HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Yet another Nyikos typo?
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:59:44 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.728169557@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote a nasty little diatribe
against Robert Johnson.  I note this for two reasons.  First, PHoney
is being at least as mean to Robert Johnson as I was to him when he
told me I should direct my comments to alt.flame.  Second, I have
taken the liberty of changing Robert Johnson to Peter Nyikos to make
the quote true.  This is a great favor to PHoney because it ups the
truth content of his original and ceaselessly repeated posts
considerably:

>[Peter Nyikos], consider yourself a member of the talk.abortion
>Establishment.  You have shown that you too are fond of unsubstantiated
>flames, repetition of hearsay *ad hominem* canards, and intellectually
>dishonest arguments.  Right here in this post; one need look no further,
>unlike the people who are on your side who need to look elsewhere for
>evidence of [DODIE's many] deficiencies. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: becka@leland
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:36:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.033128.7625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.021749.3583@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>   steralized to enter school."
>>
>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>
>Wow.  DODie's finally gotten around to taking my words out of context.
>

Hey Keith, you wanna start a club?  First meeting at my place, I'll
supply refreshments.  Bet we'll get a pretty big turnout...
becka

finger dsh@wherever for proof that Dougie can be the reason behind
a great party.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
The probability of someone       ***  If you're not part of the solution
Watching you is proportional     ***  You're part of the precipatate.
To the stupidity of your action. ***  The Chemist's Truth from Steven Wright
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:11:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.134806.25024@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>> Look... no matter what you say the fact remains that statistics from
>> pre-Roe have no bearing on this issue today.  The advances in technology
>> have been so profound in this area, that there is simply no basis
>> for this sort of comparison.  The only purpose of your love of these
>> statistics is to reinforce your OWN misguided belief that you are
>> protecting women from great physical danger.  

> She is also aware
> that the situation prior to Roe v Wade has something to do with
> current law in that it influenced Blackmun's understanding of
> the affects of illegal abortion on women's health, which is what
> she is saying.  

Oh, you're helping her to say that now.  But in her original reply to 
Edward Simmonds, she suggested that the *INCIDENCE* of illegal abortion
in 1860 has something to do with the ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
We're all waiting to hear what that "something" happens to be.

Now, one last time.  What is the claimed relationship between 
the INCIDENCE of illegal abortion in 1860 and the ruling in
Roe v. Wade in 1973?  

----
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions

#The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the ruling
#in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this vast time
#is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  

Actually, it has something to do with it.  Unlike you, Blackmun researched
the issue before stating his opinion.  You might try learning something
about the issue.

----

 
>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: another really stupid question from PHoney
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:31:49 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to mark
cochran:

->Given your track record in re honesty, why should 
->I believe this denial?

because, as you so reasonably wrote to mark, "given
your track record in re honesty." now, you could be
lying again, of course, but if you were noy lying in
this particular instance, then mark's completly honest
track record should have generated your immediate
belief. that is, if you were speaking honestly, of
course.

btw, i haven't seen your apology to adrienne yet; you
know, the one you owe her for falsly linking her with
forgery a couple of months and a couple of hundred of
your posts ago.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:35:24 GMT

From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> -> by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
> -> > So what would Jesus do with a woman who didn't want to be pregnant?
> -> 
> -> Offer to provide her with what both she and her baby needs, so that they
> -> both "may have life and have it more abundantly".
> 
> i just relayed your offer to a couple of young,
> pregnant women at the local planned parenthood
> center. they asked that you, or another of jesus'
> spokespersons draw up an agreement guaranteeing them
> their needs. 
> 
> they were particularly enchanted with the idea of
> abundance.

Abundance of life, Keegan.  Even if you don't know what
that could possibly mean, other folks do.


> how long will it take jesus, or his spokesperson, to
> begin negotiations on these contracts?

You relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to me, and
I will relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to friends
of Jesus.

S. Forgach
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Child (was Re: Why we are pro-life:)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:15:55 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan16.015426.3835@nic.csu.net> tmarcha@opus.uucp (That Crazy Lady!) writes:
>    There is much much more to life than fetal development!  There are
>at least 18 years (legally) of nurturing, feeding, clothing, and educating once
>the fetus leaves the womb.  Will those of you who are so-called
>"pro-life" commit to the adequate care of these unwanted children?  Or
>is life after the womb someone else's problem?

There is at least one agency, called Greenwood, I believe, that tries
to provide homes for pregnant women, and even help them train and apply
for jobs.  To me, this sounds like a very constructive and commendable
way to approach pro-life; I urge both sides to keep this approach in
mind when making their arguments.

>    Strangely enough, I find those who carry the pro-life banner are the
>FIRST to complain about how burdened the taxpayer is by the welfare
>system in this country.  A system which, I may add, is terribly
>inadequate with abortion being an alternative.

Ach, ye've let loose the floodgates on that one.  I find welfare to be
very harmful (as you seem to agree), mostly because it creates the
incentive to STAY on welfare.  While abortion is certainly an option,
I would much prefer to have welfare abolished.

>    In my opinion, Pro-Life is a moot issue until we as a society are
>willing to ensure the quality of that life once it leaves the womb.

I would claim that most pro-lifers agree, and that it is a liberal press
that makes the minority of over-zealous pro-lifers way too visible as an
attack point for pro-choice.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:10:01 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan24.184156.5435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.114141.9949@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>>Two laws I've suggested would work well here: 1) Prosecute minorities
>>as adults when they commit gang-related crimes.  2) For legal
>>purposes, treat groups of protestors as ad hoc gangs.  This would put
>>an end to the tactics of using children who are for all intents and
>>purposes currently immune to legal recourse for their terroristic
>>actions.
>>
>Just a minor point, but your limitation of prosecuting gang-related
>crimes as adults to minorities strikes me as fairly racist. Are you
>operating under the false impression that gang members are minorites?

Minors, you idiot, minors. After so much practice deciphering _your_ 
mispelled gibberish, it's easy to interpolate this from Mr. Harp's text.

"Minorites", indeed...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
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: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:10:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.235202.2022@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[To me...]

>
>I think Keith posted before considering the likely results of his actions.

Right.  And you can just go on thinking that, if it will help you sleep
better at nights.

>
>Or, maybe he's just naive about how Big Corporation Politics works...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  You should post that to
rec.humor.funny!

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 28 Jan 1993 08:11:04 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <lme8pmINNbc7@sahara.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>Oh, and I believe it was you, Muriel, who wrote that "unborn child" has
>too high an emotional content in another thread.  (Was it you?)

Actually, the complaint I've usually seen is that 'unborn child' is
inaccurate and/or a contention lacking support.  Fetuses aren't recognized
as children are, as people with rights, in our country at this time.  Then
a secondary claim is usually appended:  that the poster used 'unborn
child' as an emotional appeal. 

These are two separate things.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Liberals v. Thomas (was Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:40:32 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <1993Jan20.170606.4086@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan19.193753.3146@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> >In article <C1396A.4Es@sugar.neosoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
|> >
|> >>Not even a liberal can be this stupid! 
|> >> 
|> >>You liberals tried to hang Justice Thomas on *alot* less than this!
|> >
|> >Lumping anyone who disagrees with you into a group, and then casting 
|> >aspersions on that whole group for the actions of some members of that
|> >group, is a poor tactic.
|> 
|> You are correct that it is a poor tactic, practiced too often in t.p.m.
|> and elsewhere.
|> 
|> >Jim,  do you know for a fact that those of us defending Clinton for lack of
|> >evidence didn't also defend Thomas for the same reasons?
|> 
|> But there is a problem. I'm racking my brain, but I can't think of
|> a single ("major") "liberal" commentator or editorial page that defended
|> Thomas's innocence. Can you? 

Well, technically, "innocence" wasn't the issue - it wasn't a criminial proceeding.
However, the most probable reason that you can't find a "liberal" commentator that
defended Thomas is that, unlike the "conservatives" who merely shut their eyes and
shouted "media bias", they actually WATCHED the hearings. As one who watched every
minute of it I don't think there was much room to doubt that he was guilty as could
be.

|> 
|> It was indeed a high-tech lynching, and most "liberals" let Thomas twist
|> in the wind because he didn't share their political viewpoints.

the only "lynching" I saw was that performed by Specter & co. on Anita Hill. Thomas
was treated with kid gloves by the whole committee.

|> 
|> Pat
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57358 talk.politics.misc:69218 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13492 talk.religion.misc:27257
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Gennifer Flowers: Transcript
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:43:30 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

> In article <BAGCHI.93Jan18234657@quip.eecs.umich.edu>, bagchi@eecs.umich.edu 
> |> 	That's very nice, John, and I'm sure you worked very hard
> |> on your project.  But seeing as the election's over, nobody really
> |> cares.
> 
> Working on the world's largest legal/news database has its advantages.  I jus
> thought it was timely to note that Clinton has a history of giving government
> jobs to people who have no qualifications other than that they are a FOB
> (Friend OF Bill).  I wonder how low Ron Brown would rank on a skills test for
> Secretary of Commerce.  Is this the "change" you voted for?
> 
> -- 
> // John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineeri
> // Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.c
> // 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!joh
> // Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-72


This was also a little habit of none other thna Ronald Reagan.  There was 
lot of comment about this in the press in 1980, remember?  If not, go to 
the library and check out a few issues of Time and Newsweek.  A lot of 
peole ended up in high office simply because they had been with Reagan 
for years, some before he was govenor of Cal. Theses were often mainly 
political operatives rather than aides or such.  Bill Casey was another 
case of this. My how soon we forget these things.  

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:28:37 GMT

In <1993Jan25.202139.3229@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <bob1.727989714@cos> 
>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>> Funny thing is that nowhere in the ensuing articles or amendments
>> did we tell them they could establish laws governing abortion.

>Or laws governing homicide, rape, and robbery.

Yep, general welfare. But forcing pregnancy upon a woman does
nothing for general welfare, at least not mine.

Oh BTW, they did not say anywhere that the Constitution recinded
the Declaration of Independance.

better luck next time.

Grouch


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:40:00 GMT
	<1993Jan25.143139.21172@cdf.toronto.edu> <C1F7pv.HJt@ecf.toronto.edu>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <C1F7pv.HJt@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON
MATTHEW ALAN) writes: 
> 
> In article <1993Jan25.143139.21172@cdf.toronto.edu>
> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes: 
> >You are neglecting the impact on the woman's life of having to go through
> >an entire unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> Oh, boo-hoo.  Better to go through with what many would consider murder?
> Unless the woman was raped, she is partially responsible for being pregnant.
> Eventually, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions.

Yes, and by seeking an abortion, the woman IS taking responsibility for
her actions, and life too.  No woman I've known who has had an abortion
did it lightly or frivolously - the seriousness of the matter was very
much in their minds.

When you write "accept responsibility for your own actions" you seem to
really mean "be punished by my simplistic moral standards".

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I admire him, I frankly confess it; and when his time comes I shall buy
 a piece of the rope for a keepsake."
 - Mark Twain describing his respect for imperialist Cecil Rhodes
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:13:06 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.184035.3071@tessi.com>, allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
>> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >These are clear violations of state laws, and are subject to trial
>> >in state courts.  Why bring in the federal government?
>> 
>> And I believe this is exactly what the Supreme Court decision pertains
>> to: that the States should handle these matters, not the federal government.
>> 
>> allen

>I was in AGREEMENT with the Supreme Court's decision, not in opposition.
>-- 

Sorry if it looked like I was stating you weren't.  I was only trying to
point out that you were correct and I was in agreement by the fact that I
was reiterating the basic premise or statement the SC was making in
their decision.

allen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:32:33 GMT

jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

>While I call myself a Christian, I'm sure some people would debate the
>point.  Afterall, I don't take someone's word for what the bible says, I
>read it for myself.  My version of the bible has very little to say
>about certain things we consider to be moral absolutes.  Like sex.  I
>just don't find a whole lot to cause the big fuss we give it.  I mean,
>it's like THE MAJOR SIN in the Roman Catholic church (as far as I have
>heard).  Afterall, you can't do it and effectively serve God.  

And I've often wondered -

If God actually did consider one thing to be THE MAJOR SIN, do you
suppose it would be a sin of hate, or a sin of love?

>John Viveiros     

                  -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Followup-To: news.admin.policy
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<1993Jan24.203827.24969@rotag.mi.org>
	<1993Jan25.130932.10745@wam.umd.edu>
	<1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com>
	<BRINCK.93Jan26084922@pd-dom.wl.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:15:39 GMT

In article <BRINCK.93Jan26084922@pd-dom.wl.com> brinck@pd-dom.wl.com (John Brinck) writes:

   In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com> irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe) writes:
   >   2.  Any use of company property or resources for non-company 
   >   purposes must be purely personal and not for a side-business, 
   >   another affiliation (even if charitable or religious), etc.,
   >    Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x101
   >    4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399   fax x108
   >    We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.   NextMail OK
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >   Info free; sample $20.  Send POSTAL addrs: Solid-Value@Happy-Man.com
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Pardon me while I laugh.

I don't understand what you find funny.  Do you consider what you
marked to be a use of TI company resources for non-company purposes?
Maybe you thought Irving was a TI employee or was using a TI computer.
Not so as far as I can tell from his headers and signature.  Or what
did I miss here, John?

Followups directed away from talk.abortion.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>

Raise Usenet quality.  Read news.announce.newgroups and vote.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:26:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.080537.25451@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:

(context which makes it clear the following is sarcastic has been omitted)

)I've got it... the government can set it up so if anybody wants to have
)sex they pay a fee regardless of whether anybody gets pregnant.  It can
)be called the "Pimp Act".

Yep.  I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: politically correct?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: il
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 17:06:49 GMT
Keywords: abortion forum discussion politically correct national leaders

I'm glad that you agree?  Think anything can be done?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: graveyard visit?
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:06:36 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
# patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
# > --PLH, glad I've *got* a life
# 
# Yeah, you've got yours.  All the unborn babies can go down the
# toilet.

Now, listen up, Ms. Forgach -- such atrocious accusations of
wastefulness are completely uncalled for.  I, for one, stand and call
you out for your shameless, vicious accusation that Mr. Humphrey would
advocate such a heinous waste of food.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I have little patience anymore for the
| J H Woodyatt              |  gross-out school of anti-abortion
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  debate tactics -- which is why I mock
+---------------------------+  it with this article.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion