HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: retracted apologies
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:19:56 GMT

To Dennis^H^H^H^H^H^HSteve Hall^H^H^H^HChaney:

I retract anything I might have attributed to you, including kudos.

To Peter Nyikos aka Dr. Phoney Giggles:

If you are responsible for any of this, perhaps you should crawl in
a hole an pull it in after you.

To Patrick Humphry:  

I don't know how you can handle this stuff and remain a reasonable
human being.  (I know, you're an Oilie Fan)  

(Kevin Darcy, you still suck dirty canal water.)

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: holtsinger perpetuates an old lie
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 23:42:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.221554.17441@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>[... note follow-ups to talk.abortion ...]
>
>In article <1993Jan9.215557.6939@crd.ge.com> 
>james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
>>> all the way up to the point of birth.
>
>> in fact, this specific claim has ben debunked
>> repearedly in talk.abortion over an extended period
>> of time. 
>
>I have provided documentation which demonstrates that
>Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand all the
>way up to the point of birth.  

No DODie, you have provided an opinion from one person, not even a
judge, that purports to show a way in which RvW could be interpreted
so as to allow unrestricted abortion. It has been repeatedly shown
that this interpretation you drag out is false. Over 30 states have,
in fact, passed laws which are still in force, regulating the
performance of third trimester abortions. If your moronic claim was
accurate, all of them could and would be challenged in the courts and
overturned.
Now take your lies and go someplace else.

--
                  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.
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:33:50 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1993Jan7.210306.29009@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <7JAN93.16540373@vax.clarku.edu> 
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>
>>> There's another article in the Jan. 3 edition of the Chicago Tribune
>>> about the killings of children in the Chicago area during 1992, some
>>> of them newborn babies killed shortly after birth by their parents.  
>
>> I'm glad you posted these tragic stories.  Imagine how many more of these 
>> stories there would be if abortion were illegal and millions of women were 
>> forced to give birth children they don't want.
>
>Yet another person who hasn't heard of adoption.  And we don't have 
>to "imagine" if abortion were illegal--we can examine our history 
>before Roe v. Wade, and we can see that children were not brutally
>killed like they are today. 
>

But Doug, that was BEFORE Roe vs. Wade.
Now is AFTER Roe vs. Wade, even if RvW is overturned.
There are a lot more women now who would not be willingly forced
to be parents, no matter what the law.

Secondly, maybe you can't see it, but that doesn't meen it wasn't there.
Teenagers never had sex before sex-ed classes began to be taught, right?
Nixon was the first corrupt president we ever had, no doubt about it.
What kind of reasoning leads people to conclusions like this? The same
type that doug would appear to be using.

>It's only after Roe v. Wade has the respect for human life degenerated
>to such a point that a woman could stab her newly born son to death
>with a pair of scissors.  You know, it would have been legal for a
>physician to stab that little baby boy to death before he had been
>born. 
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>

Close your eyes, Doug, and pretend it's not there. You seem to be quite
experienced at that.

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
From: cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton)
Subject: Re: Abortifacients
Followup-To: misc.misc
Organization: t.b, t.p.d, & a.d
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:23:44 GMT

  I have given my opinion/advice in private email, and would just
like to add one comment:

  I was amazed at the number of jokers who jumped at the chance to
score rhetorical points off a couple of people in a very serious 
situation.  A couple who are apparently sincere, apparently both 
very young and poor, and apparently in a life or death situation are no 
fit target for public cheap shots or debating points in my book.

  My already jaundiced and cynical view of humanity in general and the
Net in particular has dropped several notches.  You know who you are;
think it over a bit.  Followups to misc.misc.

  -- Clifton

--
cliftonr@netcom.com     Home: +1 808 521 9073  Work: +1 808 625 3234
Clifton Royston, Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
"Some lives are like that." - attributed to Mark. Gooley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:11:20 GMT

<PATRICK.93Jan6191716@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
><1993Jan6.235607.3604@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>   From article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>   > In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
>   > a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
>   > 
>   > #I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>   > 
>   > Nice trick, Heather.
>
>   Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>   to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>   from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>
>Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>haven't seen any such activity -- and I don't disappear for a month at a
>time because of work, or "news server problems", or such.  Seems to me this
>claim's got at least the potential for being as funny as your backpedaling
>about the clinic exorcism.
>
>   Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
>
>How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
>fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  Or are you saying you
>really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>really did that.)

Maybe Heather was visited by an angel, and when told she would be pregnant
by a god she shouted "YES!"  Whatya think, Suzanne?


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
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:12:16 GMT

In <29563@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <29528@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>No; it doesn't; but the mother's implicit consent to the possibility
>>of lost bodily autonomy (to which she has a presumptive, but not an
>>absolute, right) DOES depend on the circumstances of conception. Also,
>>she may ethically choose her own right to life over the fetus'.

>WHere is the implicit consent to the possibility of lost bodily autonomy?
>Another free clue: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy

The word "possibility" is crucial here:
Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so 
Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.

>The fetus has no right to life. As a matter of fact, no one does.

So I can ethically kill you for disagreeing with me?

>>(Help me out, here; where's the irony?)

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>			     Make a U-turn to God.
>The irony is priceless.

>If you need this explained, it brings to light much about your consternation
>with those in this group who have opinions other than yours.

Fine. Now, where's the irony?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55123 talk.religion.misc:25788 us.politics.abortion:4
From: efroyman@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Ella Froyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,us.politics.abortion
Subject: Abortion
Keywords: talk.abortion
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:32:58 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Northeastern University


Hi netters;

I was wondering if you guys can give me your own feelings about
the followingquestions:

(1) Is Abortion Immoral? yes? nO? why?
(2) Is it immoral to kill a fetus?
(3) Do you support pro-choice and anti-abortionist? why?

Lets have a discusssion on these topics. Please send me email
Thanks...... Ella
P.S> ALso do any of you know where i can get good article on
abortion through internet?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55205 alt.politics.homosexuality:9347
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:02:34 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <C0KFEH.5L6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
|Right now I'm watching C-SPAN coverage of a protest against Homosexuals and
|Gay Rights organized by Operation Rescue. 
|OR ProLife? My ass it is!
|If you ever needed proof that Operation Rescue is a fascist, anti-Choice group,
|you've got it.

Well, Mr Woodyatt, there it is.  Your informant was right.
Time to paint some signs and get out to counterprotest,
I think.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55020 can.politics:11343
From: nfs@dynastar (Norbert Schlenker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:15:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1993Jan10.145942.6390@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>[much ado about abortion]

Could we keep this out of can.politics, please?  This thread has had
exactly -0- to do with Canadian politics since at least early
December.  Having asked jane politely, via email, to refrain from
crossposting to an irrelevant group, following which he got all
huffy, accused me of being a net.cop, and challenged me to go public
with the request, I hereby do so.

I am not trying to infringe anyone's freedom of speech.  I am not
trying to censor jane or any other poster.  I am trying to improve the
s/n ratio in can.politics, and save bandwidth, money, and time.  If
I'm out of line, feel free to tell me - since irrelevant newsgroups
are jane's raison d'etre, kindly crosspost to a large and random
selection.  I plan to use at least rec.humor.funny, alt.waffle.bbs,
and comp.os.msdos.apps should I need to follow up on this thread
again.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I told you so...
Date: 12 Jan 1993 09:49:18 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <root.726854793@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Steve...you sound like a whining 15-year old.  Grow up, will ya.


Mr. Adams, my 15-year old greatly resents this comparison!

Adrienne Regard
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:53:29 GMT

In <1993Jan7.125414.17907@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <1icpagINN5ij@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.181125.17922@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>|> In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com 
>>|> (John Townsend) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> }I, for one, have chosen life.
>>|> 
>>|> Congrats.  It can be a relatively unpopular thing to choose life 
>>|> over war -- a lot of people seem to think they can "choose life"
>>|> and rationalize away exceptions for war or whatever.
>>
>>Talk about myopia.  Read me again:
>>
>>I think it's important to recognize that neither Choice nor Life are sacrosanct.
>>We constantly face limits on our choices.  I'd choose to be a billionaire, but
>>no one seems to be indulging me that right.  Likewise, should we not build
>>things like the Golden Gate Bridge or go to war, if there is a probability that
>>human life may be lost in the process of conducting these endeavors?  Of course
>>we should, if other conditions are met.  The question is which right should
>>hold sway over the other when they conflict.  I, for one, have chosen life.
>>
>By what right do you presume to make this choice for others?
>Why is it valid to take human life in order to protect our access
>to mineral deposits, or to build a bridge, and uncceptable when
>it's the future happiness of a woman being built, or possibly
>the access of her existing children to a reasonable standard of
>living?

Now that's what I call a real Gotcha! Wish I'd thought of it.

>muriel
>standard disclaimer

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:33:53 GMT

In article <markp.726770654@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan10.160929.2895@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>
>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?
>>>
>>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>>pointless or self-contradictory?
>>>
>>Because it prevents people like you from imposing your own ethical
>>standards on the rest of the world.
>
>But now YOU'RE holding ME to an absolute ethical standard: "Don't
>impose your views on others." If ethical standards are, by definition,
>subjective, then so is the standard you're imposing on me.
>
I'm not attempting to impose any standards on you, I am simply
preventing you from imposing your standards on others. I doubt you're
bright enough to see the difference.

>Don't you get it, Mark? Your relativism saws off the branch on which
>it sits.
>
The technical term for what you've just posted is
"pseudo-philosophical bullshit". At leat try to come up with something
original. You tried to saw Patricks branch off too, and it didn't
work.

--
                  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
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:00:10 GMT

In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

[Deletions]

>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>for more than a few years.
>
You have an awful lot to learn, don't you?

When you are ready to leave HappyBunnyLand and try living in the Real
World (tm) then come talk to us.

--
                  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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54469 alt.fan.q:711 alt.flame:17707
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.q,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:39:04 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <lefty-060193141811@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.010750.24385@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> If only alt.fan.q could be put out of its pathetic misery so easily...
>
>So, it seems you're still bitter about Q's having kicked your ass up and
>down alt.flame about eight months back.  

Is that how you interpreted the exchange? Pretty distorted view, if you ask
me. Personally, I thought it was quite amusing to expose "Q"s fantasy life
of riches, educational attainment, etc. etc. for the sham that it so 
obviously is. Yeah, like I'm gonna believe that someone with a 7-figure
net worth, and a multi-acre estate, accesses the Net semi-anonymously through 
a BBS, and doesn't even seem to own any decent reference works. Like I'm gonna 
believe that someone who's spent decades in higher education still can't spell 
well, present thoughts clearly, or use a vocabulary that's much beyond 7th 
grade. Like I'm gonna believe that someone who supposedly graduated law school
in 1969 (establishing their age at roughly 45 to 50 years) is going to act so 
petty, competitive and, well, adolescent on the Net. Uh huh. Maybe _you_ were 
fooled, Lefty...

>Have you paid the bill you were
>tendered for legal advice, or are you still a deadbeat?

I never agreed to Q's terms, and I rejected his/her/it's services at the 
first available opportunity. Furthermore, even Q has not claimed to be 
licensed to practice law in Michigan, so why should I consider the "advice"
to be of any value to me on that basis, let alone my reasonable suspicions 
that "Q" ever graduated from any accredited law school at all? Furthermore, I 
stipulated that the bill would have to be sent to me via surface mail before I 
would consider paying it (a perfectly reasonable request, given that snail 
mail is still the prevailing medium by which the vast majority of commercial 
business is transacted). Nothing has arrived here so far. Lastly, I refused to 
accept "Digital Express" as a valid agent for our (supposed) business 
transaction, and requested to deal with the principal party directly, if at
all. No address, telephone number, or other means of directly contacting "Q" 
has been forthcoming.

You may THINK that "Q" has a valid claim here, Lefty, but then that just goes
to confirm your already-documented ignorance of Business Law...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Not Nice things to say about DooDie
Organization: TSAKC, of course.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:00:29 GMT

On Sat, 1993 Jan 9 23:30:33 GMT, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) said:

>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>] I know Doug's profession. I believe that it has been determined to
>] be Research Subject, ncsu Genetics Lab.
>] 
>] Robert Johnston

>Oh bummers....

>We had hoped that:

>1. it was really a case of SonOfRassMuffinMan.

>2. The Return of the RassMuffinMan

>3. Proof that Inbreeding In Certain Backwards Cultures in the USA
>was not a good thing.

>4. The Bride of RassMuffinMan Meets Abbot and Costello on Acid.

>5. A new and Improved AI follow on Series to the RevengeOfRassMuffinMan.

>6. The RassMuffinMan Strikes Back: The Return Of the JihaudKnight

>7. Proof that when all else fails, one can always go to NCSU.

>8. Proof that Attending NCSU would not degrade one's ability
>to hold a position irregadless of the Facts.

>9. Facts are a Flexible thing, and should Not require that they
>be read in context.

>10. That RassMuffinMan has learned how to crack a new account
>and carry on as ever.

Good list, but you left out

11.  The NCSU School of Art is filming a re-make of "The Man with Two
Brains", and casting Doug *and* the RainMuffin in the title roles -- as
"The Men with No Brains"...:-)

--PLH, I'm in the temper-tantrum scene in the 4700 block of Hillsborough, in
my little red truck waiting for the light to change...

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Getting the Slavery Analogy back on track
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na	 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:29:25 GMT

In <1993Jan4.070439.16534@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1294@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>The slavery analogy fails to show that "If you don't like
>>abortion, don't have one" is an invalid argument for the
>>same reason that it fails as a general abortion analogy.

>Oh, goody! Exchange one blatant assertion for another. Progress.

>>People who believe otherwise are ignoring the intrusion on
>>the rights of the pregnant woman that an abortion ban
>>entails.  

>Emancipation was likewise an "intrusion" on the "rights" of slaveowners.
>To invalidate the analogy, it's not sufficient to just point to the 
>"intrusion" that is caused by abortion restrictions; one has to also 
>demonstrate that slaveowners never _had_ a moral "right" to own slaves,
>so therefore the "intrusion" of emancipation was a justified intrusion.

The slaveowners in question were in possession of stolen property, as
there is no record of any of them having volunteered for slavehood.

All historical records show that the Africans sold into slavery were
kidnapped from their homes by other clans or Arab slave merchants,
hence they were stolen property. And possession of stolen property
has long been considered a crime. Note that this does not claim any
moral right for either slave or slaveowner.

On a personal basis, whether you chose to call it morality or not,
I do not believe in the egotistical arrogance that made some people
believe that they were superior to another human being simply because
that human being was of a different color or came from a less developed
society. But then, not a hell of a lot of people ever agree with me.

>								- Kevin

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion