HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:42:39 GMT


In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:

>Clue time, MaThiEu...In order to get a "big picture", you have to look at a lot
>of little pictures...

must be feeble minded....

>Gee, you have some statistics that show "a large portion of women who have
>abortions are promiscuous"???  You wouldn't be attempting to claim something
>is true by blatant assertion, would you???
>Gee, you have some statistics that show "a large portion of women who have
>abortions sleep around"???  Or is this more truth-by-blatant-assertion???
>Gee, you wouldn't happen to have some statistics that show "a large portion of
>women who have abortion are sluts", do you?  Let me guess.  This is just *MORE*
>truth-by-blatant-assertion, right???

I use my eyes fetus breath. It's my peers who are getting the majority of
the abortions. I see and hear about them alot more than you. And since
you seem to know so much, show me YOUR statistics showing the
contrary.

>It doesn't.  Have you stopped beating your wife yet?????

I don't hit women, and I don't have a wife
But with morons like you, it's a different story.
Will you marry me?

>And you're just an asshole.

intelligent.......
what rational, productive comments we have around here.....

does the term "auto-mailer-from-hell" mean anything to you?
and yeah, I'm the site administrator. :)



-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:08:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr13.220828.10878
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr10.224333.2502@cs.dal.ca>, Steve Franklin writes:
|Cj - someone mentioed you resembled a fetus, and i take strong objection to 
|that. But I bet the fetus is a helluva lot more intelligent than you. Your 
|tactics are embarassing to your movement. When I started to post here, the 
|first thing you guys wrote was "what is with the name "steve"? "blah blah blah...
|   Nice - scare off any newcomer to the game before they get any
|good ideas in... Maybe George wasn't so wrong with 1984... Suppression
|of ideas and intimidation of individuals should be a crime. you are guilty
|as charged dear...

Chaney, Kellmeyer, Franklin... anyone else see a trend?

Well, Steve, I must say I'm disappointed that you haven't
responded to any of my followups to your posts.  I asked
you some serious questions, which you don't appear
interested in answering.  Instead, you follow up a post
which wasn't addressed to you, and you flame to boot.

Could it be that you're more interested in flaming
than in discussing the issues?   

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the 
same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many 
idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will 
lead." --Jane Austen
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Keywords: There are Steves, then there are STEVEs.
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:55:30 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>> = (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>Sheesh, yet another pro-life 'Steve'.  Is there something about that 
>>name?

Hey, HEY!  I, the *original* t.a. Steve, am a flaming pro-choicer!!

May Steve Kellmeyer and Steve Franklin and Steve Chaney marry your
first three daughters, dooming them to a life of servitude, forced
pregnancy, cheap cigars, beer guts and pathetic male whining.

>I was beginning to think so for awhile, but then I was reminded of
>Steve Novak. My kinda Steve!

(Sucking up like a Hoover...)  Gawrsh, Muriel.  You always *were* 
my favorite net.sweetheart :-}.  At least, you are now!


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 16:30:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.005453.17551@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr07.192728.5615@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>Of course, so is the concept and value of man's WILL.
>   And hasn't man's "will" just gotten us in a fine mess? Damn apple in
>the garden of Eden... heh

Steve, you are entirely entitled to your own opinion.

I happen to think that man's WILL is doing just fine, thanks.

And I planted TWO, count 'em TWO, apple trees this year.  One just wasn't   
enough.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Subject: Re: On Sinning and Being Roman Cathooic
Reply-To: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:07:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.223812.4297@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just  
drieux) writes:
> 1. you are aware that the same edict that starts the notion
> that abortion is immoral also resolved that the unborn do not
> have souls.....

The Church does not believe that the unborn has no soul.

[mumbo jumbo deleted.]

--

thebians

The truth hurts; doesn't it?  Life's a bitch, and then you die!!!
[Any information presented herein is the product of the author's imagination and  
should not be used, construed, or interpreted as anyone's beliefs.]
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:15:58 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, 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, some quick advice....check your flamethrower for backwash.

My ask a simple question and the name-calling abounds.... I thought
Kevin was one of these good-guy christians who were complaining about
all the flaming going on in t.a.

Anyway, Kevin, if you can't distinguish between a woman and a mass of
fetal tissue, I begin to understand your total lack of concern for women
during pregnancy. My next suggestion is to go check yourself into a
psychiatric hospital so that reality can be explained to you and you
can refrain from making such ludicrous comparisons.

Ron
From: keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:53:49 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
-> >>        C) Because of past email-confidence abuses, I think
-> >>        a good case could be made that Keegan has forfeited
-> >>        his right to reciprocal email confidence. For
-> >>        myself, I hold in confidence all email that Keegan
-> >>        has ever sent me, but I would not necessarily hold
-> >>        third parties to the same code of conduct wrt
-> >>        Keegan. You abuse it, you lose it!!
-> >
-> >I'm sure Keegan would like to see this verified, ...
-> 
-> He would be a fool to deny it.

why would i bother? aren't you the person who wrote:

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

as someone very close to you once said:

        "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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:49:01 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>I've already explained the difference between the two situations. Please
>address my response before making loose statements like the above.

Have you addressed my response to your previous post? If so, email me
to let me know when, and if possible, email the article as I missed
it and don't want to search through 600+ articles that have been posted
since my last post.

Ron
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:29:24 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr07.083059.19851@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Apr7.014500.21989@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>No, you take an awful lot of crap because you post an awful lot of crap.
   You're wrong. Simply wrong. I do nothing of the sort. The only reason
you call it crap is because I don't agree with you. Oh, and I look forward
to yoru next post saying "that's not true, you just aren't intelligent,
or something of the likes..." heh


>Why not try posting something intelligent for a change?
   Okay - I'll try posting something which you deem intelligent. WOuld
you prefer me to just chant "Every sperm is sacred"? or Just start posting
like an immature selfish child who wants all the toys, but doesn't want
to spend any money on them? 

>If you posted with logic, instead of blatant assertions, there'd be
>something to discuss.
   I think you'd find some of my logic unerring. Thos are the posts you 
didnt' feel the need to respond to (no, scrap that, because I dont' feel
like going back to point out which ones...)
   In any case, if I get enough requests to leave , then I will okay?
Until then, I keep posting... 
   steve
p.s. - incedentally, there's no way in hell I'll leave. That was just
to get your hopes up good ol' larry...

-- 
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: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 20:16:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.155502.12298@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
>support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
>of the fetus to exist.


You know something?  Sadaam's soldiers had a 'right to exist', too.
So does Robert Alton Harris, a conficted and condemned killer.
So does Cleophelus Prince, a convicted and condemned killer and rapist.

I guess that means we can't/don't/shouldn't stop rapists, killers, or
enemies of war by means of lethal force, huh?

Gee, we are doing this all wrong.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 02:20:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.004239.5246@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:
>
>>Clue time, MaThiEu...In order to get a "big picture", you have to look at a lot
>>of little pictures...
>
>must be feeble minded....

Clueless.

>
>>Gee, you have some statistics that show "a large portion of women who have
>>abortions are promiscuous"???  You wouldn't be attempting to claim something
>>is true by blatant assertion, would you???
>>Gee, you have some statistics that show "a large portion of women who have
>>abortions sleep around"???  Or is this more truth-by-blatant-assertion???
>>Gee, you wouldn't happen to have some statistics that show "a large portion of
>>women who have abortion are sluts", do you?  Let me guess.  This is just *MORE*
>>truth-by-blatant-assertion, right???
>
>I use my eyes fetus breath. It's my peers who are getting the majority of
>the abortions. I see and hear about them alot more than you. And since
>you seem to know so much, show me YOUR statistics showing the
>contrary.

Gee, MaThiEu, you do know what the word "peers" means, don't you?  Why is it
that you claim in one post to being "monagamous", but in another claim that
promiscious women are your "peers"???

Actually, I the statistics show that some 80% of abortions are performed on
unmarried women.  They didn't have a column for "promiscious sluts".

>
>>It doesn't.  Have you stopped beating your wife yet?????
>
>I don't hit women, and I don't have a wife

How nice.  When are you going to stop calling them sluts?

>But with morons like you, it's a different story.

Are you claiming that (1)I have a wife?  Or that (2)I beat her?  Don't make me
laugh...

>Will you marry me?

Sure.  Just let me get my wedding gown on... :]
>
>>And you're just an asshole.
>
>intelligent.......

Truthful...

>what rational, productive comments we have around here.....

When are you going to post any???

>
>does the term "auto-mailer-from-hell" mean anything to you?

Yes it does, Asshole.

>and yeah, I'm the site administrator. :)

Oh, my.  I guess I'd just better stop these terrible posts right now!  Before
Mr. Site Administrator decides to cram my mailbox full of hate mail.

Gee, MaThiEu, you do know what tends to happen to SA's who nuke, don't you???
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:46:28 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>In a previous article, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) says:
>see my point......in the past five days I've proven how easy it is
>to get NOTHING accomplished in this group when it comes to serious
**>discussion. Yet you still desire to continue a foolish net.vendetta
**>to prove some point about you manliness, debating ability, or your
**>best bad words to call other people names. If you are SO for
>rational discussion, why do you provoke people? Sure....people
>provoke you......but when they stop you continue. Some people
>(not me in this case) would see this as a little hypocritical
>on your part.

First, Matthew, see those three lines beginning with '**'? If those
aren't provoking, I'm Peter Pan. And you obviously haven't seen a net.vendetta
yet, or you would not make such a ludicrous statement. See anything
entitled 'kebbie' or 'jimmy' or 'Keegan' to get an idea of a net.vendetta

As for Dean, he just made some reasonable requests which you choose
to see as insults, maybe there was a little sarcasm in them, but then
again you provoked it by saying he, as well as I, were hypocrits.

As a matter of fact, I take offense to that also. I would also like
to see you prove that I'm a hypocrit.

>BTW, proof of hypocracy:

>you're human.......hence, you've been a hypocrite in the past and
>you'll be a hypocrite in the future.

And there is absolutely no room for enlightenment in your world. Black
and white. No shades of grey at all.

NEWS FLASH, there is no black or white, anywhere, as far as issues go.
They all revolve around whatever kind of definition you set for the
circumstances, and can all be muddled into lighter or darker shades.

Ron
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Franklin does references
Summary: poorly
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:14:41 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr14.014334.28124@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

#   Oh... sorry - I guess I should have remembered what audience I was 
#dealing with. Go read pages 25-88 of your biology text to learn about
#meiosis. 50 % of the genetic material comes from the father. I didn't think
#I'd have to go into details but apparently you don't get biology class
#until grade 10.

Oh oh.  

I'm afraid that Frnaklin will be with us for a long, long time.
I can't imagine that he'll ever graduate - eventually, he'll
be asked to do a research paper.  His bibliography will 
no doubt drive his professor insane.

Susan
From: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:25:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Apr8.132516.12185
Organization: Indiana University

In article <7469@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:

>Who has heard of the latest use for aborted fetal tissue?

Latest?  This urban legand has been around for a long time.  I say UB
because I never saw anyone, here or elsewhere, produce the name of
said company, and/or the name of it's product. 

>As reported in "The Australian" (7/4/92) a French cosmetics company is
>currently engaged in the practice of making women's face cream from the
>placentas of aborted fetuses. They apparently are able to get 1 tonne of
>the material every day from the St Petersburg (Russia) area, and up to 4
>tonnes world wide.

So what's your point, even if this were true?  Do you support cosmetic
testing on fully developed, live animals?  If you don't actively
rally against it, you're a [explitive deleted] hypocrite in your
"fight for life."  

Would you be against it if it were placental material from births?
Why or why not?

amy 



-- 
******************************************************************************
"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
	       		Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
              						--Neil Peart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Has anyone seen this ad?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:06:52 GMT
Organization: .

In article <1992Mar30.115504.16597@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>Seems to me, since no haploid life is destroyed when a female
>masturbates, I could make an excellent case for a gender-based
><gasp> DOUBLESTANDARD on the issue of masturbation.

Before you begin to feel too smug, I should inform you that the equivalent
act for the female diploid human is menstruation (gee, I hope I spelled
that right, but I've got a little double standard of my own when it comes
to spelling).  

So while the diploid human female need not feel guilty about murdering
hapless haploid humans during masturbation, she doesn't get off scott-free,
at least until menopause.

>muriel
>standard disclaimer


-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:31:27 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 <1992Apr14.154129.251@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaf
>lowitz) writes:

>>The problem with some children is they don't have a sense of history.

How true, how true...or a respect for their elders, maybe the Asians
have more right than we know, over 4000 years of civilization should
tell us something...

>Yo, BUTTHEAD! I am steve. That was Matt. The post you were referring to
>was not me. Please sign up for remedial English 101 and then come back to
>talk.abortion. (read the follow-up labels).

>>just to see how he handles courtesy.
>   I'd prefer to deal with intelligence...

and you seem to lack both....


Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.090323.20505@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr5.070049.2778@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@quads.uchicago.edu
> (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
>>>In article <1992Apr3.160149.10119@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
>  mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>
>>>Suppose I make an analogy that Pro-Choice folks are indeed NAZIS because 
>>>aborting fetuses is the same as the extermination of the Jews. Would I be
>>>right in making such a statement? NO! Of course I would be wrong! However,
>>>my reasoning behind this is just the same as yours. Please understand dude.
>
>>I understand your point, Mikeey, and it's fine as far as it goes, but please
>>try to avoid making this kind of argument even in a jesting analogy. There
>>are some of us it hurts needlessly, and a lot more who it endangers even
>>beyond their current danger level. Try to find some other way.

Why does this analogy hurt some needlessly? And why does it endanger some
beyond current danger levels? 

If people who are pro-life truly and passionately believe that the 
FETUS is a human being fully deserving of life, than the analogy
to pro-choices being at least "Nazi-like" may or may not have a grain
of truth to it. I could see it as being somewhat correct. Not totally
correct but somewhat.

>



Newsgroups: talk.abortion