HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:43:25 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>PRO-LIFE LIBERAL SILENCED AGAIN
>by David E. DeCosse

and rants about it (he's not pro-life by any chance, is he?)

>Nat Hentoff, a Voice columnist, Gov. Casey stepped to the mike and began:
>"I respect the First Amendment rights of everyone here -"

Fine. His were respected also. He is allowed to say what ever he wants.
He cannot force us to listen. At the Democratic Convention, he was denied
platform time, but he could have spoken outside, on the pavement. I
recall that this was MLK's initial way of speaking to those he wanted
to reach. Perhaps this is an indicator that he holds a very unpopular
opinion?

>"The Democratic National Convention suspended the First Amendment, and
>tonight you did the same thing.  Congratulations," Casey said.  Then he
>walked off the stage and headed straight for his car.  "What can you say?
>What can you say?" he said on the way out.  "It's like a fascist crowd."

A man with a fascist opinion calling a crowd fascist.
Hmmm. Pot. Kettle. Black.

>...Free speech for them appeared conditioned on agreement with
>them, as in one protestor's cry:

>        Give me my right to choose and I'll give you your right to speak!

Ron, since you posted this tripe, I suppose you subscribe to everything
that's written. Casey is taking away the free right to choose, and the
protestor appeared to be making a point that his right to free speech
was similarly restricted. They both still exist, in restricted form.

>that for the second time the governor of one of the largest states could

This just indicates how out of synch with reality this particular writer
is. Pennsylvania is not even among the larger states, either in land
area or population, although it used to be, about 150 years ago.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Your Biblical Support ISN'T.
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:52:10 GMT

Does anyone else find this juxtaposition of quotes to be as 
depressingly ironic as do I?

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes ...
>  In short, the person who posted these references claiming them to
>be scriptural support for abortion IS A DIRTY LIAR.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Matthew 7:1-6
>
>MAT 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
>MAT 7:2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
>              with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you
>              again.
>MAT 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own
>              eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the
>              mote out of thy brother's eye.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:53:48 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Oct14.160628.2552@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.144738.7654@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.135934.6502@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>I see no reason to believe she was _deliberately_ lying. But then again
>>there's the possibility of a reckless disregard for truth, which I would
>>also classify as "lying". Gross negligence and all that...
>Hmm....
>Perhaps.
>As I said, I believe Mr. Keegan's admission to be all that is
>necessary to deflate the claim that CJ acted with "reckless
>disregard to truth." 

I'll remind you again, however, that Keegan's admission came *AFTER* CJ's 
public declaration, so it can't, in and of itself, be used to rebut the
"reckless disregard" supposition.

>Unless, of course, Mr. Keegan did as well,
>which would, once again, make HIM lying as well.

Entirely possible. We could have two liars here. Of course, since CJ acted
from ignorance, and Keegan did not (and therefore probably from pure malice),
it wouldn't be hard to judge who is the WORSE liar in that case.

>>I'd like to see CJ produce the documentation of her "knowledge" that Keegan 
>>used the mailing list, gained PRIOR to her public declaration. Failing that,
>>she should probably retract the claim of knowledge, or, at the very least,
>>stop crowing about how she's "proven" Keegan to be a liar.
>I agree she should retract her claim of knowledge if she has not done
>so. As far as I can tell, CJ (whether she did or did not crow that she
>had proven Keegan to be a liar) is not doing so now. However, Keegan
>should stop saying that CJ is a liar, because he has failed to
>show that to be the case.

I think we're basically in agreement there. Neither should call the other a 
"liar" until more evidence is produced. What has been produced so far is 
inconclusive.

								- Kevin
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:43:03 GMT

In article <dlzznfq@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>
>->Similarly, you have failed to show
>->that she was lying. You should retract that claim.
>
>nonsense. cj admitted she lied about suzanne lucia.
>the only issue remaining is her long-awaited retraction
>which cj offered to post but did not.
I don't remember CJ admitting that she lied about Suzanne Lucia.
Please post where she did this.

>->You sent a piece of mail to the list with the header "please post
>->your comments." CJ, rightly or wrongly, interpreted that as
>->an appeal for help. The fact that you AGREED with her in email
>->shows quite clearly that it WAS reasonable for her to interpret
>->your mail to the list in that fashion. It is insane to maintain
>->otherwise.
>
>i realize how difficult this must be for you. you have
>done yeoman's work trying to defend cj.
Are you a mindreader, Jim?
How would you know how difficult this is for me?

Your assertion that CJ lied when she accused you of asking
for support from the list, is, simply ludicrous.

Jim, you admitted that you had asked for support from the list.
For you to call CJ a liar for saying something that you said
yourself is nothing short of inane.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:49:05 EDT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <26195@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Why does this keep ending up on alt.atheism?!?  If I 
wanted to read you morons arguing I'd have a lobotomy and
read talk.abortion.

   And why the hell doesn't my kill file work?

Love,

Karl
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:24:01 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <lefty-161092112450@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.182156.25919@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
 
>> And in the meantime, I'm going to sign up to join my buddies who will
>> be hitting ACT-UP super-hard, from now on. We'll get those buggers
>> back once and for all. 

>Get in touch with Ted Kaldis.  He might be willing to lend you a tire iron.

But talk real slow and make sure he realizes that you want to bash ACT-Up,
not join it. Otherwise you'll wind up wearing the tire iron.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:06:58 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Oct13.191614.13665@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>Abortions are never ok, in my opinion.

Okay.  Is that the legislation you are proposing?  
 
>Simon

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: IN DEFENSE OF STEVE CHANEY...
Date: 8 Oct 1992 22:50:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu















-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:02:11 GMT

In <1992Oct10.180032.5227@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <Oct07.220511.71586@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>>In article <1aqa7eINN140@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>|> In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu writes:
>>	Engaging in sex is an act which may have consequences.  People are
>>responsible for the effects of their behavior on others when that behavior is
>>either negligent or willful.
>>	If you hit somebody else's car, my friend, you'd better try to 
>>save their lives or you're going straight to jail, do not pass go, 
>>do not collect $200.  Are
>>you trying to imply that you SHOULD NOT have to help those you injure?  
>>If so, it
>>is your position, not mine, that is ludicrous.

>Um, excuse me, Steve, but WHAT FUCKING WORLD ARE YOU LIVING ON?

Come on, Cochran, can't you take a little joke using Monopoly-derived
language?  I don't think Steve meant the jail bit literally any more than
the "do not pass go" bit. 

 You only go to jail if you leave the scene
of the accident.  It's known as hit-and-run driving on the [expletive
deleted] world we live on.

>You're certainly not living in Colorado, or on the same Earth as the
>rest of us.

Cochran, does your state require insurance of automobile drivers?  If
it does, do you have any inkling what the word "liability" means?

[See, two can play this game of insulting the other's intelligence.
And I did not even suggest that you are on a first grade level.]

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center with Will Hall
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:12:18 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:15:40 GMT

-In article <1992Oct7.165702.18719@nwnexus.WA.COM>
-jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
-
-> Like I said before, apparently not clear enough for some people to get...
-> Give me an alternative to abortion that stops a pregnancy and we'll
-> discuss it.
-
-Jennifer, I have a simple question for you.
-
-Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
-pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
-instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
-did so, neither would I!

Duh.  No shit.

-That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
-*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
-the net have claimed. 

People are resources as well as parasites and "endless stomachs".
Face it, it's true.

-If you don't agree with that statement, throw
-yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
-worthless.

You don't know anything about Jennifer's opinion, so don't pretend that
you do.

-"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
--- Ronald Reagan

Another "duh" type statement.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:00:22 CDT

In article <1992Oct13.013019.15599@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.153944.18790@nas.nasa.gov> 
>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>> The point I was trying to get across is that
>> despite FFLA's position on many other issues, their stand on the legality
>> of abortion can hardly be called feminist.  
>
>
>Since when did "Dan King" become the sole and final arbiter of
>the definition of feminism?   

I'm sorry that no one has thought to tell you yet,
Doug, since you weren't around last year.
Dan IS King.

>                              Do you often have these desires 
>to control the thoughts of people who call themselves feminists?  
>
Why so curious about Dan's desires, Doug?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Biblical Authority for Law
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:18:33 GMT

And Jesus said:

  "Go ye into all the world, especially this place called the United
States of America (which won't be around for 2000 years or so, but
that isn't important now) and campaign for laws.  Yes, campaign for
enactment of laws which would seem to be in concert with your 
interpretation of the bible (which hasn't been written yet, but
that isn't important now either).  This I command you, that you
make secular law mirror as much as possible what you perceive to
be the Truth.  Furthermore, I command you to exact punishment, as
dealt out by governmental police and courts, in addition to any
retribution or vengence that may be waiting after death."

Try as I might, I can't recall exactly where this quote came from,
but it seems to be there, as lots of people act like it. 
 
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: In which stephen outlines the inherent baby-killing attitude of pro-choice 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:21:38 GMT

In article <31022@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>> Only foetuses would get the right to draw on a woman's bodily
>> resources - noone else.

> Yes it is.  And it is directed solely against women.  Hence, it is
> misogynistic.  

And abortion is directed solely against developing humans. Hence, it
is hatred of those humans.

Wonderful logic you got there.

>SJM


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.051623.122379@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct12.200432.9297@muddcs.claremont.edu>  weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>>
>> Requiring people to be responsible for their actions is not a punishment.
>
>Taking away one of their responsible choices, however, is.

Larry, you seem to be a reasonable person so I have chosen you to ask this
question.  Do you believe that both parents of the child are responsible
for the child if it were to be born?  I suspect the answer is yes so I will
move on to the next question, if you believe in equal rights then should not
the male have the option to have the child aborted even if it is against the
will of the mother?  Certainly the female has this right today and the same
arguments can be made in that the man:

1.  Is too poor to support the child
2.  Would be likely to abuse the child (especially if he's white) 
3.  Doesn't want the child at this point in his life, he wants to wait
    until his career is established.

I am attacking the stance that it's the woman's body and the woman's choice
yet it is also the man's responsibility if she should decide to have the
child in the first place.  

Basically, a group right has been established which gives one group (women)
a right which another group (men) does not have.  Could it not be true
that the man recognizes the above condition(s) whereas the woman would 
not and thus the man could make the so-called responsible choice?

Mike Best
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41393 talk.politics.misc:50333 alt.rush-limbaugh:6877 alt.politics.elections:15654 alt.politics.clinton:9101 alt.politics.bush:8205
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:46:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct7.153934.5743@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>> Wait a minute...I can't remember...Is my name Caine...Or is it yours?

>The _ship's_ name was Caine, ya dweeb.  IMHO, you'd be hysterical (in all
>senses of the word) as the captain in Mr. Roberts.

Two different movies I believe.

>> "Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

>That's what a lot of Republicans will be doing 27 days from today.

IN which case that's what most of us will be doing two years from now.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:21:56 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <26431@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>>Nat Hentoff, a Voice columnist, Gov. Casey stepped to the mike and began:
>>"I respect the First Amendment rights of everyone here -"
>
>Fine. His were respected also. He is allowed to say what ever he wants.
>He cannot force us to listen. At the Democratic Convention, he was denied
>platform time, but he could have spoken outside, on the pavement. I
>recall that this was MLK's initial way of speaking to those he wanted
>to reach. Perhaps this is an indicator that he holds a very unpopular
>opinion?

Yeah, right. 

So unless you're pro-choice, you have no right to speak in a PUBLIC
place. You remember, Casey WAS speaking in a public place. 

Thanks for making that clear for us, Ron. 


>>"The Democratic National Convention suspended the First Amendment, and
>>tonight you did the same thing.  Congratulations," Casey said.  Then he
>>walked off the stage and headed straight for his car.  "What can you say?
>>What can you say?" he said on the way out.  "It's like a fascist crowd."
>
>A man with a fascist opinion calling a crowd fascist.
>Hmmm. Pot. Kettle. Black.

In your opinion, pro-lifers are fascist. 
So your opinion is, since asserted blatantly, truth, and now it is
perfectly okay to go around terrorizing pro-lifers who speak. 

Thank you for clarifying these points.  


>>...Free speech for them appeared conditioned on agreement with
>>them, as in one protestor's cry:
>
>>        Give me my right to choose and I'll give you your right to speak!
>
>Ron, since you posted this tripe, I suppose you subscribe to everything
>that's written. Casey is taking away the free right to choose, and the
>protestor appeared to be making a point that his right to free speech
>was similarly restricted. They both still exist, in restricted form.

Right to choose never means right to take an innocent life. That's
Casey's point. 

If banning killing means tossing out your right to choose, find me a
trash can and I'll dump it and call the truck to haul it off to the
landfill.

And in the meantime, I'm going to sign up to join my buddies who will
be hitting ACT-UP super-hard, from now on. We'll get those buggers
back once and for all. 


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41080 alt.politics.clinton:8844 alt.politics.bush:8008
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:57:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <BvpsJp.IrF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.165716.22162@cs.wm.edu> jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:
>
>>Thats wonderful for your sister and her husband...too bad it doesn't
>>do a damn bit of good for the thousands of minority/poor/disadvantaged/
>>AIDS/crack babies, or even the thousands of kids over 2 years of age
>>that nobody will adopt because the majority of people able to  adopt 
>>want white healthy newborns. 
>
>	God am I sick of this. Your above statement is AN ABSOLUTE
>LIE (with the exception of the > 2 year olds). I have known several
>couples who have tried to adopt, and specified that they would take
>ANY newborn - there was still a 3 year waiting list. One couple
>decided to adopt a little girl that lived in South America somewhere
>(I don't remember where now) so they didn't have to wait. There
>just is NOT this overabundance of unwanted babies as you claim.
>
>>I'm glad Catholic Social Services is doing its thing, but just a few 
>>questions... last I checked, it cost between $5000 and $10000 for 
>>"proper" medical care of a woman during pregnancy through delivery
>>(doctor visits, lab tests, delivery room, etc). In general a couple's
>>health insurance will NOT pay those bills for someone else. So, *who*
>>can afford such a service, and what type of child do *they* want...
>
>	Generally - for a poor mother, the government will pick
>up some portion of the tab. As well, some charitable organizations
>will help with the bills.
>> 
>>I doubt if this is a solution for the majority of unwanted
>>pregnancies...
>
>	But killing an innocent child is eh?
>			Bruce

No Bruce, I think you are the one lying.  But just to make sure, why
don't we go to some addoption centers (I'm on the same campus) and
find the relative time for addoption based upon various stats (race, 
birth defects, etc).  Come on Bruce, I'm willing to take time out from
my research to do this.  How about sometime after Oct. Break.  

come on boy, put up or shut up.




--
There are no absolutes, and even that's a maybe.
tag@ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy