HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Next: Mark Kaufman
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:13:24 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Mark Kaufman

>   I could be wrong, but I think I've been insulted.

Quite the contrary.  It is a mark of pride to have earned the temper tantrum
of an attention-starved, power hungry, deluded child who has become obsessed
with the fantasies he must turn to for comfort.  I am only sorry that I have
not intimidated him sufficiently to have received a barrage of petty, 
juvenile insults myself.

-- 
I feel like a gay man trapped inside a woman's body.

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:00:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.140923.11155@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288) writes:
# No, what you are hoping is that an intrepretation of the sonogram
# will alter the way that one feels. Without intrepretation, a sonogram
# looks like grainy white noise. I will be glad to email gif or jpeg frames
# from a sonogram to anyone wishing to test this statement. All I ask is
# that you post your intrepretation to the net, and the amount of training
# you have had in using ultrasound equipment. I will follow up your post
# with information as to what images the frames actually contain.

I volunteer.

I have had absolutely no training on ultrasound equipment whatsoever.

Send gif files.  (If it isn't too bad, why not post?)

Please give an indication of what I should be looking for.  Example:
this one is from a pregnant narwhal -- this one is of termites in a
motel 6 -- there should be a human fetus in this one.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortion and Self-Interest
Date: 15 Sep 1992 01:48:04 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

I'm curious how both sides of the issue will tackle this:

   In terms of personal self-interest, which side has more to gain in the
   batte between "abortion rights" and human's "right to life?"


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 01:50:48 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


dd>In article <Bu6HMy.Ft2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Don Dodson) writes:

dd>The other day I met a young lady and her 5 week old baby, Dalton
dd>Brooks.  I held little Dalton while his mother told me his story:

dd>Back in January, Dalton came very close to death.  His mother had
dd>already paid $350 to have Dalton killed.  As she was walking into
dd>the clinic for the abortion, she was met by two PLAN counselors.
dd>They told her of the reality of abortion that the abortionists never
dd>mention.  She did not immediately decide to not go through with the
dd>abortion.  However, she agreed to wait a few days to reconsider.
dd>She said she may consider adoption, if she could find a family who
dd>would commit to adopting her baby.  During the next two days the
dd>two counselors contacted dozens of families in their Churches and
dd>finally found a family who wanted to adopt a baby.  The young mother
dd>and the family were introduced, and the mother decided to continue
dd>with the pregnancy.  Dalton was born on August 10, 1992.  Today he
dd>has a family which loves him deeply and a chance to live.

Its a lovely story and all.  Its so lovely, I thought I'd leave the
whole thing in the post.  But I am curious about one thing.  If the 
mother gave Dalton up for adoption, why did she still have the baby
to hand to you five weeks later?

dd>I look forward to the day when families like this one as well as
dd>individuals being responsible in their actions will make abortion
dd>a thing of the past.

And this is a wonderful reason why not to try and legislate abortion
away.  There are so many better alternatives available.  If we could
only stop wasting so much time and resources on this stupid legislative
fight, we could get to work making abortions thing of the past.

dd>Don

Dan King
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:53:53 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep2.180138.5239@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug31.041628.25063@rotag.mi.org> 
|> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> >
|> >Would you be willing to serve as a moderator? 
|> 
|> Maybe I should volunteer to be moderator.  I can't think of a better
|> background: pro-abortion, pro-women's-rights, Atheist, intolerant of
|> "darcy-name-calling" posts, intolerant of hypocrisy...

	...intolerant of a great many things, as a matter of fact...and, of
course, terribly modest...

|> Gordon
|> Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
|> Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
|> and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.

	See what I mean?
	Pro-abortion and pro-person are mututally exclusive.  Pro-abortion and
pro-born-person is more like it.

Steve
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35568 alt.abortion.inequity:3610
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Date: 8 Sep 1992 08:04:14 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep7.192507.22083@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>Try the reverse, how about the MAN saying, "Sex, ok.  But no egg."  and
>making it stick?

Biology 101, John.  Where is the egg, where is the sperm.  Got it?

Adrienne Regard
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:42:20 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

cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
-> As more and more premies are saved, I think we will
-> all have to do some serious thinking about
-> acceptable cutoffs for abortions.  

why should what you deem "acceptable" be applied to
someone who doesn't think that you deem "acceptable" is
acceptable?

-> In the state of Washington, a woman can have an
-> abortion through the 24th week.  It seems rather
-> hypocritical to have a doctor in one room fighting
-> to save a life while in another a doctor is ending
-> one.

but nowhere near as hypocritical as it seems to have
one woman dictating choices for other women.




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:37:37 GMT

From article by bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean):
> 
> What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
> change the way pro-choicers think?  

Not at all.  They're supposed to change the way you feel.


> Isn't this the same warped
> line of reasoning held by that "I'm talking psychology not
> science" guy, that if women had disgusting goo-people growing
> on the *outside* of their bellies then there would be less
> abortions in the world?

If each woman looked at a real time sonogram of her own baby, there
would be fewer abortions in the world.

 
> I'm still pro-choice.  Does that make me evil?

No.  Just unfeeling.

(Unless, of course, you've never seen one yet.)


> Brian McBean

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re:  False, false, wrong, wrong, wrong.  (Was: TPPILH)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my delitions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.222638.17658@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <Bu4FLt.EB5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>Moreover, the judge bases the support amount on the maximal return of 
>>your LABOR (ie. imputed salary), not on your subsequent inheritances or 
>>gifts.  It cannot be assumed that any given person has enough inheritance 
>>to cover that amount, hence the use of that person's body, time, and labor 
>>is required.  If breaking rocks makes you the maximum money, then you gotta 
>>break rocks.
>
>Wrong.  False.  Nope.  If you've got a PHD in CompSci, and currently make
>$100,000/year, and you have to pay child support, you can always go work at
>McDonald's for minimum wage, and the judge will _have_ to reduce/eliminate
>your support payments.  A judge _cannot_ force you to work at a specific job.

Maybe New York is different, but in Pennsylvania, if you're a CompSci PhD
with a $100,000/year job, and you take a job in McD's earning you 
$20,000/year, then the judge will impute to you a salary of $100,000/year
and calculate your support payments accordingly.  "Voluntary" decrease in
income is not grounds for reducing support.  And, when support can be as
much as 40-50% gross, you are +not+ going to cover even support alone on a 
McD's job.

>  A judge _cannot_ force you to work at a specific job.

This is true as long as there is more than one job that will earn
you enough to pay support as calculated according to the income from
the maximal-paying job you +could+ (or do) hold.

As for me, I'll repeat, I don't nearly have enough relatives to provide
enough inheritance to cover child-support calculated on $100,000/year.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36640 alt.abortion.inequity:3779
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:51:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <21ynb8b.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <Sep14.171054.18972@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ><1992Sep12.170820.26844@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
|> >|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> ->      Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of)
|> >|> -> proposes to enact state controls over the womb.
|> >|> 
|> >|> are you suggesting that you know of no single
|> >|> anti-choicer who supports legislation to prohibit or
|> >|> restrict abortion?
|> >|> 
|> >|> please.
|> >|> 
|> >|> mosogyny is one thing; out-and-out lying is another.
|> >
|> >	Did you read the whole article, or just that one line?  I myself would
|> >outlaw most abortions, by which I mean the intentional or criminally negligent
|> >killing of an unborn child.  This does not mean I wish to control the mother's
|> >womb.  As far as I'm concerned, she can remove the child from her womb at her
|> >pleasure provided she does not kill it.
|> 
|> Cool.  So Steve Arnold is pro-abortion, since no abortion ever kills an
|> "unborn child".  Glad to hear it.  "You know, I'm against incest any time
|> it involves people who are related."  It sounds like Quayle-speak.

	This argument contains a factual error.  All abortions kill unborn human
young.  Gordon has admitted the humanity of the unborn elsewhere, and the unborn
are manifestly young and they are certainly human offspring.  He's trying to back
off from his earlier admission here.  Gordon mentions Quayle, but his own
comments make Quayle look like a blue-ribbon speaker in comparison.

Steve
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:

>"Your honor, my religion requires that I shoot Ronald Bense
> in the head.  Am I free to practice freedom of religion?"

Are you intentionally assinine, or does it spew relentlessly from your
lips? There is a large difference between ending sentience and ending
mere life. People on the whole have sentience, fetuses do not. Babies
do not, but we go ahead and imbibe them with the thought, as they are
here and require little more care than most. A fetus also sucks nutrients
and life from the mother, which is another issue at this point, except
to indicate how much difference there really is between a z/b/e/f and
the rest of the human race.

>Freedom of religion does not give anyone free reign to harm
>other people.

No, it shouldn't, and I'm not asking anyone to allow the harming of
other people. (People indicates person, indicates functioning or possibly
functioning part of society and sentience, none of which applies to
a fetus.)

Is this clear? Or will we go into another round of why a fetus is not
a person, although I do consider it human, etc, etc, etc...?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35467 alt.abortion.inequity:3588
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: They have a term for this...
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:44:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloody likely.

In article <1992Sep3.122811.8050@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>] In a previous article, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) wrote:
>] 
>] >If you wish to murder your children, that should be your right, so long
>] >as the father agrees.
>] 
>] Holy shit.  Can I nominate this for scariest post of the week?

Feel free.

>]And I thought this guy was pro-life! 

Just goes to show, nobody reads what I write.

If you're going to post, read what I've written, or ask me what I believe
first.

>] >John
>] >stevens@uswest.com
>] 
>]                              .... Heather.
>
>-- 
>If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
>To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
>Put them back in the Refrigerator.

You mean this doesn't scare you?  The thought of all those girls being
stuffed into lightless, airless refrigerators. . . 

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.usage.english,alt.peeves
From: nolan@twg.com (Nolan Hinshaw)
Subject: Re: Clearing Up More Term Usage
Reply-To: nolan@twg.com
Organization: North Atlantic Scrod Authority
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:29:41 GMT


In article <1992Sep3.123226.8143@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
[deletia]
|>There are No Free Lunches! [1]
Yeah. That burns me. There ain't been no free launches since the days of Old
Bobby Goddard. They cost millions now, even with ESA in the picture. Gimme a
backyard range and a basement lab any day - lemme make my own hydrazine and
get outa my way...

Oh. You said LUNCHES. Never mind
--
Nolan "Emily Litella was here" Hinshaw
Internet: nolan@twg.com			Dingalingnet: (415)962-7197	
"Grab Dick and come on down"  Don Pette
"Boy, was I in for a dose of reality." Randall K. Abler
"... necrophilia doesn't really hurt anybody."  Rick Gordon
"Well, first of all, your stance is too wide"
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:36:11 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

In article <1992Sep9.192025.10291@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <Bu25r5.B0w.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
->    (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
-> ## I'm starting to think that you just wanted to
-> ## flame Jim and this was the only avenue available.
-> #
-> #No, I'm not interested in conflict for its own
-> #sake.
-> 
-> > As Jim keeps saying, the fact that you chose to
-> > respond to his comments and no one else's seems to
-> > belie this, especially when one considers that
-> > this is the only thread to which you are currently
-> > contributing.
-> 
-> I understand.  It's not easy to convince people that
-> your motives are honest.  

i don't think your motives were dishonest bill. i think
you honestly hold the same view of all the people who
have suggested that DODie, or chaney, et. al. could
benefit from therapy. i mean, you'd really have to,
wouldn't you?



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36490 alt.abortion.inequity:3731
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:47:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Distribution: usa
Organization: Organization!?  We don't need no stinking organization!

In article <1992Sep9.222733.3174@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>><1992Sep1.204031.20902@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>><1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>><1992Aug31.211505.23998@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>>><1992Aug31.145104.12528@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>It's technically incorrect - men are not subject to pregnancy, and only a
>pregnancy is *aborted*.

Technically incorrect?  No, it's not.  We just have different definitions
of the word.

>But besides this, the abortion in this case is
>performed without the man's consent.  The abortion is not forced *on* the
>man.

Hummm, so if you were to steal a car, the owner of the car would not have
a robbery forced on them, is that what you are saying?

>Ah, "affected by an abortion".  Well, yes, a man can be affected by an
>abortion.  But your original claim was that a man can be forced to have an
>abortion.

My definition of abortion is the killing of the mother AND the fathers
unborn child.  This definition SUBSUMES the definition of abortion as
"the removal of a z/e/f from the womans womb", it does not exclude it.

By that definition, the mother, father and child are all forced to have
and abortion.

By the defintion that a woman gets an abortion, then you are correct.

Neither the father or the child "gets an abortion".  I prefer to use
expanded definitions of terms that remind me of the relationships involved.

>>The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
>>have babies without the kindness of a man.
>
>Uh oh.  Boy are you in for it now.

Yup.  But then, if your idea of a reasonable and fair discussion is to
make false claims about what I said, or to impute meaning that is not
present in one of my statments, then I really don't care what your
response to that statement is, as it will have very little relationship
to what I said.

>Gordon

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson and the GOP
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:38:51 GMT

In article <195c8fINN44t@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

|> |> 	(a) Pat Robertson said this, recently, and with feeling.
|> 
|> Can you tell us where you heard this? If possible, a transcript would be
|> helpful.

	Sorry. I should have said "wrote" this. I'm an old fashioned 
sort that belives that the written word is at least as legit as the spoken.

|> This was part of a letter-campaign against an Iowa ERA campaign
|> and was drafted by a Robertson staffer and was only signed by Rev. Pat. However,
|> when asked about it later, the Rev. disavowed the statement.

	I'll bet he did, given the response. It's one thing to say you
fumbled your words, it's stretching the limits of credibility to suggest
that you didn't know what you were writing.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: James Baker
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep14.181807.29941@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Sep14.212812.4100@desire.wright.edu>
	<1992Sep15.054907.2013@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:02:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.054907.2013@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

   In article <1992Sep14.212812.4100@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
   >In article <1992Sep14.181807.29941@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
   >> In article <1992Sep14.114727.7279@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

[...]
   >> the James Baker who was Secretary of the Treasury
   >> while nothing was done about the S&L crisis in Reagan's second term,

   >	Not his job.

   Why not?

Because the crisis was generated by a law that was in place before he
took office.  Are you proposing that the Secretary of the Treasury break
the law?

   >> the James Baker who presided over the Willie Horton campaign, the

   >	What Willie Horton campaign?  The media one or Al Gore's?

   The one in which Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes said "By the time this
   campaign is done, we want to make Willie Horton a household name."  ThAT
   ONE.  Lee Atwater apologized for it before he died; why can't George Bush?

Why should he apologuze for ads that were the truth.  You should read up
on what a sweetheart Ole Willie is, and Dukakis' role in the affair.

   >> James Baker who was Secretary of State while the US encouraged,
   >> financed, and armed Saddam Hussein, 

   >	Encouraged?  How?
   >	Armed?  What weapons?

   Well, giving them agricultural subsidies when we *knew* they were being
   used to buy weapons, as well as allowing exports of military equipment
   to Iraq by deleting the word "military" from the required documents.

We *knew*?  Can you establish this with some form of credible evidence?
What military equipment?  Computers?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush