HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:40:47 GMT


serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com writes:
|>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com writes:
|>|How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of
|>|the animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".
|>|When will YOU understand that YOU must take responsibility for
|>|YOUR actions.  

|I could believe what I have just read if it were directed at my
|4 year old son.  He is still quite naive in these matters. 

Gosh, Mike-- I guess I believed that what you wrote came from a
four-year-old, or some other very naive child who hadn't had the
Sex Talk from his parents yet.  Your post seemed to have no
connection with adult reality.

Maybe you could write another post, one that shows us that
you know something about adult sexuality.  I'd love to read it.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:40:42 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>In article <1992Aug19.221008.1083@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># A person can kill in self-defense only when they can reasonably
># believe that their life is in _immediate_ danger. 

This statement is not correct.  

Sarah McCabe
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Repeating a lie more frequently as it is challenged.
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:01:06 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug18.164057.23032@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes in a style suggesting that, although
Kellmeyer has been absent lately, DOD has learned the tactic of
repeating lies with greater frequency as they are challenged.  Deletia
to get to the particular lie in question:

>Clinton has had to change his abortion stance to place it in line with 
>the Democratic platform of unrestricted abortion-on-demand.

Please state exactly what abortion on demand entails.  Then please
document that it is in the Democratic platform.  You are a liar.

>The situation we have today is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-
>demand.

Larry Margolis has recently pointed out that this claim is a lie.  To
support this interpretation you need to provided documented cases of
abortions in the third trimester, which begins after the 24th week
BTW, for reasons other than danger to the health of the mother.
Perhaps Steve Arnold can send you documentation about the women he
mentioned who get abortions because they cannot fit in their
swimsuits.  

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:47:22 CST
 <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com> <1992Aug20.174314.4087@ncsu.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.174314.4087@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com> 
> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> 
>> If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
>> of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.  
> 
> Refraining from sexual intercourse does not mean refraining from sex, 
> since there's always oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation, among 
> other forms of sex.  There's a wide variety of possibilities besides
> the missionary position.  Please don't confuse "sexual intercourse"
> with "sex". 

but he doesn't believe any of that, remember?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The "abortion on demand" myth:  anti-choice scare tactics
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:57:14 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  <RJOHNSON.92Aug19101825@conus.shell.com>  rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>  >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>  >> In this country, we do have abortion on demand throughout the term
>  >> of pregnancy.
>
>  >My challenge in my previous post, which you deleted, was:
>
>  >Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US that perform 3rd trimester
>  >abortions, and then only for medical reasons, it seems obvious to any
>  >reasonably intelligent observer that "abortion-on-demand throughout
>  >the term of pregnancy" is simply a myth.
>
>  >For you to claim otherwise, you'd have to document for us some
>  >third-trimester abortions for other than medical reasons.
>
>  >So, Doug, do you want to address the *reality* of the situation, or are
>  >you going to implicitly admit that you're wrong by continuing your scare
>  >tactics?
>
> I think Doug wanted to address the *legality* of the situation, which
> is what the abortion debate is about.  Would it be OK with you if we
> were to legislate the status quo: no third-trimester abortions for other
> than (serious) medical reasons?

That's what we have now, with Roe v. Wade.  I consider that to be an
acceptable compromise.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:55:47 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  <1992Aug20.210650.9651@spdc.ti.com>  serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.174314.4087@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsing
> >In article <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com>
> >serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> >
> >> If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
> >> of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.
> >
> >Refraining from sexual intercourse does not mean refraining from sex,
> >since there's always oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation, among
> >other forms of sex.  There's a wide variety of possibilities besides
> >the missionary position.  Please don't confuse "sexual intercourse"
> >with "sex".
> >
>
>  idiots
>
>  If we were talking about other forms of sex and not intercourse we
>  wouldn't have to worry about an abortion now would we?

Right.  So bugger off.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:15:06 GMT

> = serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of the 
>animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".  When will YOU 
>understand that YOU must take responsibility for YOUR actions.  If you 
>are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term then maybe you should 
>not be having sex.  

Could you elucidate exactly how
(consent to have sex) => (consent to bear children)
or do you simply take this as an axiom and develope your opinion from there?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:22:46 GMT

In article <14252@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> 
pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:

> [.. re: Republican platform on abortion ..]
>
> I am not posting to inflame (plenty of that goes on in this newsgroup 
> without me :-), I'm trying to make sure of the exact position of the 
> Republican party.

I believe you are posting to inflame.  You answered your own question
a few days ago, and now you're asking it again.  

The Republican platform on abortion is a minority-held position within 
the Republican party.  The executive branch of the federal government
has no authority to amend the Constitution.   

Let me ask you this question:  do you support the Democratic platform
of unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy,
and government funding of abortion?  


>Paula Burch


Doug Holtsinger
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:14:33 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

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> In <16e9bfINNijc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
-> > HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> > >  I was merely bringing Gordon's statement to
-> > >heel.  Unwanted (or even wanted, for that matter)
-> > >pregnancies CAN do all these things--with the
-> > >effect of "ruin."  But it is NOT a certainty.  Or
-> > >highly likley.
-> > 
-> > How can you tell?
-> 
->   How can you?  

you're the one making the argument, jimmie. have you no
data to support your statements? aren't you the one who
is always asking everyone else for evidence?

-> > How can you, Jimmy, who have never sat through an
-> > unwanted pregnancy, tell what is 'highly likely'
-> > with any certainty?  If I had to figure who would
-> > have a better picture about this, you or a
-> > pregnant woman, I'd vote for the pregnant woman.

->   Just between you and me and the the rest of the
-> world, I'd vote for the pregnant woman too.  She's a
-> lot more likely to know--

well, that's big of you.

-> but there's no guaruntee either.

aha. so now it's a "guaruntee" you want. what kind of "guaruntee?"

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:48:02 GMT

From article <adams.713740297@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>Children at that age are simply learning that the world is made up of
>>men and women, and not just big kids (adults) and little kids.   I
>>strongly suspect your little niece was not embracing homosexualism as much 
>>as she was simply verbalizing that she could tell that they were both men.
> 
> And didn't see anything wrong.  If society were the same, she'd never, ever
> see anything wrong with it.  But when someone TELLS her that it's
> icky-yuckey-gross, then she'll perhaps start to feel that way...to the
> detriment of people who happen to be DIFFERENT than you are.
                                                      ^^^
Me?  What have _I_ got to do with it?

I think Steve, that you are just overwhelmingly paranoid.   You are so
gung ho about insisting that child saw and embraced more than she did,
that you fail to see that you are also attributing to ME more than I
actually said.

I was merely pointing out to Brian that that child saw nothing more than
two men, and expressed it in her baby language.   I seriously doubt she even
noticed they were holding hands.

Mr. Paranoid.

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:40:38 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug12.184217.26374@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> ...I train on pro-abortion arguments presented here; I have never
> considered any argument of mine "strong enough" and am always testing
> it for any holes through which pro-aborts can possibly weasel their
> way out of. 

Arguments?  You say you have _arguments_?

You ought to post a few.  They've got to be more interesting than the
nonsense you usually come up with.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:22:06 GMT

Here I go again.  In the absence of feedback, I'll just keep on re-posting
in this way, until someone tells me I am finally getting through rather
than defaulting to the local net.  NOTE: as usual with these re-posts,
I erased "uscar" after "distribution" and put "world" in its place.


In <nyikos.713883775@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <BszqC6.Jp5.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug14.151557.28696@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>#In article <Bsz84u.36A.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>#
>>## No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
>>## choose.  
>>#
>>#And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
>>#_want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
>>#pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
>>#many women are pro-life.  By failing to recognize women as individuals
>>#who have a variety of opinions on abortion, he assumes that all women
>>#think alike on the issue of abortion, which is a sexist attitude. 

>>You know, DOD, you really should wait to do your compulsive 
>>editing until after you read the words.  I was speaking of
>>a woman's right to choose.  Choice implies alternatives.  
>>I know that you are motivated by a desire to control people,
>>so it must be beyond you to understand the concept of choice.
>>Here's a hint:  people with brains do not believe that
>>"choose" is a synonym for abortion.
>>  Idiots like you do,
>>but it is ridiculous for you to expect the rest of the world
>>to write in your bizarre code.

>Who made up the code?  Not Doug, but the self-designated
>[BTW, Ms. Garvin, did you read my COERCED ABORTION post last month?] 
>"pro-choice" abortion-supporting  groups like NARAL, which
>fight tooth and nail against Informed Consent bills that would
>make abortionists reveal just how many medical dangers there are in
>a supposedly "safe, legal" abortion?

>Peter Ny.





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: STOP THE TERRORISTS!!!
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:19:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.030500.28053@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Read the July/August 1992 _Humanist_; it has a cover story of
>how some pro-choice activists defended the Buffalo clinics earlier
>this year.

Thanks for this information.  

>	They would be good people to talk to :-)
>
>	Also, a group like NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action
>League.
>
>	Pro-choice people have managed to get legal injunctions
>against anti-abortion terrorists in some places.
>
>	I recently read of some such characters going to jail
>somewhere in Florida.

Glad to hear it!

Vickie
Anto-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education, Pro-life*

     *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***

* Pro, adv. in favor of; n. affirmative side [...]
 Yep, I'm pro-life alright! I think all Pro-choicers are too. The anti-choicers
don't (or shouldn't) have a monopoly on this phrase. (Anymore!)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Keywords: Cough Man
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:13:51 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Oh, this is great. Mark Kaufman is going to engage in a flamewar with
>the arguably most well-armed and accurate artilleryman on USENET.
>Cough Man is begging for abuse, so abuse he shall have. 

You have plenty to spare, from what you've detailed about home life
with your psycho parents.

>Isn't that what they said about you the last time they mentioned
>intellegent life in general?  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

Hee hee hee.

>>But if it annoyed Chaney, it was not a complete error.  To all of
>>the HUMANS here, sorry about the error.  Sorry about the error...
>>Hmm.  Isn't that what Steve Chaney's mother should have said?

Chaney's mother probably said, "Quit mouthing back, you 2 year old loser!
And get the fuck out of the house!! I'll show you!!!"

>What, and steal your _wife's_ patented words? Not hardly. 

Hey, SSOB - don't you ever re-read this cornball crap and get
embarrassed?

>You're still a loudmouthed, can't-back-up-a-word-of-what-you-say,
>king-of-the-400-meter-backpedal, two-faced hypocritical, scum-sucking
>piece of radioactive USENET.manure that ever got flung in the faces of
>USENET.readers.  

<*Yawn*>  At least he can spell "intelligent" and "harass", you brainless
twit.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:27:50 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>If Lyman said "All people deserve support for their right to discriminate
>against homosexuals", then that statement would carry a very objectionable
>implication that all people would _want_ to discriminate against
>homosexuals.

Let's try to make this clear to DOD. He seems to be particularly dense,
at this time. DOD, here goes:

All people deserve support for their right to wear plaid pants and checkered
shirts with thinly striped bowties. This exists at the present (I've
actually seen a real-life <well, maybe not so real:> person wearing
this type of get-up) and he deserved support in his desire to do so
(such as not getting lynched for exhibiting such bad taste) but I seriously
doubt you'd find too many others who would wear such a combination.
Do you see any serious flaws in your statement at this point? No? How
about applying it to your original statement? (After all, the one quoted
above is illegal anyway, although still practiced in reality.)

Three ring mental acrobatics to be held at 1:00 PM.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:28:55 GMT

In article <nyikos.713807631@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# This confuses forgiveness with support.  On top of which, inasmuch as women
# were never legally penalized for abortions (all punishments fell on the
# abortionists) there is not much else to be said.  Your daughter wants an
# abortion, you cannot stop her against her will.  Do you go on loving her,
# or not?  Bush would go on, while continuing to maintain that what she did
# was wrong.

Which inspires an intersting question--

	If you believe abortion is equivalent to murder, and your
	dependent child has an abortion in defiance of you, would you
	treat said child the same as if she had murdered the next door
	neighbor in cold blood?

	Or do you `go on loving her' as you testify against her at her
	trial?

(I realize Bush has never explicitly equated abortion with murder, but
there are those in government and in the Repub party who have.)

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:48:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.223735.21308@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.004438.7696@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>>
>>Well, whaddya know, s/he/it's in Berkeley! 
>No, actually CJ lives in Palo Alto.

Wow! Gee, that's awesome! 

===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: TelephonePoles and Tragedies	
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:02:01 GMT

tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
] But not this.  I've never understood this argument.  You're basically
] saying "if you make it illegal, I'll do it anyway, and I might 
] hurt myself"  Someone here likes car analogies, so here's one:
] drunk driving is illegal.  So should I feel sorry for the drunk that
] plows into a telephone pole?  (I know, not a perfect analogy, so sue
] me.)
] 
] I'm curious, how many of you pro-choice people think this clothes-hanger
] argument is a correct one?  


1. let me see if I have your position correct here Todd.

	1.1: You wish to forget the history,
	wherein the rich were able to travel
	to such places as would allow them abortions.

	1.2: The rich were able to get such 'ending of a gestation'
	as were needed under such names as were not called abortion
	so as to not have to have an abortion.... but still end
	the gestation.

	1.3: The UnderWealthy were able to get by as always, 
	with what ever passes for 'almost medicine' - and that
	is the way that it should be.

2. Persons who get into accidents, should be held responsible
for said accidents, as they KNEW that they were a potential
consequence of their actions. Hence it is that using any
medical support for said auto_accident victims is IMMORAL
in an AntiAbortionist world view....


ciao
drieux

ps: ever notice that the level needed to be defined
as a 'drunk driver' changes from country to country,
and from time to time....


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections