HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy if the sky is blue would you say it was pink
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:00:11 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

-> >Just as you saw none of the requests for Ms. Garvin to post
-> >the mail.  The net, nor I, dear Kevin are here to serve you.
-> 
-> In other words, you can't back up your statements. Typical.

i can see why you'd write "in other words," as that's certainly
not what the words she -did- write said.

but heck, we all know how strongly you feel about a person
supporting the things they post. after all, you wrote:

        "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
        I make, or retract it."
			Kevin Darcy
			<1992Feb11.054339.25284@rotag.mi.org>

of course you also wrote:

        'Is this the same James Keegan who donned his net.cop
        badge and uniform, and told me to get "my" [sic]
        child-support threads out of t.a this past December??'
		kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)
		<1992Feb26.002308.5595@cfctech.cfc.com>

and you never supported it.

and, if it would bother you too much to deal with one of your lies
about me, why don't you deal with this one about susan garvin

        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>

is susan garvin "a lying bitch," kevin?

practice what you preach, kebbie.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: root@devl3.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sanity of discussion
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:53:45 GMT
Organization: McKee Foods Corporation

I have been browsing through the articles in this group for a couple of
hours now and I have seen very little to convince me that there will ever
be a reasonable solution to this debate.

With the exception of two or three posts, most of the individuals who are
engaged in this flame-war are so far to the fringes of their respective
positions that it is virtually impossible to believe that they could ever
come to any agreement.

I have been a Christian most of my life, but when I see the attitudes
being carried by some of my fellow "christians" I am, quite frankly,
frightened.  I took my family to see the Atlanta Passion Play yesterday
and it was gratifying to me to recognize once again that the Christ I
serve is not the condemnatory bigot that some "christians" seem to follow.
I feel that it will not be long before these so-called "christians" will
find a way to force each of us into their perfect little belief boxes
whether we actually believe or not.  Even I as a Christian will be in
danger if I don't toe their party line.  As long as our actions are right,
they don't care what is in our heads.

I know I will probably get my brains beat out by both elements but I
am anti-abortion/pro-choice.  The whole kingdom of God is based on the
element of free-will.  Each individual is guaranteed by God the privilege
to choose for themselves whether or not they will follow Him.  That being
the case, I cannot in good conscience make any effort to remove from my
fellow humans the freedom of choice that my God has given them.  Those
choices may range all the way from which socks to wear tomorrow morning,
to whether or not to accept His offer of salvation, including the choice
of whether or not to have an abortion.

Though the so-called right-to-lifers in this debate appear to be the
angriest of the two, the vitriol spewing from both sides really gives me
cause to doubt the sanity of either.  As I said at the beginning, I don't
believe that there will ever be agreement on a compromise.

->  Steven Foster					<-
->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Steve Franklin
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:41:27 EST

In article <1992Apr8.145610.21226@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca
 (Steve Franklin) writes:
>    How as a worshipping Catholic you can call the zygote anything less
> than a miracle of God is beyond me. Although in my mind your status as
> a Catholic is questionable, as you already know...

Easy, Steve, as a Catholic, I worship God, not zygotes. A zygote is not
a miracle of God, it is a natural event. Steve, you must make a choice
in life, to be a scientist or a religious fanatic. If you want to be a
scientist, stop worshipping zygotes. 

>[Deleted, Steve's reason to support sexism in the Church, which really
>belongs in E-mail, not T.A] 
>    Now J.J., many a time before I have ascertained that one cannot
> call themselves a Catholic yet refuse to live like one. Your religion
> is quasi-Catholic with spices of J.J. mixed in. A Catholic cannot condone
> the act of abortion. God tells us this, The Holy Father tells us this,
> and the bible screams it in our ear. How can you overlook this? 

Well one out of three ain't bad, Steve. And the Pope is not perfect.

> As well, a Catholic cannot support contraception, capitol punishment, 
> and a variety of other social maladies. Are you _SURE_ you can confidently
> say you are a practicing and worshipping Catholic? I find this very 
> misleading to the public. How will the public be able to understand 
> religion when it is in such turmoil under the misrepresentation which
> you offer them? Pleas reconsider your claims, and clarify your beliefs?

The Pope is not the Church, the priests are not the Church, the Dogma is
not the Church, the PEOPLE are the Church. Now I know you are finding it
hard to understand, but there are Pro-Choice Catholics besides myself.
The public is not being mislead, they know that all Catholics are not
religious fanatics like yourself.

> p.s. - jj, before you roast me for this, go read my post again. I think
> it will do you good, and pacify your angers before you go flame
> my butt. See ya friend (this post isn't meant to be condascending 
> or rude in the least... Dont' see it as such please)

Steve, I do not roast you, I call you a religious fanatic in all sincerity.
You see no other view but your own. You are unwilling to live in a 
world with other people who do not hold your views. You wish to legislate
into secular law your religious beliefs. You are unwilling to compromise.
You whine and say "Don't you see, I can't compromise, you're just going
to have to do it MY way". Step back and look at yourself, you are a
religious fanatic. 

Change does not always weaken or strengthen, but change is inevitable. - J.J.
From: cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: Number Three!
Date: 14 Apr 1992 20:43:24 UTC
Organization: California State University, Sacramento

In article <1992Apr14.161010.256852@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.233846.13880@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney) writes:
>
>a lot more of his special crap.
>
>Cut it out, Chaney.

Susan Garvin? 

Well, Susan, seeing as that you've stumbled into some mis-facts as well,
you, too, owe me a retraction, seeing as that I am not Steve Chaney. 

I most sincerely hope that you pursue this, so that you may wind up
having *your* system administator chewing on your hide, in addition to
the ones here at CSUS. 

I'm really getting bored with this harrassment, because anyone with
sense knows it's a lie, and with the original harrasser having been
punished for this, it should serve as a lesson to his followers. 

>
>Susan

"Who is the worse fool - the fool, or those who follow him?" - Obi Wan
Kenobi, Star Wars (approximate quote) 

- Dennis Hall

Standard Disclaimer
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: AntiAbortion as AntiChristian
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:19:53 GMT

In <1992Mar23.193446.5347@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com 
   (drieux, just drieux) explains to Joy Haftel: >

>1. every time that the antiAbortionists have been
>asked to defend their assertion of a 'christian'
>linkage on the abortion discussion they have 
>proceded to show all that you attribute to blasphemy!
>
>2. They Procede to make Profane that which is DIVINE
>in all of their efforts to form a 'biblical' defesne.
>That to me shows a COMPLETE CONTEMPT for the bible
>and the God of the Bible.

Hmm. 

The absence of literal scriptural prohibitions against abortion
is alleged to suggest that the Christians have missed the boat
in the abortion controversy.

Perhaps, in an effort to remain consistent, you'll agree that 
Constitutional interpretations of implied privacy rights are 
equally indefensible?

I knieux you would.

Bill

(Note that drieux is unlikely to respond directly to this.  Look for 
something wonderfully tangential instead.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:48:21 CDT

In article <1992Apr11.165922.12066@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.114145.24983@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>> How about child support? That is a financial attachment. Do you support
>>> child support laws? If so, then why is a financial attachment justified
>>> under the law, but not a physical attachment? 
>
>> If you don't see the difference, perhaps we should talk again after
>> you've read 'The Value of a Man'.
>
>There is a difference in degree, but the principles behind child support
>and anti-abortion legislation are remarkably similar. (But of course, 
>a law should never be based upon principle alone). Would you agree that 
>child support and anti-abortion laws share the same principles? (Please

No. Physical and financial support are two different things. The
woman's body and future health is at stake. You can always make
more money, but making do with a remanufactured urinary tract
due to damage incurred during childbirth is a somewhat different
matter.

[deletions]
>
>> yet you deleted the exchange in which you 
>> referred to a woman as 'anything', and I called you on it.
>
>I said that the value of a human life should not depend on its
>connection to anything. If the fetus is disconnected from the
>mother and hooked up to a respirator, the value of the fetus' life
>should not change. The value of the woman's life should not change 
>after the woman has an abortion or gives birth. I did not mean to 
>imply that the woman is a "thing" by using the word "anything".
>Perhaps you have a better word?  
>
I'm not sure there's a word which includes both machinery and
the bodies of living women. Perhaps, 'anything or anyone' would
do, but that would make it more difficult to gloss over the 
liberty interests of the woman in the situation.

[deletions]
>>> How about if a fetus is killed in the process?
>
>> Unfortunate, but not immoral, IMO.
>
>So it's not immoral to kill a fetus? Does that apply only to abortion, 
>or in all situations?  (Please understand that I'm not asking you what
>the law should say).
> 
It's immoral to kill a fetus if it's done by an act of violence
against the woman. Also, IMO, if the decision to abort is not in 
keeping with the woman's true wishes.

>>>> Do you have any problem with the premise, 'a pregnant woman should
>>>> have the same rights as other born human beings'?
>
>>> Change it to, 'a pregnant woman should have an equal right to exist
>>> as other human lives', and I would agree. 
>
>> Not good enough for me. If your morals would grant fewer rights
>> to pregnant women than you grant to other born humans, they
>> would fail to meet my standards of morality.
>
>I'm giving her the same right to live as the fetus, or any other
>human life. How does that grant her fewer rights? 

You would grant her fewer rights to physical self-determination than 
those enjoyed by other born humans. Life isn't everything. I've known
womwn who would rather be dead than pregnant. 

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Steve Franklin
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:24:11 EST

In article <1992Apr7.195615.7608@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca
 (Steve Franklin) writes:
> J.J. - how sweet of you... AN embarassment to the Catholic Church? No,
> I think not. I know where MY faith lies. And it happens to fall within 
> the confines of the Catholic church. The reason that my concern lies
> with the fetus at this time, is because of the blatant abuse it
> is receiving. 
> _I_ wrote:
>> I am referring to the life of the fetus. Not the mother, the fetus.
>> That is what is most important to me.
> 
> _you_ wrote:
> Well, that about sums it up, Steve Franklin, another embarassment to the
> Catholic Church.  -J.J.

Ok Steve, let me be less subtle, you have misspelled 'embarrass' in posts and
continue to misspell 'embarrass' in posts. Please delete 'embarass' from your
memory and replace it with 'embarrass', thank you.

Now on to bigger and better things, I see that you are a physics major,
unmarried, Catholic and pro-life. So was I in college. I am now married,
have three children, have a M.S. in physics, still Catholic, but now
pro-choice. I would suggest to you that you drop into your local biology 
department, grab a microscope and look at a zygote. You will see that
it _IS_ a clump of cells, NOT a baby or even a fetus. This is a scientific
fact. I will concede that terminating a third trimester fetus (except for
life threat to mother) should be outlawed if you can see that preventing
implantation is not murdering a child and should not be outlawed. Is this
a good place to start?

BTW, my post was also meant to get your attention as you have not replied to
my last two E-mails. I will continue to ask you why you do not feel a 
woman can be called by God to be a priest? I have two daughters who I
need to explain this to. -J.J.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:33:36 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Apr12.164925.11673@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr12.023124.8952@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.c
>> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >->
>> >-> The mail which Kellmeyer posted was "private", was it not? If
>> >-> not, why did you title your article "Kellmeyer posts private
>> >-> email"???
>> >
>> >you've heard of mailing lists, haven't you? (that was in the oist
>> >you replied to [see below] but you seem to have not grasped it's
>> >implications).
>>
>> So your assertion is that Steven Kellmeyer is a mailing list, right?

>By what giant leap did you arrive at that conclusion?  Seems as though
>he's saying that Kellmeyer posted private email, as opposed to email
>that was sent to a mailing list and so semi-public.

>Perhaps Linda is right about your reading comprehension...

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Funny, but wasn't the letter sent to ME?   That makes it MY property 
and I can do with it whatever the hell *I* want.  Or don't supporters
of legal abortion like using their own logic? 

Isn't that neat?  I've sat back and watched this debate for quite a 
while, and it's another perfect example of the abortion controversy.
Someone ejaculates a letter to me, I do what I want with it, but since
it isn't what THEY want me to do with it (they wanted it quietly killed)
THEY scream and yell about how irresponsible I am.  

Why does it seem that the word "hypocrites" is as accurate (and takes
less time to type) as the phrase "supporters of legal abortion"?

SK

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:26:32 GMT

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.
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.

Commence Screaming.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Guess who's a slut (Was: The March in D.C.)
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:05:56 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


ml>In article <1992Apr14.015429.875@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

ml>OK.....let's put this in perspective. I've had sex with one partner.

Why you little slut, you.

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


Dan King
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:48:14 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.185043.75892@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>No, Franklin, Kellmeyer is as clueless as you are on the issue
>of the laws regarding mail.
>Your determination to demonstrate your ignorance is obvious
>now.  You can stop.
   moi? Clueless? *sigh* It wouldn't hurt except coming from such an
authority on cluelessness as yourself. I should just pack in everythin and...
But no! Wait. I got this funky document on Usenet which is apparently
the authority on Usenet (anyyone remember what it's called)? which states
that no e-mail can constitute veritable unless it is documented through
a certain official media(dunno which one). You see, this would avoid
the possibility of simple editing and fraud simplified thanks to a little
bit of editing. Furthermore, the policy on circulating e-mail is that 
although it is tactless, it is not illegal, and cannot be verified
until they determine a way to verify and maintain the huge volumes of
e-mail that circulate throught the net. So - although e-mail
is circuluated, you can only incriminate an individual morally,
but not legally... Sorry Sue - the guy can post what he wants.
   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: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:39:45 GMT
Reply-To: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Organization: BT Tymnet Inc., San Jose CA

In article <122664@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:
|> How true!  A girlfriend of mine is a single mom, and she gets no child
|> support payments from the father who is a loser.  She used to tell me about
|> wanting to get a lawyer to go after him, but she's just too busy to
|> hassle with it.  Plus, the father is not living a "stable life" himself.
|> It's a very tough situation.

These situations are indeed difficult. Just for the sake of completness I
will mention here that there are men in the custodial situation with just
this problem. In my case I would have the extra expense of finding her
since she disappeared when she lost custody.

And tho there are numerically fewer of us, in terms of percentages custodial
fathers get smaller and fewer support decrees than custodial mothers.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:37:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: s1.1992Apr16.173742.2756
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <5N50iB4w165w@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us> cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>        THE reason I advocate sexual abstinence for single folks is
>because I'm a Bible-believing Christian, and our Creator has revealed
>in the Scriptures that monogamous marriage is what we were designed for.

	If that's the case, then why are we so frigging horny???

	And where does the Bible forbid premarital sex, anyway?

>We would never have figured this out on our own, and the only way I can
>argue for it in naturalistic terms is that in a society where people
>only had sex within marriage, sexually transmitted diseases would be
>almost unknown.

	And if you stay home all the time, you will never be hit by a
car. Personally, I believe that there are ways to have sex and avoid
STD's, such as condoms, and that their use is legitimate.

>        (I believe that there are many other benefits to society of
>faithful, stable marriages and families, but those would open other
>presuppositional questions.)

	Marriages in which the two partners hate each other, more
likely. I once knew an opponent of divorce honest enough to state that
people should stay married no matter how much they hate each other,
and who used his own parents as an example.

	[Spiel to get people to believe in Jesus Christ deleted.]

	I have no interest in doing so.