HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: portrait of a sick misogynist
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:44:46 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.women-haters
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

in a loathsome display of misogyny,
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> People like Susan Garvin deserve nothing less than
-> utter humiliation ...

-> I personally would like to see what bra-burning
-> feminazi crazies like Suzie Q ...

-> I can't wait to see the look on her face when she
-> has to resort to Coat Hanger Terrorism ...

i see you're still having trouble getting that first
date, chaneyhall.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 12:36:17 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  <Bu14nJ.LK.2@cs.cmu.edu>  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <1992Sep02.233517.35825@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>
> [massive deletions]
>
> #Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
> #of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
> #veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
> #"pro-abortion organization".
>
> DOD never answered this, did he?
>
> I wonder why.

Probably for the same reason that he never answered as to whether you
satisfactorily demonstrated a crucial difference between a late-term
fetus and a neo-nate.  And he never answered why he was claiming that
"only 3 doctors perform third-trimester abortions" was unsupported, in
the very same post in which he was saying he didn't like the source of
that support.  And he never answered why he has such problems with the
beliefs of Judaism.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:13:52 GMT

In article <j1moody-010992232532@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?
>
>I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.

Well, based on the Neilssonn (sp?) fetal pictures I've seen, I'm sure 
most people would come to think of the 1-6 week old fetus as anything 
but human.

>We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.

Again, the early fetus looks like an alien from a bad sci-fi show.
I'm afraid your suggestion would result in more early term abortions 
and less late term abortions.  Is that what you wanted?  Oh, you 
wanted no abortions...  

>How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.

Oh, so you think those of the future will see things your way?   I think  
that they'll applaud our ZPG efforts.
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:19:38 GMT

In <1992Sep2.072648.3374@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu 
   (susan garvin) writes :>

In article <1992Sep1.023017.15911@crd.ge.com> 
   james g keegan jr <keegan@cd.ge.com> writes:
smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes to chaneyhall

>>> Get some help.  I don't know if your hatred of women
>>> is due to the fact that your biological mother gave
>>> you up for adoption, or due to the abuse you
>>> received from your adoptive parents, or because
>>> normal women typically reject the advances of
>>> immature boys.  I do know that you have emotional
>>> problems that can't be solved on the net.

>> hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it was
>> prejudicial to suggest that someone seek psychiatric
>> help when i suggested that DODie do so.

> I know.  I saw.  I asked him why he was so sure that we
> were being insincere.  I hope that Dennis and DOD do
> get some help.  I assumed that you were sincere, too.

Your interactions with these people don't suggest anything 
remotely resembling a sincere interest in their mental 
health.  Maybe we should get their input.  I wonder if
either believes that you're truly concerned about them
as people.  Perhaps they'll respond.

>> i wonder if he'll think the same here.

> No doubt.  He seems to think that only he is allowed
> to comment on blatantly obvious behavior, for some
> reason.  

Why would you think that, Susan?  I haven't noticed 
any behavior from either Chaney or Holtsinger that 
would indicate a need for psychiatric evaluation.  
Yet you think they need to be in therapy?  How can
you possibly arrive at such a significant conclusion
over an electronic medium?  I can't.  Maybe you could 
share some of your insights with the rest of us.   

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:17:31 GMT

From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
> 
> 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
> rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
> and Pharisees suffered.

Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Okay, Okay, how do we get started?
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.201333.22652@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug25.170837.12308@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug20.181046.29135@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>> You miss the point.  It doesn't need (and cannot be) proved.  It is a
>> belief.  Just as what you say is a statment of belief.
>
>That's exactly the point I was demonstrating.  He said "Abortion is
>irresponsible", not "I believe that abortion is irresponsible".  The
>former is an assertion of fact, which I challenged.  The latter is
>an expression of belief, which is perfectly acceptable.
>
>> The problem, Mr. Margolis, is not his alone, it is shared.  Both sides
>> need to realize that they are stating beliefs, not facts.
>
>It's when people start trying to legislate their beliefs as though they
>were facts that we start to get agitated.

You are obviously an intelligent, well educated man.  Why is it that you
don't seem to realize that this is NOTHING NEW!  It is being done, and
has been done on a regular basis since the begining of this country.

In fact, government could be viewed as the imposition of the beliefs of
the founding fathers on the masses.  Any form of government is based on
the BELIEF that that form of government is the proper, best, or possibly
god-given form. . .

If the pro-aborts get their way, this is EXACTLY what they will be doing,
'trying to legislate their beliefs as though they were facts'.

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: 4-6-8-10, ARE FFL's leaders men?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:51:09 GMT

In article <2SEP199209480662@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>The deeper question is, why does it seem all the pro-life voices within 
>this newsgroup are men?  (Ms. Forgach notwithstanding.)  The answers are
>simple:

>(1) Most Usenet subscribers are computer scientists and/or engineers.
>    For better or for worse, these are men.  For the time being.

	Give me a break. There are plenty of female computer geeks on
the net (well, I'm a computer geek myself). Computer geekishness does
not reside in the Y chromosome.

>(2) The overwhelming majority of pro-choice voices here are also men.
>    The reason for this is also (1).

	That's not quite correct. There are several pro-choice women
who post here at least semi-regularly. It's a strange kind of feminist
who doesn't notice that.

>The bottom line is, you can't use the population of this newsgroup as
>a serious scientific study of anything.  You can't even really use it
>as the basis of a good flame.

	[on how the "Feminists for Life" are mostly female]

>So there are no female members of FFL speaking up in this newsgroup.  If
>that situation continues (which it may not), you can draw no conclusions
>whatsoever about FFL as a result.  Cheers.

	Why do they call themselves feminists, then?

	I've seen some of their rhetoric, and it looks like a parody
of familiar feminist rhetoric.

>"[Abortion is] the ultimate exploitation of women."  -  Alice Paul

	Many of the late 19th cy. feminists believed in "voluntary
motherhood", and they even believed that women were naturally averse
to sexual activity, unlike you know which sex :-). Although
present-day feminists certainly agree with the former goal, they would
disagree with the latter claim.

/Loren
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: What if???
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:29:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Notre Dame

What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?

I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.

We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.

How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 14:59:54 GMT

In article <5738@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>Someone asks:
>>>What do you do with a woman who self-aborts?  Arrest _her_ and charge her
>>> [with murder 1], since there is no doctor involved???
>
>And Steve Chaney bleats:
>>I'd agree with that.
>
>Such warm compassion.  (don't you pro-lifers just _hate_ him?  :-)

That was me.  And I'm waiting for Suzanne for answer.

She's always said that she wants to punish the abortionist, not the woman
involved.

So come on, Suzanne.  What if the woman involved IS the abortionist?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: No thank you.  Where would I put it?
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:36:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> Which is a statement of personal belief, not fact.  My belief is that the
>> woman should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy, and be prepared to
>> carry through (just as the man has to) in the event of a pregnancy.
>>
>> My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
>> do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.
>
>Naturally.  As long as you don't try to enforce it against my will.

Nope.  They are still just as valid when I try to enforce them.  This is
called law.  And right now, you are enforcing your beliefs on others.

You will not admit that.  You keep conviently side stepping the difficult
questions, or ignoring pertinent facts.

>Note that I said *should*, not *must*.  Just like if you wanted to give
>someone a gift, but control how they used it, I'd say you should come
>to an agreement *before* giving them the gift.  You're free to do what
>you like, but if you give them the gift with no strings attached, then
>whine because they threw it out, I'm free to think you're a fool for
>doing so.

Except that once again, you conveniently ignore the facts.  Agreements that
attempt to enforce maternity OR abortion OR excusing the father from
child support payments are unenforcable legally.

Hence my desire to change the law.  And yes, in changing the law, you
might end up having somebody elses beliefs enforced on you, but how
does that differ from today?  Already, there exists a large body of
law that enforces other peoples beliefs on you.

Are you trying to call into question the entire body of law?

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:32:34 GMT
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus

In article <1992Aug28.205241.22365@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.141934.8889@bmw.mayo.edu> 
|> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> 
|> > Now, state and federal governments
|> > do put restrictions on how we may kill each other, just as they
|> > put restrictions on how we may conduct business, worship god(s),
|> > interact socially and sexually, what goods we may purchase etc; but
|> > your right to take my life or mine to take yours has not been
|> > prohibited. You may exercise that right whenever you or the
|> > situation you are in meets the proper state and federal guidelines 
|> > for you to do so legally.
|> 
|> But this doesn't change the fact that the Constitution does not
|> give anyone the unlimited right to kill other human beings.  The  
|> states are free to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force,
|> for example.  
|> 

No, the Constitution does give you that right. The states simply
have the power to place limits on that right, they can not take
that right away (compelling interest).

BTW: the compelling interest argument is also used by the
state to restrict the right to worship as one pleases and
it could be argued that it is also used to restrict the
right to be free of unreasonable search and siezure. It may
not be wise to provide the state with more power in this
realm if one is even vaguely in favor of any kind of personal
liberty.

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:15:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>
>>That's IT.  I'm getting a lobotomy and a bible so I can SAVE THE WORLD
>>from the CRETINS that want women to be FREE TO CONTROL THEIR OWN
>>BODIES!!!
>
>Wow! <Clap> <Clap> <Clap> <Clap> Bravo! Bravo! Devastating speech!

Oh joy.  Now we'll have TWO Steves posting irrational ravings.

[misc. ravings deleted]

>REALITY CHECK: This argument is not half as solid as it looks, 

REALITY CHECK, Part II:  none or your arguments ever are.  And they
don't even LOOK like much.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex (was: myths about PP or something)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:58:13 GMT

In article <darkstar.715280662@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>Jeez, Suzanne, where DID you get such a warped view of sex?
>
>>Probably from her first boyfriend.
>
>No, I'd say it was from her priest.  Confessionals are great places for
>"non-contact" sex.

Uh, Suzanne, do you notice more of that religious bigotry here? 

I guess it comes from all those times when poor Hacked Man ran up to
women looking for sex, and got his face slapped off, so he assumed it
was because they were Catholic. 

Of course, the rest of the world knew it was because he is an asshole.


>FounderOfDriexidsForJesus


=============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:29:01 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <23919@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>> I see you saying this often, yet you never seem to win any points. Ok,
>> here are some cases where putting the fetus to death is justified. It
>> is discovered in the third-tri that the fetus is anencephalic, or that
>> the fetus is missing a liver, or that there appear to be multiple defects,
>> as in poor or miising bone growth, open spine, missing limbs, and/or
>> internal defects such as lack of an esophagus/stomach/intestines, all
>> of which can cause the fetus upon birth, to die shortly thereafter.
>> I only state these, as they are enough to refute your statement.
>> 
>> Ron


>Obviously Ron, you've just refuted yourself, since if the baby is going
>to die anyway due to some defect, there is no reason whatsoever to put it
>to death!


>SF

Suzanne, let me get this straight.  If you knew someone who was pregnant,
and who had just been told by their doctor that the child was going
to be born with a defect that will cause the child to die within a few
years, you would counsel that woman to have the child?

I just want to be certain I understand what you are saying.

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:41:07 GMT

In <1992Aug30.040031.5439@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>

>> I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.

> denial is unhealthy doodie.  see your therapist.

Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.  Your implication
is extremely prejudicial.  Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of 
your respect?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:24:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.144107.23778@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

#Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.  

When laypeople refer to someone else's mental problems on
the net, I doubt that anyone takes them seriously.  (When
I make such comments, I don't expect that anyone reading 
them will say, "Hmm, that diagnosis must be correct.")  When
someone who has claimed in the past to be a mental health
practicioner does so, though, more weight might be given
to the comments.  Just how ethical is it for you to 
practice psychology in newsgroups?

#Your implication is extremely prejudicial.  

As is yours.

#Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of your respect?

Do you treat your clients this way?

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:21:45 GMT

>> = Cameron Kaszas
>  = mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
========================================================================
>> it is inconceivable TO ME that it is God's will for any abortion 
>> to ever take place. 

Pretty bold of you to presume to know God's will, don't cha think?

>> I believe God does want
>> us out there doing everything we can to let people know that he created
>> the z/e/f for a reason, 
> Yep, sure did.  In my case, its reason was to make me risk death and
> serious health problems with no resources whatsoever for health care,
> lose my chance at a college education, force me onto welfare, and ruin
> my SO's life as well.  

>> and he will take care of everyone involved,
> It would definitely have taken care of me all right, when I hemmorrhaged
> to death.

you see: 
o if you die during childbirth, it's God's Will, you may ask "why?",
  well, I don't know, but take heart, God has a Plan.
o if you abort a zygote, it's a sin, you may ask "why?", 
  well, just trust me, I've read parts of a particular English translation
  of one version of the Christian religion's Holy Book, and I know what God 
  wants and doesn't want.

in other words:
o anything that happens (nasty or nice) as a result of inaction (pregnancy[*],
  death during childbirth, getting struck by lightning, starvation, all 
  manner of icky death) is "God's will" (although we may not understand 
  Her Plan), 
o anything that happens because we attempt to control our life 
  (non-pregnancy via contraception, abortion for any reason,...) is a "sin".
  Unless, of course, you claim to be an avid Bible-reading Christian acting
  on the behalf of God, in which case it's OK to kill just about anyone, 
  (doctors, enemy civilians, etc.) just be sure to quote the Bible while 
  doing so.

Wait a minute, I'm having some doubts...
could it be "God helps those who help themselves"?
Or perhaps "God helps those who take a big helping for themselves"?
It doesn't matter, it's all so interpretive you that can rationalize 
anything you want, and probably will.

-Brian  (Sorry for wasting your time)

[*] but wait, is the ACTION of sex a sin, or the INACTION of not using
contraception part of The Plan?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion