HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 13:44:37 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win.
 <1992Apr13.194939.8956@noao.edu> <92105.064833KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca>

>
>Kurt - I can tell you now. If abortions are made illegal, there will be
>a hell of a lot fewer. Sure we will have to deal with the coathangers and
>[back alleys, but there will be thousands and thousands and thousands
>of alive babies to show for it.
>   SOunds like a good trade to me

You'll also have a lot more women having to find illegal ways to get the
abortion, getting caught, and getting thrown in jail.  (That's what illegal
means, doesn't it?)
You'll also have a lot more abandoned babies, a lot more left in the
trash, a lot more being hated by their parents for being born.
You'll also have a lot of kids (they don't always remain babies) in
the orphanages...eating up your tax dollars.  (orphanages, welfare,
foster homes...its our money paying for these kids that you wanted to
be born)
-Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Isn't Adoption an escape from responsibility?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 17:32:13 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)

I have a question that I have asked before and still have not seen a
pro-lifer in this forum answer it.  I see we seem to have a new batch
of pro-lifers so I guess it's time to ask again.

I have seen it stated by many pro-lifers that believe the act of coitus
sex makes the couple responsible for the life created.  This obligation
requires the woman to continue with a pregnancy, since it was her act
that created the life.  My question then is why would it then be
permissible for the woman to escape her responsibility to this life
after birth?  Doesn't this allow her to then escape the consequences
of her action?  It would appear to me that if you wanted to ensure
the woman does the responsible thing to this life you would then not
allow her to give the infant up to the state after birth.  To remain
consistent, she would be required to locate people that meet specific
qualifications and are willing to care for this life before she can
escape responsibility.  I have trouble understanding why you would
allow women to use this escape from the responsibility they created
from the action of coitus sex.

Dan King
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is David Reardon?
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:18:46 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Apr4.015130.3864@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.225749.17076@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
>>Actually, you should read David Reardon "Silent no More".  He shows 
>>through interviews he's conducted with  women who have had an abortion,
>>that most who have had one did so only AFTER being prodded into it
>>by their boyfriends/husbands.  Subsequently, they tend to get pregnant
>>again - in order to "replace" the child they destroyed through abortion.
>>This is followed by higher incidences of substance abuse, and the relationship 
>>in which the pregnancy and abortion took place tends to disintegrate.
>
>Sounds like typical pro-life propaganda.  Who is David Reardon?  I
>don't place much faith in information given by an unknown source...
>And the fact that you're bringing him in lowers my belief farther yet.
>
>I'm glad to see you think so many women are controlled by their men,
>their hormones, and their instincts.
>
	FYI, a recent *very* large-scale study commissioned by the Feds failed
to turn up any empirical evidence of this so-called syndrome in more than a
small minority of cases.  As I recall the Bush administration didn't want the
study released because of this.  Does anyone out there have any more details
on this?  All I have at this point is my memory of the articles and NPR
reports.

>-- 
>"I distrust the facts and the inferences."        - Emerson
>
>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

Chuck
No .sig, no lead, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
>
>
>People who support both:
>            * legalized abortion
>	              and
>            * weakening current child support law:
>
>                  Eric Rescorla
>                  Gordon Storga
>                  Kevin Darcy
>                  Larry Margolis
>                  Jennifer Brown
>                  E.E. Bartley
>                  Nora Rivkis

NO, STEVEN!!!!!

I've repeated about seven times now that I do not favor "weakening"
current child support law, I favor ALTERING it. This will in some
weird instances make it weaker, in a lot of instances make it stronger,
and be basically dedicated to clearing up some of the inconsistencies
present in an outdated law. Get it right.

I'm also not yet decided about favoring legalized abortion, either;
I'm just accepting it until I make up my mind, because I don't want
to legislate prohibiting *anything* until I'm absolutely positive
it has to be done.

>	          Hillel Gazit
>
>Eight so far.  How many more want to join the list?
>Write and let me know.

Seven, if even that. You have so consistently ignored what people
tell you about their own positions that you have singlehandedly
made me accept Dean's term for you and other net.nitwits who pull
such garbage -- willfully ignorant. You're free to be so on your
own time, but don't do it with my life or my opinions.

>SK

	-Nora

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 16:43:31 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doing the Right Thing
 <1992Apr5.154456.28236@crd.ge.com> <1992Apr6.232531.11057@cfctech.cfc.com>
 <1992Apr8.134749.5988@crd.ge.com>


In article <1992Apr4.035028.16772@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:

>They misremembered the context. Kellmeyer posted
>private email, and I defended him, but those were
>INDEPENDENT events.

Why is it always someone else's fault?  What we
have here is you, Kevin, backpedalling furiously.

You attacked Susan Garvin for posting email, equating
it with the ultimate net sin, and yet, knowing fully
that Kellmeyer posted email you defended him as an
an opportunity to flame Keegan.

Face it Darcy, you attacked both Susan Garvin and
James Keegan because of your obvious vendetta
against these individuals and in doing so you
defended both Welch and Kellmeyer's behaviour.

The whole affair has been an illuminating display of
your character.



Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"All that has been written about women by men should be suspect
 for men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit"
 Francois Poulain de la Barre, 1673
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: Be Afraid, Be VERY AFRAID
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:04:36 GMT

> 
> BE AFRAID SHY QUIET NAIVE INNOCENT YOUNG MALES FROM SMALL
> TOWNS IN THE MIDWEST! THEY ARE OUT THERE AND THEY ARE 
> LOOKING FOR YOU! AND THEY WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU!!!!!
> 
Could ya send some of 'em thisaways?
College Park is gettin' awfully damn dull..............




shalom

lev




"Lo yisa goy el goy cherev, lo yilmedu od milchama.......but until then,  
keep the Galil oiled and loaded...."
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
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 01:11:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.203723.1899@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:

Or maybe you should be back to standing around the computer room, holding your
arms out, making propeller noises with your mouth, and pretending to hold
somebody else's $100 in your hands???
--
=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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:08:07 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   Well... Ron, I suppose I am a juvenile clueless as well, but I must
>point out that the ME generation sucks most heinously,
                                  ====================

Case closed.

                           -rocker
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:34:40 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <92101.130850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>Damn I hate when this happens,
   hate what? when your article is flawed?

>REAL Women, a major female prolife organization in Canada, has a
>membership far lower than the membership registered in NAC.
  Correction - NAC has appealed to many groups and unions for support,
and by receiving this has included them in membership statistics.
Therefore, many who pay union dues are actually supporting the NAC
unknowingly, and even if they do - they have little say in the matter.
Your union can support groups that you abhorrently deny and do not
believe in. Pro-life does not include such numbers in their statistics.
They are only concerned with those who heartily support their cause. They
make no effort to tease the media with half-supported numbers.

>The leaders of two leading antiabortion organizations are men.
>Reverend Campbell (I've forgotten the name of his group) was a
>frequent demonstrator and spokesperson for the Right to Life
>movement until he was arrested and jailed for violating a court
>against protesting outside of a Toronto Morgentaler clinic
>The leader of the Canadian Operation Rescue is a man.  The
>politicians who have tabled prolife policies have all been
>men.

   Well - you screwed up. Ever heard of HLI? (Human Life International)
This is a multi-nationed group and the Candian partition is headed by
an inspirational and intelligent women named Lucille Desrochers. This 
group could be considered one of the most intelligent and widespread, but
you saw fit to overlook it? How convenient...
  Oh, and on another point - even though the politicians who voiced 
pro-life concerns were men, they were voted in by women dear. 
Also, remember that the majority of politicians are (unfortunately) male,
meaning that in ANY politically sensitive issue, odds are that the 
instigators are male.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:50:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


No, Franklin, Kellmeyer is as clueless as you are on the issue
of the laws regarding mail.

Your determination to demonstrate your ignorance is obvious
now.  You can stop.

Susan
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:33:29 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr12.225153.2777@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:
|Kicking my girlfriend in the stomach so that she miscarriages is birth 
|control too. Does that make every method of birth control ok?????

You *do* seem to have violence on the mind, don't you.
Could you tell us why that is?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:11:29 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Doug Holtsinger writes:


>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 

>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 

I *agree* with premise A.  Therefore, I *disagree* that someone can force
a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

How can anyone really disagree with premise A to begin with?

>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 

>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 

A fetus cannot establish a set of morals.  A young child, yes;  a fetus,
no.

>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.

>Follows from premise A and B.

A fetus is not a human being with a conscience and a soul, which is 
required to make descisions, establish morals, form opinions, etc.  The
mother, however, does have the ability to think and make her own decisions,
which gives her the right to do with her body as she sees fit.

>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.  

Some twisted logic if I've ever seen it.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:57:30 GMT

> = bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
>the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
>that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
>a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
>against choice?

There is no middle ground IF one or both sides holds an extreme position
and refuses to accept anything except their extreme position.

Examples of extreme positions (IMO):

(1) unrestricted abortions at any time for any reason.  
    Eg. You're due next week and there are no medical complications,
        it's OK to change your mind, decide you don't want a child, and 
	abort the fetus.
    Eg. Your wife is pregnant, even though she's due next week and there are 
        no medical complications, you decide you don't want a child and 
        that it's OK for your wife get an abortion.
    Eg. You'd rather get pregnant and have an abortion than use contraceptives,
        you knew you were pregnant but were too lazy to get an early-term 
	abortion, now you think its OK to abort the 8-month-old fetus.

(2) Totally forbid all abortions at any time for any reason.  
    Eg. forbiding the abortion of a 4-week-old fetus in a 13-year-old 
        incest victim.
    Eg. forbiding the abortion of a 2-week-old fetus which was the result
        of normal birth control failure.
    Eg. forbiding the use of the pill because it may result in the death
	of a fertilized egg.
    Eg. Getting rid of all doctors who do 3rd-trimester abortions, so that 
	it's impossible for a woman to get a safe 3rd-trimester abortion 
	for any reason.

Middle ground is possible IFF at least one side 
			      doesn't hold an extreme position.

Compromise    is possible IF  at least one side is willing to accept that 
			      they can't have *everything* their own way.

Anybody willing to back off a little?  (I won't hold my breath)
Think about it: maybe you can back off a little and still get 
what you think is most important.  

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: birds 'n bees (was Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>)
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: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:26:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.045148.5912@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.103313.4156@crd.ge.com> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>-> The woman did not, in volitional terms, necessarily CREATE her
>>-> pregnancy. She CREATED an orgasm, which had a use.
>>
>>pssst! may i suggest that you speak to a woman or two privately
>>about this matter.
>
>Why? Is it your position that every pregnancy is wanted?
>
>Try making sense sometime, Keegan.

[Psst!  Kevin!  Here's a clue.  Absolutly free!]

You wrote:
>She created an ORGASM, which had a use.
[Note:  Emphasis mine.  The original is just a dozen lines or so up there^^^]

James suggested that you talk to a woman or two privatly about this matter.

I would suggest you do the same.  While I can certainly understand the uses of
an orgasm, I fail to see what it has to do with pregnancy, or abortion.

So, Kibbles, when are you going to start charging me fees for "archiving" my
articles?  After all, my BearCode is certainly not for your consumption...
--
=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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:30:45 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) said:
>People who support both:
>            * legalized abortion
>	              and
>            * weakening current child support law:
...
>                  Gordon Storga
...

Standard disclaimer:  Steven is lying about me again.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:19:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.233944.19093@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>>Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>>
>> Scripturally unsubstantiated bullshit--RC dogma or not.
>> Back it up or don't say it, Suzanne. We've been through this one before.
>
>First chapter of Luke.  The angel kept talking with his sales pitch on it
>until she did indeed agree to the whole plan.   Read it and weep, Eric.

Ah, so the angel coerced her into allowing the Holy Spirit to impregnate her.

Gee, so "loving".  so "caring".

Ok, Suzanne, question time.  Why is the Pope coming to Denver, where I live,
and not to where you live????  Maybe he likes ME more then he does 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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 05:53:11 GMT

In article <18117@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
>>Funny, but wasn't the letter sent to ME?   That makes it MY property
>>and I can do with it whatever the hell *I* want.  Or don't supporters
>>of legal abortion like using their own logic?
>
>Larry, Keegan, and Susan were right about you. In three sentences, you've
>managed to show that you are completely clueless.
>
>>Isn't that neat?  I've sat back and watched this debate for quite a
>>while, and it's another perfect example of the abortion controversy.
>>Someone ejaculates a letter to me, I do what I want with it, but since
>>it isn't what THEY want me to do with it (they wanted it quietly killed)
>>THEY scream and yell about how irresponsible I am.
>
>And then you make it worse. You've watched the debate? You certainly
>didn't listen to it. The point of the whole thing, and I'll spell it
>out sslloowwllyy ssoo You'll understand, is not that you posted the
>email, but that Darcy did not jump all over you when you did, because
>Darcy is now claiming that it is wrong to post any email for any reason
>in his self-assigned role as net.cop (really net.idiot.hypocrit) wrt
>Susan's post.

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

							- Kevin