HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:01:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.210134.3581@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Apr5.154836.13043@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
>><1992Apr5.040848.29681@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>><1992Apr2.032145.12367@rigel.econ.uga.edu> Mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu writes:

>>They bother Nora, and they irritate Susan's ex-boyfiend, Dean.
>>
>>There are lots of good names to call each other without resorting
>>to the 'N' word.
>
>I find it somewhat amusing that many pro-lifers use N***'s and the
>H******** when refering to pro-choicers too.  Usually we'll hear about the
>guiding Christian influence that established this great country, and how
>the evil pro-choicers are practicing a genocide of the "unborn".
>Conveniently they forget what their guiding Christian influence did to the
>American Indian, as in - near complete genocide of the indigenous
>population on the basis of "heathenism".  The plight of the American

Oh my God yes...The American Indian. I can see why some pro-lifers
would use the comparison between Nazis and abortionists. But it might
be even MORE appropriate if they refered to abortionists as 19th century
Christians instead. The slaughter of the the American Indians was based
on greed and religious hatred. Christians saw the Indians as lesser than
cattle and had no qualms about having the army slaughter hundreds of 
thousands quite brutally. Much of it based on the idea of heathenism. Sick.

Sick. Sick. Sick.

Anyway, perhaps pro-lifers could find a variety of people, past and present 
that they could relate the term abortionist too...some more appropriate
than others
 
>Indian is swept under the rug while these "caring folk" go off to Romania
>to adopt children, send millions of dollars to Ethiopia, send millions fo
>dollars to Israel, send food and clothing to Russia, etc.

I'll agree with this. The treatment of the American Indians to this day
is horrid. If you've ever been to Gallup New Mexico, you know what I mean.

>No offense to Nora, Monica, Dean, and many others of the Jewish
>faith/race, but at least you have a country to fight for.  At least the
>rest of the world came to your rescue when you were being slaughtered by
>the millions.  Ah well, I've gone on too long about this.  Sorry for the
>diatribe.

Well, I am not Jewish, but I could see how Jews might take offense to this.
The killing of the Jews during WWII is morally as bad as the slaughtering
of the American Indians during the late 1800's and early 1900's. Whether or
not the Jews have a country to fight for. After all the Indians had a 
country to fight for...we just blasted them out of existance.

anne

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 00:11:50 EDT

>  We can paint all kinds of scenarios.  She might be able to pull barely
>  enough money together for the abortion - she might find a place which will
>  charge on a sliding scale.  
> 
>  Your reply seems to ignore or discount the rest of the post in regards 
>  to having to travel in order to obtain an abortion:  child care, 
>  overnight stay, job security...
>    
There were two reasons for that.

1) the message editor on the system I'm using makes it difficult
to respond point by point, as I can only add or list.  It does not
have a full screen editor.

2) Because I concede that child care and the overnight stay problem
are real.  However the job surity problem is strange.  If I had to
leave town for a few days I could arrange it with my employer.  I 
don't understand where one's job would be in jeopardy.

Please forgive any mispellings in this message as there is a
thunderstorm going on and I cannot always see what I'm typing.

Craig E. Smith                                        csmith@onetouch.COM
Columbus, OH                                        orson@bluemoon.rn.com
"Life is a fulltime occupation."--Gene Kalman   ...!uunet!onetouch!csmith
"It's just one .sig after another."--me   ///<<<{{{[[[(((*)))]]]}}}>>>\\\
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Request for Assistance
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:47:45 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


>        I'm all for adoption over abortion. It's just that if there were
>more pro-choice people who would make themselves heard in the adoption
>industry, their connection with the pro-lifers would snap, and the
>adoption industry would finally get on track: presenting women with the
>adoption option without making it seem like the best or only option.
>(It's best in my opinion, but in my opinion only.) 

In case you didn't know, the Planned Parenthood Agency makes 
excellent adoption referrals.  Unlike anit-abortion clinics, 
they lay out ALL the options regarding a pregnancy and then 
let the woman decide without coersion.  I consider this as 
strong evidence of the pro-choice side promoting adoption 
as one of the choices.

You seem to know very little about Planned Parenthood.  
Not surprising considering who you are (see below).

>
>- Dennis
>
>AKA The Sonar (alt.sex.movies)
>AKA Garage Kit Productions (alt.sex)
>
>General alias (alt.personals, etc.): ap.6298@layout.Berkeley.EDU
>
>Standard Disclaimer. 

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's back!!

Note to occasional readers of this group: 
The previous poster is really a pro-life person 
submitting posts under the fraudulent name of "Dennis Hall" 
and posing as a pro-choice person.  His lame and sometimes 
chauvinistic postings as a "pro-choicer" are meant to 
undermine the pro-choice side in this debate.  His previous 
pro-life posts under his real name were so ineffectual that 
he apparently decided to resort to this chicanery.

The wise thing to do is to simply ignore the postings of 
this changelyng who switches from one identity to another 
because he thinks no one sees.  

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////  -> Mad Max b/y Thunderdome
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 00:25:45 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


ml>In article <1992Apr15.211002.23833@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
dk>In a previous article, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) says:

dk>Right now in talk.abortion we have two pro-lifers pretending to be
dk>pro-choice.  They post real stupid pro-choice arguments in an attempt
dk>to make the pro-choice side look bad.  Unfortunately for them, it hasn't
dk>worked because they end up getting flamed by real pro-choicers that
dk>can see their asinine arguments for what they are.  The only
dk>explanation for someone to post such a stupid argument as that above is
dk>that it must be a pro-choicers posting crap like this to make the
dk>pro-life side look stupid.  So come on Steve, who are you really?

ml>i think that each and every person has a right to determine who and
ml>what they are. Believe it or not, this issue does not have
ml>two DISTINCTIVE sides. There are shades of grey around here.

I really don't much care what you call yourself.  If you want to call
yourself pro-choice 'cause it gives you some sort of good feeling
go ahead.  I disagree that your beliefs are pro-choice.  I have as
much right to disagree with you calling yourself pro-choice as you
have calling yourself such.  I am aware there is shades of grey.  But
all I have seen from postings of yours is that you want to control
other's lives.  This is the opposite of what pro-choice is generally
understood to stand for.  I still consider you pro-life.

>Just because someone isn't as pro-choice or pro-life as you doesn't
>make them the opponent. this proves someones narrow-mindedness.

I am narrow-minded.  I see no reason why I should be open minded to
your misogynist beliefs.  You are my opponent along with the opponent
of many women friends of mine and my daughter.  But I still feel you
should continue to post the illogical trash you have been posting so
far.  It is much better when the roaches come out in the light.

ml>MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve Franklin's "good trade" (Was Re: You want to win.)
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:25:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.152531.9741
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

About STella's self-administered abortion -
> 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.

As usual, you completely discount the feelings and the welfare of the
woman involved.  Her fear was real.  Her feeling that it was better to
risk death through self-administered abortion than to face certain abuse
from her parents was real.  We speak of love all too seldom on this
forum.  If STella had had loving parents, perhaps she would have had the
baby.  Her decision was conceived from a lack of love, not on her part,
but on her parent's part.

Do you see how cruel Real Life can be, Steve?  Do you SEE?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:18:19 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes ...
>roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>I am not "Anti-Abortion".  I am for abortion if the mother's life is
>at stake.

You're just opposed to abortion in all other cases.  Given that the
exception you listed is rather rare, how does this make you not
anti-abortion?

And if you're pro-life, why make any exceptions?  Surely the mother
is not of any more worth as a human than the soon-to-be born baby,
so why not give them equal protection?  Why not flip a coin, or better
yet, since the mother apparently has some disposition towards being
a medical risk, why not write off the mother as a bad risk and let
here die in favor of the fetus?

>>The "pro-life" label seems awful vague to me.  
>Simply because you close your mind to the fact that we are dealing
>with abortion.

>>Does this mean you are against wars because lives are lost?
>>Does this mean you are against capital punishment because a life is taken? 
>>Does this mean you are against euthanasia?

>I thought you knew the issue was abortion.
>I thought you knew the issue was abortion.
>I thought you knew the issue was abortion.

So then, you are not pro-life but are just interested in getting
rid of abortion?  Does not this make you "anti-abortion"?

You complain about the label "anti-abortion" and then refuse to 
defend or discuss any "Pro-Life" questions.  It would seem to me
that you are full of sh*t and a hypocrite.  Given that you are 
apparently interested only in insulting people and preaching
Brawleyism (and most certainly NOT Christianity), why should anyone 
give a flaming rats-ass what you have to say?

>profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
>animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
>prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
>schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty

You claim to be pro-intellect and pro-socratic method and yet your usual
response to difficult questions is to either ignore them or reply with
insults.  You claim to be pro-women and pro-liberty but would deny women 
their liberties.

You are a lying hypocrite.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 08:26:43 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  <1992Apr6.022059.8847@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> But wait! With these stone tablets, you also get to feel guilty all the time
> because of the Original Sin with which you're supposedly born

"Original sin" has nothing to do with the tablets.  The latter was supposedly
given to the Israelites thousands of years before someone came up with the
idea of the former.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: RIs this guy pro-control, or what?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:00:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.115656.18552@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>    Well, it seems like eric wants me out of talk.abortion, so if you
> see fit to have me leave, then mail him with your concerns.


I have seen no evidence to support this assertion.  Eric Marsh,
I believe, answered a question (yours?) about the Rasmussen
boycott, but did not in any way tell you that the same ought to
be done with you.  Also, I see you don't understand the meaning of
that boycott.  It is perhaps a shade subtle, so I will clarify
for you.  The boycott was a statement by a number of people that
they disapproved of Rasmussen's style of argumentation and
his behavior as it is reflected in postings.  They stated that
they would not treat with him any further until he began posting
more civilized or reasonable material.  I, by the way, never
supported any such boycott.  At no time was this a call for
Rasmussen's removal from the newsgroup or for censorship
of his postings.

I doubt Eric would want you to leave talk.abortion.  I certainly
don't.  I'm still waiting for you to support any of the
numerous and, in my opinion, ridiculous assertions you have
made here, which assertions fly in the face of historical
and statistical evidence.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:53:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: macc.1992Apr7.223635.26734
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <1992Apr7.182556.7530@u.washington.edu>, darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes...

>JOHN HEIM	 writes
>> In article <stljxjc.zank@netcom.com>, zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes...
>> 
>> >boyiny@math.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
>> > 
>> >Why don't they come out more open then? all I have seen of the pro-life
>> >movement is the pro-control anti-women part of the pro-life movement
>> >(ie Nazi's). I would just love to sit down with the other side and talk
>> >how to reduce the abortion rate by reduce the unplaned babys, but all
>> >the pro-lifers I have seen just like to have control and put the goverment
>> >in our bedrooms.
>> 
>> If all you've seen is Nazi-like pro-lifers you haven't been looking 
>> very hard.  The incredible generalizations in the above paragraph make 
>> me question *your* objectivity.  What would you think if a pro-lifer 
>> said something like this?
> 
>I hear PL posters call PC'ers, ie ALL PC'ers, "baby killers" and similarly  
>unkind things.  I've looked, and I've seen people of all shapes and sizes all  
>through the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice spectrum.  On the average, IMHO, Pro-Life  
>posters are more given to obnoxious posting than Pro-Choice posters.  Your  
>mileage may vary.   
> 
>I think Siren's pretty objective, and that her objectivity is recognized by  
>most people here.  To wit, there was surprisingly little disagreement with her  
>"Field Guide to t.a".  (I disagreed with her about how humorous my posts were,  
>but that's my problem.)

Well, it doesn't say on *Usenet* most of the pro-life posters are (What?  
I don't want to say Nazis) <<heavy sarcasm>> not very nice.  If she had 
said that I would have agreed.  But I don't think t.a pro-lifers are 
representative of the pro-life community as a whole.  In fact, 
at least in Wisconsin where a lot of people are pro-life just because 
they're Catholic, a nicer bunch of people you will never find.  

Also, I would agree that in t.a the pro-choicers are better behaved 
than the pro-lifers.  But it's close.  I say this as someone who is 
currently being flamed by both sides.  Well, maybe not flamed but

Finally, regardless of how objective she usually is, calling Pro-lifers 
Nazis can hardly be considered objective. 

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:18:07 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <18123@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>   All of my friends know exactly how I feel, but strangely enough,
>they are not few in number. But, I guess you know all about birds of
>a feather...

Kind of like lemmii
		   ii
		     in
		       nn
			 ng
			   gg
			     gs
			       ss

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: just another view
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:15:59 GMT
Reply-To: etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennesee, Knoxville
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu


As I write this post, I tell myself, "You are a fool to step in here."
I don't know why I am. Guess I just wanted to share my thoughts on the
subject.

First off, let me say that I understand both the pro-choice and pro-life
positions. Both have their merits. I do not like to ally myself with
either position because I do not agree with the focus of their arguments.
I do not believe the focus should be on the worth, humanity or rights
of either party involved,  the woman or the fetus. 

The problem, as I see it, is the current view of the role of government.
I believe that the purpose of government is simply, and only, to
to maintain the structure of the society it governs. The government
should protect its members from outside threat and should protect its
members from threat from each other. And nothing else. Some may argue
against this, but I see no way that a fetus can be considered a member
of society. Therefore, the protection of the fetus is beyond the
jurisdiction of the government. (Just in case anyone asks, no, I do not
think animals are members of society. They should not be protected by
government. For the record, I feel strongly that animals should be
treated humanely. I simply feel that this is not the function of
government.)

Obviously, many people are in disagreement with me. Their definition of
government is quite different. This, I believe, is the true issue, defining 
the role, purpose and function of government. I hope I have explained well
my view on this issue. It is difficult to put into words. 

I will be happy to answer any questions regarding my views and I will be
happy to discuss them. I will not respond to flames.

Thank you.

Jennifer Finger
jenn@msr.epm.ornl.gov or etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: VOLUME ON TALK.ABORTION
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:11:42 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Plain and simple... Am I wrong or has the volume of talk.abortion surged 
recently? I think I owe people an apology for this, as I am partly to blame.
   Sorry. I'll tone down.
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 00:24:31 GMT

<1992Apr2.054719.10599@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
><1992Apr1.081337.3891@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>><1992Mar26.030833.18459@cfctech.cfc.com>
>>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.
>>
>>Nonsense.  Welcher deserved a spanking badly enough that letting him
>>get away with that e-mail was a worse evil than posting the stupid
>>thing.  There are two clear-cut cases when it is permissable to post
>>e-mail messages to the Net: 1) Absolutely clear-cut, when you warn the
>>person beforehand that you will not hold e-mail you send him
>>confidential; 2) Clear-cut that it exists, not clear-cut where the
>>boundary is, when the e-mail is awful enough that not posting it is
>>worse than the breach of confidence of posting it.
>
>If the email is so "awful", how is posting it verbatim, with the consequent 
>emotional reactions, going to help matters any? Are we returning to the days
>of lynch mobs here, or do we hold reasoned justice higher than gut-level
>reactions?

Give it a rest.  Just because his name is Kevin doesn't mean you have to
suck up to him.  As for "reasoned justice"...  this situation doesn't
quite fit into our current legal system.  However, we can mimic the system
to a degree.  We can use a "jury of his peers" to determine "guilt" or
"innocence".  In fact, we have used a jury of his peers.  We have all
examined the evidence and the overwhelming "verdict" is:  GUILTY.

No one is lynching him - his account hasn't been removed, there is no
boycott.  He was judged by the masses on the net based on the evidence
supplied: his claim of ethical behaviour and the direct contradiction
enclosed in his mail.  We are all a little wiser now.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, 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