HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:49:14 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.124039.11946@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>> Fetuses had never received legal protection under the law,

>This statement is not correct.

have you ever seen anything come of prosectution for crack babies or
ather drug harmed babies? The above statement stands, unless you can
prove otherwise. Abortion was simply banned for a *very* short period
of time.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: More Bigots! (was Re: Mark Russell...)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:12:14 GMT

andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew) writes to S. Chaney:

> Steve, might I recommend that you listen to "That Was the Year That Was", by
> the aforementioned Tom Lehrer.  It contains some background information
> and pretext for the song, and you might discover, were you to listen closely
> enough, that the song is a satire, not an attack.

I'm the proud owner of a copy of TWTYTW.  I've had it for almost 24 years!

> Further, if you can't laugh at yourself--and the song IS funny, no
> question--then you aren't likely to be taken seriously by anyone else.
> (I also recommend "New Math", from the same album, as an example of
> both Lehrer and I not taking ourselves so seriously...I'm studying to
> be a high school math teacher, and that song is one of the funniest
> things I've heard in quite a while.)

New math!
Ne-e-e-e-w math!
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That _only_ a child can do it!

I'm surprised you didn't mention National Brotherhood Week.

Step up and shake the hand,
Of someone you can't stand,
You can tolerate him if you try!

ObAbortion:  I've read a few pro-lifers attempting to pick away at the idea
that having an abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted
pregnancy.  To whom should a woman be responsible?

The z/e/f?  Why?

Her SO?  Why?

Society?  Why?

God?  Why?

How about herself?  Why not?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:28:48 GMT
     <1992Aug21.204130.12507@noao.edu>
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>You know Peter, any friend of fetuses is a friend of mine :-) :-)

Must be lonely.  I prefer my friends to be able to carry on a
conversation.

>And I'll tell you, wearing a sign around your neck that says
><"Former Fetus"> at a protest picket in front of a Right-to-Choose
>fund raiser REALLY shakes up the people going in and out.

I'd be shaken up too, but then blatant stupidity always shakes me up.
Of course he's a former fetus; the important thing is that he no longer
is, and therefore has legal protection.

(Is "truth be blatant stupidity" a phrase?  It probably should be.)

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:27:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <24410@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>Nyikos proves again that he is completely clueless. Peter (very appropiate)
>>there are over 200,000 women per year that die in Brazil,

>Why do you feel the need to shift over to Brazil?

Perhaps because it is a country that presently has made abortions illegal.
It is an apt example of what could happen in this country if the same
is done here.

>Pro-choicers keep coming up with wild mortality figures.  It's
>called the big lie technique.

This from someone who supports the "pregnancy is wonderful" crowd who
also holds the "all life is wonderful" philosphy but can't do a thing
to help those suffering and *dying* in misery because they're too busy
donating money to and spending their time with groups that are trying
to close down clinics, not to mention attacking clinic workers and causing
them to miscarry children they *want*.

>> There are more abortions done in Brazil per year than in the
>>US, which has a larger population. These sentences are short and on
>>a seventh grade reading level, so that you may comprehend them more
>>easily. Posting of info and stats will follow this post, as I believe
>>I've got them archived.

>Should be interesting to see these stats.  I hope they are broken
>down according to age group.  I don't doubt that there are over

Well, I was hoping I had them archived. Anybody archive that post with
the Brazilian abortion figures?

>200,000 women (and men too)
> who die each year in Brazil, by the way.  They haven't
>yet found the cure for "We've all got to go some time."

I'm sure that more than 200,000 die each year two. How many I couldn't
tell you at the present, as I don't have an almanac  handy.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:26:36 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <92237.190229ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda writes:

> In  <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger writes:
> 
> > I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
> > newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
> > on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup
> > dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.
> 
> > What do people think of the idea?
> 
> That it is not surprising that someone who desires
> to control what women do with their bodies would
> wish to control the content of people's posts.
> I can't imagine any other reason for restricting
> freedom of expression.

  Well, he did at least not place his name in consideration as moderator.

> However for those that can't figure out how
> to use a F key to kill articles that either
> offend or bore them and for those that want
> to turn the issue into milktoast a moderated
> newsgroup would perhaps be convenient.
> Linda

  I can only say that the two mod groups I have read or participated in 
(sci.military and alt.atheism) seem to have no problems.  The key is always
in getting a good moderator.  From a practical standpoint, I just don't think
it'll work for talk.abortion, though.  Too many posts.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33078 talk.religion.misc:14580
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.134619.931@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>I wanted to agree with the poster who said that there are pro-lifers,
>like myself, who do believe in doing all that we can as a society to
>remove the need for abortion.  This includes financial, emotional and
>spiritual guidance (if desired).
>
>I believe the fetus to be unquestionable human.  I believe in its
>right to life.  I believe the right to live supercedes the right of
>another to kill it.  If only it were possible to take fetuses from 
>their unwanting mothers and give them to homes where they are wanted.

If that were true, what do you think the chances are that one to two million
extra children (predominantly non-white btw) will find homes?

I think it's small. I also think that most pro-lifers complain about the 
problem of 'baby slaugtering' but do literally nothing to house, clothe and 
feed the children without homes right *now*.  If abortion were outlawed,
we'd just have more dead women, and more unwanted children that the pro-lifers
are already unwilling to support.

>I probably will adopt someday for this reason.Wes

Make sure to adopt a non-white child. Adopt a dozen.

>
>-- 
>Wes Orr, Dude
>GVSU
>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
>--------------------------------------------------------


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES (long)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:15:14 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  <1992Aug30.212940.15090@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> Table 1. % of women experiencing contraceptive failure during the 1st 12 month
> of use, uncorrected and corrected for underreporting of abortion, by method,
> NFSG, 1988
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> method      uncorrected,     corrected,     corrected,
>           unstandardized  unstandardized  standardized
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> pill          5.1             8.3            7.3
> condom        7.2            14.8           15.8
> diaphragm    10.4            15.9           22.0
> periodic
> abstinence   20.9            25.6           31.4
> sponge       14.5            *              *
> spermicides  13.4            25.2           30.2
> other        13.3            27.8           26.2

So Suzanne's beloved "periodic abstinence" gives the worst results of
all methods of birth control.  Not surprising to most people...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Illegal abortions
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:43:33 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <24534@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

]> I think you are probably right. A free clue though, most of the pro-life
]> crowd, at least the most vocal of them, are also for restricting contra-
]> ceptives. So the comparison is quite appropiate, don't you agree?

]No, I don't agree that the number of deaths from illegal abortion in
]Brazil can be carried over to this country.  First you would have to show
]that the US population would agree to restrict access to contraceptives,
]and I don't think that's likely to happen.  Secondly, you would have to
]explain the discrepancy between the number of deaths from illegal abortion
]in Brazil and the number of deaths in the US before Roe v. Wade.  As I
]posted earlier, the CDC reported 39 deaths from illegal abortion in 1972.

Well, Doug, this is a first in my experience. I asked a question, and
you gave a straight-forward answer. I have noted this, and will never
say you *always* dodge questions with more questions. Congratulations.

First, if abortion ever does become illegal, those forces that managed
to do this would have no trouble passing a law against contraception,
something the most outspoken of this movement also proclaim they wish,
as it is a moral sin (religion, you know) and the people that would
be in power would most likely be at least half as crazy as those nuts.
This is why I think it would be a very real and appropriate comparison
if abortion were to be outlawed. Our opinions on this differ, and I
don't see how bickering about a hypothetical situation is going to convince
either of us that the other has a better case. So unless you can think
of some new suppositions, let's drop this.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:50:45 GMT

sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:

>How many children (emphasis on child(ish)) does it take to fill the net?

Not many, when children insist on reposting a 75-line article to
add one meaningless sentence.

This is almost as bad as people who repost large articles to say
"Part of this article was misattributed to me.", when anyone capable
of reading attribution lines knows that the author's quotes do not
appear.

>Sean P. Curley	

                     -rocker
                      who also trims .sigs
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:19:50 EST

In article <1992Sep3.223559.16902@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu 
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
>> 
>>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
>  
> ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.

Pathetic response, Suzanne. I hope you didn't spend too much time thinking
it up. :-)

I guess we can surmise that Kathi "got your goat" with her .sig. - J.J.
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: We gotta do what we gotta do... 
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 16:40:32 GMT

In <1992Aug31.144346.15174@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>[...]
>posting and checking occasionally, but most of my UNIX activities will
>comprise of helping Ron Graham and Feminists for Life's spread onto
>Internet, as well as finding yet another UNIX account to spread to, in
>[...]
>non-intellegence, threatmongering and religious bigotry. My bet is to be

Sigh. For a while, it looked like Mr. Chaney had actually learned      
two things from talk.abortion...the difference between "UNIX <TM>",
"Usenet", and "Internet", and the proper spelling of "intelligence".

> [...]
>
>I really hate to say this, but at the time Domino's was under attack, I was
>laughing about it, and figured they'd be forced to "stop pumping funds into
>the anti-choice movement." The fact was, the owner was forced to sell the
>company, not just stop donating.

Can somebody confirm this? Does this mean that the boycott is over? I'm
not altogether happy with the other pizza delivery services in my area,
and I'd like to go back to Domino's if it's OK now.

> [...]
>
>majority of us. If you are a Reaganite who has 10 times more intellegence

Sigh.
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 25 Aug 1992 23:06:41 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
 <ceZeicS00WBK42TGI7@andrew.cmu.edu> <nyikos.714612404@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
 <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu>

In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
>In article <nyikos.714612404@milo.math.scarolina.edu> Peter Nyikos writes:
>>ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:
>
>>> I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
>>> and abortion or infanticide. Gay people are part of the social order,
>>> whether certain groups wish to think kind thoughts about us or not.
>>> Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
>>> not yet in the social order
>
>> I wonder...how many pro-choicers share Mr. Loomis's view of infanticide?
>> How many agree that newborn babies are not yet appropriate objects for
>> ethics?
>
>I don't think you're going to get any answers from the pro-choicers
>on this newsgroup.  Michael Loomis has occasionally expressed the
>view that infanticide is not wrong, and I've never seen a pro-choicer
>disagree with that view.

I have never seen Mr. Loomis express the
view that infanticide is not wrong.  I
do disagree with his contention that infants
are not members of the social order, just as
I disagreed with Mr. Loomis on August 2nd
that some women in less than ideal circumstances
are manipulated into carrying a fetus to term.

>I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge
>the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did,
>they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without
>looking a little hypocritical.

What utter rubbish.  Do you only read posts that
have your name in them?

There are a number of people in this newsgroup who
say they are prochoice and who have bashed prochoicers
they view as extremist.  Really Mr. Holtsinger if you're
going to make things up try and choose something that
isn't so easily disproven.

What is a rare sight is prolifers admonishing
the homophobic misogynist prolife loon, but
then you're all one big happy family, no
disent, no disagreements, no individuality.



Linda
--
They're complicated people leading complicated lives, and
he complicates their problems by telling complicated lies
     The Flag, Barenaked Ladies
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:45:36 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Btw, I noticed elsewhere that you have stated (commendably, imo) that
>> discrimination against homosexuals is inappropriate.  Did you know that
>> Steve Franklin supports the recent statement of the Catholic Church that
>> _endorses_ discrimination against homosexuals?
 
> Did you know that Mark Kaufman is a religious bigot and that other similar
> things like that, come from our resident "Another Catholic School Survivor"
> poster?

But I asked a question in all seriousness about discrimination against
homosexuals.  Your feelings about Mark Kaufman are obvious; what about Steve
Franklin?

I have occasionally asked Mr. Kaufman to tone down his anti-religious stuff
and he was non-responsive.  That's life on the net.  To paraphrase the FAQ
in news.newusers.questions, playing on the net means having to put up with 
things that piss you off.

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Suzanne finally sees the light
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.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 01:04:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.195739.12319@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>> 
>>>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
>>>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>I'm glad.
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> So here Suzanne says that no life is better than a poor quality of life.
>
>Where there is no pre-existing life is an entirely different matter from 
>killing a life that has already begun.

Gee, Suzanne.  You mean you wouldn't want to outlaw elective vasactomies and
tubiligations?

I mean, their only purpose is birth control...

Just like the Pill...

And NFP...
--
=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>   =
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 3 Sep 1992 04:25:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Not now -- there's more important stuff afoot...

In article <nyikos.715476331@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <181fotINNse@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

[Petie's whine about Kaufman deleted]

>>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>>may not be both."
>>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
>
>Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
>calls PatricKKK?

He doesn't have to, because I *am* literate, nitwit.  

Right now, I have one hell of a situation going on in my life outside of
work -- as I type this, my wife is lying in a bed two blocks away from
here at Hermann Hospital, and there is a significant possibility the 
seizure she suffered yesterday afternoon may have been caused by a brain tumor.
I don't appreciate self-righteous little assholes like you dragging my name
in where you have no damned business doing it -- and if you don't
like that, you know where you can shove it.  Right now, I have enough other
things to worry about -- much more important things than the "hurt feelings"
of some human refuse that calls itself Peter Nyikos.  Mind your own damned
business, or be prepared to get your nose cut off when you stick it in mine.
You dig?

--PLH is one pissed-off puppy at the moment.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Suzanne commits a sin for all of Usenet to see!
From: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:55:49 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

> > In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes (to Gordon Storga)
 > 
> >>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
> >>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
> >                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>I'm glad.
> > ^^^^^^^^^

One more time, Suzanne:  A vasectomy is Birth Control.  Birth Control is a Sin.   
You are advocating a SIN.  Advocating a Sin is also a SIN!  Please see the man  
in the little booth, who will assign you 5 Rosaries to say in penance. 

--

Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"_Five_ rosaries, fauther?  Nevah in my life have I been required to say more  
than _two_... but _five_?"                   ---- Belazaire Breaux        
                 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion