HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:45:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.152415.12666@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Oct6.150454.27077@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
>    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
> In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>    (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
> In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
>    (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>
> 
> >>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
> >>>>> about a dead young woman?  
> > 
> >>>> Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
> >>>> crusade.  
> > 
> >>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
> > 
> >> I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
> >
> > Probably because of the evidence, old darling.  It tends to lead
> > one to conclusions.
> 
> In true Kaflowitz tradition...
> 
> All lies and jests
> Still a man hears what he wants to hear
> and disregards the rest

First, I don't think Susan does see misogyny 'round every corner,
but she certainly does see it enough on talk.abortion, as do I
and quite a few others.  WHich point, I think, does answer your
question as to why, though I deny your hyperbole.  Furthermore,
one can hear both what one wantstohear and what one doesn't and
conclude that both are there.  While I am not so quick to call you
a misogynist, I would venture that you've said enough that is
arguably misogynistic to support my remarks about the evidence.
I leave it for others, who would call you a misogynist, to present
the evidence (a pointless enterprise as it may be since I can't
for the life of me think what the purpose would be of holding a
public Misogyny Trial, except it might be more entertaining than
that extended debate on electronic diagnosis and its accuracy).

Now, as regards Kaflowitz tradition, I can't recall ever quoting
the wisdom of Simon and Garfunkel, though I believe I once
did quote a few lines from Simon's "Graceland."  Usually, for
the subject of lies, I turn to the Stones' "Lies."  But we
Kaflowitzes have our traditions, it's true.  I would say more, but
modesty prevents me from naming these excesses.

> > Now don't get above yourself, Billy dear, and accuse anyone
> > of paranoia.
> 
> Paranoia, sweet pea, is irrelevant when someone is out to get
> you... 

Paranoia will destroy ya.
Instant karma's gonna get ya, better watch your step.

If karma is, then there are an awful lot of pro-life males who
will return as women in their next lives.  I suppose that will
satisfy the silly buggers who occasionally bemoan their lack
of uteruses (uteri?).

Dean Kaflowitz

To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part,
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: A hypothetical case: Assault or murder. (Was: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:39:28 GMT

<1992Oct11.024354.6357@ugle.unit.no> dennis@Lise.Unit.NO (Dennis G Landsem) :
>In article <1992Oct11.005152.18738@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com writes:
> > <1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
...
> In light of the discussion on what rights apply to a fetus I'd like you to 
>consider the following scenario:
>
>    A women is, lets say, 2 months pregnant. She has every intention of carrying
>    the child to term. One evening as she is walking in the park, she is 
>    assaulted by a robber. As a direct result of this (a kick in the stomach) she
>    has a spontaneous abortion. 
>
> What I'd like you to answer is this; would you consider this an assault or would
>you consider it to be murder ?

Assault.  Depending on the degree of life-endangerment for the women, it
could carry attempted murder charges.  As to the fetus, AT THE VERY MOST,
it could be considered negligent homocide - *murder* tends to require
*intent*.

At least, that's my opinion.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41066 talk.politics.guns:21805 alt.conspiracy:11031 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5015 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6379 talk.bizarre:33127
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:49:04 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1992Oct7.020617.4255@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>attacker only vaguely knows.  Also noteworthy is the lapse into vulgarity
>which is of course the last refuge of a limited vocabulary. As to the charge

Now, now...

A little profanity can be a powerful communications tool.  Of course, it can 
be easily over-used...
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:43:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.025743.16871@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.121159.28594@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> They're saying that a woman can kill a human being as long as that
> >> human being resides within her body.
> 
> > Yes, they are saying women own their own bodies and should
> > have the legal right to control their own bodies without
> > others telling them what motives are acceptable for doing
> > with their bodies what they wish to do.
> 
> I agree.  But a fetus isn't part of a woman's body.  There are two
> bodies involved.  

I agree.  That's why the fetus should get the hell out of there
if the woman in question does not want to be used as an
environmental chamber for it.

And neither, I might point out, of those bodies are yours,
Reverend Doug, yet you wish to control what is done with
both of tyhose two, separate bodies.

> > Yes, women are containers and much more.  

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:22:05 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(Ron Bense) writes: > 
->(Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->>>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you
->>
->> What was forced upon you?

->A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
->perfectly fine option.

please describe exactly how this belief was forced upon
you. perhaps you would also contrast it with all of the
other lawful acts which are forced upon you.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:35:42 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes:
|(Susan Garvin) writes:
|>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
|>When abortion is illegal, women die.
|When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.
|Shall we legalize them, Susan?  

I'm not Susan, but I answer yes.

And yes, some of my reasons for supporting drug legalization are
parallel to my reasons for supporting legal abortion.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 
"You can't legislate morality. We tried to outlaw comsumption of 
alcoholic beverages. We found that violation of the law led to bigger 
crimes and bred disrespect for the law."  Jimmy Carter, 1976.
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: RU486, the Pill, & "pregnancy"
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:50:44 GMT

> = rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
========================================================================
>.. The hard rock anti-aborts will not distinguish between an action taken
>before a fact and an action taken after a fact. Preventing an  implant for
>an "ensouled" zygote is not the same as disloging it.  Since the basic
>motive of the anti-aborts is not the preservation of human persons, but
>the punishment of women for having sexual intercourse without paying the
>wages of sin (as it were) by risking pregnancy, they go bonkers over
>RU-486 used as a "morning after pill".
>
>Just keep in mind, extremists like the John Brown clone, Randall Terry
>refer to contraception as the pre-aborting of children.
========================================================================

# = From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
# I posted the following.  They are all quotes that I saved off the net;
# I don't have any more detailed citations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your
marriage as often as you like -- and if you have babies, you have babies ..."

-- Randall Terry, Executive Director, Operation Rescue

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are totally opposed to abortion under any circumstances. We are also
opposed to abortifacient drugs and chemicals like the Pill and IUD, and
we are also opposed to all forms of birth control with the exception of
natural family planning." 

-- Judie Brown, President, American Life League

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Meanwhile, let it be clear what we do: we fight 
contraception, sterilization, and abortion on six continents ... " 

-- Fr. Paul Marx, President, Human Life International

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For instance, several years ago we tracked down a twelve-year-old girl
who was going to have an abortion, so that we could talk her out of it.
Talking a woman out of having an abortion is not news. But tracking her
down by using a private detective is."
"For those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say just watch me." 

-- Joseph Scheidler, Executive Director, Pro-Life Action League

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from promiscuity by
a fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, cervical cancer,
or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a dead, blind, or
brain-damaged baby (even ten years later when she may be happily married)." 

-- Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:31:18 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct11154251@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> 
>yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>> I'm curious about the criteria that other people who are pro-choice
>> would use to determine whether an organism is a person.  I'm
>> pro-choice, but it seems to me that abortion rights activists are
>> often unclear about this in their public statements.
>
>Pro-choicers are often intentionally unclear about their definition
>of personhood because they're usually unable to express a consistent 
>and coherent definition without either accepting infanticide or
>animal rights, or both.  

No liar, it's because it isn't necessary to the discussion.  Does one
person/animal/vegetable/mineral have the right to invade the body of
another person?  Does a woman have the right to evict an unwelcome
guest?

>> The use of birth as a defining point for personhood may convenient,
>> but I rarely hear pro-choicers give a coherent explanation for why the
>> fetus itself is different one minute after both than one minute
>> before.  Certainly it's relationship with it's mother has changed, but
>> that shouldn't affect whether or not is it a person.
>
>Pro-choicers will often argue that a fetus is inside a woman's body,
>and thus, the fetus is not a person, but an infant is a person.

No putz.  The personhood of the fetus is not the issue.  Does a woman
have the right to evict an unwelcome guest?

>This argument reduces women to mere physical containers. Pregnant
>women need not offer any justification for aborting -- the fact 
>that a fetus resides within the woman's body is sufficient
>justification for abortion. According to these choicers, pregnant 
>women might as well be inanimate, non-thinking containers who simply 
>harbor a fetus. 

Your attempts to tar pro-choicers with pro-life views is disgusting in
its sleaziness.  Apparently your view of the issue is so unsupportable
you now have to resort to this sort of garbage.  

Get a life.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:37:22 CST
 <26128@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <1992Oct8.041100.23846@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct8.041100.23846@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <26128@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>>Einstein thought he was correct.  Heisenberg thought he was correct.
>>>Martin Luther King thought he was correct.  Gandhi thought he was correct.
>>>Thomas Jefferson thought he was correct.  You think you are correct.
>>
>>>They must be pompus too, right.
>>
>>The first two proposed theories. 
> They wouldn't propose a theory they knew was not correct.

You don't know very much about science, do you?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41052 talk.religion.misc:17797
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:22:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>Recently she denied ever saying that she said gay men hate women, she
>tried to back-pedal out of it until people posted her own words which make
>her a liar. She's been strangely quiet since then.

Perhaps she just gets too flustered of late. It tends to cause hot flashes
when consistent adrenaline rushes for an extended period of time keep
coursing through your brain, you know. Maybe she just can't take it
anymore. Maybe her doctor told her to stop posting when her husband 
drove her into the office because she was ranting and raving continuously
and it scared him. :)

>Ask her why water evaporates.

That'd be as good as her crcle proof, I'm sure. I think I remember reading
that one, but it was a long time ago.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:40:32 GMT

In article <lefty-131092135923@lefty.apple.com> 
lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>> I said nothing about operations to remove human tissue, I was talking 
>> about the tissue itself.  There's nothing upsetting about viewing 
>> a heart, a limb, or a piece of cancerous tissue.  If the pro-aborts
>> can say that a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells" just like
>> any other human tissue, then they shouldn't have any objections to 
>> letting children look at this "clump of cells". 

> So, if there's "nothing upsetting about viewing  a heart, a limb, or a
> piece of cancerous tissue", you wouldn't see any problem with putting
> pictures of the various remains of, say, Jeffrey Dahmer's victims on
> Saturday morning television. 

The various remains of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims were once persons.
And so are the remains of aborted fetuses.  That's what makes them
horrifying. 


>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:22:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.121422.2465@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>
>What if your wife is pregnant, and she is wondering whether she should
>abort or not (for whatever reason you can think of)?  What if she
>values your opinion, and looks to you for advice or consolation?
>Are you just going to tell her "Sorry babe I don't have to decide
>for you, you're on your own"?
>
>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

That's almost exactly what my husband told me last November.  He didn't
preface it with the "sorry", but he did say that the decision was mine
because it was my body that would have to undergo all the problems, and
probably surgery.  He also said that whatever decision I made, he would
support and not love me less because of it.

In fact, he was quite surprised when I decided to continue the pregnancy.


Jennifer
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:34:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct8.223039.2638@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article <6739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
## 
## Can you document any of those things that you said about
## Adrienne, Suzanne?  I seem to recall you getting rather
## indignant about some comments that Gordon made about *you*,
## and that you demanded documentation.  (Of course, I
## also remember that Gordon documented each one, and you
## were strangely silent after that.)  

#As Peter has so diligently pointed out, each one of Gordon's
#"proofs" was a non-proof.   Obviously, net.readers can read
#that for themselves, and so I felt I need say no more.  I
#even e-mailed Peter that he need say no more either, but
#he has wished to continue pursueing Gordon for his own
#reasons.    Even Kevin Darcy, with whom I have little
#in common politicaly, saw the farce in Gordon's "proofs".

You demanded documentation.  Gordon provided it.  Can you
provide any documentation for your statements about Adrienne?

(Nyikos arguments were less than convincing.  Who reads Darcy?)

#Do you wish me to operate as if you were all stupid?  Seems
#to me that not only do you get angry when I do treat you thus,
#you also get angry when I don't, so why should I waste my effort
#on you?

No, I want you to operate as if you aren't stupid.  I guess
it's too much to ask.

## Is this just the
## latest installment of pro-force hypocrisy, or will
## you be supplying evidence that Adrienne will kill anyone
## who gets in her way,                              ^^^^^^

#I made a point of not using the word "anyone".   I said
#"other human beings".  And unless you are stupid, Susan,
#you know exactly who those other human beings are.

I know what you mean, Suzanne.  You were being intentionally
misleading, but then, we expect that from you.

Do you have any proof of that Adrienne will kill any
fetus that gets in her way?

## that she devalues motherhood, and
## that she's the most twisted person on the net?

#Adrienne herself proves these with every post she makes.


No, she doesn't.  Regardless of Eric Rescorla's claims that
he owns the title, your bizarre versions of the cause of
male homosexuality, fundamental economics, and life in
general lead me to believe that you're the most twisted
person on the net.

I didn't think you could document your claims.  I trust
you'll think twice before demanding evidence from Gordon
or anyone else in the future.

Susan,
who wonders if Suzanne has found Matthew 6:5-6 yet

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Your Biblical Support ISN'T.
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.135153.21148@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.130424.20793@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu 
>(The Rink) writes:

>}           In short, the person who posted these references claiming them to
>}be scriptural support for abortion IS A DIRTY LIAR.

>DIRTY?  Did you say dirty?  Heavens, who is this person, that we might
>get some soap.  I think we might be able to clean this person up
>so they tell only little white (whiter than white with the proper soap)
>lies.  

Ethnic Cleansing of Lies? :-)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:43:25 GMT

In article <Bw31nA.GuK.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.195811.14886@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>[my old reply deleted because Booth doesn't know how]
>
>#Actually, this was part of the larger, overall picture of a proposed
>#work of FICTION, not reality.  "Novel" refering to a book, not "original".
>
>I knew what I meant by the word "novel," Booth.
>
>You've compared yourself to Orwell several times now.  I was
>pointing out one of the major differences - _1984_ was
>inventive fiction.  Yours is not.
>
>(I've read a bit from one science fiction story that addressed
>abortion.  Pro-forcers spent eternity pregnant and unhappy.)
>
What I am planning is more applicable to modern times (read my previous posts)
I never knew having children made people unhappy....
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:00:00 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct7.191249.6703@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>Besides, abortion and "forcing" someone to donate pats are two
>different problems.  Preventing an abortion, and solving the problem
>of a dying person are two different issues.

Yeah. Men don't get pregnant, but they do have body parts that someone else
might want. :-)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com