HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:58:23 GMT


In a previous article, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) says:

>From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
>Subject: Re: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: The March in D.C.)
>Message-ID: <1992Apr12.225929.3103@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
>
>I'm pro-choice and not a virgin. 
>------------------
>
>> I've seen a lot that indicates
>> that he is anti-women, and pro-violence, and pro-idiocy.
>
>I can vouch for that.

If you think this, then I guess you missed the point. Too bad for
you.

"Everything you say can and will be attacked by me in order to make
 your point more valid."

My "hypothetical" scenerios do not indicate my personal beliefs, but
because of your rights to freedom of speech, you can make all the
WRONG conclusions if you want.

Later

anti-women.....ha!



-- 
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,alt.child-support,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: fault-based child support proposal (was Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 00:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.221222.18744@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>-> Okay, then let's stop levying paternity child-support (a
>-> societal requirement) on the basis of conception (a physical
>-> fact), and start levying it on the basis of negligence and/or
>-> fault (societal determination). Sound good to you?  That
>-> places the whole issue squarely in the correct "realm".
>
>i found this child support proposal in talk.abortion. 
>
>i thought it would be of interest to you folks who read the child
>support newsgroup.

Alt.abortion.inequity is a far more appropriate forum for this particular 
issue.

							- Kevin
From: keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:48:05 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes:
-> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >-> >name one law that forces a belief.
-> 
-> In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of killing
-> of persons.  That law is based on a belief that it is somehow
-> "wrong" or "undesirable" for people to go around killing other
-> people.

so what does that have to do with a law forcing a belief?

-> To someone who rejects that belief, the laws against murder
-> force them to behave in a certain way.

you've shown no belief to be rejected.

-> Now granted, the law doesnt force them to *believe* - but then
-> again, neither do proposed anti-abortion laws.

so what's your point? the guy said "laws force beliefs" or
something similar (you deleted it). i questioned his remark and
asked him to support it. he hasn't, of course.

-> Anti-murder laws don't take into consideration that a person
-> may not accept the belief that killing persons is "wrong" or
-> "undesirable".  The law doesn't try to force the person to
-> change his belief. But it does force him to act according to
-> that belief - or face the consequences.

too bad we're talking about beliefs, rather than behavior.

-> Similarly, anti-abortion laws won't take into consideration
-> that a person may not accept the belief that killing foetuses
-> is "wrong" or "undesirable".  But it will force him (sic) to
-> act according to that belief - or face the consequences.

so you're arguing that laws force behavior. they don't even do
that. they simply attach penalties to some behavior.

but the issue was belief, not behavior.

-> So in this way, there are laws which force belief.

you've shown no way that laws force belief.

-> In fact, in this way, inasmuch as we can find one person who
-> disagrees with a law, ALL laws force belief - as the original
-> poster claimed.

hold it now, you still haven't even found a single law that
forces a belief.

so you know what belief means?




--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: root@devl3.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Steve Franklin
Summary: Fetus more important than mother????
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:48:08 GMT
Followup-To: Emba_rr_assment to Catholic church
Distribution: world
Organization: McKee Foods Corporation, Collegedale, TN 37315

In article <1992Apr8.092411.7760@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.195615.7608@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca
> (Steve Franklin) writes:
>> _I_ wrote:
>>> I am referring to the life of the fetus. Not the mother, the fetus.
>>> That is what is most important to me.
>> 
Explain youself.  I am really anxious to know how you came to believe that
a non-viable cluster of cells is more important and more deserving of
life than a _living_, breathing human-being.
>
>I will continue to ask you why you do not feel a 
>woman can be called by God to be a priest? I have two daughters who I
>need to explain this to. -J.J.

This is another explanation that I just **have** to see.  IMnotHO there will
be no explanation that will satisfy me, and I don't even have a daughter.

	->  Steven Foster					<-
	->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
	->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
	->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:29:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.172946.12426
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes (to Jennifer Brindle):

> Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary"
> purpose of sex could be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose
> could be fun.

"Could???"  What good does your statement do for the millions of
sexually active people you want to control?

C'mon, express yourself as the sex fascist we know you are. Try this:

> Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary"
> purpose of sex will be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose
> will be fun.   ^^^^
  ^^^^

> Logic wins again.

More like idiocy runs amok again.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:37:40 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>-> 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).

>>Let's get something straight, Mr. Brawley.  The Nazis were pro-death on a
>>scale far exceeding anything any of us could imagine.  Using them in any
>>pro-life/pro-choice argument has the effect of watering down their impact
>>on our Jewish friends.  If you can't figure that out, shut the hell up, head
>>for the library and do some reading.

>Agreed, and let's not forget all the others they wanted to exterminate,
>which included all non-Aryans, but were actually perpetuated on Gypsy's,
>and several other groups that elude me at the moment. The main, immediate
>recipients were the Jews, however, and they deserve some compassion,
>even from the likes of you, Brawley.

Agreed?  The two of your brains combined couldn't come close to the 
research I've done on Jewish history and the holocaust in particular.

>(Remember to respect your elders, the have seen more than you can imagine)

I respect ALL people until they prove themselves unworthy.  Congrats Ron.

>Ron

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortion is misogyny???
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:05:36 GMT
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL

Abortion is misogyny in action?
Who said that?  Kellmeyer?
Someone explain to me WHY "abortion is misogyny is action".

Confusedly....Susy
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I need this like I need a butt implant."     |
 | EG & G Florida           |                                                 |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |                                        Opus     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Steve Franklin: NO MYSTERY (Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION)
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:37:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: oasys.17716
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>First off, in parts you conveniently deleted, I describe how various
>couples could have relationships without sex, and hinging a relationship
>on sex is a sure way to wind up in court. (or so I've heard) Eventually,
>at least within my experience, most people will wind up with children
>who are not a "lost priority or forgotten," as a matter of fact, they
>are generally loved and treated well, primarily because the parents
>waited until they were ready to have them. As for it feeling good I'll
>get to that later....

Actually, what I thought I had edited in here was that to hinge a relationship
on sex was a pretty sure way to have it end. Either the late hour (I
usually get up at 6 AM) or lack of dinner (or one strange editor) caused
a blip about winding up in court. :)

Sorry folks, I said I wasn't going to write anymore until he straightens
up his act, but I had to correct a line of what to me appears to be
badly constructed thought {:-]

Ron
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:04:53 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.230827.19031@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.185646.15354@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>	Masturbation also has a 100% effectiveness for preventing the
>spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancy; I wonder why Steve Franklin
>has steadfastly avoided mention of that.
   *sigh* You have so mcuh to learn. Catholics are against the palm too...
You see, why would you seek elsewhere if you could so easy get it from
ol' lefty? I know I know... EVERYBODY does it you say... Well, not
everybody... Anyways, it has nothing to do with this thread. You see,
I could say "if you read Asimov 24 hours a day then you will not get
STD's"... But, this has nothing to do with the thread that ABSTINENCE
is possible with the proper approach and discipline.
   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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:24:42 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Keith A. Cochran):

>>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???

>Maybe he perceives that your need for a visit from him is greater than
>mine.

And you thought he was infallible! 

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:12:58 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.154129.251@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>The problem with some children is they don't have a sense of history.
>In article <18127@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>> In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>Quite right, Ron, although I am trying to be polite with Steve,
                                                          ^^^^^^
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...

>sign saying "The End is Near."
   ONly if we leave our fate in the hand of the likes of you...
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
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 11:41:19 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Ego that Ate the Net
Distribution: na

In  <1992Apr2.054200.10383@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:
> In article <92091.165901ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham

>>>Then why was my screen graced with a verbatim copy of Welch's obscenity?
>>>What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve TO ME?
>>>Answer me that.
>>
>>Idiot.  The net is not here to serve you, and you alone.
>
>Where did I imply that the Net existed to serve me ALONE??

"What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve
 TO ME?" Kevin Darcy <1992Mar29.182951.28031@rotag.mi.org>
 ^^^^^^

>>Since when does anyone have to consider *YOU* when they post.
>
>Where did I imply that people had to consider me INDIVIDUALLY when they post?

"What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve
 TO ME?" Kevin Darcy <1992Mar29.182951.28031@rotag.mi.org>*
 ^^^^^^


I don't know about where you come from dearie, but when people
say "me", and when they write "TO ME", it doesn't get any more
individual than that.

>Please dispense with these stram men and answer the question, please if you
>are capable.

I did Mr. Darcy, it is you who appears to be incapable of
comprehending anything besides your own delusions of grandeur.


* Note to Readers:
  It would appear that Mr. Darcy has so completely lost his mind,
  that besides his usual forgetfullness of what he has said, his
  inability to comprehend what others say and his overall obduration,
  he is now unable to read his own words before his very eyes.



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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:15:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.011458.1148@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.153204.29957@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr11.025242.16362@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>What exactly do you mean by "with the premise", Eric? As I understand it, the
>>That when the case went to trial, it was still generally believed
>>that Norma McCorvey had been raped.
>
>Maybe so, but part of the job of a judge is to filter out rumors, innuendoes,
>"general beliefs", etc. and just stick to the facts of the case. I'm confident
>that Ms. McCorvey's alleged rape had no effect on the outcome of RvW, and
>that's why I object to a pro-lifer claiming that RvW is premised on a "lie".
Ahem.
The facts of the case were that she was claiming that she had been
raped.
Moreover, I explicitly stated that to my knowledge Roe makes no
mention of the alleged rape.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 01:53:53 GMT


In a previous article, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:

>But you already have... by your rhetorical techniques,
>and not by your politics.  There are people on this group
>who are respected by people holding differing opinions,
>because they think & speak reasonably & without offending
>people.  You've managed to offend everyone.  Can you choose
>a more effective technique.

well.......if I stop (like I have), will all the other flamers who have
been at it for centuries before I came around 5 days ago? I think not.
If I accomplished nothing, then nothing is being accomplished here.
Several people, people not posting, have confirmed this point in
private email to me. If I am an example of a way not to act around here,
then alot of people have some changing to do. But change is hard.....
and some people refuse even to consider changing.

>You have a good point here:
>
>|The problem with this group is that so many people are entrenched
>|in a groove to the point that they REFUSE to even consider what other
>|people think in other grooves. 


If you read this group, but rarely post and feel the same way, please
send me email telling me so. Perhaps we can talk a little more
rationally and productively.

Later

-- 
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
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:24:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:


>On the TV news this evening (on the puff-piece coverage about the
>Washington rally) they showed some speaker who said something about a
>woman's right to keep men out of her uterus.  Hee hee.  It seems to me
>that, if a woman is truly concerned about an unwanted pregnancy, the
>proper occasion to exercise this right is before conception occurs.
>Now if all these irresponsible loudmouths would take it upon
>themselves to behave like mature human beings, exercise some proper
>self-discipline, and truly keep men out of their uteruses, there
>wouldn't even be any controversy regarding abortion.

	I would be a little more careful if I were you Theodore. I believe
the speaker wanted the right of privacy to her body. I'm not even going to
think about what you were implying by your statement. :& As for those your
comments about those "loudmouths", I think you are truly IGNORANT if you
actually think you solutions will solve the abortion problem. There are too
many different situation to consider, too many opposing views. If you don't
like something, state it politely and logically.     
	

>[Now some other airhead pro-abortionists here are going to ignore the
>undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions which are
>performed in the U.S. are quite simply for the sake of convenience and
>disingenuously raise objections concering rape.]

 	Who are you to judge whether most abortions are done "for the
sake of convience". Have you ever had an abortion? Do you know the situations
of most of the women who had abortions? Think twice before you answer.
By the way, one more comment about "Pro-Abortion Airhead" from you will
probably get you... (you figure it out, you're smart enough) Be nice dude!

						   Mikeey
				     mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu 


>-- 
>   Theodore A. Kaldis
>   {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>   kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:17:51 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Matthew A. "Weenie Flamer" Lewis) writes:
>> = (Pope Bruno the XVth) says:
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	  ??? - actually Patrick Humphrey.

Now, Matthew; this was pathetic.  You see, Humphrey doesn't believe in
the C.C. or popes.  You may have called him...oh, "The Texas Heretic" or
something that applies to him, and if it was sarcastic and funny enough,
people would actually laugh.

In your case, nothing but groans.

>>Sure, Steve.  Just like your church minded its own business during the
>>Spanish Inquisition...got any more fairy tales for us?

>and HOW many Christians were killed by non-Christian Romans and all
>those crazy Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, and Vandals? ( I love those names!!)

Who gives a shit?  Learn relevance.

>past injustices irrelevant......every institution in the history of mankind
>has committed "injustices."

Yeah, but _no other institution_ claims to be the "one true Church" with
an *infallible fucking pope that speaks for "God"*.  

Do...you...understand...yet?  At the very least, this proves the pope is
NOT infallible, that the Church does NOT possess "infinite wisdom and
kindness", and thus canNOT pretend to have the last answer on abortion!

That's Patrick's point, and mine, and you religious creeps intending to
enact your delusions into law had better learn it quickly.

>After all......we're all human!!!!!!!

EXACTLY.  Now, apply this truism to your (fallible) pope and church
teachings, get off your goddam high horse, and rejoin society.

Thank you.  After all, we're _all_ Americans; we ain't all catholic, or
even christian.  Respect ALL OF OUR beliefs.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion