HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi is Anti-Male and Pro-Dennis and DULL AS HELL
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:39:36 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr5.061044.25452@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
>   I'm afraid Kathi dear, it is time for you to end this thread. I haven't
>even bothered to follow it. I dont' give one flying **** who posted what.

...

>   I can't even comment on your point of view because I didn't feel like
>reading you 150 line post, but in any case, 
...

>Please stop - it's boring, inappropriate, and doesn't show the slightest
>sign of logic, wit, or thought (all necessity on the net). 

One wonders how you can be so sure her comments are boring, inappropriate,
and don't show any logic when you claim repeatedly to not even having read
them.  Really Mr. Franklin, can you explain this?


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

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: do unborn have rights????
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:58:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.165848.17978
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)



funny......the eggs of a spotted owl or a California condor
have rights.......but a fetus doesn't. Use your fucking brain.

and drop some stupid line about them being endangered and humans
have overpopulayed the earth. the point is that we spend more effort
proecting some stupid bird than we do our future.

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:14:15 EST

In article <92105.121056JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>, Joy Haftel writes:
> ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com says:
>> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>>> But she didn't, much to all our benefit.    She made-the-choice to say Yes!
>>> Had she said no, God would have sent his angel to ask somebody else.
>>
>>Suzanne, have you heard of an event called the Immaculate Conception?
> 
> The Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that
> Mary was conceived without sin.  Perhaps you are referring to the
> incarnation and virgin birth?

Think about it Joy, read Suzanne's last line and think what it implies.
Or maybe all women are conceived without sin, just us men are:) - J.J.
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:29:10 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <mwD8iB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>> 
>> The problem is that constitutional rights and civil liberties do not become
>> null and void by crosing a state line.  The right to control one own body
>> and make reproductive decisions is more fundamental and important than the
>> right to play blackjack.
>True, but does a person have a constitutional right to control one's own
>body?  We do not have the right to inject our bodies with heroin.  We do
>not have the right to put alcohol in our bodies shortly before driving a
>motor vehicle.  I could bring up other examples.
	And maybe better ones?  As far as DWI is concerned, it's not until you
actually step into that car and leave your own property that you forfeit your
right to do as you wish with your own body and that's only because you have
now become a threat to other citizens.  And whether we have the right to
inject ourselves with heroin or anything else is actually a pretty debateable
point.  A case can be made for the notion that the State has no right at all
to tell us what we can or can't do with our own bodies, as long as we're not
endangering other citizens.  And as you may have noticed, there is considerable
disagreement here whether or not a zygote/embryo/fetus should be
considered a human being at all, much less a citizen.

>The constitution does not give a person the right to do whatever one wants
>to one's own body.  This ought to be even more true when we are dealing
>with a potential human being.
>
	As I said, a debatable point.  But if you think the State does have
the right to force us to do what's good for us, where does it end?  If it's 
acceptable to prohibit us from taking drugs which are bad for us, why not
prohibit us from eating food which is *at least* as bad for us?  More people
die of heart disease every day than from any overdose of any illegal drug.
	To bring this back to abortion:  if the State can prevent a woman
from killing a fetus, why can't it also prevent her from harming it with
alcohol or drugs (perscription or otherwise)?  If a pregnant woman smokes a
cigarette or has wine with dinner, isn't this prima facie evidence of child
abuse?  Shouldn't she be arrested?  And if not, *why* not, given your assertion
that the fetus is *absolutely identical in every legal aspect* with a human
being?
 	How far are you willing to extend the State's power to control our
bodies?
> This is from
>     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
>who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: Darned Antagonistic Medieval Attitudes 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:22:09 GMT

In <1992Mar25.061829.12636@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com 
   (C J Silverio) writes: >
wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes: |

|I guess you're right; I'll never get me a good woman 'til I learn
|some modern attitudes.

>The sad part is that he thinks he's joking.

You mean you've met my wife???!!!  

Bill

(Apologies to my wife, who will laugh when she sees this.)
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:54:37 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <16721@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.003355.4672@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <16709@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:

>The K of C is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group that is closely
>associated with the Church.  The K of C gets many tax breaks that go with
>being classified as a charitable organization. 
   The day society starts abusing and rejecting the good works of groups
such as the Knights of Columbus, we'll feel it instantly. These groups
do SO MUCH (at least up here where I come froM) for us that I couldn't
begin to summarize. Yes, they are pro-life, but they have concerns that
go beyond that. Obviously you judge them by their one belief, not
by their wealth of goodness...

>If on the other hand, you want to stop abortions by saying no one can have
>them, hold it right there buster.  The right to control one's own body is
>fundamental.  The right to make reproductive decisions is a private matter
>and not in the domain of the state.  Period.

   Buster? No... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions. Not even
through contraception, but through proper education . It can be that simple.
One's own body is not just one's own body when you share it with another 
sentient being...
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Many Men! So Little Time! (Was: March in D.C.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:28:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr15.212836.25436
Distribution: na
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> I wish I were eighteen and not only knew everything today, but
> knew all of my future as well.

Dean, you of all people should know that most of our mental development
happens between ages 4 and 18:  At age 4, you know all the questions;
at age 18, you know all the answers. :-)

> Dean Kaflowitz

> War is peace
> -Eric Blair

aka George Orwell.  The rest goes

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: individual denial
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 22:35:02 GMT

<1992Mar29.191505.28223@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
>In article <92087.135842ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
...
[subject: Susan Garvin's innocence]

...
>                               Take off your blinders for just a little while,
>Ms. Birmingham. I think you'll find that your sister-in-arms is not as 
>innocent as she protests.

I'll vouch for this.  How can she be innocent when she is an ex-girlfriend
of _mine_.  ;-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: linda bags kevin (was Re: The Ego that Ate the Net)
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:04:17 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
-> >In  <1992Apr2.054200.10383@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:
-> >> In article <92091.165901ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
-> >>>Idiot.  The net is not here to serve you, and you alone.
-> >>
-> >>Where did I imply that the Net existed to serve me ALONE??
-> >
-> >"What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve
-> > TO ME?" Kevin Darcy <1992Mar29.182951.28031@rotag.mi.org>
-> > ^^^^^^
-> 
-> "To me" is clearly a subset of "to everyone", Linda. This
-> quote therefore does -not- imply that the Net exists to serve
-> me ALONE.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

sure kebbie. now tell the readers about the GROUP kevin darcy and
the INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.

        'Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game
        is that the sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe
        him. "Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...'  
		-- lefty@apple.com
	        <9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 18:58:51 GMT

In article <92099.011358JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.

Well, Joy, this is the basic problem I have in dealing with "potential"
lives in this particular argument.

After all the end result of 80 years of long and happy life is ALSO
death.  But I wouldn't therefore go so far as to justify abortion on
the basis of "we all die eventually -- it's our potential".

The end result of an egg that doesn't meet a sperm is also death.
The end result of a fertiziled egg that doesn't implant is also death.
The end result of a born child riding in a car without a seatbelt that
has a head on collision at 60 MPH is also death.

What does the 'end result' have to do with it?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kogutt@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SCAVENGER)
Subject: Re: INFO NEEDED!!!(really quickly like,too)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:47:18 GMT

Hi again.  While reading through T.A.(and I glanced over around 800 or so articles tonight) I saw mention of both a"guide to T.A." that someone had made and
posted and a T.A. FAQ.

If someone has these online or readily available, please E-Mail me a copy.

Again thank you in advance for all help given.

----Todd Kogutt
-- 
If some unemployed punk in New Jersey, can     |kogutt@ucsu.colorado.edu <-I.NET
get a cassette to make love to Elle McPherson  |
for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going|No matter where you go,
to make crack look like Sanka. -  Dennis Miller| there you are."-Buckaroo Banzai
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:27:07 GMT

In article <92098.125538ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.193857.22743@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>
>>In article <p8rt_j=@rpi.edu> James G. Keegan Jr. writes:
>>>>>kwelch@eniac (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>
>kw> Well, since we all go by the law around here
>>>>>
>kg>wait a minute sonny!
>
>kw>        "I harass pregnant women who kill their children."
>>>>>              <67853@netnews.upenn.edu>
>>>>>
>kg>and this?
>>>>>
>kg>     >did you get to intimidate any women on spring break?
>kw>     "No, just harass"
>>>>>     <69866@netnews.upenn.edu>
>
>>Please cite chapter and verse as to how and why Welch's harrassing acts might
>>be construed as being in any way "illegal", or withdraw the whole line of
>>questioning.
>
>Well isn't this interesting.
>
>Please cite where Kevin Welch admitted to doing anything
>other than "harassing pregnant women", behaviour you seem
>to think shouldn't be construed as illegal... 
                 
Shouldn't NECESSARILY be construed as illegal, that is. If you wish to imply
that Welch's particular form(s) of harrassment are in violation of some
applicable law(s), then please identify exactly which statues/ordinances/
bylaws/whatever he has supposedly broken. Otherwise, stop slandering him.

								- Kevin
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:23:01 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <ku6ajbINN5t5@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.010315.17924@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>   My logic is revolting... How utterly flattering. Thanks. In any case, your
>>point that I refer to god as _He_ is defeated, since you lower to the
>                                                          ~~~~
>>opposite extreme with "she". 

>So you are saying that "she" is lower than "he"? Your sexism disgusts me.
>                                ~~~~~

My, you logic is not good is it?
If one number is a, and it is lowered to b, and then we take a
again and LOWER it to c, how can we assume that c is lower than b?

   What I did say was that we have made the mistake of denominating God
as a "he" 2000 years ago, but some are no better by doing the same now
solely to prove a point. Clealy she has lowered HERSELF (it was a she I
think) by resortin to a tactic of two wrongs make a right. Calling God
a "she" proves no point, and makes no corrections towards the attitude
of a male "he".
   Dude, your effort was silly. Try and knock at my credibility by
attacking anythign and everything I say with vigor? tsk tsk  - shame
on you - don't you see I can't be beaten that way? Once again
your effort at blatant misinterpretation fails. 
   steeeeerike 2 for Eric
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 18:02:34 GMT


In a previous article, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:

>It's obvious to all readers except Holtsinger that I find
>him nauseating.  I also doubt his claims to be pro-choice.
>He has made all the usual pro-life arguments:
>	- advocating forced hysterectomies for women who
>	  seek abortions
>	- labelling sexually active people as sluts
>And in email he has said that he would limit abortion
>to cases where there is medical danger to the woman's
>life.  Whatever he calls himself, he quacks like a pro-lifer.
>(Copies of the email furnished on request, via email,
>if Lewis tries to deny it.)
>

CJ......I think you should have figured it out by now.....but
I'm playing the Devil's Advocate. All of my suggestions and scenerios
are just that......suggestions and scenerios. They do not imply my
personal feelings on this issue. You can guess all you want
about how I stand, but most likely you will be wrong. To give you
a hint, I asscoiate with neither pro-life or pro-choice.

The sad thing is that if one day I do come out with my whole philosophy
then one group will simply ignore and/or attack everything I will
ever say without even considering it.  So why should I alienate
a large portion of the readers. My point is that everyone's assertions
and logic should be questioned and defended, even your comrades in
thought. Not every type of caustic attack has to be destructive. 
i hope some are constructive. I hope that someone's stance is fortified
by my questions, insults, whatever. If you don't grow stronger, then
examine your foundation.

The problem with this group is that so many people are entrenched
in a groove to the point that they REFUSE to even consider what other
people think in other grooves. 

"Everything you assume is wrong."

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Keywords: food, waste disposal, circulation, blood loss
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:47:23 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1992Apr6.003146.29171@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:

>As for energy prior to implantation, there is sufficient stored energy
>in the egg to last until implantation.

What a marvel!
That one cell can carry the energy required to divide so many times!

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: RE: Dear Stupid, Pro-Life, Ass-Hole... :] (Sorry, I couldn't resist..)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:35:00 GMT

In article <14APR92.03353958@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu  
writes:
> In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) wrote:
> >Loren:
> > 
> >I'm pro-choice.  I have absolutly not problem believing that the fetus  
> >is
> > 
> >(1)Alive
> >(2)Human
> >(3)a "Human Being" (in pretty much whatever way you want to define 
> >THAT).

Same here.

> >I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining abortions before the  
20th
> >week of pregnancy.  I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining  
abortions
> >after the 20th week of pregnancy provided they have more of a reason  
than
> >"Oh, I woke up today and it was, like, you know, cloudy, so I like,  
decided
> >to go out and have an abortion".
> > 
> >Would you like to know why?
> > 
> >Because the rights of the BORN HUMAN BEING WOMAN must have more  
priority than
> >the "rights" of the UNBORN HUMAN BEING FETUS.  There are cases where  
these two
> >humans have almost equal rights, but those are few and far between.
> > 
> 
> But we are not talking about the same right.  We are not talking about 
> one persons right to live over another persons right to live.

Of course we're not talking about the same right. The fetus cannot  
possibly have a right to live, because rights can be voluntarily waived.
A fetus, since it is not yet capable of thought, cannot volunteer  
anything.

> All rights are not equal. 

I totally agree there. The right to live is obviously pretty high on
the hierarchy of rights, but the supreme right is that to waive any 
other right. Without it, our rights would merely be duties.

> Does one persons right to free speech supercede another persons right
> to live?  No, if it did then solicitation to commit a crime 
> (specifically, a murder) would not me illegal. I believe that the 
> right to live must have priority of over the right to free speech, and 
> the right to bear arms. 

Yes, but if we give the fetus a right to life, that means it must be
able to choose to _not_ live. It obviously can't do that, so the only
way to make abortion illegal (if that's what you're seeking) is to
force upon all fetuses the duty to be born, and upon all women the
duty to give birth. Would that really be what you want? 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....