HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:32:24 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >nobody commented on what gaylord meant, only on what he said. 
-> 
-> What kind of sophistry is this? 

the kind you always create when you've lost a point and,
uncharacteristically, don't resort to lying.

-> >he said, "Laws force beliefs." they do not. 
-> 
-> Yes they do. Laws don't (necessarily) force beliefs IN people,
-> but they *ALWAYS* force beliefs ON people. So, there is at
-> least one plausible sense in which "laws force beliefs".
-> Granted, there was some ambiguity in the sentence,

this is another of your INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy vs kevin darcy the
GROUP cases, right?

-> I will note in passing that Gaylord has concurred with my
-> clarification.  So are you now going to tell -Gaylord- that he
-> misunderstands HIMSELF??

he handled with much grace too, something you might learn from.
of course, it seems a bit odd that he was unable to express what
he meant until you told him, but he did finally handle his
problem.

and why would i tell him that he misunderstands himself? i don't
read minds, as you do. i only deal with the words people write.
it seems absolutely clear that you are the only poster to this
newsgroup who differs from my interpretation of his posted words.
but then, we know why, don't we?

        "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: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:57:28 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:
->>>   = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>I will try and write more simply in the future. You see, his logic felt
>that by isolating some of the actions of the Christian church hundreds
>of years ago he could hack at the credibility of the church NOW. I pointed
>out how ludicrous this was by showing that the corruptivity of one government
>party 10 years ago does not incriminate or in any way effect the intentions
>and efficiency of a present-day political party. If one individual failed
>in the name of democracy 10 years ago, does that mean that democracy
>does not work?

->>>message by the people who carry it, (even 500 years ago for crying out
->>>loud!) is pathetic. Just pathetic. I'm embarassed for you but will
->>>assume you don't make such flaws in logic often...

Steve, (I'm really getting tired of addressing a brick wall, wheres
that open mind you claim to have?) let me try to explain some logic
in terms you will understand beyond any doubt, misinterpretation, etc.

The church claims to represent the word and will of god.

The church used these claims to support various actions and beliefs
1)the crusades
2)the Iquisition
3)the geocentric model
4)stance against abortion

Many of these are now looked upon as wrong, both morally and ethically.
(this is known as hypocrisy, since the cheurch claims to represent the
will of god and is therefore not subject to the learning argument, it
already should be omniscient.)

The only conclusions one can draw are either that god is a complete
figment of the iamgination perpetuated by the church, or, god is not
omniscient. Either case shows that anything the church says should be
questioned in every way possible.

Also, the will of god, per bible, is that man has free will (remember the
apple?), so any attempt by the church to restrict man's free will is
another indictment for the hypocrisy of the church.

An omniscient, omnipotent being, by definition, would never change his mind.
There would never be a need to.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:45:28 GMT


Every now and then I like to mention this when the discussion
of world population makes the leap to being applied to the
matter of abortion.

As an advocate of the freedom to choose safe, legal abortion if
a woman so desires, the link of population needs to the matter
of abortion is not a happy one.  If one could say that we need
to maintain population growth, and therefore should make
abortion legal, one could, at some time when the population
becomes excessive in the eyes of all but the most stubborn,
just as easily say that we must force women to have abortions,
regardless of their wishes.  The population argument cuts both
ways and is based on issues which are merely circumstantial
rather than more solid, principled foundations.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: return of the flying pigs (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:28:45 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> In article <tzwts8p@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
-> >Darcy, please discontinue this tedious refrain.  You appear
-> >to be the only person in this group who perceives two wrongs
-> >here.
-> 
-> And if truth could ALWAYS be decided by concensus, you'd have
-> a relevant point.

if truth were -never- decided by consensus, you'd have some
credibility.

-> And pigs might fly, too...

interesting comment kebbie. do you know what infamous t.a. poster
used to write this? you should. you and he have a lot in common.




--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doing the Right Thing
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:18:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: rotag.1992Apr11.181837.9096
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Apr8.134749.5988@crd.ge.com> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> 
>-> ...if you insist on
>-> trying to smear me with charges that I "defended Kellmeyer's
>-> posting of private email" you'd better get a RELEVANT quote,
>-> Jimmy. The one you're relying on right now has *NO* mention of
>-> email in it, nor reference to the privacy thereof. It doesn't
>-> help your "case" one iota. It just makes you look like you're
>-> desperately trying to get the "goods" on me, and you'll stoop
>-> to twisting ANYTHING for that purpose.
>
>"*NO* mention of email in it" you say? let's just examine the
>facts, shall we.
>
>in response to one of my posts entitled, "Subject: kellmeyer
>posts private email! (Re: To T.S.A.K.C. (or whatever the hell it
>is))," you replied with a defense of kellmeyer. 

Actually, you are wrong on TWO counts:

	1) I did not defend Kellmeyer except inasmuch as he might have
	   _potentially_ been included in my generic pronoun "we". 
	   Certainly I never mentioned him by name, or by third-person 
	   pronoun.

	2) My alleged "defense" had absolutely *NOTHING* to do with
	   the public posting of private email.

[Below follows my alleged "defense of Kellmeyer's public posting of email"]

>============included article begins

[... preceding context, elided by me in the original article with the
 notation "same old, same old"...]

>Jimmy, don't you ever tire of playing such a repetitive, officious, 
>nit-picking little weasel?
>
>I mean, if we all spent great gobs of time trying to prove/support/
>substantiate/corroborate/regurgitate every event since the Big Bang to 
>*YOUR* (seemingly insatiable) satisfaction, that wouldn't leave much 
>opportunity to actually discuss -issues-, now would it?
>
>=======end included article

Anyone see any mention of "Kellmeyer", any pronoun which could conceivably
apply specifically to Kellmeyer, or any direct or indirect mention of email, 
privacy, confidence or trust, etc. in the above text??? Didn't think so.

This "support" of your charge sucks wind, Keegan. I think you'd better
retract it forthwith in order to save yourself further embarrassment.

								- Kevin
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:50:04 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

Steve,
     Thank you, flower, for informing me that I'm a man.
                                           MP
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rape, Incest, and Abortion
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:19:56 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <odvZSBm00WB38hPYl4@andrew.cmu.edu>  kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>
>     I'm reminded of the Louisiana legislator, arguing for no rape or incest
> exceptions, saying: "What's the problem with incest? After all, that's how
> we get champion race horses, right?"

(It's also how we get Louisiana legislators, apparently.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Eric's Rasmussen Boycott
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:18:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: kscdl1.1992Apr15.121846.1
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL

Referring to Eric's David Rasmussen posting (in response to "who is David
Rasmussen?):

Being new on the net, I also didn't know who this was.  And I read your
boycott response.  It's a joke, right?  This guy didn't really mean all
this stuff, did he?


Susy@ksc
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I like to think big.  If you're going to     |
 | EG & G Florida           |    be thinking anyway, you might as well        |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |    think big."                 Donald Trump     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.172645.797@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
}6.164847.282
}Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
}Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
}Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
}Lines: 35
}
}               It is Galen who speaks for all those born, yet to be
}born and dead.  Galen has been absent from this forum for some time,

Thanks for the kind words.  Not absent, just very silent.  But I do 
speak for the dead, the unborn, the undead, the almost dead, the 
sort-of-born, the "gleam-in-your-eye"s, and a host of others too.  I'll
speak for most anyone (for a price) but there's no guarantee I'll 
say what you want.  Oh, I almost forgot, I speak for the rocks and
vegetables now too...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
    Don't put all your spilt milk in one basket, you might cry over it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty)
Subject: Numerical Superiority (formerly: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:53:04 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr12.020819.7670@liebe.uucp>
According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>> = gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>Kinda makes you wonder why the pro-life side keeps claiming numerical
>>superiority, doesn't it.  The abortion rallys tend to be 5 to 1 in favor
>>of pro-choice (at least, from what has been posted here), and the postings
>>here at at least 2 to 1 if not more.
>
>Pro-Lifers claim majority because it is exactly correct.  

No, it's not correct.

["that which is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied." 
    -- G. Gordon Liddy ]

>The abortion
>rally statement is outright fraud.  Last years march in DC had the Pro-
>Death faction outnumbered almost 2 to 1 (and the pro-death clowns still
>claimed a majority because they were relying on their own guesstimates
>instead of the park service's official count).  

Please elaborate on this.  There was no pro-choice march last year.  
(I assume you mean the January 1991 march?)  The anti-abortion rally
drew 20,000 by Park Service estimates.  Where did this 2:1 thing come
from?
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    -- Doug Holtsinger
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Gaylord
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Summary: Kevin Ryan, get ready to defend your name again
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:28:48 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr07.063103.7375@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
#cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#
##Uh, I think Dan King speaks for the unborn on 
##this group.
#
##I find it telling that you took Cathi's question to
##refer to fetuses, and not to the women who carry
##them.  Try not to forget that woman, Steve.  Many
##of us here find that she's more important than
##brainless blobs of flesh.
#
#I guess "brainless blobs of flesh" (ie. CJ Silverio) will continue to spread
#their vicious deceptions.  But for the record ... Most abortions are performed
#on HUMAN BEINGS who would look remarkably similar to CJ.  If appearances are
#all that matter ("...blobs of flesh...") then CJ has just made himself a
#candidate for the first experimental post-partum abortion.

I haven't been lucky enough to see C.J., but I'm willing to bet that
she looks nothing like a first trimester fetus.  From what
I've heard, her head is proportionate to her body, and
she's fully developed.  I sincerely doubt that she has
gills.  

On the other hand, I could make a doll that looked just like
CJ, and rip it to shreds, and I would not have committed
murder.  (And I really wouldn't do it, C.J.)  Looks
aren't everything.

#BTW woman suffer "TRAUMA" (pro-death words) by bearing children.
#Children suffer   MURDER  (my words) by being MURDERED.
#
#Don't ever forget that.  

Okay, I won't.  What does this have to do with abortion?

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15267 alt.abortion.inequity:793
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:18:07 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr14.044418.4959@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.141443.12655@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
> >In article <1992Apr11.160221.8122@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy
> >>>OK Kevin Darcy, support this.  I have argued against the reforms presented
> >>>SO FAR, certainly, because in my mind they create even MORE inequality than
> >>>the inequality that I see CURRENTLY exists.
> >>>
> >>>However, in the posting in question, I'm not 'telling him', as Larry so
> >>>obviously pointed out.  In the context of this article that makes me
> >>>non-duck.
> >>>
> >>>You are wrong, Kevin.  Just plain blind, dead wrong.
> >>
> >>You are telling him that the legal status quo is morally acceptable, and
> >>that it is OkayFineHunkeyDorey for the state to enforce this schema of
> >>rights and responsibilities upon all involuntary fathers.
> >
> >Horseshit, Darcy, and I notice you don't manage to support what you claimed.
>
> Horeshit yourself, Adrienne. The original claim was that you were arguing
> against reform. By arguing for the status quo, you implicitly argue AGAINST
> reform. I have therefore supported my statement in the preceding paragraph.

Arguing against bad reforms is not arguing for the status quo, it's
just arguing against bad reforms.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C. (NEW SIGNATURE!)
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: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:55:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.212509.20522@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.122856.4632@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>
>>If a child is in daycare, it's not exactly the same thing as being a
>>"latch-key child".
>  Sheez Muriel - do you think that clue fairy stuff is funnY? ugh
>In any case- the concept behind the latch-key child which I was trying to
>approach was the lack of parental presence and guidance. Sorry. I'll
>try and talk m o r eeeee   s l o w l yyyyyy n e x tttttt t i m eeeeeee.

No, Steve all you have to do is post an article that shows even one functioning
neuron in that slag of garbage you call a brain.

Saying you're going to post statistics showing that you don't approve of day
care because of the problems some latch key kids have is just plain stupid.
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:39:32 GMT

rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes ...
>>Geeee...I wouldn't take much thinking to realize that the "pro-death" is a
>>simple response to those who insist on using "anti-abortion" and the   
>>white-wash nature of the term "pro-choice".  When I see universal respect
>>for Pro-Life I will return the favor. 

>Do you mean to say that you are not against abortion?  I am certainly
>not in favor of death.

>Pro-Choice is not equivalent to pro-death because the vast majority
>of people who are in favor of choice are NOT in favor of abortion.
>While I am firmly on the pro-choice side, I have never encouraged
>an abortion, nor am I likely to in the future.  Pro-choice leaves
>the primary reponsibility of abortion/pregnancy/child rearing to
>the parents.

I don't claim Pro-Choice = pro-death.  It is a simple response to a
lack of respect.

>As for the Pro-Life designation - it is questioned because
>many who refer to themselves as pro-life are apparently mostly
>interested in abolishing the legality of abortion.  This hardly
>is sufficient to merit a Pro-Life label since there are many ways
>to improve the quantity and quality of life, and eliminating
>abortion is not the only means to the end.  In fact it may be
>that making abortion illegal will cause _more_ suffering and
>death rather than less.

Your first paragraph was on the money.  This one is from the ether.
In your face:  If you were truly "Pro-Choice" you would want a state
by state vote to decide once and for all whether abortion should be
allowed.  Since you don't want this we can only deduce you are NOT 
Pro-Choice.  Are you saying that if abortion is illegal that
1,500,000 woman a year will have suffering and death????

>In short  your "pro-death" term is insulting, inflammatory, and
>inaccurate.  Further, your attempt to justify it by pointing to the
>anti-abortion term is childish.  Respect for the Pro-Life view
>must be earned, and lately most pro-life posts have been insulting
>diatribes.

Lessee here...you say the "Respect fo the Pro-Life view must be earned..."?
So you cannot see the merits of the other side unless someone states it
politely?  I suggest you re-examine both sides on your own before waiting
for a polite, uncondescending, non-sarcastic, non-threatening post that
your mind can work with.  BTW are my posts (which you don't like) any more
childish than a Choicer accusing me of "fetal worship" and other related
crap?

>>Oh well!  Since Nora points out that Nazi analogies are incorrect they 
>>are incorrect???  I sense a bit of Nora-worship here.  The Nazi analogies
>>are valid, much as you hate them (and they must be cause KEVIN said so).

>In what way do you mean they are valid?  In that Nazi's killed many people?
>Or that the Nazi's were dictators that tried to control all aspects of 
>people's lives?

Correct.  Including (but not limited to) the "they are lesser beings and hence
have not value.  We can kill them with disdain." attitudes.

Kevin Brawley
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: return of the flying pigs (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:53:24 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> Try to imagine how little I care for your tenuous
-> >-> connections and guilty-by-association, Keegan. Really, is
-> >-> this childish crap the _best_ you can come up with??
-> >
-> >oh don't be coy kebbie. if you cared as little as you imply,
-> >you'd simply ignore the post(s).
-> 
-> The obvious corollary being 

let's defer your corollary until we resolve the first issue. why
did you ask me to imagine how little you cares when it's obvious
that you -do-care. otherwise, you'd simply not continue.

-> that your only reason for continually posting this crap is to
-> get my attention.

i do enjoy seeing you squirm and backpedal and repeatedly display
yourself as a hypocrite. some of my posts give you an opportunity
to do these things. and you do then quite often. i must admit
that i find it distasteful when you lie about people.

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

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