment was an insult to
>>rape victims everywhere.

>Rape wasn't the issue I was addressing, Eric.
Then you shouldn't have made a statement that didn't explicitly exclude
it.

>The problem with you, Eric, is that you look for that one loop hole that
>has been exposed...that one minor, minor flaw in my statements.  Again I
>am a victim of my own thoughts, that is to say I never considered the impact
>of such a small general statement.  It's a case of assumption.  But in
>this case, I feel my assumption was justified.
It wasn't. And the rather sizable number of rape victims in this
country can tell you that firsthand.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36531 alt.abortion.inequity:3746
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:00:30 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> |> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
-> |> ->      Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know
-> |> -> of) proposes to enact state controls over the
-> |> -> womb.
-> |> 
-> |> are you suggesting that you know of no single
-> |> anti-choicer who supports legislation to prohibit
-> |> or restrict abortion?
-> |> 
-> |> please.
-> |> 
-> |> mosogyny is one thing; out-and-out lying is another.
-> 
->      Did you read the whole article, or just that
-> one line?  

did you? do you remember writing "Nobody?" if not, it's
included in your comment above (and below).

	"Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know
	of) proposes to enact state controls over the
	womb."

that's not true, is it?

-> This does not mean I wish to control the mother's
-> womb.  As far as I'm concerned, she can remove the
-> child from her womb at her pleasure provided she
-> does not kill it.

you really don't have a grasp on this thing, do you?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.002011.29466@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz):
> > 
> > What the little feller fails to acknowledge is that Gloria
> > Feldt may base her personal views on abortion on her religious
> > perspective, but Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her
> > personal religious views the law of the land.  
> 
> 
> Of course not.   She's already succeeded.   (For the time being.)

Wrong again, Suzanne.  Did Ms Feldt do that?  What exactly
is her view on abortion?  One cannot even get an accurate fix
on that from the Holtsinger-provided quotation, even when
expanded to include the parts he found inconvenient earlier
and deleted.  You say she has succeeded as though Ms Feldt
did something to make her views the law of the land already.
I am unaware of her actions in this regard.  If you have
any information on this, I would be happy to here it.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:07:52 GMT

In article <24879@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>
>>Also Congress cannot restrict the free excercise of religion, unless
>>you aren't Christian then they can (like smoking Peyote in a
>>religious ceremony)
>
>I do believe that the courts reversed this if you are Indian, etc....as
>any other religion would be seen as one constructed solely for the purpose
>of allowing those to participate in otherwise illegal activity.  To
>clarify the first portion, that is you are a member of the religion
>that had this as part of its ceremony, peyote smoking, which also happened
>to be around long before Congress was ever around to limit it.

On the contrary.
This is frequently protected by law, but not by the constitution.
cf. Oregon v. Smith.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:05:04 GMT

From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>>> We eat other people??? How nauseating! :) (depending on what other people:)
> 
>>Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
>>a form of cannibalism.
>
> I would suggest that this is dubious at best. Typically, cannibalism
> is viewed as EATING human flesh.

Mere consumption is an acceptable definition to me.

 
> However, if we extend it this far, we've clearly included organ 
> transplantation and I think arguably blood transfusions. To do so
> effectively robs the term "cannibal" of any shock value.

With organ transplantation and blood transfusions, you have willing or
dead doners (who've already indicated they want to donate anyway).

With fetal tissue, it's killing, stealing, and consuming, and that's all.


S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Sex, Sacrifice and the U.S.A. (Was: Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 08:13:37 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

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

Selective memory, Suzanne?  Perhaps someone has already reminded you that
rape and incest occur quite frequently around the world.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and 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