HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles
Subject: The Horrors of HeteroSexuality Revealed...
Date: 23 Aug 92 18:58:57 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] In article <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
] >How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of the 
] >animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".  When will YOU 
] >understand that YOU must take responsibility for YOUR actions.  If you 
] >are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term then maybe you should 
] >not be having sex.  

{ interesting details about Adrienne's struggle with HeteroSexuality deleted. }

Adrienne,

Thank you for sharing your story....

And NO, 40 is not "old" - developing towards middle aged, maybe.


BUT, Mike was talking about 'animal desires' which are the
HIDEOUS and Horrifying Influence of HETEROSEXUALITY!!!!

We are pleased to hear that you have learned to CURB
that Wild BEAST... But we DID NOT see that you have
taken the Pledge and Joined HetroAnnon, which can
help you overcome this TerrorFrying Addiction....

 Just Say NO! to Hetro!!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: this is NOT a 'broken record' posting,
this is an example of MoralPurity At work
on behalf of the HeteroSexually Handicapped.




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Uh-Huh, you got the wrong one, baby!
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:18:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>(Abortion, by definition, is *not* murder, since murder refers to unlawful
>killing, and abortion is legal.)

Murder doe NOT just refer to unlawful killing, it also refers to unjust
(immoral) killing.

>And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
>being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.

Unless it happens to be MY cow you are killing.

>They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
>to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
>of other people.

Correct.  So what do you call it when a woman carrying my child kills it?
I call it violating my rights by having her beliefs forced on me.

>I assume this is simply emotional rhetoric, and you realize that fathers
>are *not* having abortions, forced or not.  If not, you need to take a
>biology course...

This is not emotional rhetoric.  It is truth.  Abortion is not just what
is done to the mother, it is also what is done to the baby, and the
father.

If I am not having an abortion, then how come I'm suddenly no longer 
a father afterwards?

You need to take a course your self.  Think of what is missing in your
statments.  In my opinion, you totally ignore certain facts, such as
the interests of the father.

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 13:43:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bu1DoB.Ctp@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <24559@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writ
> >(Many single women get abortions, remember? Of those that are married,
> >I would hope that they discuss it with their husbands.)
>
> Statistics or references, please?  After all, you said:
> >Could you post a verifiable reference for this please.

The majority of women getting abortions are unmarried.

From _The World Almanac_:

                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
                 Percentage distribution (excludes unknowns)
  Marital status
Married                          29.7      24.6     23.1       19.3
Unmarried                        70.3      75.4     76.9       80.7

Similar figures are available from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the
Federal Centers for Disease Control:
   The characteristics of women having abortions also remained the same,
   epidemiologist Lisa Koonin said.  About 92% of the women were
   residents of the state in which the procedure was performed.  They
   were predominantly white, younger than 25, unmarried and had no other
   children.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:42:53 GMT

In article <BtnDH1.J48.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to Michael Loomis: 

>> I would like to express my strong interest in responding to your 
>> defense of infanticide.  I think that Mr. Novak and Ms. Garvin
>> would probably not like to see your article posted to the net, 
>> and that's why they have been behaving so badly towards you.  

> Holtsinger, you're a tiresome liar.  I specifically asked Loomis
> to post his opinion on infanticide.  You really should learn
> to read.  

I said that I believed you were behaving badly to Mr. Loomis
because you didn't want to see his article posted to the net.
I could be wrong about my belief.  You may have asked his  
opinion on infanticide, but I thought you were asking him 
to clarify his position so that you would not look foolish 
attacking a position which he did not hold.  

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33721 alt.flame:12368
From: trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: More Bleating From the Borg
Date: 27 Aug 92 05:42:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: TSAKC-TC

In article <lefty-200892165314@lefty.apple.com>
        lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

]In article <1992Aug19.233832.7895@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
](Stephen A Chaney) wrote:

]> Well, that could easily be you, or PatricKKK Harumphrey if I added
]> "yanked out of the closet while taking off his Ku Klux Klan uniform".  
]
]Feel free to trundle your annoying self over to Rice to discuss the matter
]with him.
]
]For that matter, feel free to come by San Francisco to discuss it with me.

Yes, Chaney, you do that.  Also, feel free to stay far, far away from
Minneapolis.  The harvest hasn't come in yet and we're hoping for a
good one.


--
Barry Schwartz        trashman@crud.mn.org
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33883 soc.culture.indian:29692
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:47:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

Here's an idea to hinder sex-selection abortions.

When the results of amniocentesis are given, the gender of the fetus should
not be given at that time:  only the other medical information.  ONLY when
the woman has signed an agreement to either continue or terminate the 
pregnancy based ONLY on the non-gender medical facts, may she then know the
sex of the fetus.

Would that be acceptable to the pro-lifers?

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:51:24 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) misses again:

>Michael, you have no idea how hateful and bigotted a statement you just
>made, do you.  The first road out of bigotry, Michael is to open your
>eyes.  And then your heart.

Suzanne, I'd be willing to bet his eyes are open, otherwise he'd have
a tough time reading and responding to this forum. Opening your heart
could be fatal. Maybe that's why you sound like a zombie.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Keywords: National Abortion Federation = Pro-abortion??  
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.045611.18539@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>>>rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>>>> Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
>>>> said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ pro-abortion?
>>> Thanks, Russ.  Happy now, Doug?

>> Here's what the FAQ says about the "National Abortion Federation",
>> which is the source for your claims:
>> 
>>   National Abortion Federation
>> 
>>   Provides information to hospitals and
>>   clinics that provide abortion services
>>   Instructs women on how to choose an
>>   abortion facility

> You asked for the claim to be supported.  

I didn't expect you to rely on what appears to be a pro-abortion 
organization for your claims.  

> This is the third report
> I've seen that says the same thing.  

Maybe they all got the information from this same pro-abortion organization?

> That you don't *like* one of the
> sources is your problem; 

I was just observing that your source looks like a pro-abortion organization. 

> you can't claim that it has not been supported.

But your source looks like a pro-abortion organization, which is hardly an
unbiased source. 

> (Actually, you can't *honestly* claim it, which has never stopped
> you before...)

Your source looks like a pro-abortion organization. 

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

BTW, I put "pro-abortion organization" into every sentence of
my reply. That way, you can't delete part of my response and
ignore "pro-abortion organization". Unless you delete part
of a sentence (pro-abortion organization).  


Doug Holtsinger, wondering why Margolis relies on pro-abortion organizations
for his information.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,alt.flame,alt.sex,alt.evil,alt.irc
From: dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick)
Subject: Re: Alright... I'm gone. (summer ends!)
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:41:02 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
: In article <Btx54D.GtI@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
: finds himself unable to take the heat and, surprisingly, manages to find
: his way out of the kitchen:
: > 

Heat or mockery?  For those involved in this netgroup who wish to hold a
good, healthy, intelligent, respectful arguement addressing real issues
instead of silly patience-trying mockery and abuse, I highly suggest using
the kill-file to the hilt.

The kill file is best used not for closing your mind to opposing views, but
rather for closing the discussion to those who will argue properly with
respect, addressing the real issues.  What the mockers and flamers on both
sides really does not make any difference.  If someone calls you a fool,
you  need not feel threatened as if someone worth consideration would actually
believe them.

If the person never has anything worthwhile to add to the discussion, clip
that person off.  Do not continue answering--that has been my mistake.  Just
add the person to the kill file and go on your  way.  Once the discussion has
been pruned of flamers on both sides and people are addressing the real
arguements, then intelligent discussion can go on.

	   Yours truely,

		Dan Dick

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Third party request
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:18:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.223933.13166@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Btx4r8.D50.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in 
## Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  
#
#I've seen no evidence that a state may enforce legislation 
#requiring the physician to employ the abortion technique which 
#would most likely result in a fetus aborted alive.

It seems, then, that you have no idea how the legal system
in this country works.  Rather than mindlessly quoting bits
of court decisions and selected sentences from legal
experts, you really should invest a little time and effort
in learning about the system.

I'll give you a hint - unconstitutional laws can be enacted
and enforced if no one challenges them in court.  Even if
Colautti hadn't been effectively overturned by Webster,
the current law regarding abortion methods in PA could be 
enforced since it has not ever been challenged.  (Why do
you think those sections weren't challenged, DOD?)

Susan
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: abortifacients
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 23:51:51 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Aug24.233115.8091@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>99% of all abortions kill fetuses whose hearts are already beating.

>Can someone tell us when the human heart starts beating? I have proof that
>it beats by 3 weeks after fertilization, which is way before 99% of all
>abortions.

I guess your sitting around the tube last week watching your republican buddys
wasn't a total waste.  You have the ability to make up numbers just like 
they did.  Is there any reason  you, Bush, Quayle and Robertson can`t
just stick with facts?  Could it be you realize that facts just don't 
support your stupid little arguments?

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:40:09 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


jk>In article <1992Aug31.164218.7003@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
dh>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

dh> Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES
dh> WITH SLAVERY??  Millions of couples are being
dh> ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into having FORCED
dh> ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual
dh> intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms
dh> against their will!!  The passion which enslaves
dh> them is the principal reason why there are over a
dh> MILLION ABORTIONS performed each year!  Forced
dh> orgasms are not right!  We must allow people to take
dh> back control of their bodies!

jk>ummm, DODie, orgasms don't necessarily cause pregnancy,
jk>much less abortion. if you post a note from your
jk>parents saying that it's ok for you to have information
jk>on this kind of thing, i'll ask dan king to explain it
jk>to you.

I already told Jim in e-mail I really don't have time to answer
all your questions you have bottled up over the years.  But
I can use the immortal words of Taj Mahal to give you a hand in 
gaining a little more insight on sex and orgasms.  If I were
you DOD, I would take his advise real soon, before it is too
late.

 
Talkin' 'bout big legged mommas back in style again
I mean, them short fat fannies back in style again
You ain't had no real good love till you been loved by
 one of them
Size 14, 16, 18, 22, 24 in style again
I mean them big fat cuties back in style again
You ain't had no juicy lucy until you've been loved
 by one of them
 
We'll momma and poppa told me son you better shout
Woman that you got she gonna knock you out
Big legged mommas now they're back in style again
I mean them big fat cuties back in style again
You ain't had no real good lovin' till you've been
 loved by one of them

She's the kind of woman that drinks her coffee in a
 great big cup
She's the kind of woman that saves her lovin' up
Talkin' 'bout a big legged momma they're back in
 style again
I mean them heart shaped booties back in style again
You ain't had no real good lovin' till you've been
 loved by one of them

We'll she will not make you shout, she won't make 
 you beg
But she will shake her hooters like a soft boiled egg
I mean them heart shaped booties back in style again
You ain't had no juicy lucy until you've been loved
 by one of them

She says honey get me some WD40 and oil my springs
My back is made of whale bone and I'm gonna make
 you sing
Talkin' 'bout those big legged momma's they're back 
 in style again
Talkin' 'bout those big legged momma's they're back 
 in style again
You ain't had no juicy lucy till you've been loved by
 one of them
  --Taj Mahal

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.211505.23998@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>In  <1992Aug31.145104.12528@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>
>>> If the pro-aborts get their way, this is EXACTLY what they will be doing,
>>> 'trying to legislate their beliefs as though they were facts'.
>>
>>Sorry, but I don't know of any pro-aborts with a legislative agenda.
>
>I take it you are unaware of the attempts to get either law enacted, or
>to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to an abortion.
>
>>Who are they trying to force to get abortions?
>
>The beliefs that would be legislated (and enforced on others) would be the
>belief that abortion is not murder.  In other words, it would enforce a
>belief about when a child becomes a human being.
>
>The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
>who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.

That is a highly rhetorical and simply incorrect response. Men aren't forced
to have abortions. They are currently at the  mercy of their biological 
situation. Men do not have the power to give birth to a child. I'd say 
we're simply stuck in that area.  I, and hopefully most others, don't want
to see a woman *ever* be forced to give birtht to a child for *whoever's*
reasons other than her own.  I agree totally that it is unfortunate that 
men are stuck in this way. If I want a child and my wife doesn't (she 
doesn't want to give birth to my child), I am basically out of luck and will
have to either find another wife or find a way to work something out with her.

The best you can hope for is to get used to the idea that you cannot have
babies without the kindness of a woman.  I'm sorry.




-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:29:04 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug20.194554.9645@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>> 
>>>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.
>> 
>> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.


>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>more beautiful way to go."

>She did die young, but not in childbirth.

Suzanne, is this the great-aunt who (as you posted some time ago) would
up dying from an illegal abortion?

>Suzanne Forgach

                                                        MP
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Gag Rule 9/23/92
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:13:13 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu

From Faulkner & Gray's "Medicine & Health," August 31, 1992, page 2:

"Abortion Counseling Limits To Start"

   HHS says it will begin enforcing regulations limiting abortion counseling
at family planning clinics on Sept. 23.  That gives some 4,000 clinics around
the country less than a month to decide whether to live under the new
restrictions or give up government funding.  Industry groups still hope to buy
more time by winning a court injunction.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia is considering a complaint by the National Family Planning
& Reproductive Health Assn. that HHS failed to seek public comment on a series
of changes it made to the original rules published in 1988.  On July 30, the
court allowed HHS to begin changing its procedures but said it may still
throw out the rules limiting counseling to physicians.

-Kristy

-- 
 +==========================+================================================+
 |Kristy Patterson          | Nothing really rocks, and nothing really rolls,|
 |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu | & nothing's ever worth the cost.      -Meatloaf|
 +==========================+=================================Bat Out of Hell+
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:42:52 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

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
-> That was me.  And I'm waiting for Suzanne for answer.
-> 
-> She's always said that she wants to punish the
-> abortionist, not the woman involved.

i suppose that's not as bad as some anti-choicers who
want to punish the women.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:46:46 GMT

---
From: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!

[....]

	Obviously Mo has missed the point of talk.abortion.  I don't read
the newsgroup myself, but I read alt.flame, which seems to be an alias
for talk.abortion anyway.  As far as I can tell, talk.abortion has absolutely
nothing to do with changing anyone's feelings or even having rational
discussions.  It is for ranting and raving.

[...]

--
Steve Buffum           | "Jane!  Stop this crazy thing! -- G. Jetson
swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |

Newsgroups: talk.abortion