HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:52:19 GMT

In article <6005@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>>will be taken as men.
>>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>>the natural differences between them.
>
>Explain to me how a penis makes a person capable of being a spiritual
>leader, and how the absence of one renders a person unfit for such a
>position.

Ooooh, Markie Poo, shouldn't you be in here flaming Teddi to a crisp for
implying that the only difference between men and women is a penis? I mean
there are chromosomal differences, hormonal differences, differences in 
musculature, etc. etc. Surely the Medical Elite wouldn't let such 
NastyEvilIkky "incorrect" medical (mis)statements pass without a strenuous
objection, would they?

							- Kevin
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:59:36 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

In article <PATRICK.93Jan18195144@lampasas.is.rice.edu> patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>On 18 Jan 1993 12:45:03 -0600, brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) said:
>
>>...I've met a good number of "bible-thumpers",
>>and I'm convinced that most of them had nothing but good intentions, and
>>certainly didn't appear to be aspiring to power.  I think it's just that
>>the ambitious ones get many times more press....
>
>...and can do the most damage to their own cause in the process.  Me, I've
>always looked at it like Mencken did:  if you see someone coming towards you
>with the obvious intent of doing you good, your most prudent response is to
>run.  :-)  (Not to mention the old saw about the road to hell being paved
>with good intentions -- some of the anti-choice folks are just the least bit
>scary precisely because of their good intentions, combined with their
>complete ignorance of the consequences of said intentions.)

No contention on that point.  If you intend to run from a moron with good
intentions, you'll have to race me, bucko.  After, of course, I fling
myself into a brick wall trying to edify the poor soul.

The way I see it, good intentions are often harder to come by than the
social equivalent of "clue", so I'll be thankful for what we have.

>>>--PLH, Rice 2-0, UT 0-3...come on, January 30!
>
>>That was a most malicious cut on an admittedly weak point in our campus.
>>We'll see if you get any Christmas cookies this December.
>
>Might as well nuke my chances for '94 as well, then -- since I wrote that,
>it's now Rice 3-0, UT 0-4...and the 30th is less than two weeks away.  Pass
>the barbecue sauce, because Bevo's going to dinner...:-)

Playing on my love of BEEF now, are ya??  Gimme that brisket!

*snatch*

(hey, this ain't Bevo; the meat's too tender...)

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate, with a Touch of Humor

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57859 alt.drugs:21393 alt.magick:6949 alt.pagan:15823
From: a_weitz@pavo.concordia.ca (WEITZMAN, ANDREW)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.drugs,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Smart drugs
Summary: Lasting effects?
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:03:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan14.161238.10974@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, mgross@server.cs.jhu.edu (Matthew B. Gross) writes...
>Um, does anyone know of any smart drugs that produce lasting effects such as
>an increase in the brain's production of neurotransmitters?
>I take phenylalanine about every day, and it really sharpens my awareness,
>but I'd like to find something which could help me in the long-term.
> 
>Matt
Try something called a "book".     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:13:33 GMT

In article <14044@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1jp6odINNij@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>> In article <13960@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>What caused the sexual revolution?  The availability of birth
>control pills, and an abolition of laws restricting access to
>birth control.  So why has the number of unwanted pregnancies
>gone UP?  This is quite the opposite of what you would expect,
>isn't it?

Uh, who says the number of unwanted pregnencies has gone up? That doesn't
seem right. Considering the availability of good birth control, we can
assume that "unwanted" pregnencies are mostly caused by stupidity - and
boredom. My solution: put video games in schools as an alternative to
unwanted pregnency. :-) :-)

Dan
 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Thurgood Marshall Dies
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:22:48 GMT

No political statements here, just sincere regret at the passing of a
tireless champion of human rights.

He will be missed.

               -rocker

"What's _wrong_ with me???  I'm OLD!!"

  -Justice Marshall, at a press conference announcing his retirement
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Closing of the Margolis Mind, Part 4
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:00:49 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
Keywords: aborted women, ice cream cones

In article <nyikos.728143935@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>The title of this 
>thread is based on _The Closing of the American Mind_, by Alan Bloom,
>and by "Terrible. Close. Mind.", a thread begun by Frank O'Dwyer expressing
>his frustration with the closed-mindedness he perceived in Larry Margolis.

You what? This title of mine had nothing to do with Larry Margolis, nor 
do I recall accusing anybody of closed-mindedness.  So please stop saying 
this.

Frank O'Dwyer
odwyer@sse.ie
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:55:26 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

In article <bob1.728069653@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
]In <C1FxF5.L4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
]
]>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
]>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
]>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
]>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
]>in favor of allowing that to continue?
]
]Well, I don't oppose it, I simply think that it would be far better to
]discover some 100% fool-proof methods of birth control, other than
]abstention (sorry, DOD, beat you to it). Abortion, IMHO since I'm
]not likely to ever undergo the process, is not in the same ballpark
]as having a root canal (now this I do know about). Ergo, lets put
]some R&D into finding that 100% method.
]
]>MAC
]
]Grouch.

I'll drink to that, Grouch.
(Except I'm only 20.  But I'm Catholic!  But I don't drink at the masses,
either.  *sigh*  Oh well...)

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Humor Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Errors are legit!!!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:55:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.100113.11618@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
> Think about it:who would post something like that with their name all over
> it?
> 
> Simon


I would say only an idiot "would post something like that with
their name all over it."

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:15:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.023429.28310@Princeton.EDU>
datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.222122.26394@ncsu.edu>,
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>Just about every pro-choicer that I've met on talk.abortion supports
>>third trimester abortion-on-demand.  Some pro-choicers have said that
>>a person can't be pro-choice unless they oppose third-trimester abortion
>>restrictions.

>"Every" or "some", Doogie? I seem to remember that E. Elizabeth
>Bartley is fiercely pro-choice up until the third trimester.
>Same with me, although I'm undecided about third-trimester
>abortions myself.

I noticed this in checking for my name....  I'm firmly pro-choice the
first two trimesters, though I'd only describe myself as "fiercely"
pro-choice in the first trimester....

Anyway, I actually think Doug was fairly clear above -- "just about
every pro-choice" sounds to me like "almost all pro-choicers" [that
he's met on t.a].

>In any case, trying to create a monolithic
>movement out of the diverse pro-choice individuals here would
>be like lumping you, Kaldis, PHoney, Chaney, and Suze together
>and calling you "the t.a pro-life movement".

Doug actually has a point about the pro-choicers on talk.abortion, imo
-- but *not* the pro-choice movement in general.  I think that the
people on t.a. on both sides tend to be the extremists, because you're
much more likely to spend time arguing about the subject in a forum
where you're making little if any difference if you feel very strongly
about abortion, and the people who feel very strongly about abortion
tend to be extremists.  So by and large on talk.abortion you've got
the only-health-or-life-of-mother pro-lifers and the
abortion-on-demand pro-choicers.


-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Left Wing Anti-Abortionists
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:27:36 GMT

<1993Jan22.214727.20108@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly):
...
>> As well I would like to hear from people who oppose abortion for 
>> non-religious reasons.
>> In addition I would like to know what reasons brought you to this view. 
>
>I oppose abortion because  1) I used to be an unborn child myself

As did I, but then, I'm pro-abortion.

>                           2) I am a mother myself and know fully 
>                              what it is that abortion destroys

I've never been a mother, but know fully what abortion destroys and what
it restores, but then, I'm pro-abortion.

>                           3) I have seen the photographs of aborted
>                              children, piles of dead babies, pictures
>                              so horrible, they can only be called
>                              a holocaust.

I've never seen photographs of aborted children (they don't exist), I have
seen piles of dead babies - terrible terrible pictures, but then, I'm
pro-abortion.
                
>And you know Kevin, if you are going to object to folks who have
>"religious" reasons for being against abortion, let me suggest that
>you ask them what sort of reason a "religious" reason might be.  The
>only religious reason I've ever heard is that human life has value,
>and I think most people would have difficulty arguing with that.

You've supplied a few religious reasons in this forum from time to time.


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: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:46:06 GMT

> = (craig sivils) writes:

>Tit for Tat,
>
>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>private or public of their choice.

Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.

Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
should pay for religious instruction...
 
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:46:56 GMT

casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:

>Tit for Tat,

>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>private or public of their choice.

Well I don't know about other people, but I would argue as follows:

Private schools are generally able to be "better" because they have a higher
budget.  Public schools can not charge tuition for the students enrolled but
must rely on tax money (usually property tax, at least in IL).  If private
schools need more money, they can raise their tuition.  Public schools can't
do that, and since everyone panics at the phrase "more taxes" it is very hard
for them to get the funds to provide the best possible education.

Everyone (property owners) pays taxes to support public education.  It doesn't
matter if they don't have school-age children, ever have, or ever will; They
pay, that's the system.  The reason is that it is much easier for everyone to
pay a small portion of what they can afford, over their entire lifetime, to
provide education for *all* children (expecting that most people *have* or
*will have* children at some time), that to expect parents to shell out large
amounts (which they probably can't afford) *for each child* they have in
school.  (made worse by the fact that poor families tend to have *more*
children)

Now, giving the public money to families to go to *private* schools takes
needed money away from the public schools.  (The need goes down less than
the funds; big schools usually provide better resources than small ones on
a proportional budget.)  This has the effect of making public schools even
worse than they already would be, which in turn will accelerate the process.

I'm sure you realize that we can't pay for *every* child to go to a private
school.  Parents whose children go to private schools still have to pay more
than the tax money for public education.  That means there will be families
that can not afford private schools even with public money, and their children
will be stuck in the public schools with dwindling resources and a poorer
educational opertunity.

That is not fair, and that is the whole *POINT* of public education; everyone
is entitled to a minimum educational opportunity, regardless of how much they
can *individually* afford.  Giving public money to anyone who wants to attend
a private school would make it worse for those who don't, and undermine the
entire public education system.

>                                Craig

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:39:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.143139.21172@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.030628.21585@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>>2. Go through with it and dump the baby at the door of some "anti-choice"
>>activist or an impotent family who would kill for a baby.
>
>You are neglecting the impact on the woman's life of having to go through
>an entire unwanted pregnancy.

  Oh, boo-hoo.  Better to go through with what many would consider murder?
  Unless the woman was raped, she is partially responsible for being pregnant.
Eventually, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions.

>
-- 
	               / )/ )/ )        /    /
			/  /  /      --/----/--
                       /  /  /  / \   /    /
		      /  /  /   \_/\ /    /  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie?
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:32:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.013655.6942@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Liar Holtsinger) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>> I'm not going to violate ethical and legal 
>>> standards for you or anybody else. 

>> Naming the hospital wouldn't violate ethical or legal standards.
>> It's public information, Cochran.  

> I have only your word that the information is public knowledge

It doesn't take a genious to figure out that a hospital name 
is public knowledge, Cochran.  But tell us, how would naming
the hospital violate "ethical and legal standards"?  Are you
afraid to admit that you really don't know the hospital name? 

> And despite your claims to the contrary, I still have more faith in
> the words of people I know, then in some newspaper report you claim to
> have dredged up.

But you haven't even shown that you know these people, Cochran.
You can't even name the hospital where they work.

>Mark Cochran          


Doug Holtsinger
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:19:06 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan27.170412.11348@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
># > The incredible misogyny of deciding a person vs. a perhaps-we-aren't-sure-
># > and-anyway-it's-harming-it's-host not-person in favor of the latter 
># > boggles the mind.
># > The incredible mysogyny of reducing a woman to a breeding animal because of
># > *your* *personal* values also boggles the mind.
># > It isn't a simple either/or scenario.  What abortion restriction entails is
># > returning women to the status of chattel, and nothing less.
># Sheesh, and to think that *I* get accused of "cheap emotionalism"

Hmm.  I gotta wonder just what part Mr. Holtsinger figures is cheap
emotionalism.  Is the seizing of a human being's rights in favor of a
perhaps-but-we-aren't sure somehow an incorrect assessment of the 
situation?  That someone would reduce a living breathing human-with-
human-rights to something less -- is that a *misrepresentation* of what
is being proposed?

I'm not exactly sure what language would please Mr. Holtsinger (not that
I really want to know) when used to express the incredible unbelieveable
injustice of making a human something less than a human.  After all, there
is *no question* with regard to the woman.

In my mind, at least.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:27:16 GMT

> = (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>> = Mark Cochran writes:
>>> = ?

>>>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times,
>>>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal
>>>and safe, but rare.

>>He certainly did. Don't you think that's a good goal to shoot for?

>If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then why try to have less
>of them?  Heck, -more- abortions would bring down the birth rate and help
>with overpopulation, and it's safer than childbirth.  Right?

Sure, but RU486 and other proper use of birth control could accomplish
the same MUCH easier.  And proper sex ed in all schools would start us
on the say.

Right?

>So why have less, if abortion is OK?

Why not nip in the bud earlier, so to speak?  Why not have kids properly
educated?  Why NOT provide free contraception to anyone who wants it?


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:03:25 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <1993Jan25.055219.28814@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <6005@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>>>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>>>will be taken as men.
>>>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>>>the natural differences between them.
>>
>>Explain to me how a penis makes a person capable of being a spiritual
>>leader, and how the absence of one renders a person unfit for such a
>>position.
>
>Ooooh, Markie Poo, shouldn't you be in here flaming Teddi to a crisp for
>implying that the only difference between men and women is a penis? I mean
>there are chromosomal differences, hormonal differences, differences in 
>musculature, etc. etc. Surely the Medical Elite wouldn't let such 
>NastyEvilIkky "incorrect" medical (mis)statements pass without a strenuous
>objection, would they?
>
Poor Kibble. Can't tell the difference between a specific example and
an incorrect diagnosis, can you?
Teddi used a valid term as an example of anatomical differences
between the male and female body.
You, on the other hand, used a term incorrectly, and then tried to
defend your ignorance.
To make this an error similar to yours, Kebbin, Teddi would have had
to use the word penis to refer to (as an example) the differences
between the male and femal larynx.
So as the official (according to you, not me) representative of the
'Medical Elite' I declare her usage to be acceptable, and yours to
still be incorrect.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion