HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Equal rights
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 02:12:50 GMT

In article <1276@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>[deletions]
>>BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
>>willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?
>
>I just wanted to see this again.  I think it's the best response
>I've seen yet (closely followed by those who support a man's
>right to have an abortion) to those who would ignore biology
>in their quest for absolute equality.
>
Um, Susan...
This *is* possible...
All you need isa surrogate mother, and an in vitro fertilization, and
a little luck in the implantation...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:09:43 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
-> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
-> >the term of pregnancy.
-> 
-> Dougie just can't stop lying about this.  Perhaps 
-> we should add the refutationof his lies to the FAQ?

oh dodie lies about everything. peohaps it's just a
necessary emotional outlet for him. maybe he needs
that. his therapy seems not to have worked out for him.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:59:06 GMT

In article <PATRICK.92Dec23122944@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <nyikos.725127273@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>  >}  (But keep asking Keegan,
>  >}though, if your BBS tends to crash when you ask him.  That can't be all bad
>  >}for us.)
>
>   Me, I'm hoping it'll cause Keegan's BBS to crash.
>
>The last time I looked, crd.ge.com wasn't a BBS.  

Okay, "overgrown BBS with pretensions of positive corporate value" then...

These days, most of Keegan's drivel comes from rpi.edu anyway, schmuck. I 
guess the management at crd.ge.com finally started noticing a drop in 
productivity (?) (Although, as always, I have to wonder whether such a
thing might ever have been in a measurable range in the first place...) 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 02:00:13 GMT

>In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>You are wrong.  You are so completely wrong I know you have NO understanding
>>of this subject.  Women's lives are EQUAL to preborn babies.  Only when the 
>>mother will definitely die from the birth should the baby be killed.  This
>>should be treated as a great tragedy, which it is.  The baby deserves a funeral,
>>not a garbage can.
>
There never has, and likely never will be a case in which medical
science can give a 100% (required by your "definitely" up there)
guarantee that the woman will die from her pregnancy. An educated,
informed estimate is the best we can do. Further, your simplisitic
approach completely ignores the many other permanent and seriously
damaging consequences of pregnancy.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Unparalled oxymoron
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:27:45 GMT

In article <C01L6s.11v@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>Young women obviously doesn't include the very young, unborn women.

Yo, TWIT!

Women are adults.  The "unborn" are not.  Therefore, the two are
non-intersecting sets.  In other words, there are no "unborn women".

-- 
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
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Does Susan Garvin support abortion legislation? 
Organization: This space for rent! +1 606 848-7226 for details. :-)
	<1992Dec26.191257.5575@ncsu.edu> <1171@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<1992Dec27.182324.6617@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:46:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.182324.6617@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <1171@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
   sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   > When people on talk.abortion discuss "legislation," they are 
   > usually talking about legislation that affects abortion.

   Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
   a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
   abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

Wow.  You mean you *finally* figured that out for yourself?
I'm impressed.

   Or would it be better to acknowledge that the term
   "legislation" usually implies "anti-abortion legislation"?

Why?  You're the one trying to insinuate that that's what *she's* trying to
imply, without any idea of what she's saying.  I guess you don't know what
FOCA is, or about things like the Roe v. Wade decision being inserted into
the state constitution in Washington -- or, more likely, you know about it,
and ignore such cases, because they don't agree with your assertion...

(Speaking for myself, I'd just as soon take ALL the abortion laws off the
books, but that's just the view of this particular Libertarian.  Me and the
wife, we'd like her daughter to be allowed the freedom to make her own
choices, you know?)

--PLH, bored as a bat on a slow Sunday afternoon at work

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:03:11 GMT

patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>   mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>   >In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>   >>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>   >>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>   >>
>   >If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>   >I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>   >certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>   >You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>   >difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>   >*another persons* body.

>   Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
>   body.

>No kidding.  Of course, you fail to consider that it's not a baby that's
>being talked about in this case, but I digress.

Baby, adult, no difference.  Murder is murder.

>   >                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>   >These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
>   >your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
>   >Ghost of Elvis. So there.

>   Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance

>If you truly were, I'd think you'd start a little closer to home...

Cute... back it up.

>--PLH, *real* subtle userid, there -- "vengeanc"...
>--

*shrug* Long story... one of my favorite characters.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:11:56 CST

In article <1992Dec30.192012.7684@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.111143.29938@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <C01L6s.11v@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>|> >
>|> >You are a bitter person Muriel.  
>|> >
>|> Actually, not most of the time.  When I run across
>|> a MalePerson who wouldn't mind seeing more women die
>|> if he could just save the CuteWarmFuzzyFetuses, it
>|> does leave a funny taste in my mouth.
>
>Do you believe that a male does not have a right to hold an opinion
>on this issue?  I have encountered such women before, and constructive
>debate was ended before it began.  I will assume otherwise.

I believe that a male who wishes to enact legislation
restricting a woman's rights to determine how her
body can be used has some important questions to
answer.

>
>|> >> I almost lost my best friend to a self-induced abortion
>|> >> in 1969.  I do not want to see one of my daughters lose
>|> >> a friend in this manner. 
>|> >
>|> >I'm impressed by your statistics.  T-test anyone?
>|> >
>|> Why is it that you find it so easy to empathize
>|> wth a preconscious organism, and so utterly impossible
>|> to comprehend the feelings of a woman who would really
>|> rather die than remain pregnant?
>
>Why do you think Paul does not sympathize with the women who are in
>these straits?  I admit I do not know Paul, but to assume that anti-
>abortionists do not see the evil of illegal abortions is improper.

He's been ranting about how this one is a red herring
for some time now.  He seems to feel that losing a few
lawbreaking women is acceptable if he can save those
fetuses.

>It becomes a matter of selecting between two evils.  Many more

Then WHOSE choice should it be?  You would not perhaps,
defer to the one who has to make the necessary sacrifices
to bring a pregnancy to term, would you?

>legal abortions are performed each year (millions) than deaths of
>women in back-alley illegal abortions (thousands perhaps?) years
>ago.  An anti-abortionist is making the agonizing decision between
>millions of deaths and thousands of deaths.  There is no good
>choice, only the lesser of two evils.
>
I don't think the pro-legislation crowd agonizes
over this one.  They don't seem to have any understanding
of the nature of _individual_ choice at all.

Even if a fetus is a person, which I don't believe, can
you show me any other instance where the bodily resources
of one person may be commandeered for the use of another?
Those who support legislation against abortion rights
advocate a system in which pregnant women enjoy fewer rights
than all other born humans.  Forgive me if I mistrust those
who would trade away the freedom of others for their own
moral warmfuzzys.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:16:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec30.001659.15184@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
[lots of stuff deleted]
#Hmmm...  I believe I did post that my recollection as to who DOD had
#proposed as moderators differed from Susan's recollection.

That's right, Larry, you did.  I've seen other people on PHoney's
list disagree with me, too.  Those articles must not have made
it through his magic news server.

Susan,
who joins the others in wondering why Dr. Giggles separated his
list by gender
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53261 talk.religion.misc:24684
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:36:10 GMT
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1992Dec28.195401.22556@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Peter, your message is appreciated, even if your motives are suspect.
>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>I wish a happy Christmas season to everyone, including the abortionists,
>>those super-Grinches who steal EVERY Christmas from the little ones they
>>abort.


I wish a happy Christmas season to everyone, including the parents who
beat there children (1 out of 4), the parents who sexually abuse their
children (1 out of 5), the parents who allow their children to go to
bed hungry (1 out of 5), the parents who murder their children (one
every 53 minutes), the Christian U.S. who has let world hunger 
ravage other parts of the world.......

The people I don't wish a Merry Christmas to are the Anti-Christ children
in Operation Rescue who believe that starving, beating and sexually
abusing children is par for the course.......what hypocrites!!!!

>>paradoxical motives which prod me forward in my pro-life efforts:
>>
>>1.  The HOPE that there is a life after death and a very loving, very
>>powerful, very merciful God who can make that life worthwhile.

Obviously you aren't Christian or you would know that there IS life after
death and that God is the most powerful, the most merciful God.  God
doesn't need your HOPE for his existance....

Bil Snodgrass III
pro-choice/anti-abortionist..........there is such a thing.

I pray to God that the pro-lifers stop being hypocritical and start
taking care of all the children who have been born into this world already.
If we could straighten that up I bet you we could cut abortions in half!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:43:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.163213.277@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.101123.21250@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>Mark, you made a general statement about hypothermia being a non-gentle way
>>to die. My only point is that death-by-hypothermia is NEVER less "gentle"
>>than death-by-being-hacked-to-bits, which is the original context in which
>>the word "gentle" was used. Do you or do you not agree with this point?
>>
>> [...]
>
>Kebbie, I was responding to a general statement which claimed that
>hypothermia is gentle death. It is not. The statement to which I
>resonded did not claim it was relatively gentle, it claimed it was
>gentle, period. 

Wrong. The poster was comparing death-by-hypothermia with some form of 
dismemberment ("yanked out piece by piece") IN THE SAME SENTENCE. The "period" 
you imagined did NOT exist between the hypothermia description and the 
dismemberment description. It was obviously a relative term.

>>>If you are (and I must assume you are, since
>>>this is talk.abortion...) talking about hypothermia vs some method of
>>>abortion, then I would say the "hacked to bits" is gentler. For the
>>>simple reason that the fetus is dead before it is "hacked to bits". It
>>>can't feel anything Kebbin. Not true of the person who is freezing to
>>>death.
>>
>>How is the fetus killed prior to the "hacking", Mark?
>>
>Can you say drugs Kebbin? I knew you could...

Did you leave your patronization switch in the "ON" position, Mark?

Seems to me it would be ill-advised to inject chemicals into the fetus that
are lethal to human life, since they might end up in the mother's bloodstream,
might they not? Or would that be at a dosage that was guaranteed fatal to a
fetus, but not to the woman? 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:32:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   Excerpts from:
      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,
      Reprinted in the Congressional Record, Oct 9, 1990 S 14817

followed by 250 lines of meaningless drivvle which has nothing to do
with the letter Susan posted.  What is the point?

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I see a divine hand in this AIDS thing." Dr. John Wilke, President
                                          National Right to Life Committee

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODie's fear
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:02:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dodie.lie.lie.lie
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

The Reverend Holtsinger must be afraid to post in soc.singles.  

The only thing that he's not afraid of are religious discussions -
he's trying to start yet another one in t.a.  Maybe he's afraid
to post in talk.religion.misc, too.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 02:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.131942.20519@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <nyikos.725744605@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Dec29.033620.8746@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <nyikos.725582371@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >>In <1188@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <1992Dec28.011822.12450@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> >>>#In article <nyikos.725128086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >>>##In <1992Dec22.063007.50924@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>> >>>##
>> >>>#
>> >>>#[Riiiip]
>> >>>#
>> >>>##Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist," 
>> >>>##along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
>> >>>##by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
>> >>>##that certain illegal abortions never took place.
>> 
>> Mark, get your attributions right.  Larry Margolis did not say the above.
>> I did.
>
>Peter, why do you love so much to show us that you don't understand
>how attributions work?  Could it be, maybe, stupidity?  Yes, I
>rather think it is.
>
>If you look at the reference lines you will notice that the material
>in question has one more character at the beginning of the line
>than the appropriate reference to you.  As those of us who have
>actual functioning brains understand, the quoted material always
>has one more character indicating it is quoted than the matching
>reference.  Here.  Look at the top reference line.  You will
>notice that your reference does not have any character appended
>to the line, but if you look at the material quoted immediately
>above you will see it has one appended character.  Is it getting
>clearer, you stupid, stupid man?
>
I think you're wasting your time Dean. I just deleted all that crap
from my reply to PHoney. I've given up any hope that he'll ever have a
resonable understanding of attributions. Nor, do I think, will he ever
give up whining that his false accusations against Susan were not his
fault.
In his case, I think we need to spell it:
Stooopid Stooopid man!

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:34:23 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
->[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]

->Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
->going to post that much junk about it.
->You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. Just
->try to avoid the psych boys when you're doing so.

i don't really believe kebbie thinks of himself as a
group. he simply needed to convince people that he was
a group once in order to slither away from admitting he
fucked up yet again. in the global scheme of
kebbie-dialogue, this was just more of the same.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53107 alt.society.civil-liberty:7075
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More DODIE lies: Points?
Date: 25 Dec 92 17:22:15 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec24.175612.5110@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>Now earlier you claimed that I haven't presented any evidence 
>in support of my opposition to Roe v. Wade.  Take a look at a 
>recent article that I posted entitled, ``Blackmun calls the 
>Roe v. Wade dividing line arbitrary''.  

DODIE in response to this evidence, I pointed out that all you have
done is posted evidence that Blackmun is honest in acknowledging that
RvW, like any legal mandate, is arbitrary.  Why is this evidence to
support opposition to RvW?

>> I have been asking this question of you for more than a month now, and
>> you haven't even deigned to explicitly refuse to answer.
>
>No, I've answered your question many times before in other threads.  
>You have refused to accept my answer. 

You've denied taking a position on legislation to restrict abortion
while announcing your opposition to FOCA.  Deletia.  You've thrown up
a weak smokescreen about far-fetched constitutionalisms and direct
effects, but that's all it is, DODIE.  A smokescreen.  

SJM