HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 29 Aug 92 14:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

>Nyikos
>> Rick Kelly
>>> Suxie

>>>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
>>>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
>>>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved.

>>So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
>>purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
>>you stopped.

>A truly tasteless joke.  But it has possibilities: properly reworded,
>it makes a perfect illustrative example of the term  "non sequitur". 

Hardly, twit.  What Rick is asking is: since you feel that the woman should
be ennslaved to her body for the sin of failinng to "control" herself
"at the correct time," do you advocate the same "control" for men, and,
more specifically, for YOURSELF?

In other words, have you ALWAYS engaged in sex for the SOLE purpose of
procreation, or are you a flaming, raving hypocrite?
-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:19:45 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <24186@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
]> especially when it doesn't buy them anything. You must be the coldest,
]> creulest person on the net, in seeking to force a woman to concieve
]> a child,                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^<?????????>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] ^^<???>^^
]
]There is no point in arguing with you since you've so completely lost your mind
],
]but I _am_ a little curious as to how you possibly reached this ridiculous
]conclusion.

Did you purposely save this article and wait to respond to it until
the original was sure to have been purged, on the fairly reasonable
chance that I didn't archive it so that I couldn't place the rest of
the article into it. I do believe there was much more stated than just
the out of context quote you left in, which changes the entire meaning
of what you quoted. Something along the lines of 'carry for nine months...
and possible die by bringing to term...' but maybe I was lucky and retained
those posts just for such an underhanded trick like this. You see, I
really expected you to pull something like this after the last few exchanges,
and I've made it a point, at least wrt you, to attempt to archive any
dialogue that occurred between us.

and believe it or not, I found it. Here is the full paragraph, and why don't
you actually refute it, or were your words really meant or especially
sour to swallow? As for where I got the idea that you wish to force women to
conceive children, that came from that gem of a post where you claim
all birth control to be immoral and should be outlawed. Or are you
going to splutter and say you didn't state that either?

***************************included paragraph******************************
Thank you for finally showing your true compassionate side. You would
will suffering, pain, and torment on others rather than relieving them,
especially when it doesn't buy them anything. You must be the coldest,
creulest person on the net, in seeking to force a woman to concieve
a child, carry it to term, the whole while knowing it will die shortly
after birth, while living in incredible amounts of pain, and pretty
much forcing additional suffering of extending this condition by an
unnecessary amount. You, Frau F, have just earned a spot next to Himmler. 
Enjoy it.
***************************end of inclusion*********************************

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:06:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Gee, I know some friends who want to be able to use marijuana as a
>recreational item, in the privacy of their own homes, where no one
>else can see them. They aren't hurting anyone as long as they smoke
>pot at home. Besides, we get worse air in LA, right?

Beats me about LA, but yes, imo they should be able to do so, prrovided
they are not minors. They don't, however, have the right to drive a
car in that state, or to have certain jobs, as it has been proven that
these types of things are in the body for a *long* time and have effects
far beyond the couple hour "high". After all, your employer is entitled
to get the most for his money, correct? You don't have a right to work
for him, after all. (Hint: if you did, he'd *have* to hire you if you
wanted a job.)

>Could you put your money where your mouth is, and get the message
>across to America that these people ought to be, in your exact words,
>FREE TO CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES ?

Sure, and better yet, have the government sell the stuff, that way records
could be kept of who buys (they couldn't get government jobs), the government
would make the money (provided it doesn't blow it they way it blows
a lot of our tax money, and some it doesn't have, witness the debt),
and place the multi-billion dollar drug trade orginaztions out of business.
Some things you could quickly see from this is that gangs would quickly
disperse, no money anymore to attract members; violence would go down,
no turf to fight over for the drug trade; and we would save billions
in the fight against drugs, which is failing miserably by the massive
evidence of the former two points. In all, this would quickly do everything
they want to do now, except stop all drug use, which appears to be a
hopeless cause anyway, unless they are going to go around and make *everyone*
piss in a cup every week, and haul off all offenders. (something about
rights here, although I'm not sure what:)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34075 alt.flame:12444 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:363
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: wise words, sort of (was Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act)
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:49:22 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

in a return to the tactics that people were laughing at
him for using back in 1990, kebbie waits 21 days to
reply to a dean kaflowitz post and sez:

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
-> >james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >> -> Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, Dean.
-> >> 
-> >> especially when the same person does those
-> >> wrongs, eh?
-> >
-> >Kevin's statement is based on such an obviously
-> >idiotic and self-serving reading of what I wrote (I
-> >did quote out of context, but I made it abundantly
-> >clear that my point was that it was easy to do so
-> >and also dishonest to do so and that I was opposed
-> >to such usages; Kevin's position was, bizarrely,
-> >that I was wrong to quote out of context)
-> 
-> Ah, I see. On one side of your forked tongue, you're
-> "opposed to such usages", but on the other, you feel
-> completely at liberty to engage in those same usages
-> for their demonstrative value

perhaps much like a teacher, or parent, might do for an
errant child.

your "forked tongue" reference doesn't seem to fit. are
you, perhaps, just repeating back one of the lines
people have written to you over the years?

[...]
-> [...] I'll try to be more insightful from now on.

i hope that is true, but i doubt it.

-> > [blah, blah, no-one believes Darcy anyway, blah, blah]
-> 
-> You'd better hope so, Dean. 

if credibility is an issue, kebbie, why not just post
the question:

"who is more believable, dean kaflowitz or kevin
darcy?"

do you have any doubt whatsoever about the outcome of
asking that question?

-> That's about the only way the stench of your
-> hypocrisy may be masked.

it's not nice to accuse someone of something you
haven't demonstrated, kebbie. but this tactic too is
something you've done before.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33661 rec.music.misc:22287
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: "Drain You" by Nirvana
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:01:36 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug26.015650.2037@bradley.bradley.edu>, death@buhub.bradley.edu (Dustin Slater) writes:
> um, guys? why don't you just get them through ftp at cs.uwp.edu?
> --
> death@buhub.bradley.edu                              death@camelot.bradley.edu
> 
>      If you do not understand my silence, you will not understand my words.

Maybe cuz I didn't know about that until very recently...
turns out that the word "abortion" doesn't pop up in there at all.
I guess I just have abortion on the brain.  Now *that's* healthy!

Thanks to those who sent me their own transcriptions!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: 4-6-8-10, ARE FFL's leaders men?
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:04:47 CDT

In article <2SEP199209480662@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>I hear this question has come up.  The answer is no.  I am not in any
>form of leadership within FFL.  I pass on info for the organization as
>a favor.
>
>The deeper question is, why does it seem all the pro-life voices within 
>this newsgroup are men?  (Ms. Forgach notwithstanding.)  The answers are
>simple:
>
>(1) Most Usenet subscribers are computer scientists and/or engineers.
>    For better or for worse, these are men.  For the time being.

Ron, you made the above statement without _any_ qualification
whatsoever.  Don't even try to portray yourself as a feminist
on this forum in the future.  Hint: not _all_ computer scientists
and/or engineers are men.  It is actually possible to fill these
job descriptions even when one lacks BetweenTheLegsTotem.  No
thanks to anyone, male or female, who wishes to help Women by
removing our reproductive choices in order to save our feeble
minded selves from exploitation by the Putriarchy.  Perhaps there
is some correlation between the group of women who are successful
as computer scientists and/or engineers, and the group of women
who do not wish to swallow your brand of 'feminism'.

muriel
(author, _How to be a Drieuxish Mother_)
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:36:33 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep2.024157.25980@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> Lessee, now, you boycott-hungry folks first wanted to boycott me, then
> David Rasmussen, and now Doug Holtsinger.

The kid doesn't even understand the concept of time.  How sad...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Dangerous Things...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:03:14 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
] 
] 	I saw one interesting omission:
] 
] 	There was no mention about masturbation.
] 
] 	Has PP ever promoted that as a safe form of sex?

This is Not Correct.

That 'M' thing is NOT 'safe sex' as it will
make you Go BLIND, and grow hair on your Palms.

Don't try this at home.....


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:04:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.123844.25790@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>> Holtsinger
>>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>
>>> The patriarchal view is that women should not have the right to
>>> abortion.  The reason: it gives women the power to control
>>> reproduction.  
>
>>The patriarchal view is that abortion should be unrestricted 
>>so that men have a better chance of escaping from their 
>>responsibilities towards women and children.  
>
>Have you taken one single women's studies class, Holtsinger?  You have 
>no idea what "patriarchy" really means.

I saw no smiley-face, perhaps the irony was unintended:
WOMAN says to MAN, you should take WOMEN's studies to understand PATRIarchy.

>In other words, the emotional benefits of having a free domestic and sexual
>servant, and often punnching bag, as well as proof of his virility (children),
>far outweighs the financial costs of providing his wife and children with
>the means (food, clothes, jewelry, etc.) to look good to society at large,
>therefore making him look responsible.

And some feminists wonder why there's a "backlash" against feminist views....

>Read My Lips: No Bush In '92!

No puns intended, right?    }:-)

>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:26:47 GMT

In article <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Well, for starters, there was a case in Buffalo, not long before the
>confrontation there, of a daughter who was just going to go to the 
>clinic for her fifth [5th] abortion for this very reason, when she
>learned from some pro-lifers that she could  1. Have her father arrested
>for continually getting her pregnant; 2. Get food, clothes, etc. from a
>crisis pregnancy center, gratis; and 3. Get all the help she needed to have
>her baby put up for adoption.  All of which came to pass, plus the
>pro-lifers even helped her to get a job and an apartment.

>Contrast that with the "pro-choice" abortionists, who knew the incest 
>was going on but did nothing to stop it.  They knew which side their bread 
>was buttered on.

Well, I certainly think more of the pro-lifers than the abortionists
in this case....

>I have already gone on record in talk.abortion as not wishing to 
>impose a law prohibiting
>abortion prior to the 6th week [not month, but it still allows plenty of
>time after a skipped period] after fertilization.  The only reason I might
>possibly reconsider this is if the consequences for the WOMAN are 
>unacceptable.

1) I've got a friend whose cycle is irregular to the point of often
ten weeks between periods.  It's not uncommon for women to
occasionally skip periods for reasons unrelated to pregnancy.  And
furthermore, pregnant women occasionally *do* get light spotting
during early in the pregnancy.

2) To the best of my understanding, the only technology we have for a
safe and effective abortion prior to the eighth week is RU486 -- and
that sometimes fails.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:40:06 GMT

I must have missed the original post, and I don't see how that could
of happened, cause when I see a "Chaney" post I usually read it so carefully...

In article <1992Aug26.000606.23319@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov 
(Dan King) writes:

}In article <1992Aug24.234134.8819@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
(Stephen A Chaney writes:

}>                                       Dan King took fatal hits...      

In case you had not noticed yet, Dan is following up your article,
Steve.   I think "fatal" means something different than what
you think.

Ah, if that were Steve's only problem.  Just when you think humanity
has reached a new low someone rushes down to scribe a new mark.  
Steve is one of those "climbers"...
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:49:17 GMT
 <exukjb.98.714932009@exu.ericsson.se> <17j6hfINNkc2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <exukjb.98.714932009@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>In article <176sg0INN27n@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>What did you want to know about marriage?
>>
>>How about: Would marriage exist at all without the sex urge?  


>Yes.

>Marriage is basically an economic contract.  It only recently became the 
>'approved' environment for sex.

If you mean within the last 4000 years or so as recently, then, yes.
Judaism has held this basic stand since the days of the Patriarchs.  That
means 5000 years or so.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:00:30 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <1992Sep1.130250.2197@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>
>     I would just like to say that I also had the opportunity to 
>watch that Maury Povich episode yesterday, and Susan Garvin's
>interpretation was quite accurate indeed.  It was frustrating
>to watch the pro-lifers on the panel spew their arguments without
>being able to tell them what was the matter with them (their
>arguments that is).  Brainwashing put aside, those children were
>and will continue to be abused by their parents.  I'm not sure
>if it's good parental practice to allow your 13 year-old daughter
>to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's ok, she wanted to do it,
>I didn't put her up to it."
>
The thing is is that these same thirteen year old's are supposedly 
old enough to decide to have an abortion without parental consent.
How can she be mature enough to decide to have an abortion at
thirteen but not old enough to oppose it?  Furthermore, parental
influence goes both ways on this issue.  If a minor cannot be 
expected to protest something that she believes from her own
heart I don't see the logic of saying that she is old enough to 
condone it or act upon it.  It is almost implying that the 
pro-choice movement is more honest than the pro-life movement.
Both sides use extremist tactics and make it difficult for adults
let alone children decide for themselves.

Wes


-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:35:18 GMT

Peter Nyikos satated that -

"Not per year, it does not. You have to go back to the 1940's
before penicyllin to have more than 1000 women dying of abortion."

Well, to set you straight, that is utter bullshit....One woman dies
every *3* minutes from a improperly performed abortion. Whether it
be self-induced, or a back alley doctors mistake, the *FACT* is that
it happens every *3* minutes....lesse, that would be how many a year?

math time - 480 a day, multiplied by 7 = 3360, times 52 = 174720.
That is roughly 170,000 deaths due to 'poorly' administered abortions.
All the more reason to fight for it to be SAFE and LEGAL....This figure
of 3 per minute is worldwide..I do no know the statistics for just
America...but as you can see, you are WAY wrong....
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand (was Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker)
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:08:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.001045.11063@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:

>> Here is our reason for labeling you pro-abortion:

>> If you were pro-choice, why is it that pro-choice does not mean legalizing
>> drugs? We have control of one's own body and privacy to invoke here.

Hey, I'm all for it. Then again, I think the government should be the
only seller, with severe repercussions for anyone else "pushing" it.
I'm also for laws stating that for certain jobs, being drug-free would
be a condition of employment. For others, absenteeism would be enough
reason to fire anyone who had a problem, thus solving that situation.
Aslo, not having a job and being a chronic abuser would force you to
stop, because you'd run out of money (in ordinary cases) and you couldn't
go into dealing, because the government would be the only legal supplier.

Try imagine the hoopla were the government to ever attempt this. The
mob and other crime organizations would lobby like you've never seen
before to keep drugs illegal in the US, after all, it is their business
that would go down the tubes, a multi-billion dollar business, at that
too.

>> How about school choice? Pro-choice should include the right to choose
>> whichever school you go to, rather than the one the school district forces
>> you to go to.

You do. By moving into that neighborhood. You even have the choice of
private schools and home tutoring and magnet schools.

>> Pro-choice is not about choice; it's about abortion, unrestricted, for
>> free. By the tax dollars of the majority of Americans who are unwilling to
>> pay for such a thing.

??? There are no tax dollars going to abortion at present. What's your
point?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion