HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:25:24 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <Bs2BLt.pE@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>In article <lefty-270792112623@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan
>>Garvin) wrote:
>>> #In article <1992Jul26.001305.18495@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> ##n article <3739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>> ##
>>> ##Suzanne, my SO asked me to tell you that he finds you disgusting,
>>> ##and he said that he is willing to explain to you just what
>>> ##adult/child sex involves...
>>> #
>>> #Willing to explain, as in, speaks from experience? Gee, sounds like you 
>>> #hooked a real winner there, Susie dear. Say, how long is Mr. Right's 
>>> #prison furlough?
>>> 
>>> You sicken me.
>>
>> Fuc* off and die as quickly as possible, would you?
>>[lefty]
>
>To be fair I think that the original poster's quote was easy
>to misinterpret. You see, the quote "he is willing to explain to you just what
>adult/child sex involves..." can imply one of two things:
>1) he was a victim of it when he was a child, or
>2) he is an adult who has done it (taken advantage of chilren that is...)
>   If you think option 2 is that uncommon, then you're not gettin a dose
>of some of the stranger newsgroups on the net. Kiddie porn and sex is
>not that an impossible of a concept, and the original poster implied that
>this was a possible practice. Obviously the reply was distateful, but 
>perhaps it was pointing in a different direction than you guys give
>him credit for?

Thanks for the effort, Steve, but once a witch-hunt is in full swing, it's 
often very difficult to demonstrate to the mob that the victim isn't actually 
a witch (shades of Monty Python and the Holy Grail :-). I have a feeling this 
one is no exception.

As for "distastefulness", I'll remind everyone, YET AGAIN, of where my article
was posted originally. Taste is a very relative concept...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:17:20 GMT

In article <adams.712521565@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>
>>The media refers to pro-aborts as "pro-choice" and pro-life as
>>"anti-abortion."  
>Hmm.  Let's see...could that be because there are lots of people who
>believe in the RIGHT to abortion while not supporting abortion itself?  You
>could hardly call me 'pro-abortion,' but you can clearly call me
>'pro-choice.'  Or, more simply put: "pro-choice" != "pro-abortion".
>
>You could argue for a slightly longer title : "pro-reproductive-choce"

Or perhaps more accurately, 

  "pro-second-choice" [as opposed to the first choice,
                       to risk pregnancy resulting from sex]
  "pro-female-choice" [men have no legal/formal choice]

Since "pro-choice" does not include any rights (influence != rights)
for men beyond the "first choice," "pro-choice" is IMHO a bit broad.

How about "pro-control"?  "anti-male-choice"?

>On the other hand, "pro-life" doesn't exactly state the thing they want,
>now does it?  People who oppose executions & wars are just about as "pro-life"
>as you can get.  And how about helping starving people?  Or the homeless.
>What the "Pro-Life" people want is an end to abortion.  Period.  Therefore,
>the proper appelation would well be "anti-abortion." 

After the much-discussed television ads about offering and finding
nice homes for children who aren't aborted [even though this may not
apply to non-white/unhealthy babies], it seems that "pro-lifers"
do have at least some strong concerns about life.  In general, 
the debate over terminology seems to be motivated more by the desire 
to call the "other" the "anti" group than by a desire for accuracy 
[present company excepted] -- but that is just MHO.

Don                     (beaver@cs.psu.edu)
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:47:50 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <p2hm#g_.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>Your intellegence has devolved to the level of a paramecium, not to
>>mention your blatant, in-your-face lies. 
> 
>>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
> 
> Anyone _else_ notice any inconsistencies here?

If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child sex,
what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: HeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality Batman!!!!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:36:49 GMT

> = (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>> = (drieux, just drieux):

[...]
>:NowWouldANYDecentAIProgram,EvenIfGoneArye,
>:orGoneAbourban,OrGoneAscotch,WouldBeSo
>:UnderIntelligentAsToMISSTheFlagrantHeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality!!!!

>I_really_hate_reading_things_without_word_separators.

How's 
					   
												 this,


						   
						   Tom?

                                      And
  

				now,


  kids,



  it's  

														  time


								 for                                 today's


			  recitation   

										of

													   the

Gettysburg
									  Address:
 
      "Four            
                                                 score 

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:45:47 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <lefty-240792142246@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.001125.19443@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>> 
>> 		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>
>Are you doing this sort of thing on purpose?

Yes I am. 

You can thank the Florida courts - they said that abortion rights
means the right to adult/child sex. 

BTW, is there a newsgroup around here that talks about sex? I bet this
is big news around there. 

Amy "Nambla! Nambla!" Young ought to be cheering right about now... 

>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29713 alt.birthright:195 alt.abortion.inequity:2795
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:01:28 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Jul30.165937.13974@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>
>>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
>
>Answer this one, folks: 
>
>Name one instance, even one, in which we can legally kill someone and
>then cut them up for body parts. 


Or name the first person that comes to mind who has had no training in logical
fallacies.  Reductio as absurdum is often your first mistake.



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29321 alt.birthright:130
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:35:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.nlvats0
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|>| Notice that Doug apologized to C J but not to Susan.
|>| Tell us, Doug.  What color is C J's tongue?
|>I am going to count to 10 before flaming you for this remark.
|>I'm sure you meant it as an insult of Holtsinger, and not me.
|>Yes?

|Thank you for sparing me.  Actually, I was just testing to
|see if Doug is Really Someone Else who used to refer to you
|as 'silver-tongued'.  

Ah!  Now I get it.  Please pardon my stupidity.  

I do so miss the days when Davey used to repost my flames
over and over and over and over.  The pro-life loonies in 
t.a seemed so much loonier then.  At least we have Forgach
still, to remind us.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The only thing more foolish & wasteful than having a bunch of engineers 
avoiding user testing by sitting around arguing about what users will 
or will not do is to have the same bunch of engineers spend their 
nights and weekends drawing icons that look like bugs."
    --"Tog on Interface" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Summary: Who's wishes?
Keywords: abortion prisoners sex
Organization: Mine
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:58:11 GMT

In article <BrwCst.2nA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>
>>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
>>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
>>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.

["three reason" part of Steven's response deleted]

>Yeah, and I'm also against using prisoners for medical experimentation
>against their wishes.  I am not to keen on the human experimentation...

Are you implying that we give prisoners a choice (which we do)?  Wow!
That's "one up" on women.  At the already pregnant stage, they only
have two choices and I think you want to get rid of one of them.

>>And many of these people are
>>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>>spread.
>
>"These people" teach chastity.  If you don't engage in sex, you have an
>extraordinarily small chance of getting AIDS.  True, many of us are 
>against the use of contraceptives.  But claiming that condoms offer
>protection against AIDS, is like claiming that schools should teach
>"safe" Russian roulette - always wear a Kevlar vest.  After all, teenagers
>are GOING to play Russian roulette, theirs no way to stop them, so we
>really ought to show them how to do it safely.  

So, when will people be taught about sex then, if ever?  (Who'd want to learn
about it anyway?  It's dirty and disgusting and... [extreme sarcasm])


-Richard
Yes, there are many ethical problems that need to be resolved with fetal
research.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:19:29 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>> You know, that would be true if I were of the same genetic code as you. 

> Nominated for: Most Accurate Self-appraisal of the Month.

But what about this? (quoted from memory)

*** Maybe I'd be better off shoveling shit.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a contest!

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:55:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.162407.28530@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>##dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#
>### I've argued that anyone who holds 
>### that position must also condone infanticide in order to be consistent.
>#
>## Unsuccessfully.
>#
>#Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
>#fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.
>
>It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
>remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
>kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
>woman.

I assume by "necessary" you mean medically indicated, right, in order to save 
the life of the mother? If so, please elaborate on the medical circumstances 
in which the sequence of the two major events wrt the late-term fetus -- 
detachment and destruction -- cannot be inverted without incurring a major 
risk to the mother's life. The relevance of such an inversion is that it would 
technically make the difference between abortion and infanticide, of course...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 13:27:12 GMT

In article 8679@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>Yes, I do have documentation to this claim: 
>

It would be preferable if you posted the text of the court decision
rather then your abstracted interpretation of the ruling. However,
since you prefer an intrepreted recollection...

>In Florida, a circuit court Judge said that laws forbidding adults
>from screwing little girls, is unconstitutional because it violates
>the right to privacy that nullifies parental consent abortion laws. 
>
 
If I recall correctly, the case you are refering to was the reversal of
a lower court's conviction of a teenage male (over FLA's age of consent)
for the statutory rape of his teenage girlfriend (under FLA's age of consent)
when the court was presented with the fact that both individuals involved
had consented to the act and were capable of understanding what they were
consenting to.

The fact that one was an adult (just barely) and the other a child (again, just
barely) made for great headlines. While the judge did not make a constitutional
ruling (that's not in the perview of a circuit court judge) he did base part of
his decision on the idea that the couple involved did have a right to 
privacy.




---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:13:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes ...
>What about the much more simple solution to the entire problem?
>What ever happened to abstinence?  That is a fool-proof solution 
>after all.

For the same reason people drive cars, eat steak, ride bicycles, 
ride in airplanes, swim, live in California, live in the midwest,
live in the south, have children, and walk outdoors.

All these endeavors (and many others, besides) have an element of
risk.  Do you propose making all of them illegal?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: Who's really doing the Unwanting?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:34:53 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul21.174417.5924@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>ANYONE who suggests that abortion will "solve" any third world "problem".
>If Planned Barrenhood bothered to ask any of the mothers in those countries,
>before presuming to promote abortion as the solution to everything that
>maybe these women don't consider problems, they would discover that those
>mothers LOVE AND WANT their children!!

Truth by Blatant Assertion if I ever saw it.

>The problems are simply food distribution and waste management.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Your unsubstantiated claim is hardly convincing.

>         NOT "there are too many brownskinned babies".

Suzanne, I know you believe the world isn't overpopulated because we
could fit everyone in the world into Texas, but in discussions with
those who *do* believe the world is overpopulated (a group which I'm
not a member of, incidentally), you would do well to stipulate that
those you're responding to honestly *do* believe in overpopulation
instead of implicitly ruling that out as a possibility and accusing
them of racism instead.  What do you think when pro-choicer accuse
(usually male) pro-lifers of wanting to control woman -- implicitly
ruling out their stated desire to protect what they believe are
children?  Can you see the parallel?

--
Pro-Choice    Anti-Roe    Pro-Freedom of Choice Act     - E. Elizabeth Bartley

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Creating Real Choices
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:19:31 GMT

<1992Jul28.011621.10950@athena.cs.uga.edu> (Terrance Heath) writes:
> There is a group in Minnesota, I think, who are pro-lifers and
> pro-choicers together. They call themselves  Common Ground, and work
> on reforms like the ones I mentioned in my post. They have one ground
> rule: They do not discuss abortion, because I would detract from their
> reform efforts.

> I'll have to do some research on this....

There is a front-page story about a similar group in St. Louis
in the July 11, 1990 issue of the Chicago Tribune.

There is an article authored by the St. Louis group's founders
on the Commentary page of the June 9, 1991 issue of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 08:07:09 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul24.002844.14226@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>> I wonder how much the woman is charging to enter her property?  Will
>> Suzanne and Chaney be making a pilgrimage now?
>
>Heck no.  For one thing, you didn't say what state "Watsonville" was in,

Sorry, it's in CA.  Specifically, southwest of San Jose.

>and for another, we have a Greek Orthodox church right hear in Tucson
>with a painting that bleeds real blood.   What do I need to travel for?

Gosh, it sounds like you have all the fun spots in AZ. "Come on, kids.
Let's go see the bloody picture!"


Gordon
-- 
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)
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:46:30 GMT

> = Muriel "'Scuse Me While I Kiss The Sky" Nelson probes Chaney's
psyche:
>> = Stephen A "Model Airplane, No Glue" Chaney dribbles:

>>The part that's aimed at preventing killing by a little more force,
>>is, "..but if you decide to kill that unborn child, your ass is out of
>>the house. Permanently." 

Do the world a favor, Cheez Whiz:  when you finally have sex, don't
have any kids.  There's enough abused children in the world.

>POC never heard of 'unconditional love'.  How sad.
>
>My parents always told me,
>
>"No matter where you go or what you do, you'll always be our
>daughter.  And there's nothing you could ever do that would
>make us stop loving you."

That's sweet.  Compare that with, "If our 13-year-old gets pregnant,
she'll carry to term!"  "You'd decide that for her?"  "We'd decide it
together!"  (Geez, Marilyn, look up "decide" in the dictionary.  And
change that prison matron hairdo. :)

Muriel, I think you may have hit on the problem.  It sounds to me
like ol' Osprey Crash may have been tied up in closets as a kid.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright