HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: My last post!
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:12:22 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov18.020206.8798@iscsvax.uni.edu>
clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes the latest in the long line of `You
won't have this bible thumper to kick around anymore!' posts.  I'm
left with a question: Can we treat the statment in the header as an
irrevocable commitment?

>I pray for you all.
>
>...Ken!

I hope that the Goddess will enlighten both you and your ilk when you
speak with her.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:55:34 GMT

In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>If some fella 
>doesn't want to be a dad, said fella can put a cap on it!

What kind of cap would you propose?  You'll be a rich woman if
you can patent a "cap" as effective as the Pill.


>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.

>Adrienne Regard


Some of us know it better than others.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49060 soc.men:19758 soc.women:20116 alt.politics.homosexuality:7498
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:28:25 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>happened.  There have also been recent discussions of college men
>doing things like getting women drunk and having sexual relations with
>them while they were not sober enough to consent.

If she knows that she's drinking enough to impare her judgement, beforehand,
then she IS giving consent; knowing she won't give it later.

-Doc
-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49152 talk.religion.misc:21829
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Son  of Just a Minor Technical Point  (Was: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?)
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:16:47 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
] which is closer to the Egyptian model, as noted above). Slavery as we tend  
] to conceive of it (as it was in the good ol' US of A) is most emphatically  
] NOT what was meant by the slavery which was approved of in yon Bible. 
] In any event, could we stipulate that Petey could possibly have a point  
] here (other than the one on the top of his pin-head), that to be against  
] slavery in it's modern form is not necessarily to be a  
] SexularHumanistStoogeoftheZionistImperialistBankingClass?
 
Sorry LapDogLackeyOfTheEuroDisneyKliqueOfSeXularHumanistScum!

But merely as there was an INAPPRORPIRATE application 
of a BIBLICAL NOTION, as you percieve it, DOES NOT
JUSTIFY allowing the SeXularHumanists to take an
ANTI_BIBLE STAND and Start Open WarFare Against the
OneTrueGod! with their 'outlawing slavery.'

Also I must clearly DISAGREE WITH YOU, on your HOPE
that there is some differences between SLAVERY in
the Roman Period and that which occurred in the
American Colonies, which as we all KNOW, Rightfully
Belong in Correct Relationships with GOD's DIVINELY
APPOINTED VICAR, the Royal House of ENGLAND!


That You have fallen PREY to the LIBERAL TENDENCIES of
ModernSeXualarHumanism doe NOT rescue you from your
CLEAR APOSTASY!!!!!

ciao
drieux

ps: we will, though, allow you to RECANT before 
BURNING YOU AT THE STAKE to save your immortal soul.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:00:21 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov23.064023.28693@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.182957.25544@cs.yale.edu>
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>> Remember, Usenet is an anarchy.
>
>Not when you're at a public University which can easily
>revoke net access.

Depends on the university, I suppose - NCUS appears to let its students
get away with a lot of crap.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 6
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:26:45 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32783@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>If the /z/e/f/ is so sacred, why does the rapist's wrong
>invalidate its sacred right to life?  Can you name any other situation
>where another person's crime invalidates the right to life of some
>second entity?

It doesn't invalidate the value of the z/e/f, it only makes it less
appropriate to require the mother to cooperate in preserving that
value.

I take you out in my boat knowing that you can't swim and that you're
extraordinarily clumsy (as helpless as a babe, you might say).  If you
fall in, my guess is that I would be held legally responsible to pull
you out.  On the other hand, if some third party threw you into the
water next to my boat I believe I would have no such responsiblity.
Your right to live would be the same in either case, but my legal
obligation to help realize that right would depend on whether the
danger you were in resulted from my action or from the action of a
third party.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory ... [torturing cats]
Date: 20 Nov 1992 20:47:59 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: zapodid.aero.org
Summary: last request to quit torturing cats and argue substantively
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <1992Nov20.175044.3029@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <1ei7nmINNc3e@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>>	As far as I know, the offense committed by a cat-torturer
>>	is an offense against the senses and sensibilities of *other*
>>	*people,* in a class with public nudity and maintaining a
>>	smelly mess in one's own back yard.
>
>That seems wrong -- I don't think people who favor laws against
>torturing cats would be satisfied by laws against the public torture
>of cats that permitted people to engage in such conduct as long as it
>was kept under wraps.

	Yes, their senses and sensibilities would be offended
	by private torture of cats.  Any point here?  Portions
	of my two posts previous on this continue to be deleted:
	why bring cat-torturing into the argument, since it's
	irrelevant?  Is the position held so vacuous that it needs
	cheap props?
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: 23 Nov 1992 13:59:07 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <lefty-201192113728@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
#In article <1efh9gINNcg9@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
#O'Dwyer) wrote:
#> 
#> It's pretty clear to all of us, I think, that cancer is always unwelcome, 
#> and pregnancy isn't.  I don't imagine women will voluntarily place cancer 
#> cells in their womb anytime soon, and I don't believe you do either.
#
#It's likewise pretty clear that, in those instances where pregnancy is
#welcome, abortion is not an issue.
#
#So, what's your point?

Sigh.  The point is just that pregnancy is not cancer.  Pregnancy can be
welcome (or an unwelcome means to a welcome end, at least).  Kids can be fun,
and life can be good.   Plenty of people are making the obvious corollaries
to these points, so I thought I'd be a little different from time to time.
O.K. with you?

#Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:23:57 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov21.211532.15450@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>       In your opinion, should a woman have an unconditional, absolute legal
>       right to abort at any time in her pregnancy, for any reason?

Yes.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.adoption,talk.abortion
From: mlrooney@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Monica Rooney)
Subject: Re: Adoption is an answer
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:26:03 GMT

>Obviously you are not adopted.  Nore do you realize that adopted individuald
>suffer many emotional and developmental problems.  Your 'statistically well
>adjusted adoptee" is quite a myth.  There are a number of studies showing

I was adopted at the age of 2 weeks from a 17 year old girl to the home of
an older middle class couple who had adopted a child 4 years earlier.
I grew up with a loving family and I'm sorry to say that I am extremely well
adjusted.  I attend the University of Waterloo for Math and have a 90+ average.

>that bonding stress in early infancy and emotional problems that arise later
>from a lack of biological referance cause the adoptee to have a 5 times
>greater learning disability rate.

I have no emotional problems and I'm in a loving relationship.  Having a family
(I considered my unknown birth family an extention of my own) that I knew
nothing about taught me to be inquisitive -inquistive enough to find out more.

I contacted my birth mother 2 and a half years ago and we have been friends
ever since.  I have a whole other family (but my adoptive family comes first).

>If a couple does not wish to have a child there are much easier ways to aviod
>doing so.   I am not going to adress the abortion isue here because it has
>nothing to do with parents trying to get rid of their responsabilitys...

Giving a child up for adoption to give that child a better home is not avoiding
responsibilities, it's facing them.  How responsible would it be to keep a 
child you couldn't possibly support?

>You seem to have no knowledge about how adoption effects society I recomend
>the book 'Being Adopted'  And other reading on the efects of giving children
>up that are documented.

The author obviously didn't interview me.  Adoption gives birth parents a way
to provide a better life for their children and gives adoptive parents the
chance to raise a child they couldn't have on their own.
If you think I'm the exception, I know many other well adjusted adoptees.
Maybe you don't see us because we don't stand out.

>Good luck in talk.abortion

>Timothy Sheridan

I suggest you do some futher research and don't believe everything you read.

Monica Rooney

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:14:43 GMT

In article <9830@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <h=x1ctd@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>#regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>#->And this from our own Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos who *just* before this
>#->article told James Keegan that he didn't lie about adrienne regard.
>#
>#hell, if he can lie about you and susan garvin, there's
>#no reason why he can't lie to me.
>#
>#perhaps he's displaying misogyny when he lies about
>#women and only lies to men. wait a minute! didn't he
>#lie about dean? never mind.
>
>I think that he's lied about a lot more people than just
>Adrienne, Dean and I.

Interestingly, you just implied that you, Adrienne and Dean are liars.
But I try to avoid grammar-flames when I can.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48269 alt.flame:14852
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:45:19 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>> Try to improve yourself, Darcy.  You might, against all odds, make it to
>> human in your next life.

> Perhaps you could spare some of your indignation for Mr. Loomis.  

I find it quite repugnant, Peter, that you would attempt to deflect well-
deserved flames away from Darcy.  He made several tasteless, tactless and
mean-spirited posts about a t.a participant's SO's experience as a victim
of child sex abuse.   If you have an issue with Mr. Loomis' mostly well
considered response to your article about the gynocologist who was
interested in kiddie porn, why would you bring it up as a response to
Lefty's flame of Darcy?

It is awfully hypocritical of you, Peter, to complain about litter in others'
front yards when there is a landfill filling up in your back yard.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life a HELL!
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:07:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.005309.9356@ncsu.edu> delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL 
EMERY LAROCQUE) writes:

>   I have a gf with fundamentalist parents who treat Rush Limbaugh as though
> he has the answers to life's problems. Well, I am here to say that because
> of this, I will have to fight in order to marry her. Has it come to the point
> in this country where conservative ideas like the ones he presents are so
> much a part of the United States now, that two people in love can't even
> marry for fear of outright attack like this? I fear for our happiness.
> I don't want her to choose between keeping her family or keeping me.
> I hate liberals (I am moderate), but even moderates aren't safe from Rush
> Limbaugh!! Can someone PLEASE give me some ideas???
>-- 
>delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu

Certainly you don't expect her to *abandon* her family. If she does, what is 
to keep her from abandoning you? This might seem cliche to you but I speak 
from experience when I say that you are marrying in the family as well as 
the girl. I'll probably get all kinds of flack about this but I am speaking 
from my experience, the experience of my friends and family and the advise 
of trained professionals. You can avoid her family but they will still 
become part of your life and will affect decisions you make as a family. If 
this were your daughter would you want her to marry without your consent?

I echo what someone else has posted:  Think about it.

Philip Hurley               "It is absurd to say that you are
T.A.E.X.                    especially advancing freedom when you only
Computer Technology         use free thought to destroy free will."
(409) 845-9689                              -- Chesterton
p-hurley1@tamu.edu             I, too, disclaim.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.pets.cats,soc.singles,alt.romance.chat
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Now JUST HOLD ON A MOMENT THERE BUD!
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:30:54 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

] gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] ] 
] ] Thanks, Catwoman.  Purrrrr.
] ] 
] ] Gordon
] ] Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
] ] Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
] ] "CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
] ] [space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
] 
] HISSING SOUND followed by the lowering of ears,
] arching of Back and other Displays.
] 
] Need I say ANYTHING MORE!
] 
] ciao
] drieux
] 
] ps: You can Have My ProblemOlderWoman when You Pry her
] from my DEAD COLD HANDS!!!!
] 
] pps: thank God I'm not one of those Archie Bunker types
] who is territorial about relationships and all....
] 
] ObWarning: You wouldn't want us to get into a MarkingTerritoryContest
] now would you??????

Y'know - I think the PYM and the cats have been
getting along even better than I thought they
were.  Seems they're starting to influence his
behaviour....

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: "Unrestricted abortion on demand" is a lie
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:45:29 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Nov20.064803.18871@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>As I promised, here are my sources showing that Roe v. Wade
>is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
>Abortions can be legally performed all the way up to the
>point of birth for virtually any reason.

This is a lie.  The facts are that there are only 3 or 4 doctors in the US
who perform third-trimester abortions.  There are about 100 of these
performed *per year*, and those only for severe health reasons.  You've
been repeatedly challenged to back up your claims by producing evidence of
any third-trimester abortions performed for "trivial" reasons.  That you've
been unable to do so shows that your scare tactics have no basis in
reality.  Not only does Roe *allow* for third-trimester restrictions
(leaving it up to the states to decide, of which about 30 have
third-trimester restrictions]; the current situation is a de facto *ban* on
third-trimester abortions for anything other than serious medical
considerations.

From Roe v. Wade:
   "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
   argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
   terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
   whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:46:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <27528@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>
>[the aborted kid doesn't save the world, again]

I'll naively assume that this was in reference to my article...

>Tell me Ron, do you wear a beard?  Otherwise I don't see how you resist

No. They're too scratchy in the growing in stage, so I've never gotten
past that point. Besides mundacity, why else would you ask? Do you fantasize
about what other posters look like? I think that would be a losing proposition.

>the temptation to slit your wrists each morning, with this attitude to

Naah. You assume to much, or have a reading comprehension problem.

>life.  If all of this is so bad about foetuses, what the hell is so good
>about you?  Don't _you_ have as good a chance of being a Bundy or Manson

No. You see, I was raised with a fairly decent set of personal values
(my opinion, naturally:) that seem to work fairly well. One of those
is not to go out and kill other people for what I consider perverse
pleasure. You might feel otherwise, however.

>as any unborn child?  So why don't you top yourself?

Frank,

    Are you really lost? Or just exceptionally dense, like say, on the
order of Einsteinium? Of course I don't believe this, it is just a counter
argument to the "that aborted child might have come up with the cure
for cancer" argument. If you need further explanations, e-mail me, and
we can work out a rate per word.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:18:42 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

] <27645@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
] > dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] >>I'd like to see a re-post of Mr. Nyikos' reply so that
] >
] >You're the only one that would so far.
] >
] >>everyone can see his refutation of Greenfield's arguments.
] >>Who knows, perhaps one of you pro-aborts might get up the
] >
] >Gordon? Diana? Dan? You're being paged....
] 
] Yes?  Sorry, I was in the middle of refuting one of Peter's "arguments".
] What was it you were saying?

Gee.  I must have been too busy reading DOD's stuff
in my OTHER groups to have seen the page.  
 
] >>courage to actually reply to Mr. Nyikos' arguments, instead
] >>attacking him for an accidental misattribution.

Ummm - I can't recall attacking anyone yet.  Except
maybe the PYM - he's got boy-bits I like to attack.
So far I haven't seen anything from Nyikos OR DOD
to cause me to want to attack them...

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism