HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:26:22 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty) writes:

>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr08.233143.1161@liebe.uucp>
>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>[writing to nora gayle rivkis]

>>What a load of self-serving slop.  But obviously just another emotional
>>stab at justifying your Pro-Death stance.  "Hurting some people's chance
>>for survival..."???  What about the slaughtered babies upon which this
>>whole discussion is based.  But of course the only way to appear rational
>>is for you to ignore the issue (best defense is a good offense, right?).

>Pot: f(Kettle)="Black"

>Typical of you to attack an "emotional stab" and then
>use the phrases "pro-death" and "slaughtered babies."

>By the way, Kevin, Nora is undecided.

I have explained my usage of "pro-death" before.  It is not intended as an
unprovoked "stab" but as an eye-opener to those who refer to Pro-Life
people as Anti-Abortion.  The fetus' are unquestionably "slaughtered".  So
I guess you're referring to my saying "babies" as "emotional". 

If it walks, talks, acts like a duck ...

Kevin Brawley

>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ drivel alert
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Article Attribution Game (formerly: Flogging an Undecided)
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:44:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Jay

>Re: kwc posts:

>>Obviously you have no interest in whether or not I respect anything you
>>might have to say.  But I'll make a humble guess that I'm not the only
>>one who thinks that you're acting like a child.


>Maybe time to vote on just not debating with him. Personally, I give up.  



Fine, then.  Give up, David.  I accept your ignoring me as my victory.
Go ahead and avoid me if you want to.

I win, David.
I forced you into ignorance.  "Ignorance is bliss" they say.  Good for
you, Dave.

later, gator.


>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

kcw

--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:47:33 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>>> Also, it is simply important to understand the issue. Most of the
>>> argumentation you hear is due to, IMO, the fact that people do not
>>> understand the the 'other' is coming from.

>> I understand perfectly.  Pro-Death people are being extrememly selfish, 
>> power-hungry and barbaric.

>This, from an individual who wrote the following about C J Silverio:

>>|CJ has just made himself a candidate for the 
>>|first experimental post-partum abortion.

This was  a. a conclusion using CJ's "logic".  
          b. incredible sarcasm 
          c. both of which you yourself are familiar with

>Aside from the offensiveness of the 'CJ' remark, let's see what else Kevin has
>hung himself with...

>       Selfish?		Like 99.44% of the rest of the human race.
>       
>       Power-hungry?	It's the pro-forced-breeding-mare people who seek to
>       			control women.
>       			
>       Barbaric?	It's the pro-forced-breeding-mare people who want to
>       			take abortion away from clean, antiseptic clinics and
>       			competent medical professionals and put it in the back
>       			alleys with "practicioners" who don't know or care
>       			what they're doing.
>       			
>Look, Kevin, almost everything you've posted for the past couple of days
>indicates that you're more in the mood for a flame war than a discussion.
>Would you care to prove me wrong at least once?

I have proven you wrong a number of times in the last two weeks alone.  As 
for your taking my posts out of context, if that's what you have to do to
make yourself feel good ...

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: RIGHTS
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:00:37 GMT

	
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: <sigh>, why bother?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:32:29 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <72556@netnews.upenn.edu>
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Elizabeth
>>Kevin

>>>Watch your style, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and verbosity over the
>>>next few posts, Judi.  Because if you cast the stone, prepare to receive
>>>them.                                      ^^^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^

>Hey, this is purposeful.  If Judi casts "the stone", meaning a single
>stone, he better prepare to receive "them" meaning several stones.  This
>was purposeful, obviously you have no insight.

Didn't your grammar teacher tell you anything about not using a
preposition without a matching antecedent?

--
"Thou shalt honor the noble English language, speech of Shakespeare, Milton,
and Poe, and it will serve thee all the days of thy life." - Robert Heinlein

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Paulus)
Subject: Reason for abortions
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:52:19 GMT


	I would like to know from the pro-abortion side, what benefit is there
in abortions? 
	How many women have been able to pull out of the poverty cycle because
of abortion?  I know that quite a few women can keep the rich yuppie
lifestyle with an abortion, but getting there is another matter tha I don't
believe will help.
	BTW, isn't the reason why inner city teenage moms have babies is
because they need someone to love them? 
	One other question to the people who are "pro-choice": what have you
(personally or collectively) to really ensure CHOICE (I.E. support for women
who want to have their babies)?

--JP--
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Reason for abortions
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 07:49:07 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  <1992Apr16.231507.25186@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>  shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Paulus) writes:
> In article <JBATES.92Apr16102657@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@pinocchi
> >In article <1992Apr15.235219.27246@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.
> >
> >> I would like to know from the pro-choice side, what benefit is there
> >>in abortions?
> >
> >     It's simple. When you are pregnant, and have an abortion, you aren't
> >pregnant anymore. That's a benefit, if you choose it to be.
> That part is obvious.

Then why did you ask?

> But what about the cost?

You didn't ask about cost; you asked about benefit.  I believe the
cost is on the order of a few hundred dollars.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lape@cs.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: No it ain't
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:01:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu


	It is not right for a man to force a woman to do anything.  It is
also not right for a woman to force a man to do anything.  It is also wrong
for people to force their beliefs, no matter how true or liberal, upon the
population as a whole.  So, what is this group for anyway.

	For those of you who think that "Christians" or "conservatives" do
force their beliefs on people, remember this.  Christ never forced His
truths onto mankind, but He did clear the temple.  His truths have stood
the test of time, but where will the truths of the "liberals" and
"humanists" be in 2000 years?

	Racism knows no color.

bsl

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without life, there can be no choice;
without choice, there can be no life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THE PURPOSE OF THIS GROUP (alt.abortion.inequity)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 21:34:46 GMT

<71843@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (BioJerk) said:
><SCOTTS.92Mar30093842@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>><71716@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (BioJerk) writes:
...
>
>>Given his history of harassment, insolence and
>>general hostility and intolerance toward people that don't hold his
>>opinion,
>
>Hey, I like John Mayson, Adrienne, Ted, Dean and Gordon.  They don't
>share my opinion.  They're cool.

I'm touched - Kevin think's I'm cool.

...

>>Perhaps when he grows up and acts with some degree of maturity, I will
>>change my position about responding to him.
>
>Scott, I just grew up.  I realized what an ass I have been.  I am sorry.
>Wanna play now?

Since forgiveness is an Athiest concept, I really want to take Kevin at
his word here.  However, stupidity is not an Atheist concept.  I will
reserve judgement until his actions support his apology.


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: alt.abortion.inequity
From: spinoza@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:09:53 GMT

> Minor technical point...WWII started in the 1930's with major WWI treaty
> violations on the part of Hitler in Czechoslovakia, Austria and with
> Japan in the invasion of Manchuria in 1933.  So, Stalin's massive  
genocide
> paralleled the war.
Survey says, BZZZZZZT!!! Hitler was basically given Czechoslovakia by  
virtue of the agreement signed by Hitler and Neville Chamberlain (a  
brilliant exposition of the art of appeasement, kinda similar to what Bush  
wants Shamir to do. But I digress......) in Munich in 1938. Hitler walked  
into Austria to the acclaim of lots o' the population, despite the stories  
they told about the Anschluss after the war. The Japanese invasion of  
Manchuria, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, and the Spanish civil war all  
took place around then, but since only the Japanese/Chinese,  
Italian/Ethiopians, and Nationalists/Republicans were involved, it seems  
doubtful whether or not these can qualify as starting points of WWII,  
although anti-fascists from several countries did fight in Spain (the US  
Abraham Lincoln Brigade, for example)
The German invasion of Poland, however, which if I remember correctly was 
on or around September 2, 1939, is usually given as the starting point for  
the Second World War. Britain, France, and a coupla others promptly  
declared war on Germany, and the rest, as they say, was history.......


lev

"Schwerter zu Pflugscharen" Micha, 4
"......but in the meantime, make damn sure you've got the biggest stick in  
the playground"  lev,1
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.214924.20456@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.210557.17749@cs.yale.edu> 
>            rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>> This is pretty funny coming from a man who made precisely this error
>> in his post "A Quick proof."
>
>An error which I subsequently corrected. I never claimed to be perfect.
>But you seem to be gloating over it. 
I didn't see you correct it. What I saw was you trying and failing
to salvage a logically invalid argument, a project which you seem
to have abandoned but I never saw you actually admit you were wrong
until now.

>> The problem is that in Constitutional law the default state is that
>> rights are not guaranteed. So, in fact, it is correct that unless
>> one can show that a right is guaranteed, it is assumed not to
>> be. [Note that I'm not particularly happy with this state,
>> but that's the way things are.]
>
>I can't believe you could write that. Try taking a closer look at
>the Ninth amendment:
>
>  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
>  not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
>  people.
I have. Regrettably Constitutional Law does not closely follow the
text of the Constitution. Historically, the practice of the Supreme
Court--which is what decides what the Constitution says--has been
as I describe above, regardless of what the document actually says.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:32:37 GMT

In article <74036@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>
>Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
>I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.
>
>Jerk.
>

And you are lecturing us about moral and ethical behavior?



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: next
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:04:41 GMT

cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.234158.5135@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:
>|In a previous article, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) says:
>|>Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
>|>she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
>|>question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?
>|true........pregnancy is a viable consequence of ANY sexual activity.

>Oh, really?  Even sexual activity when birth control
>is used?  Even sexual activity when one or both of the
>participants is sterile?  Even sexual activity which does
>not involve contact between penis & vagina?

>|Don't ever forget that. I cannot feel sorry for someone who 
>|did not consider the possible outcomes of his/her actions and is
>|responsible for an "unwanted pregnancy." Use your brain.

>Oh, boy.  I love it when pro-lifers say things like this.
>You know, Matthew, when you get into a car & drive,
>you're risking possible accident & injury.  I cannot feel
>sorry for you if you don't consider the possible outcomes
>of your actions and you're responsible for an "unwanted
>car accident."  It would be irresponsible of you to seek
>medical treatment for your injuries.  You've just got to
>accept the consequences of your behavior, and live with
>the broken bones, the mangled flesh, the burns.  You should
>have thought about accidents before you got into the car.
>Use your brain.

Pooooooor analogy.  Emergency room treatments do not include
murdering children to cure someone.


profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: MORALITY
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 06:55:03 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  <1992Apr14.175139.21103@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>  knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.220602.29741@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
> > I will not waste
> >time "suppoting" something that is common knowledge.
>
> If it was indeed 'common', I, and the people who I am discussing your posts with
> might have seen it.  We, and nobody I have asked, has ever heard of the examples
> you state. I am simply asking for you to support your statments. What progress
> can be made if nothing that one says is verifyable?
>
> > Would you be stupid
> >enough to waste your time "supporting" that a WASP family actually was
> >allowed to adopt a non-WASP child?
>
> If you asked me to support that statment, and I am trying to convince you of
> it I am obliged to support that, yes.
>
> I would not refer to your reasonable request for me to supprt my assertions as
> 'stupid'.

But you're assuming that you're telling the truth.  If you were making the
whole thing up, and someone called you on it, you might find yourself
backed into a corner, and feel that your only defense was to attack your
questioners and hope they forget what they asked you.  And if you were
illiterate as well as a liar then you might say something like
"I will not waste time 'suppoting' something that is common knowledge."

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: Encore Computer
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:27:11

>Kevin
>>Larry

>>     "Does the brain even exist at conception?" narrator
>>     Jaworski asks early in the broadcast.

>>     "NO!!!" shoots back Dr. Michael Bennett, chairman
>>     of the neuroscience department at New York's Albert
>>     Einstein School of Medicine.

>I agree as well.  It exists at about 4 weeks when it begins to
>develop.

>>     "Can there be a person without a brain?" Jaworski inquires.

>>     "No, no way," replies Bennett.  "You can't be a person
>>     without a brain, you can't be a dog without a brain,
>>     you can't be a cat without a brain or a chicken without
>>     a brain."

>Bennett has just admitted that at 4 weeks, when a brain is present
>in the fetus, that it is a person.  At five weeks when the brain
>is more developed, it is a person.  At 8 weeks, when the brain shows
>electrical activity, the fetus is a person.

	Do we have to go through this again, Kevin? Bennet has said
nothing about when it *is* a person. He has said when it *isn't* a person,
or a chicken, or a cat. You're making the same mistake you did earlier.

>>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

>kcw

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: taking a stab at it ...
Organization: The Ohio State University
 (Jim Scobbie) writes:
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:14:40 GMT

Our biggest problem is that, in abortion as in so many other controversial 
issues, we have no useful shared premises to start from.  Newton's Laws of 
Mechanics just don't help much.  Perhaps we should spend more time searching 
for some . . .

I am one of those arguing that caring about individual people comes first, and 
I'm glad to see someone agrees with me.  Actually, I know there are lots of 
such people, but they get "overshouted" by others sometimes.  Hence, I would 
rather spend my time caring about individuals than looking for grand unifying 
principles - and so might you.  Maybe this is why we haven't found any.

--Bill
Committed to faith in God
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:26:33 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
>writes:

>>The fetus is not her property.  Her body is not her property.  She cannot
>>do anything she wishes with her body.

>That was the final blow to your credibility.

What credibility? Don't even give him the idea he ever had any.

So welch appears to be on his slavery kick again, because obviously
if her body does not belong to her, it must belong to somebody else,
or maybe he wishes to claim it is vacant?

Well, at least you finally answered my question about what you thought
about the woman. You don't, you think that she's a piece of air. I wonder
if I can catalogue all of your monstrous statements into a package that's
readable, and send it to every hospital in the country. Let them be
prepared for you when you go apply for a job. Since everything was posted
in the public domain, you can't claim invasion of privacy; malice, maybe,
but certainly not privacy.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Paulus)
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:01:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.192745.18818@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:
>> = (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>>>"Sonny, we got a report that she was about to let a potential human
>>> life be menstruated away.  Now, go home, and be sure not to
>>> masturbate, or we'll nab you for genocide."
>
>>*knock* *knock* *knock* HELLLLOOOO. Are you for real? Life doesn't occur
>>until AFTER conception fool...
>
>According to whom, Mr. Godhead?  Are you implying that the sperm cell
>and ovum were _dead at conception_?  Idiot.
>
The sperm and ovum are NOT human life. If one were to sustain them, they would
remain sperm & ovum respectively. When they come together, they have the full
genetic material for a human being, and in fact start growing 
>>   *sigh* don't they ever learn?
>
>Learn what?  Your version of religious fairy tales?  Pathetic, your
>inability to live life as it is.
>
>
I'm sorry to see so much anger and hate in you.


>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@jaynes.USWest.Com


--JP--