HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: ethics
Keywords: Kevin? Ethics? What a concept.
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:25:07 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >>Let me get this straight: the presumption of innocence means
-> >>that Welch, having been accused of being a rapist by Kathi
-> >>Mills, must now prove his innocence?!??!?
-> >>
-> >No, it's reading comprehension.  Welch is accusing Kathi of
-> >making a false accusation.  Should he demonstrate that Kathi
-> >has made such an accusation, then it would be up to Kathi to
-> >prove or withdraw the allegation.  Until then, it's up to
-> >Welch to prove that the accusation was made.
-> 
-> Well, Welch has not responded to this, so I will:
-> 
-> "You are such a misogynist, as WELL as being uninformed!  If
-> you read ANY studies you will find that rape is not usually
-> done for sexual gratification; it is done for the thrill of
-> dominating a woman, forcing her to do something against her
-> will.
-> 
-> "Sound familiar, rapist?"
->                  ^^^^^^
-> 			From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
-> 			Message-ID: <1992Mar5.235325.11550@rigel.econ.uga.edu>
-> 			Date: 5 Mar 92 23:53:25 GMT
-> 
-> As I understand it, now it's up to Kathi Mills to either
-> retract her allegation, or to prove it.

this is something you might want to demonstrate, but more on that
later. ms. mills already supported her accusation by defining her
terms. odd that you seem to have deleted that segment of the
thread. i certainly hope you're not developing another
net.vendetta.

on to your point of retracting allegations, or proving them, i'm
attaching an article to the end of this post. most readers have
seen it before as it has been posted often, perhaps a dozen
times. in it, you repeat a lie about me which you've posted
several times since last december.

you'll look a hypocrite, as well as a liar, if you don't do that
which you just called upon ms. mills to do.

but what's new about that?

====begin included post=====
From keegan@ukulele (James G Keegan Jr) Wed Feb 26 12:46:32 1992
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: a darcy lie
Summary: another kevin darcy lie
Keywords: darcy, lie
Date: 26 Feb 92 16:27:01 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Is this the same James Keegan who donned his net.cop badge and
-> uniform, and told me to get "my" [sic] child-support threads
-> out of t.a this past December??

i deny that i told you to get your "child-support threads out of
t.a. this past December."

please support your charge that i did so.

        "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
        I make, or retract it."
			Kevin Darcy
			<1992Feb11.054339.25284@rotag.mi.org>

put up or shut up lad.

----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
======end included post



--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:16:49 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>   I do not. The message of God tells me that ALL human life is precious,
>that conception is the ultimate goal of sex, and that we must defend
>the weak, innocent and oppressed. I am not a judge, nor am I a hero.

Chapter & verse please.  Identify for me where the Bible says that
human life begins at conception, that abortion is wrong, or that
a fetus has the same rights as an adult?

And, of course, there is the question (rhetorical, this time): are you
defending the fetus or punishing the mother?  Don't bother answering,
I'm sure it would be utterly predictable.

>I am merely a Catholic, and a moderately intelligent one, enough that
>I would never refer to the bible as you have done yet incorrectly.

You claim that I made errors without specifically identifying them.
What were my mistakes?  Or are you mistaken (or lying) in claiming
that my references were incorrect?

As for the obvious snide comment - too easy.  I'll refrain this time.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:17:09 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr13.185038.14911@cs.dal.ca> 
franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>             ... In that sense, an abortion is like killing a 
>> person who stands a good chance of dying in the near future.  

> Yesssss.... He shoots, he misses... Finally it comes out. The mentality
> behind abortion is no different than the mentality of euthanasia. We
> as a society are generally and increasingly abusing and neglecting
> the weak, in favor of the strong and dominant. 

Steve, I wrote that line because I felt it reveals the awful truth 
about abortion. I was not attempting to defend the principle behind 
abortion -- quite the opposite. I cannot support the killing of 
innocent life, no matter the circumstances. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: amy young <alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:33:03 -0500


>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.

No, they aren't Suz.  Children are those whom are outside of the
mother's supporting body.  Killing a child is murder.  Removing a
fetus from a womb is called an abortion.  The two are not related. 

amy
-- 
******************************************************************************
"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
	       		Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
              						--Neil Peart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doug on the Sig (formerly: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:35:53 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr12.184442.8836@wam.umd.edu> 
   judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- go ahead & split, mr amoeba man) writes:

>>>"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    

>> As I told Ms. McCabe, a mother cannot normally act to cause birth to 
>> happen, birth is an event that happens to her. Birth can be induced with 
>> drugs, but that's not what I was referring to. Please extend me the same 
>> courtesy that I give to you by not quoting me out of context.  

> I understand what you're saying, but the tone of your quote nonetheless
> serves to degrade what a woman goes through during pregnancy.  That is
> why it's in my .sig.  

I don't understand how my remark serves to degrade what a woman goes 
through during pregnancy. I sincerely apologize if my remark offended you,
or anyone else. Can you please explain it to me? 

> Don't worry about it - no one reads my posts anyway. <growl>

I do not wish to be grouped together with Mr. Welch or Mr. Gaylord
in your sig, nor do I wish to be quoted out of context. Can you  
please extend to me the same courtsey that I give to you by not quoting 
me out of context?
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:11:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Kevin B. writes
>Beth

>>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

>Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
>entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
>movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.

Well, you see Elizabeth is probably Anti-Roe because Roe has restrictions
on abortions.  She probably anti-Roe because she wants universal abortion
rights--from conception until birth.



--
FORCE IS MACHINE					-=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
VISIONS OF ORDER			     -=(kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)=-
MUSCLE AND  HATE
JOIN IN THE CHANT						   - NitzerEbb
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:22:26 GMT

kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Apr07.064453.7670@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:
>>
>>>I'm sorry, but even though I'm female, I don't see my purpose for
>>>being on this earth is to simply pump out kids.  I do not want
>>>children, ever.  I enjoy sex quite a bit.  I don't want to sprain my
>>>ankle but I jog too, sometimes.  Why?  Because the benefits outweight
>>>the risks.  The enjoyment I obtain from sex, and the bonding it allows
>>>with the participants greatly outweight the risk of me becoming
>>>pregnant.  I use the highest level of protection one can to avoid
>>>pregnancy.  
>>
>>If you "do not want children, ever." then make a responsible, adult decision
>>and seek a surgical procedure to keep yourself from thinking you have to
>>murder children.
>>
>>"The benefits outweight the risks"???  The benefit for you is a fleeting bit
>>of pleasure.  The risk is YOUR MURDERED child's and NOT yours.
>>
>>"Highest level of protection"?  You've had your ovaries removed!  How
>>commendable.  And just when I thought all pro-death people were hypocrites.

>Hmmm...Actually, I suppose that I enjoy the "highest level of protection" with
>regards to sex and getting pregnant (or getting somebody pregnant).

>Hello, Kevin.  It seems that you're new here.  You are currently acting like
>Holy Fetus Worshipper #12,444.  Might I suggest that you examine your beliefs
>before posting such things?  Might I suggest that you get a basic understanding
>of biology?

I get a chuckle out the way you people twist things around.  How long has
"fetus worship" been your politically correct term for Pro-Lifers?  Might
I suggest you open your mind?  Don't want me posting if I disagree with 
you?  You object to me calling an unborn child a "child"?

>And, I'll give you a warning.  If you decide that "pro-death" is an appropriate
>term, then I think "pro-forced-female-slavery" is also accurate...

The warning is mine to dish out.  Pro-Death is my response to being
repeatedly referred to as "Anti-Abortion".  If you decide that
"pro-forced-female-slavery" is the new term, so be it.  I will then
become progressive myself in referring to the likes of you as the
"new-age-neo-nazi-children-destroying-holocaust-creating-immoralists".
Thanks for the chat!

Kevin Brawley
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:44:48 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <29229@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan J
>r) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar29.034742.25606@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag (Kevin Darcy) wr
>ites:



>>the full content of the message kevin refers to is available to
>>anyone who would like to see it and who requests it via email.
>>nowhere in that message is there any criticism of kellmeyer for
>>posting.

>But you did modify the noun "email" with the adjective "private", did you not?

>Why is your email "private", but Welch's isn't?

It is. Just because anyone (everyone except you and welch) supported
its posting, does not make it not private. The content, however, made
its disclosure a neccesity. Being told that something occurred, say
an accident, is not the same as seeing it, except that most people don't
recreate an accident :). The email could easily be shown, and it allowed
everyone to make their unbiased opinion about it, whereas being told
about it would allow Welch to defend himself by saying that she misinterpreted
his meaning, etc.

[...] email post, etc.

>Please point out the part where I supposedly defended Kellmeyer's
>confidence-breach (?). You've completely lost it this time, Jimmy.

>                                                                - Kevin

You never stated anything about the posted email, indicating you were
not morally outraged at this occurrance, giving implicit approval to
the post. However, you showed deep, moral outrage at Susan's post. Why?
Could it be that Susan was the one posting?

How much do you need explained? Most of the above has been said before,
several times, and not only by me. May the Clue Fairy pay a visit soon
so this merry-go-round discussion can end.

Ron.
From: dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:23:09 GMT

<1992Apr8.221628.6418@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Don't know about that, but I thought women ate the placenta
>after the birth.  Could someone who has given birth let me
>know if this is true?

Gee, they must have left that part out of the "My Mom's Having
a Baby" after-school special.

Many mammals do eat the placenta after birth.  I just saw a monkey
doing so a few nights ago on The Discovery Channel.  Something
about hormone balance, etc..

I have read of some people who do eat the placenta after birth.
I have read of couples who share the meal together. 
I have read of people who give birth underwater.

I have heard the mermaids singing, each to ...<slap> hold on,...
refocus..  OK, I'm back.

I do not believe any of these are common practice in the USA.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14672 alt.flame:6581
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: a sigh of relief (was Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY)
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:08:39 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
-> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
-> > When I started to post here, the
-> > first thing you guys wrote was "what is with the name "steve"? "
-> 
-> A reference to Steve Chaney and Steve Kellmeyer, a couple of
-> other idiots.  Just like Kevin Brawley joins Kevin Welch.

i'll bet darcy breathed a sigh of relief when he came to the end
of this line.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:38:04 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Apr15.180234.12290@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matth
ew A. Lewis) writes:

#are just that......suggestions and scenerios. They do not imply my
#personal feelings on this issue. You can guess all you want
#about how I stand, but most likely you will be wrong. To give you
#a hint, I asscoiate with neither pro-life or pro-choice.

OK, then you're pro-ambiguous??    :-)

#The sad thing is that if one day I do come out with my whole philosophy
#then one group will simply ignore and/or attack everything I will
#ever say without even considering it.  So why should I alienate
#a large portion of the readers. My point is that everyone's assertions
#and logic should be questioned and defended, even your comrades in
#thought. Not every type of caustic attack has to be destructive. 
#i hope some are constructive. I hope that someone's stance is fortified
#by my questions, insults, whatever. If you don't grow stronger, then
#examine your foundation.
#
#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. 

I think there are some valid points here.  However, if you play devil's 
advocate to both sides, don't be surprised if you alienate everyone.  
Not a flame -- just an observation.

Good luck.

#MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
#                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think we know this by now.    :-)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Why 100 years?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:43:40 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Apr3.050938.12490@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   What I _AM_ saying (as you so ineptly paraphrased) is that society
>is setting a trend. By first tackling the _WEAKEST_ of it's members,
>I ask you, what's next? 100 years ago, you tell any "ordinary" joe
>about a homosexual, or abortion, and they'd think you were mad. Well,
>you just let you imagination go crazy and try and envision what society
>will be like in another 100 years if it continues with this trend.
>Society can't exist like this. It _WILL_ change. Whether under influence
>of people like me, or through natural socio-economic evolution.

By any chance are you a white male somewhere between middle and upper
class?  It seems to me that most times someone wants to go back 100
years or to the Eisenhower administration or some long ago time it
is a reasonably well off white male.  Anybody have any guesses why
this might be?

Steve, why don't you tell us what your ancestors were doing 100 years
ago to make you so nostalgic for this by-gone time?

>   steve

Dan King


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: return of the flying pigs (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:18:47 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >-> And pigs might fly, too...
-> >
-> >interesting comment kebbie. do you know what infamous t.a.
-> >poster used to write this? you should. you and he have a lot
-> >in common.
-> 
-> Try to imagine how little I care for your tenuous connections
-> and guilty-by-association, Keegan. Really, is this childish
-> crap the _best_ you can come up with??

oh don't be coy kebbie. if you cared as little as you imply,
you'd simply ignore the post(s).

        "Mr. Darcy, your behaviour is that of a trained poodle.
        Dangle a bone before your nose and you predictably jump
        through the hoop.  While this is entertaining for the
        short term, it does become monotonous since it is
        apparent your versatility is limited and your
        obdurateness complete."
		Linda Birmingham
		<91176.112614ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: conradv@snake.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Reply-To: conradv@snake.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Organization: Clemson University Engineering Department
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:54:22 GMT




conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes ...
>rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes..... 
>>The past record of the Catholic Church cannot
>>be used to prove that the Church is mistaken now
>>n its belief that abortion is wrong. Given its 
>>past record it is not unreasonable  to infer that the Church 
>> is _likely_ to be incorrect
>
>Catholics believe that the Pope's support of the heliocentric
>theory was outside the realm in which a Pope could expect 
>divine guidance in his rulings . Abortion has moral and
>religous overtones - the domain in which a Pope's ruling 
>is guided by Divine will.








rfischer@cs.stanford.ed writes:
>Well then, how about an area that DOES have religious and
>moral overtones?  How about the crusades where the noble
>Christians invaded, murdered, and robbed the heathen Arabs
>in order to save their souls and liberate them of their
>corrupting wealth?


>Or what about the Inquisition where people were tortured
>and burned at the stake in order to save their souls?
    


THE Inquisition and the crusades were not religous 
incidents. They were events with political overtones.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:04:43 GMT

M. Price writes
> In <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
<stuff about the number of people at the march deleted> 
> 
> >Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
> >even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
> 
> Actually, those of us who were there know it was much more like 3/4 of a
> million--plus.
> All of these were born, thinking, feeling, emoting human beings.
> And while we're at it, how about those millions of potential human
> beings so cruelly deprived of a chance for life because a) their parents
> did not take every possible opportunity to have sex with as many
> partners as possible, or b) those same parents were using
> Forgach-endorsed natural family planning methods. Just think, how old is
> the Pope? At least 70, but probably older. If he had had sex with a
> fertile woman every day from 15 until 70, instead of callously remaining
> celibate, 20,075 babies would have had a chance at life (and that's even
> without leapyears). Even master abortionists would have problems beating
> that figure. And as for Cardinal O'Connor...In targeting the clinics,
> Randall Terry seems to be way off, using your kind of logic. Shouldn't
> he be targeting the Vatican, Suzanne?

But that assumes that ALL those 20,000 women will actually get pregnant from  
having sex with the Pope.  After all, by age 35 his sperm count may be down a  
bit from doing it every day.  I would estimate that only about 5000 would get  
pregnant if only the the Pope does it.  (Maybe we should include a backup  
service from the altar boys, since the College of Cardinals is even older than  
the Pope.)  Anyway, some of those 5000 pregnancies will miscarry, so we're left  
with only about 3000 children fathered by the Pope.  Is that REALLY what  
Randall Terry wants?  I am skeptical.  


--

Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion