HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: New Study: More Post Abortion Trauma Revealed!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:46:25 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

] In article <1992Nov2.042606.8379@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] > 
] > Only Those women who have been Released From Demonic Possession
] > have been able to Tell that they have HAD Post Abortion Trauma!
] 
] Could Linda Blair tell that she had Post Abortion Trauma?
] Could she waive the obtainment of an abortion, and simply feel
] the Potential Post Abortion Trauma?
] 
] Very interesting!

also, Anyone who is a FutureLife will have been Linda Blair in
a Past Life, will also be able to clearly point to why they
have had Post Abortion Trauma.

This Simply requires a little PrePostPastLifeRegression Therapy.

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:00:52 GMT

In <1992Nov7.172735.11373@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com 
   (Ray Fischer) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>Roe can easily be interpreted as abortion on demand, 
>>since continuing a pregnancy against one's will appears
>>to (via a recently referenced JAMA study) increase the 
>>risk of adverse psychological sequelae.  It's really
>>very easy: if abortion services are denied, there are
>>implicit mental health risks for the respective woman,
>>hence abortion services cannot be denied.  Abortion 
>>on demand.
>
>Can't have that!  Far better to let them amoral women SUFFER 
>for being so trashy as to actually have sex!  No more of these 
>pansy excuses about pain, suffering, and death.  Make them act 
>like ADULTS.

The prospect of experiencing pain and suffering does *not*
automatically predispose to mental illness, Ray.  And my
my point remains: "if abortion services are denied, there 
are implicit mental health risks for the respective woman, 
hence abortion services cannot be denied."  That is easily 
interpretable as abortion on demand.

Bill
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Has the bidding begun? (Was: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE)
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 19:50:29 GMT


In article <1dcctgINN5kg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
 
[Reply to Jeffrey James Price who humbled himself enough to reply
to my ramblins]
 
>PS, Dan, did you bid on this guy?
 
Guess I been like outa the loop of late.  I'd seen were proposals
for bidding on newbies has been proposed, but I guess I missed
the finalized  policy.  My apologies.  Anywho, I got a couple of
Qualudes left over from the 70s that I'd give for Jeffrey.  I'd
appraise their value at invaluable.  Old Ludes are much like
old wine, you never know if age has really ripened them, or if
it just turned them to vinegar.   
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: nyikos the hypocrite
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:54:15 GMT

in a darcy-like display of hypocrisy, nyikos first
posts:

   Message-ID: <nyikos.720825491@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
   Ms. Regard is not only an ingrate, she 
   is a hypocritical ingrate.

   [...]

   Because, as usual, you did not document your claims.

then, he posts:

   Message-ID: <nyikos.720737961@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
   i write:
   >support your assertion that i deleted any "heap" from
   >your post. are you so frightened of me that you'd lie?

   I did not lie.  I'll post your heap if someone else 
   requests that I do so.

i won't explain the implications of this to you nyikos.
they're obvious. i will tell you that when darcy
appeared on the net, people pointed out his hypocrisy.
he, as i expect you will too, ignored these comments.
sometime afterwards, darcy was elected to the council
of net.idiots.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 13 Nov 1992 09:45:14 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov13.172829.3262@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1e0k84INN46e@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov13.131652.23595@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
 
>> >Which makes these remarks of your's
>> >about deletions and Adrienne purely gratuitous assaults.
 
.> Sorry to contradict you, Dean, but if you will recall, I'm a "hypocritical
.> ingrate" (oh, where is that pesky attribute.  Oh well, I'm sure some of
.> you recall this one), so it isn't likely to be a gratuitious assault....

>Was it the one where Dr Giggles Nyikos claimed that by insulting
>you in some fashion or other he was being generous because it
>enabled him to avoid calling you something else more awful?

Bingo.  Of course, he then succumbed to temptation and *did* call me 
something else more awful, but he's hoping we will overlook that.
While simultaneously believing it, of course.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keegan defines the term prochoice for all concerned 
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:21:43 GMT

In article <7aj1f-d@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>    "that is why i thought it important to point out
>>     that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>>     legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>>     third trimester."
>>             <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

> please, as a personal favor to me, continue to report
> that quote. thanks again.

Certainly.


Doug Holtsinger

    "that is why i thought it important to point out
     that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
     legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
     third trimester."
             keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
             <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why is Nykios AntiBible?
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:48:06 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] 
] A brief excerpt from his article, "Uncivil Liberties," which appeared
] in the March 1990 issue of _Crisis_, follows, closing this post.  
] 
] 	  Unless the anti-slavery principle holds true absolutely, other
] 	exceptions to it will also be possible.
] 	
] Peter Nyikos


Well its clear that this citation of yours is
intended to establish that you are AGAINST
biblical principles, and what the BIBLE has
to say about Slavery.

Which leaves us with the simple Questions:

Why are you at War with GOD? And why do YOU hate the Bible?

Will You REPENT of your SINS!

And Be SAVED!


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 17:29:26 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...

In article <1992Nov2.154159.23583@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:
>In article <92305.094124ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article <1992Oct26.154453.277@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:

>>>I would tend to think so.

>>While you gentlemen are defining insulting and inflammatory
>>statements, could you tell me if it is insulting and
>>inflammatory to label someone who opposes abortion legislation
>>and believes that abortion is a matter to be left to a woman
>>and her doctor as a radical extremist?

>No

This explains why you are in agreement with Darcy
since he obviously doesn't think that is insulting
or inflammatory either.  Although I admit that I
find this a little inconsistent with your agreement
that people should be called what they wish to be called.

>I think it's observationally extreme on the scale of beliefs
>to believe that abortion should be legal throughout pregnancy.

Do you think it's observationally extreme on the scale of beliefs
to believe that women should be placed in jail for obtaining
banned abortions?

And if so, is it insulting and inflammatory to point
out this extremism?

>Is there something wrong with being extreme?

Never having been extreme, I wouldn't know.
Perhaps Darcy can answer this question since
he uses the "Extremist" label so much.



Linda
--
Polls show that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion
is a private matter between a woman and her doctor and are,
therefore, pro-choice.
   Abortion In Law & History: The Pro-choice Perspective, 1990
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:11:04 GMT
	<bob1.720897182@cos> <Bx84M7.5w@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Nov10.002738.2607@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

><Bx84M7.5w@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> (Keith Bloom) writes:
>> ...Maryland's law could be overturned only if the Supreme
>> Court ruled that a fetus has Constitutional protections under the
>> Fourteenth Amendment.  Of the Justices now on the Court, the only ones
>> who might conceivably do so are Scalia and Thomas, and even that is
>> doubtful.  (As far as I know, neither has said anything about it.)

>This is an excerpt from Justice Scalia's opinion in Planned Parenthood
>v. Casey.  Justice Thomas joined the opinion:

>SCALIA (Rehnquist, White, Thomas):   "The States may, if they wish, permit
>abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.  The
>permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved
>like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade
>one another and then voting."

That settles it, then.  Every Justice is on record as saying either
that abortion is a Constitutional right, or that a State has the power
to make it a right.  Unless some of them change their minds, the
chance of the Court overturning Maryland's law, or any similar State law, 
is nil.



Keith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:16:34 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Nov11.003355.29646@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>
>Don't cast aspersions on drieux. He's not the one who doesn't see the 
>point in putting uucp connections on the map if they also run internet. 
>Current uucp rules still state that if it does uucp, it better be on the
>map. 

UUCP rules? Is that like "Usenet authorities"? Who's gonna enforce these
"UUCP rules"?

The purpose of having a machine in the UUCP maps is so that folks can get
mail to you via a short name as well as a long one, e.g. "rotag", as well 
as "rotag.mi.org". If one doesn't give a damn about being reachable via a
short name, then what incentive is there to be in the maps?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?
Summary: not particularly serious
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:04:50 GMT

In article <32196@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#Fellow netters,
#
#After a very relaxing trip and a wonderful election, I'm back.
#Thankfully, SFO managed to avoid a major shaker while I was out there.
#There were 968 messages on T.A so I killed them all.  If there was
#anything I really should read, let me know.


I'd say that you didn't miss anything important here.  The pro-forcers
have been largely silent this week, and not too vocal last week.  Nyikos 
falsely accused Adrienne Regard of forgery and then disappeared.  Suzanne
Forgach hasn't posted in a long time - I assume that she's in mourning
for the referendum that failed in Arizona.  Chaney/Hall threatened
Patrick a few times in e-mail over the weekend and hasn't made an 
appearance here since.  Reverend Holtsinger has been posting, but
he's still lying about the meaning of Roe and Doe and editing
articles that normal people write.  Overpeck is still trying
to convince everyone that he's a wonderful person and that drugs
are BAD.  Darcy's in my killfile, so I have no idea what he's
saying.  A few of the newbies are still around, but they haven't
said anything new or exciting or silly enough to repeat.

The "Father's Rights" thread continues.

Some supporters of legal abortion have decided that a Clinton
victory permanently guarantees the right to choose abortion,
but most of us have not.  Most of the other discussion has
been repeats of old arguments for the benefit of the new and
the stupid.

Oh, yeah, Frank O'Dwyer has written some interesting articles,
so maybe there is something worth reading, after all.  I can
give you the subject lines if you like.

Susan
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: JJPrice, illiterate and ignorant (Was: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:55:08 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov5.161257.16911@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes an illiterate and politically ingnorant
diatribe:  
>
>To all thoose celebrating Clinton's election,
>         ^^
>I congrratulate Bill for his wonderful comeback and election to the
       ^^
>White House. 
>Although I feel he will not be a good president I am hoping I am wrong.

Your hope is quite evident in your post:

>Now as to his views on abortion:
>
> All you Anti-Lifer's ( I use this wording because I have seen
> pro-lifers called 
> anti-choicer's so turn-abouts fair play) think (and are probably correct in
                             ^^
> that you feel Clinton will do alot to keep abortion legal and secure
> a woman's 
> right to kill (I could have said choose but since ya'll say we want to take 
> away her choice I'll say you want to take away the baby's life).

More ignorant bullshit.  If you know someone who is killing babies,
please notify the authorities.  If you are too busy posting drivel to
Talk.abortion to do this, please post the information so that those of
us who actually care about babies and children can notify the
authorities.  

>Yes the FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) will probably pass but I don't think it
> will be by a large margin and I know North Carolina will having nothing to
> do with it because both our senators are anti-choice and N.C. went to 
> Bush anyways (Ha! Ha!).
            ^^

>Yes if a Supreme Court Justice resigns an anti-life justice will probably
> replace him upsetting the delicate balance we now have.

Which balance is that?  The one slowly eroding a woman's right to
privacy?  

>Many feel that the War is over if FOCA is passed because what states feel
>will no longer be important. 
>
>The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait
>for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
>but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
                                                             ^^^^
>morals again

The sincerity of your good wishes for President-elect Clinton is
overwhelming.  Your ignorance of the political process is also
evident: It will take more than a pro-life President to reverse the
FOCA.  You will also need an majority in both Houses of Congress to
pass the reversal.  A President cannot veto existing legislation.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<Bx4DCn.9JK@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<SCOTTS.92Nov4161112@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:58:40 GMT


scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

I wrote:
>   From what I've heard, FOCA would be based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
>   Congress would declare that State prohibition of abortion violates a
>   woman's right to "the equal protection of the laws" (Section 1).  Thus,
>   FOCA will have the same Constitutional basis as civil rights
>   legislation.
[...deleted...]

>You are correct that constitutional scholars find FOCA constitutional
>under Congress's powers to regulate interstate commerce.  Because
>access restrictions to abortion in some states may cause women to
>endanger their lives and cross state lines to have abortions, Congress
>has the right under its interstate commerce powers to pass
>regulations.  [...deleted...]

If the basis really is interstate commerce, then I'm *not* correct,
since what I'd heard was that it would be equal protection (i.e., civil
rights).  What you say sounds plausible, however.  The courts have
acknowledged virtually unlimited Congresssional powers under the
commerce clause, on the excuse that almost any activity has *some*
effect, however slight, on interstate commerce.  On the other hand, the
courts also show great deference to Congress' authority to pass civil
rights laws.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:20:00 GMT

Kudos to Frank's post.  *applause*  That was a good summary of the
pro-choice position.

I'll admit that recently I had _no_ idea where you were coming from --
if you were playing devil's advocate or not, and if so, from which
side.  But if I understand what you're saying, you simply feel that
personhood has no bearing on abortion rights, and more and more these
days I tend to agree with you (but for possibly different reasons; I
feel that it a fetus is a person then it _should_ not have the right
to use a woman against her will, and if it's not then it _can_not have
that right).

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:13:30 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
->>Are you harassing Ms. Garvin
->>when you follow up one of her posts after she said she
->>she won't respond to you?

->That's a fine line, Ms. Birmingham, and one which I tread very carefully.
->I try to restrict my followups to the ever-hiding Ms. Garvin only to

->	a) outright lies or smears against me (I feel I have the right to
->	   address these, regardless of whether she sees my response)

you're lying kevin. you raised ms. garvin's name just
yesterday in a thread which she hadn't been
participating in. you simply flamed her, apparently in
the pursuit of your net.vendetta. you did this in
<1992Nov8.140423.23881@rotag.mi.org>,

i think you'd be far better off when someone points out
that you're a hypocrite, as ms. birmingham did quite
accurately, to just ignore it. instead, you always 
get caught trying to lie your way out of it. and that,
imo, looks even worse.
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:05:23 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>Keith Cochran candidly admitted:

>"...let me
> tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:

> 1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.

What when she's in a coma?  There was a case a few years back when a
pro-life group went to court to stop a man from having his comatose
wife given a very late abortion (he had some reason to believe it
would bring her out of the coma; she did recover a couple of months
later)....  In that case the judge threw it out of court ruling lack
of standing.  Would you have let him do it?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice CANNOT justify calling infanticide murder
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:08:15 GMT

In article <19240.2afd3caf@levels.unisa.edu.au> 
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:

> A newborn, although requiring support for the next few years
> of it's life does NOT have to be a burden on anyone who doesn't
> want it to be, anybody (but a lactated woman is preferable) can
> look after it.

But no person has the right to kill a newborn infant if they
are physically unable to transfer custody of that infant to 
another person.  Under no circumstances can a person kill an 
infant to avoid transferring custody. 

> For a fetus it's a different story, it's inside a woman who,
> wihtout abortion, has NO CHOICE but to support it wether she
> likes it or not. "What about C-section?" yeah sure, if you don't
> mind major surgery, 

There are two other alternatives to a C-section: waiting for birth, 
or inducing labor with drugs.  I would guess that both of these 
alternatives are about as safe as a late-term abortion in which
the child is killed. 

> then there's all the shame of 'abandoning'
> her child (this was the point I was trying to get across in WHY,
> if there was no shame, there would be a few more women prepared
> to take the fetus to term).

A person's 'shame' has never been an adequate justification
for killing another person.  

> John J McVey


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion