HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: 100th trimester
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:13:04 CST


In article <1992Nov20.115407.44983@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, dougm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> What we need in this country is a good, cheap 100th trimester abortion
> available on demand.  The contolling factor should not be based on viability
> outside the womb, but instead should be based on whether the child has
> left home yet.  In other words, any 25-year-old who has not left home
> should be considered a likely candidate for the procedure.

Sounds like a bumper sticker I saw:

	"Life begins when the kids
	 move out and the dog dies."


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:00:24 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

In article <1992Nov17.162237.743@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>Huh?  Abstinence = no pregnancy.  That was my point.

Sure, and women never get pregnant from rape, and couples would be
really happy-happy if they never got sex...

Get out of my sex-life - I know what contraception is.

>  ....  That's why I'm calling for people to behave 
>responsibly so that the government doesn't have to keep fixing our problems.

ho ho - so everyone acts really sensibly, all the time. And guess what - 
there will still be unwanted preganancies...

>I fear the loss of fundamental rights as much as the next person.  That
>is why I'm against things like gun control

eh? You rant about people killing babies, but want to protect the right of
people to wander around with lethal fire-arms...

I've seen this quite often here in t.a, many of those who want to force 
women to endure pregnancy and childbirth that they don't want are also 
pro-guns. Odd. Maybe its that right-wing-oppression-of-the-weak thing we
keep hearing about...

>I don't believe that killing an unborn child is a fundamental right, ...

but you think oppression and enforced pregnancy are?

>Notice my "right now?" comment above?  I think that if we don't pull together 
>and acknowledge that killing an unborn child is just plain wrong 
>*as a society* (and do something about it) then we face self destruction, 

Now I'm beginning to think you are taking the piss... (Brit. slang for
having us on)

Hands up all those who think abortion are good and fun things that everyone
should experience once in a while...

[waits]

not many...

Hands up all those who agree that though unpleasant and occasionally traumatic
abortion is a necessary part of a society where pregnancies occur when
they aren't wanted.

Better...

>I challenge pro-choice and pro-lifers both to move with me to the middle
>on this.  Let's do something instead of waiting for it to fall apart 
>around us.

You? In the middle?? What???

Lets see:
You think people should abstain entirely from sex unless they want to have
children?

And you think that this would magically make abortions unnecessary?

You're on another planet!

Dave


--- daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------
Dave Stow, Comp. Dept. SECAMS, Lancaster University, Lancs, LA1 4YL, UK
     Tel: +44 (524) 65201 ext. 3142           Fax: +44 524 381707
--------------------------------------------- B5(6.5) f- t- g+ k+ s+ e r p ----
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:39:16 GMT

<1992Nov23.050110.25831@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <By0snG.3AI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
>smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>
>> Okay, time to describe a different but equally gruesome medical 
>> procedure...
>> Supposing I wanted to replace a leg joint with a titanium-steel implant.
>
>Abortion is a unique procedure because it involves killing a human 
>being.   You can't compare it to an ordinary medical procedure like
>a leg joint replacement, because they don't result in the death
>of a human being.

Doug, many operations can result in the death of a human being.  Childbirth,
for example, is 40 times more likely to result in a dead woman than
abortion.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:22:26 GMT

#  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
>  ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
%  chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)

-----

##### She knew there was a chance and she took and messed up
##### PAY THE PRICE !!!
%%%% 
%%%% You seem to express a willingness to PUNISH a married woman for
%%%% having sex with her husband.  Is that the case?  Yes?  No?
### 
### I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.
>> 
>> Coward.  You want to set the rules but refuse to own up to the
>> consequences.
#
# Name calling is so easy whta do you mean I refuse to own up to the 
# consequences? Or maybe you mean since I am a man I can't get pregnant? I
# don't plan on engaging in any activity that could get a female pregnant until
# I am married or until I am ready to accept the resposibility if she gets 
# pregnant and to raise the child together.

Mr. Fischer wasn't merely calling you names.  He was observing that
you appear to be a coward.  I agree.  You seem to want to set up the
rules for sex, but you don't want to own up to the consequences of the
rules.

Weak.  Way weak.

``She punished herself by getting pregnant.''


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:36:28 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> I find it quite repugnant, Peter, that you would attempt to deflect well-
>> deserved flames away from Darcy.  He made several tasteless, tactless and
>> mean-spirited posts about a t.a participant's SO's experience as a victim
>> of child sex abuse.   

>> "...well-deserved flames..."

>         Blatant assertion.

In turn, a blatent assertion from someone who refuses to take responsibility
for his actions.

>> "He made several ..."

>        Incorrect. The whole flamewar stemmed from a single post.

Incorrect yourself.  You made 20-25 posts before you issued your sorry
excuse for an apology.  And many, many after that.

>> "...tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited..."

>         Speculation presented as fact. My post attacked the spectacle of a 
>         child molester bragging about his exploits. I doubt that anyone would 
>         consider my behavior, placed in the context of that interpretation, 
>         as "tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited". As it happened, my 
>         interpretation was incorrect. I have apologized for that error. But 
>         error is not the same as malice, and the presence of malice in this 
>         instance is purely a matter of speculation on Mr. Lyman's part.

Need I remind you, Darcy, that when Ms. Garvin's SO invited you to experience
what he had experienced as a child, you replied, "No thank you, you are not
to my taste," or words to that effect.  That covers 'tasteless,' 'tactless,'
and 'mean-spirited' pretty well, although there are many other examples.  And
what was really pathetic, Kebbin, is the way you dragged out the controversy
for weeks trying to convince readers that it really wasn't your fault.  Imo,
your pathetic attempts to favor your own fragile self-image over the feelings
and sensibilities of others show what anomie-stricken little puddle you are.

>> "...about a t.a participant's SO's experience..."

>         Misleading. My article was posted exclusively to alt.flame, where it
>         was completely appropriate. The term "t.a participant" seems to 
>         insinuate that I inflicted the flames on talk.abortion, when in fact 
>         the parties guilty of _that_ particular offense have never owned up
>         or apologized for their actions.

Misleading yourself, Kebbin.  Are you saying that Susan Garvin is not a
t.a participant?  Here's a bone for you, Kebbin.  The wise old saying goes:
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
Either you allowed a tiny, malicious animus loose on someone you openly
dislike, or you are the most monumentally stupid creature ever to move
about on two legs.  Which is it, Kebbin?
         
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Who to listen to?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:25:11 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.721413811@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> Keywords changed by Humphrey from "Patrick makes no sense at all" to
> "Patrick makes way too much sense."
> 
> I think the jury is still hearing evidence on this one.

Heh.  Here's another one who thinks he's Perry Mason.

Hey, Petie, maybe you and Darcy should get together.  Do you by any chance
recall what John Adams claimed that two idlers constituted?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:06:07 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes to Lynn Alford:

> She knew there was a chance and she took and messed up PAY THE PRICE !!!

You seem to express a willingness to PUNISH a married woman for having sex
with her husband.  Is that the case?  Yes?  No?

Either way, fie on you, you clueless wet-behind-the-ears newbie.

> I answered your question jbut I will answer a quetion about my reply I don't
> understand

Huh?

> lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD) writes in her .sig:

>> I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?

> Who knows? but try looking in Space..oops I mean your head its the same
> thing.

People who write things like "I answered your question jbut I will answer
a quetion about my reply I don't understand" probably should not be seen
writing 'space == head' flames.

Come to think of it, real space is not empty; it is infinite and contains
all kinds of interesting objects and energies.  Congratulations, you just
paid Lynn one hell of a compliment!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos lied about me, too!
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:04:43 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <9830@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <h=x1ctd@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>#regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>#->And this from our own Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos who *just* before this
>#->article told James Keegan that he didn't lie about adrienne regard.
>#
>#hell, if he can lie about you and susan garvin, there's
>#no reason why he can't lie to me.
>#
>#perhaps he's displaying misogyny when he lies about
>#women and only lies to men. wait a minute! didn't he
>#lie about dean? never mind.
>
>I think that he's lied about a lot more people than just
>Adrienne, Dean and I.  (And I really hope that Dean will
>write a song about the three of us - I like the way that
>sounded.)  I think that it's time for everyone else in
>the group to step forward.  We can form one of the most
>non-exclusive clubs in the world.

I'm proud to be a member of this club.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48543 talk.religion.misc:21488 alt.atheism:21618
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:11:37 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1992Nov16.030911.25233@watson.ibm.com>, by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
>> In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>> |> How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>> |> do appear to be quite different):
>> |> 
>> |> He mellowed.
>> |> 
>> Not from the Jewish perspective.
>> 
>> From the Jewish perspective, the "OT" God judged
>> us for our actions, not our beliefs, and had
>> mercy on the righteous of all nations.
>> 
>> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
A (minor) nit...Lutherans are catholic.  And so are Eastern & Greek
Orthodox and Anglicans.

>>casts the unbelievers into an eternal fiery hell ---
>>the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
>> 
>>I agree that these are quite different,
>>but it doesn't look like mellowing to me.
>
>
>It's really very simple folks:
>
>In the OT, God teaches us right from wrong.
>
>In the NT, He teaches us why what is right is right,
>                     and why what is wrong is wrong.

Reasonable...but not complete...the NT proclaims salvation in spite of the
law...the OT proclaims justification in the law.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: 23 Nov 1992 10:17:04 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov20.002427.8280@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
># It's pretty clear to all of us, I think, that cancer is always unwelcome, and
># pregnancy isn't.  I don't imagine women will voluntarily place cancer cells
># in their womb anytime soon, and I don't believe you do either.
>
>I have several benign cancers I am in no hurry to have removed.

Let this be a lesson to you, children:  Never use the words "always" or
"never" in a USENET post.  (oops!, I did it again).  

>| J H Woodyatt              
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48176 talk.religion.misc:21241 alt.atheism:21392
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:28:00 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1e8gmvINNo9o@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
|>
|>   If one examines the wording of the ten commandements carefully
|>one wil
(end of post)   

Looks like someone got struck down by the Wrath of God(tm)!
Teach you right, for misspelling "commandments"!
:-)

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:42:18 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32735@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>Your assertion about the value of the /z/e/f/ is your opinion, and you
>are entitled to it.  I just don't understand why you want to enact
>laws that force everyone to conform to it.

You seem to be drawing a distinction that I don't understand between
having an opinion and believing that opinion to be true.

Maybe an example would help.  It is my opinion that the pain
of animals is a bad thing and that the willful infliction of pain by a
human being without justification is a bad thing.  Since I think those
really are bad things, I favor laws against torturing cats to death
for the fun of it.  Do you see a problem with my stance on that issue?

>We regularly release people from responsibilities
>that have a much stronger link with particular behaviors than the link
>between a pregnancy and an act of sex.

Example?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:59:57 GMT

shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
 > hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
 > >I welcome your commitment but what I disagree with is people of the 
 > >anti-abortion crowd trying to IMPOSE their ideals on others against their
 > >will.  That's the whole point of "pro-choice"; the individual involved
 > >get to make their own choice.  You'd choose to remain pregnant, other
 > >men wouldn't.  Each individual choses.
 > 
 > Yep, that's the theory all right.  
 > 
 > But try to support abortion alternatives (abstinence, parenthood,
 > adoption), and see how much support you get from the "pro-choice"
 > crowd. If you're lucky they'll ignore you -- more likely they'll try
 > every legal means to shut you down, since, by supporting other choices,
 > you are automatically trying to IMPOSE ideals.

No, Tim - not true.  The pro-choice side also supports the 
choice to also use the above "aborition alternatives".  They
also are prime advocators that contraception methods be available
to all people who wish to use them.  Matter of fact, from the
folks *I* have talked to on the pro-choice side, we would
all prefer that contraception be used to prevent conception
where abstinence is not a viable option.

As a "pro-abortion" person, I will agree that I will recommend
abortion over any of the three options you have given above.

BUT, I will support the decision of the person to whom I am
giving these recommendations to do what THEY want.

What the pro-choice folks want to be sure is that ALL of the
alternatives are available.  The only time any of us will do
as you say here:

 >  If you're lucky they'll ignore you -- more likely they'll try
 > every legal means to shut you down, since, by supporting other choices,

is when you are trying to put forward the alternatives
as the ONLY options.  I can't think of one of the pro-choice
opinions I have read or heard where they do not agree that
your alternatives ARE valid, if the people involved WANT
to use those alternatives - and I also think most of us are
MORE than willing to have those options presented to a woman
who finds herself pregnant - although I imagine that by that
time abstinence is rather a moot point.

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.185550.25534@fys.ruu.nl>
johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:

> Ulrich, Laurel.
>     A midwife's tale : the life of Martha Ballard, based on her diary,
>   1785-1812 / Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.  1st ed.  New York : Knopf : Distributed
>   by Random House, 1990.

>The book is based on a very detailed diary kept by Martha Ballard. The
>author describes how M. Ballard used to ask the mothers of illegitimate
>children who the father was during childbirth, as that way she was more
>assured of getting an honest answer! It's worth pointing out that the
>reason child support was demanded from the father in these cases is
>exactly the same as in America today; that otherwise, the care of the
>mother and child would fall on the community: in this case, the parish.

Interesting.  Hm....  When Mom was studying for her Master's in
American History, she commented that the Puritans believed that a
woman couldn't/wouldn't lie about the father of the child while giving
birth to it, and would often make him support her and the child based
on her word at that point alone.  And that sometimes/a lot of the time
the mother took advantage of this by naming someone who was
financially able to support her and her child.

Of course, that's a very low brand of evidence....  But it does have a
certain plausibility to it, doesn't it?


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

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: nyikos fails to apologize for false accusation of forgery
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:32:40 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to
chris lyman:

->Well, I don't know what qualifies as an apology in your eyes, but I just
->posted one in response to Susan's initial short post about my "selective
->editing".  

that's one down and one to go.

->Adrienne is a trickier case but I'll get around to her too when
->I have a little more time.

adrienne is not a "trickier" case. you accused her of
forgery. your accusation was false. in fact, anyone
familiar with the net knew your accusation was false
when they read it, which is why i suggested you speak
with your sysadmins immediately and then post an
apology for your false accusation. so much time has
passed since then, three weeks or more isn't it, that i
am forced to conclude that your accusation was an
intentional smear rather than just a stupid mistake.
unfortunately for you, this incident has gone a long
way to solidify your growing net.reputation.