HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: like mother, like daughter (was Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??)
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:01:08 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

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> My mom saw the incident on the news, of the pro-lifers who
-> approached Bill Clinton in New York to show him the body of
-> the dead fetus.  She said that such a dark cloud suddenly
-> passed over his face, that she was immediately struck with the
-> question of how many abortions Jennifer Flowers has had.

hmmm. so that's who she inherited it from......


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:37:39 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  <1992Jul23.223210.8435@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> Yes, and you said it was "sometimes necessary" to kill a late term
> >> fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman. When is it "necessary"
> >> to kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman?
>
> Is any pro-choicer willing to answer my questions above?

To what purpose?  Aren't you satisfied with the answer you yourself
already provided?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:58:44 GMT

In <1992Jul29.191328.22615@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>In article <tgreen.712383496@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>>In <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>
>>>[much rational response to irrational questions deleted]
>>
[ more deleted ]

>Notice I didn't specify aborted fetuses. There are lots of fetus out there
>available for testing that weren't aborted. Even so, testing on an aborted 
>fetus isn't going to prevent it from being aborted. For that matter, 
>passing laws restricting abortion won't either.  That is reality and
>nothing we say here is going to change that.

this is true.  not necessarily good, but true.

>The choice being to have sex and get pregnant or to just have sex?  People
>*often* (if not mostly) have sex for any other reason than to procreate.
>If you believe this is a 'wrong' thing to do, that is your business, but
>you cannot expect everyone to follow your personal moral decisions.
>In light of that, there are *going* to be unwanted pregnancies and that
>is reality.  Now to deal with the reality.

I don't expect people to follow my moral decisions.  As you
said, you have to deal with reality.  

>>If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>>end of discussion :-)

>This is unreasonable.

yes, it is.  How about if you choose to have sex, be prepared
to deal with the possibility of pregnancy.  If you know that
you can't handle a pregnancy, avoid getting pregnant.  

>Unfortunately, it is only the end of your *input* on the subject; the 
>discussion goes on whether you decide to add your opinions which is
>unfortunate, becuase you might be that person that is able to enlighten
>the rest of us to something we hadn't thought of.  If you stop speaking,
>the Steve Chaneys of the world will have your point crushed under a mile
>of garbage.

I doubt that I'll enlighten anyone, probably just tick off 
a few people.  I didn't really want to get pulled into a
flame war.  There's too many people who pick apart every
word that gets posted.

-- 
Todd Greenfield
tgreen@iastate.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Up late, and having fun anyway)
Subject: Re: And Fischer's Down! (was Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Organization: Borg Borers, Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:31:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.123749.25385@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.001713.19641@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> Planned Parenthood DID run an advertisement with the statement that
>> Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion. 
>> 
>> Maybe THEY misprinted, but no one around HERE misread what we saw. 
>
>That's what you keep saying.  But curiously enough, with all the
>people who read this newsgroup and with all the many who agree
>with you that abortion should be illegal, not one person has
>said they saw the ads except you.  And you still have nothing
>to back what you say except to repeat it over and over.

He's got his mind made up.  Presenting him with facts would only serve to
confuse the boy even more than he already is.  

>Considering your comments about the NY Times and Jews, one
>can see the pattern in your behavior very clearly.

I'll say -- and given his mentality, I wouldn't expect him to show up here
for the Republican orgy next month, because he might have to actually
confront some of those icky pro-choicers defending clinics from the likes of
him and his friends in OR.  He's all talk and no action, and even more of a
coward than the MuffinThang -- at least DJR actually showed up here, even if
he chickened out once he was here...that's almost a shame, because it'd be
gratifying (to me, anyway) to watch HPD drag him away and off to the Harris
County Stone Hotel.  It'd make me feel a lot better about being up during
the middle of the day, for sure...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
 +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home (call me before 5, and I'll bite).
  The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:46:19 GMT

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> I would greatly appreciate your assistance in ensuring that the article 
> is correctly represented, and that the facts in the article are correct.  
> I did type in the article by hand, so there's bound to be some minor 
> errors (gosh, are my fingers tired!).

Thanks for clarifying the source of the first two paragraphs; as to the
completeness of the rest, that's a project that will have to wait until
Monday.  I'm trying to get out of here early so I can take the family up
north for the weekend.

I _may_ have been hasty about my deletions comment, but I plead tired eyes
from writing documentation and mental disorientation from hosting a dog-
and-pony show for my data base project.

Btw...

[I wrote]
>> Btw, late-term abortions are almost always performed to safeguard the 
>> life and health of the mother.

> The term ``health'' could include any number of factors, including
> "mental health", "emotional health", "family health", etc. 

> Besides, if these babies are being born alive, why isn't labor
> being induced?

You know the answer to that one, Doug.  It takes too long.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Chaney lies again (OK, so it's _not_ news)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 04:27:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: na

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>In Florida, a circuit court Judge said that laws forbidding adults
>from screwing little girls, is unconstitutional because it violates
>the right to privacy that nullifies parental consent abortion laws. 

So, you go from a case about consensual sex between a 15 year old
and a 19 year old, to claiming it's a case about sex between an adult
and a 12 year old, to claiming the case is about adults screwing
little girls?

Chaney, you really should try to stop lying so much since you're so 
incompetent at it.

Also, try to make the inevitable insulting response a little more 
intellegent.  Most of your name-calling is at the 5th grade level
and is neither particularly good _or_ entertaining.

And as an aside, I really glad you're on the "pro-life" side.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Well, I lost that article...
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 04:33:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
>Stating that abstinance is the only 100% guaranteed way of preventing pregnancy
>is value neutral.  If says that if you don't want to become pregnant, don't
>have sex.  If you want to become pregnant, then you'd better have sex.  If
>you don't want to become pregnant, but have sex, you're taking some risk.

It is value neutral only to the degree it is accurate.  Since abstinance
is obviously not the only 100% certain way of preventing pregnancy, one 
might easily conclude that you're pushing your own agenda by making this
statement.

What other ways work?
Sterilization
Homosexual sex
Masturbation
Death
And most versions that don't involve inserting a penis into a vagina.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Organization: Organization. . . What's that?
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.203528.17823@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>{ its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
>you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
>level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
>the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.

This is logic?  You may be impying that you are willing to risk having
them die in child birth, but you are not 'seeking to Kill Them'.

>This should not be Confused with the FrancoPhile Play on words
>about 'the little death' which is 'orgasm.'  And Once again establishes
>that Obviously, and Intuitively, and SelfEvidently, that HetroSexuality,
>is a DeathKult and MUST be OutLawed!!!!! [1] }

Humphh.  And, as should be so obvious to you, since you wrote most
of this:

>{ its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
>you are consenting to [getting AIDS], and hence since that has a higher
>level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
>the one [that you are] Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.

>And Once again establishes
>that Obviously, and Intuitively, and SelfEvidently, that [Homosexuality],
>is a DeathKult and MUST be OutLawed!!!!! [1] }
>
>ciao

No thanks.  I just ate. ;->

>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.

I like this guy.  This forum has needed a clown for some time.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:24:07 GMT

In article <14jvctINN7rj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I've argued that anyone who holds 
>> that position must also condone infanticide in order to be consistent.

> Unsuccessfully.

Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

>Adrienne Regard


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29740 alt.birthright:203 alt.abortion.inequity:2803
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:39:17 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <tgreen.712383496@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>In <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>
>>[much rational response to irrational questions deleted]
>
>>>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>>>This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.
>
>>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                             or maybe be born & be allowed to live.
>
>since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
>got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
>child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
>it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
>pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>end of discussion :-)

Todd Greenfield: 

No, man, you're dead wrong! DEAD WRONG. :-) 

We, as Americans, must not live by the oppressive idea that "sex =
parenthood." Even if we must KILL someone to have free and
obligation-free sex, we will not have any hazards put up around our
sex lives. 

Sorry kiddo, but sometimes you gotta kill for sex. You can't make an
omelette without breaking a few eggs.  

>-- 
>Todd Greenfield
>tgreen@iastate.edu 

Sure, it sounds ridiculous, but my parody of pro-choicers was meant to
point out a flaw in their reasoning, which will surely be the old "SEX
DOES NOT MEAN PARENTHOOD!" response to your article. 
 
===============================================================================
      Pro-choice: the perfect teammate for a good game of DODGE-ball.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Olive Oyl and abortion
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:57:45 GMT

> = (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I hear that the cartoonist who writes the daily "Popeye"
>strip was fired yesterday.

[re: Olive Oyl obliquely states pro-choice position...]
>We don't get Popeye here (we don't get anything, for
>that matter - our papers have been on strike for months),
>so I don't know how odd such a story line would be in
>the strip.  Can anyone enlighten me?

For "Doonesbury", not only would such a story line be normal, but
there's no way anyone would dare mess with someone that popular.

In the case of "Popeye", it was unusual.  That's hardly a political strip,
though the artist has the right to say what he pleases.  Another thing,
the Popeye comic strip is really shrinking in readership - I think news
stories said it's only carried in a couple dozen newspapers, and though
he's been at it since '86, the guy only gets paid $400 a week. 

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: 2 wrongs making right? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:22:38 GMT

Just like when he vomited forth his anti-Semitism and tried
to justify it by saying "Well, people say nasty things about
Christians so until they stop doing that, I stand by my
anti-Semitic statements," or words to that effect, we get
the latest demonstration of what a class act he is from
Dennis Hall.

In article <1992Jul30.164357.13291@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
> And YOU want to complain at me about my shameless attack on
> pro-choicers? Hell, it's nothing compared to what the media does to
> us. So until they stop, I think it's about time that pro-lifers
> started picking up a stereotype list to fire back. 


Yup, ol' Dennis still thinks it a mark of honor to sink
to levels rather than rise above.  Way to go, Dennis.
What character.  What integrity.  What a class act.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Ice Cubes Applied To The Genitals..."
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:57:58 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

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >
[...]
-> >Which means, that IMNSHO, you're an asshole.  You're an
-> >intelligent asshole, but still an asshole.
-> 
-> Vilifier!  Hey Keegan, Keith is vilifying me!

is he now? i'm not surprised that you'd include keith's comment
under your "vilification" umbrella. adrienne really has you on
the run, doesn't she? what credible t.a. poster ever said there
was anything wrong with villification anyway?



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28198 alt.politics.homosexuality:5072
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Was this person a Roman Catholic in Its Youth?
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:30:41 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:

] In article <1992Jul15.173951.1880@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
] >
] >Are you claiming that people who find casual sex disgusting are bigots,
] >or are you claiming that homosexuals don't practice casual sex, spread
] >disease, and act sexually irresponsible and that claiming they do is
] >itself bigoted?
] 
] You're right! All those straight single bars are DISGUSTING and PERVERTED!
] All those Straight porno movies, GROSS!  God will destroy those heterosexuals
] steeped in the sin of SODOM!  Halleluyah!  Rapists and adulterers!  God
] will strike them ALL down, because he knows that these evidences of their
] sins condemn them all.


I wish to berate you ryerson for Stealing my RANT!!!!

After Reading the recent Roman Catholic Church's pontification
on the fact that Homsexuality was an Objective Disorder, and
then reading how they derived that 'term' and its semantical
evaluation, it became intuitively self evidently obvious that
the Same was CATAGORICALLY TRUE of Heterosexuality. Which of
course merely Vindicates that HeteroSexuality MUST BE OUTLAWED
to protect the LIVES of innocent children who might be lead
into sin and corruption by HeteroSexual Teachers and Coaches.

But Can I Post a Rant Like that after what you have done!!!!


NOOOOOO!!!!

I hope that you, komrade ryerson, feel proud of yourself
for STEALING MY RANT, and not leaving me anything to play with!!!!

I Hope that you feel Warm, and Fuzzy, And Content with 
the Termoil and Angst and Emotional Pain and Suffering 
that you have caused me....

Oh the Shame of it ALL!!!! To have Rant 'scooped' out from
underneath me!!!!!

Oh How ever will I live!!!!!


ciao
drieux

ps: and all he could say was, "FHRUMPFH!!!!"



-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29343 alt.politics.homosexuality:5225
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:59:29 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#|I find it pretty strange to see people advocating something designed for
#|something totally unrelated -- birth control --, as a method of desease
#|control!

>Condoms have been used for disease prevention for
>longer than you've been alive, Forgach. You might
>be interested in screening some of the pro-condom
>training films that the US armed forces showed to
>soldiers during WWII.

I don't know about diseaase control, but they've certainly been around
longer than Forgach. I remember a vague reference that papyrus condoms
were used in Egypt way in the B.C. era. I read this so long ago that
I cannot recall any details, just that papyrus seemed an extremely unpleasant
prospect for condom material.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:36:41 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  <BrsKID.85w@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> My post contained quite a lot more references besides.

Yes, and as is typical of your references, you post a bunch of studies about
20 years old, and attempt to imply that the drop in the morbidity/mortality
rate is due to a change in reporting requirements rather than due to
medical advances making abortion much safer today.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Supporting Your Daughter (formerly: Governor Casey...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:43:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul25.200426.5017@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- passing the savings on to you) writes:

>What: <1992Jul25.001036.13744@noao.edu>
>Who:  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)

>>>  = Jay T Stein
>>>> = Suzanne Forgach
> 

>This is in fact what Quayle said, and I did not dispute it.  *However,*
>do you not think it's a bit inconsistent to say, on the one hand, that
>abortion should be illegal, but, on the other hand, you'd "support" your
>daughter's decision to have one?

>>if she managed to have the abortion anyway, she would still be my daughter
>>and I would still love her.

     Of course, she might also be dead.

                                        MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men