HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov gone?  Oh no!
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:58:22 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch):

>> R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.

>Well, I guess he's not an atheist anymore.

And if there is anything to come back from, he would do it if possible,
to tell us all we're wrong and give an accurrate portrayal of what exists
after life.

Ron
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:39:32 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr3.115555.18269@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) said:
><1992Mar30.003911.10978@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
...

>>Would you let me fist you for nine months straight?  It would certainly give
>>me 80 years of happiness, and I'll ensure that nothing serious happens to you
>>because of it (i.e. loss of job, health problems for the rest of your life,
>>the father of the fetus running off as soon as he finds out you're pregnant,
>>etc...)
>
>if you can show that by not letting you, you will certainly die and there
>were no alternatives, then yes I'd let you, but its not the case so
>prepose an argument that makes sence.

Does this mean you'll hurry down to the nearest hospital and donate that
extra kidney?  It might give someone 80 years of life.  Also, don't forget
to donate some bone marrow.  That could save several lives.  Recovery from
these operations would be relatively quick.  I venture to say you'd be
back on your feet in far less than 9 months.

Well?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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:14484 alt.sex.bondage:8349 alt.sex:14074
From: Fuzzy@colonel.Corp.Sun.COM (Michael Shames/Contractor)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex
Subject: Re: HelpfulHints on Persons in bondage?
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:01:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: damserver-bb.corp.sun.com

In article <1992Apr3.094452.8764@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Helpful Hints for Happy Kampers:
>
>Try to remember when visiting the local harware store
>that the RULES of DECORUM do Apply, and that it is 
>considered a Breach of Ettiquette to 'twitter' like
>young schoolgirls while considering chains, eyebolts,
>cotter pins, and other ObviouslySexuallyDeviantArtifacts

	damn, you take all the fun out of it.
	whats the good of being deviant if'en you can't also
	have some good clean fun shocking the living shit
	out of the norms?

		mike shames
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Oh!  Oh!  I just don't know how.. (Was: Implications)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 08:18:22 GMT

<1992Apr12.181714.29926@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) said:
><1992Apr12.020819.7670@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>
>>>Why do you value a fetus so much?  I mean, what makes it so important to
>>>you?  I personally think it's some sort of conditioning that results in
>>>this 'fetus worship'.
>>
>>What makes you value your wife so much?  After all, she's simply a mass
>>of nourished "fetal tissue", dipshit.  "Conditioning"?  I conditioned
>>myself to care for human life?  Or was it YOU conditioned by society to
>>disdain children?
>
>Kevin, go take a look at a photo of Gordon's wife (pant, pant).  Now, go look
>at an ultrasound of a 16 week old fetus (or even a 20 or 30 week old fetus).
>
>Notice the difference?  I certainly do!

Look, she posed for those pictures when she was young.  We all make
mistakes. ;-) for the humor imparied


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: Clarifications, further comments
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:24:38 GMT

In <1992Mar25.000438.27942@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
In article <1992Mar24.200442.28837@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com 
   ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes: #
In <1992Mar09.185722.62912@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: ##

##I agree with Adrienne.  I am in her debt - she consistently points
##out this tendency to ignore women, and she is willing to take the
##heat that her comments generate from misogynists who prefer to
##ignore women.

#Ooh.  A dilemma.  
#
#Does the wise man respond to this post?  What label might he incur by 
#ignoring it?  
#
#Typical of my gender, I am at a loss regarding how to proceed...
#
#Perhaps a token response is better than none at all.

>While I made no comment about Overpeck's sexism, it's
>interesting that he felt obligated to display it.

Oh, please...  A little less McCarthyism would be nice.  

>Misogyny is not a gender-related trait.  

If I were looking for a clever .sig, this would be a good 
candidate.

>It's sad that people feel that it is.  

If it's unrelated to gender, how else might misogyny be described?

>It's also sad that some people can work up righteous
>indigantion about the plight of a z/e/f, and think
>that any mistreatment of women is worthy only of jokes.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so "sad".  Perhaps you should recognize
that the ability to occasionally laugh at ourselves is indicative
of a healthy perspective and a positive self-image.

Hmm.  Let's try it anyway...

Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Misogyny is not a gender-related trait." - Susan Garvin


Nope.  It just doesn't work for me.  I'll have to keep looking.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Thoughts on a moderate resolution
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 18:14:22 GMT

In response to those calling for a moderate solution... 

I see the difficulty of coming to a moderate solution to
the abortion debate centers on two items, one being a 
failure to understand that lasting solutions occur only
through consensus (assuming that the process of consensus
is understood) and the other being the unwillingness of
one side to undergo the act of forgiveness, while the 
other sees that step as impossible until there is a sense
that this openness will not be used to attack them.

Perhaps the following will illustrate this (to see the
application to the abortion debate, you may have to spend
sometime thinking)

"Forgiveness is the act of admitting we are like other people.
We are prone to make mistakes that cause confusion, inflict pain,
miscommunicate our intentions. We are recipients of these 
human errors and the perpetrators. There is no way we can avoid
hurting others or being hurt by others, because this is 
exactly the nature of our imperfection. The onlly choice we have 
is to reconcile ourselves to our own flaws and the flaws of
other people, or withdraw from the community."

"The only way we can be free is to give up exchanging moments
of prosecution and victimization. Life is too short and too
precious to spend it trying to come out innocent"

					Christina Baldwin
					--Life's Companion

As I see it, a moderate solution is possible, provided we
can come to a consensus on what the issues surrounding the
debate are, a consensus as to what the solutions are going
to be, and we reach the point where both sides are willing
to forgive each other. Unfortunately, non of these items
can be legislated, they are achived between individuals on
an individual basis and only then when each feels that they
can trust the other.

While the problem can be hidden by legislation, it can not be
solved; IMO, legislation reinforces established prejudices
and does nothing to encourage trust -- in fact it may even
lessen the trust between individuals.

I believe that a solution is possible, but to achive that solution
will require the willingness to enter into the long process
of reaching consensus and having the necessary trust that the
process will work.

-- 
--Bruce

"The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your
 neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor is
 by endless forgiveness".
				Thomas Hopko
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:02:56 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

in a post devoid of reason, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
-> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) rants to muriel:
-> >-> Standard Pro-Death tactics is to scream their opinion while
-> >-> trying to shut others out.
-> 
-> >it's odd you'd say that. i don't believe i've ever heard a
-> >single "Pro-Death" person scream. no doubt, this is because i
-> >don't know any "Pro-Death" people, which is also odd. because
-> >i've been around this newsgroup a long, long time while you
-> >have just arrived.  still, you deserve the benefit of the
-> >doubt i suppose.  so, please list the name of the people you
-> >call "Pro-Death" along with some evidence that they are
-> >"Pro-Death." then we can move on to this screaming business.
-> >once you take care of this wee matter, i'm sure any questions
-> >as to your integrity will be answered.
-> 
-> Glad to oblige.  
-> 
-> 1. The fetus (human or not) is a life.

human or not? are you proposing some protection for mammals,
plants, viruses, fish, insects, cancer......

-> 2. When you terminate the life you bring death.

-> 3. Hence people wanting the ability to bring death (ie. so-called Pro-Choicers)
->    are Pro-Death.

have you had your tonsils removed sonny?

have you ever had a haircut, trimmed your fingernails?

you'd better try again.

and don't forget to include your list of names this time.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15743 soc.men:8577 soc.women:9101
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:48:19 GMT
 <1992Apr13.194939.8956@noao.edu> <92105.064833KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca>
Organization: Wherever it lands, it stays 'til I need it

In article <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve
Franklin) says:

>>Abortion in America will continue, just as it has for hundreds of years.  And
>>   just as it did, hundreds of thousands of times a year, for the relatively
>>   short time span during which it was illegal.

>Kurt - I can tell you now. If abortions are made illegal, there will be
>a hell of a lot fewer. Sure we will have to deal with the coathangers and

How in the world do you know?

>[back alleys, but there will be thousands and thousands and thousands
>of alive babies to show for it.
>   SOunds like a good trade to me
>steve

See, I love this.  Your goal is to get the maximum possible number of babies
born (apparently), but you don't push to make menstruation and masturbation
illegal.

You've just admitted it, your goal is to maximize the number of births. Why?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:34:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr6.170613.18155@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
><1992Apr6.201203.28022@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>><1992Apr6.194536.26089@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
...

>You guys shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the pleasantries
>of acquiring ex-girlfriends here either. We don't make a lot of
>demands, and we give _great_ recommendations.

I mentioned to my wife that I had several ex-girlfriends on the net.  You
should have seen the look I got - I didn't realize that eyebrows could
arch that high, she looked like a Romulan!


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:58:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.144250.27654@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>my date was an approximation. I don't sit around an memorize dates.
>Rome was sacked several times.
Yes. I believe 410 was the first time.

>>Not more civilized, just Christian.
>>In any case, Alaric--who entered Rome in 410--and his Gothic
>>followers--were Arian.
>>Look, Matthew. You were WRONG. 
>>You'll like like less of a fool if you just admit it.
>
>No shit you dumbass......I know Alaric was Arian, but some of the invaders
>before and AFTER him weren't. You make generalizations....I make generalizations.
I explicitly stated that the Gothic invaders were Arian. This is
correct. You denied it. You were wrong. How simple do I have to
make it before you get it?

>>Might explain why you failed to understand it.
>>You barely seem to speak English.
>
>Fuck off...my mother is French so I speak fluently. English too.
Why is it that you write so poorly? Maybe you're just stupid.

>Sorry if I think faster than I type and hence make a few type errors.
>That shows at what speed you mind moves Mr. Chem.
Once again, intelligence flames aren't very impressive when the
lines include typographical errors. The second person possessive
is "your" not "you."
Note that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and
assuming that you actually know this and just can't type.

Actually, I think faster than I type as well, but since I touch
type, I have no problem finding most of my typos. Perhaps you should
reread your articles before you inflict your bad writing upon the
net.

>>Argumentum ad hominem, impressive....
>
>wow....Latin, now there's a useful foreign language
It's the standard way of describing the logical fallacy you were
committing. Sorry if you have trouble understanding it.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
 If it's in the machine, I eat it. If it's not in the machine, I don't eat it.
From: keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: darcy denials: the sequel (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:27:01 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@rotag (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> cplma@groper.jcu.edu.au (Lynn Alford) writes:
-> >-> >kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> >>No matter how objectionable the email is, there is no
-> >-> >>excuse for reproducing it publically without the
-> >-> >>author's permission. Period. End of sentence.
-> >-> >
-> >-> >Kevin, get your head on straight, just this once.  There
-> >-> >is no excuse for sending obscene, abusive email.  None.
-> >-> >Anyone who does send such email cannot expect it to be
-> >-> >treated with the same respect given to normal email.
-> >-> 
-> >-> Two wrongs don't make a right.
-> >
-> >give it up kevin. you were defending kellmeyer just a few weeks
->                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ blatant lie
-> >ago for posting my email. your comments throughout this
-> >thread simply prove what i've been saying all along: you're a
-> >hypocrite who has been waging a net.vendetta against susan
-> >garvin.

do you deny that you're the kevin darcy who posted this?

=======begin included text

From kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy) Thu Mar  5 08:16:38 1992
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kellmeyer posts private email! (Re: To T.S.A.K.C. (or whatever the hell it is))
Date: 5 Mar 92 02:33:56 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <28049@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>cornered, and unable to support one of his false allegations,
>steven kellmeyer posts an annotated copy of an email message i
>sent to him in response to an email message from him.
>
> [same old, same old]

Jimmy, don't you ever tire of playing such a repetitive, officious, nit-picking 
little weasel?

I mean, if we all spent great gobs of time trying to prove/support/
substantiate/corroborate/regurgitate every event since the Big Bang to 
*YOUR* (seemingly insatiable) satisfaction, that wouldn't leave much 
opportunity to actually discuss -issues-, now would it?

========end included post

"Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease with
longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
	Jeff d'Arcy <jdarcy@encore.com> <15249@encore.Encore.COM>



--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve Franklin's "good trade" (Was Re: You want to win.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:50:58 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <703276263@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>Steve, have you ever talked (not shout, talk) with a woman who had an
>abortion?  Have you ever talked with a woman who had an illegal abortion?
>Do you care about their horrors?
   Many times. That is why I want to do away with the two sources
to the problem. 1) abortion, and 2) society's ignorance and lack of
care for the mother...

>Please read the following article, it will not change your mind but
>at least you will *know* what your "good trade" really means.
   Hmmm. Makes you think doesn't it? You know, I have found a weakness in
myself. I should (and somewhat DO) feel utterly compassionate towards the
woman who had to end the fetus' existince this way, under the stress of
unsupporting parents, and perhaps a somewhat unsupporting SO. But,
in any case, I also have this little voice inside of me that is enraged
by those that take the law into their own hands.
   This doesn't change my mind any. I have run into many females who have
gone the route of the home-made abortion. If she only had some support
throughout her pregnancy, I imagine there is a good chance she would have
kept the baby. But, her parents were the first sign that she would 
end the pregnancy, and perhaps much of the guilt should rest with them.
In any case, it really bothers me to think that (without fear or concern)
she could kill that unborn child. Boggles my mind. 
   I do pity this woman for being "forced" to coathang her unborn child. 
But, I feel more sorry for the fetus. I don't think she mentioned hwo
late her fetus had progressed, but anything after 16 weeks, and the
death it would have experienced would be REAL and TERRIBLE.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:32:54 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes [to Linda Birmingham]:
-> >-> If you wish to imply that Welch's particular form(s) of
-> >-> harrassment are in violation of some applicable law(s),
-> >-> then please identify exactly which statues/ordinances/
-> >-> bylaws/whatever he has supposedly broken. Otherwise, stop
-> >-> slandering him.
-> >
-> >why should ms. birmingham cite statutes/ordinances/whatever
-> >to support allegations -you- imply.
-> 
-> You implied it, Keegan, in your question "isn't harrassment
-> against the law?", combined with Welch's admissions of
-> harrassment. I have already explained this many times.

you have tried to make a case for what can only be seen as more
of your net vendetta tactics. you tried to take a question i
asked and combine it with your perceptions of other posts to
create a condition you seem to want rather badly to exist. as
happens most often, you failed.

-> >you also forgot to answer ms. birmingham's question of -you-.
-> >'Please cite where Kevin Welch admitted to doing anything
-> >other than "harassing pregnant women."'
-> 
-> I never implied anything of the sort. 

backpedal, backpedal. answer the question kevin.

-> All I did was spotlight your implication that Welch is a
-> law-breaker and insist that you meet your burden of proof.

what you did was make another false claim, just like when you
called susan garvin a "lying bitch" without ever documenting a
single lie by ms. garvin. you are so tangled in your web of lie
upon lie that you may not have any idea of reality anymore.

        "Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease
        with longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
		Jeff d'Arcy <jdarcy@encore.com> 
		<15249@encore.Encore.COM>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion