HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>In article <74036@netnews.upenn.edu>, Kevin C. Welch writes:
>|Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
>|I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.
>|Jerk.

>Well, that's odd.  If you find your own advice so unpleasant
>& insulting, why did you offer it to others?  You do plan to
>live by the standards you'd recommend to others, don't you?

Naah, we wouldn't expect the little hypocrit to actually do anything
he said, now, would we?

Welch, if you get this far before attempting to flame me, kudos for
you, but I doubt it. Here's some serious material.

I wouldn't give a penny for your thoughts. After that slavery thing,
which you've stumbled into twice now, you have negative credibility
with me, if that were possible.

What you think of me is completely irrelevant to me (since I think you're
somewhere around 20, and appear to have led a completely sheltered life
which has insulated you from the real world and given you  exactly zip
in the maturity process) in the same manner as a 2 year old child calling
me poo-poo.

You have exhibited extreme immaturity, as judged by people far older,
experienced, and mature than you. To deny this is a further sign of
immaturity.

You have also exhibited extreme naivity in regards to any serious subject,
and are becoming/already a real bore. You have yet to show any logical reasons
for any of your blatant assertions.

Your insults are generally petty, and most things that you say are so
flawed, they can easily be turned on you. You counter by emotional or
blatant assertions.

You gloat over minor points, that most don't care about, while consistently
ignoring the major ones.

As for that major point, you've finally come out and said it, you think
the woman totally worthless, not even in control of her own body. If
it is not her property, with your meanings attached, then she isn't
in control of it. This is also something you want to assert anyway,
so don't bother denying it.

You are a worm of the lowest form, with zero compassion for your fellow
man/woman. You have obviously never conversed (preached, maybe, never
listened) with a woman who has gone through any of the things you claim
to know about.

I've got news for you. As a man, you will never know what the whole
issue is about, you can only intellectualize, provided you have the
proper equipment, which appears lacking in your case.

GO AWAY.

Ron

If you want a response, email me. Threatening/obscene letters will be
posted. Insults don't matter.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: why Kevin Welch is uncomfortable in t.a (THE PURPOSE OF THIS GROUP)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 20:04:49 GMT

<71967@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin) said:
>CJ "I don't respect anyone's privacy" Silverado writes:
>>Kevin
>
...
>>Susan posted the following email from Kevin Welch, which I
>>excerpt below.  (For the complete text, see the t.a article.)
>
...
>
>No problem with being honest.
>
>>------<welch's mail begins here>------
>

and is mostly deleted for brevity

>>	Don't talk about my inability in using the SPARCS around
>>	here.  I know enough to make your account hell.
>
>Gee, I know enough to build a bomb too.  Does that mean I will build a
>bomb?  Is that a threat?  Should we call the police?  I know enough how
>to pull the trigger on a gun (bad grammar).  Should I be arrested?  Did
>I make a threat?  "I know enough to make your account hell" is an
>interesting sentence.  Yes, I do know enough to make it hell.  Will I?
>NO, OF COURSE NOT!  That'd be breaking the law and destruction of property.
>Can I build a bomb?  YES.  Will I?  NO!  That's against the law.

You'd have to get the interpretation from Mr Chaney.  He is the one who
took Rocker's (?) statement "You better watch your back" (in response 
to Chaney crowing about anti-abortion laws being passed) as a personal
threat to his life.

>Another interesting point is that the pro-aborts missed entirely the previous
>sentences.  

Really Kevin, there is only one person on the net who is pro-abortion, and
that is me.  I would prefer it if you wouldn't refer to me in the plural.

>            Susan stated that I could not use my computer.  I told her
>not to talk about my "inability in using the SPARCS around here."  Then I
>included that line to actually show how much I knew about UNIX/SPARCS/
>whatevers around here.  It was not a threat.

Yeah, now substitute "gun" for SPARC station and computer knowledge, "Oh
yeah, I know enough about guns that I could blow your head off".  Nah, no
threat there.

>>get lost before I stomp on you, you bug.
>
>Okay, maybe this is a threat.  Could anyone see me actually stepping
>on Susan when she's God knows how long away from here?

I don't know, what shoe size do you wear?



Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie)
Subject: Re: taking a stab at it ...
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:50:26 GMT

In <1992Apr17.025004.7144@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:


>The point of this is that you are just as guilty of committing "acts of faith" 
>as I, who believe in Christianity, am; we simply get our base assumptions from 
>different places.  We are, therefore, on the same level from the point of view 
>of logic.

>--Bill
>Committed to faith in God


Yes, you are absolutely right. However you seem to be saying,
and I cariacature, that all assumptions are assumptions. Well,
some assumptions are better than others. If Joe believes in God#1, Bill
believes in God#2 and Mary believes in no god at all, and each uses
their belief as an assumption to base an argument on, I'm afraid I'll
need to reject all three --- my assumption is that at best only one
of Joe Bill or Mary can be correct, and how can I rationally choose?
Since I cannot, I reject assumptions that I regard as overly subjective.
Religious beliefs are exactly the kind of subjective premisses that
make the rest of the argument a waste of time, it seems to me. 

Hence, if one can make an argument based on premisses that we can all
agree on - like gravity, our existence - and some simple rules of
deduction which seem incontrovertible, we'll get much further on. So
using 'the Bible says' or 'there is no god therefore' or whatever
is totally unconvincing for people who don't share your value system.
Most of what we believe we share, so we can argue using those assumptions.
You simply cannot point to a bit of the bible and use that as a datum
for arguments in the world at large. It simply doesn't work for the general
public, that's why.



Jim


I agree with the person who said all that happens in this group is
meta-argument, no one seems to care about the people involved. So that
was my bit of meta-argument! 


In case you're wondering, I don't care if there is a god. It doesn't
matter. I'm afraid I'm aware of too much noise to convince myself in
the reality of the signal. Some people think they have insight - well
good for them. Those people with insight contradict each other. Given
that they believe, in good faith, they they are right and the other person
wrong, and given that their personal experience is not likely to be
radically different from any that I might have, I have good evidence to
disbelieve any and all such messages.
-- 
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150, USA
                  scobbie@csli.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.011837.6584@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit
>of happiness.
>
>Is the Constitution guarantees life, then isn't potential human life
>guaranteed?

"Officer, what are you doing with that turkey baster and that nun?"
"Sonny, we got a report that she was about to let a potential human
 life be menstruated away.  Now, go home, and be sure not to
 masturbate, or we'll nab you for genocide."

Incidentally, it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

And nearly all of civilization recognizes the difference between
abortion and infanticide, including the Catholic Church for a majority
of its existence.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:51:04 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>bonehead?

>An apt description of yourself. Nothing goes in. Therefore, nothing
>more need be said.

In my last response I requested you make your flames more concise.  I see
you have.  Thank you.

>Ron

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Subject: Re: WHO is a Catholic... (formerly: Hello?)
Reply-To: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:52:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.225135.29484@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU  
(David Knapp) writes:
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with being a Catholic?  How do murderers fit in?
> 
> 
> Lead, sure, does this mean they "are not Catholic" though?
> 
> But are they a "Catholic".  It was first posted that anyone who believed 
> abortion was ok, was *not*, and *could not* be Catholic.
> 
> 
> 
> Same here.
> 

I realize much of what I said was confusing.  I don't quite know how to
explain something when I try to do just that and nothing got through.  You
didn't seem to understand any of what I said.  No offense, but if we aren't
making any connection in regard to this, then let's just move on to the
other posts.
--

thebians

The truth hurts; doesn't it?  Life's a bitch, and then you die!!!
[Any information presented herein is the product of the author's imagination  
and should not be used, construed, or interpreted as anyone's beliefs.]
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: COUNTINUING
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:11:32 GMT

OH JOHN. MY USE UF AN INHALER DOESNT KILL ANY GERMS. BUT GEE MAYBE ALL OF 
HUMANITY SHOULD STOP EATING AND DIE. THAT WOULD END THIS PROBLEM ONCE AND FOR
ALL. BESIDES WITH OUT HUMANS THE WORLD WOULD BE BETER OF AS IT COULD HEAL
ITS SELF. BESIDES YOU SEEMED TO MIS THE ENTIRER POUNT OF MUY POST. I NEVER
SAID THAT I WAS PRO-LIFE, IF YOU HAD READ MY POST CARFULLY AND WITH A SEMI-
OPEN MIND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THE PRO THAT I AM IS PRO-NATURE
AND PRO-NATURS WAYS. HERE LET ME ELABERAT. LAW1;SEVRVIVAL: KILLING TO SERVIVE
THAT IS HOW THING HAVE ALLWAYS WORKED AND ALL WILL. LIFE HAS EVOLVED TO THIS
PROCESE-THOUSE AT THE BOTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN PRODUCE MORE YOUNG, THOSE WHO
HAVE NO PREDITERS OR COMPITITION CONTROLE THERE OWN POULATIONS. THE ONLY 
THAT I AM AGENST IS KILLING SOMETHING-ANY THING FOR A PERSONS CONVENINCE OF 
BECAUSE IS WILL BOTHERE THERE SOCHIAL LIFE FOR A FEW MONTHS. ALL UTHERE 
NATURAL LAWS COME FROM THE FIRST. NO I AM NOT IN ANY WAY ASOCEATED WITH
greenpeace. 
ELF-KIN	ACTS OF INJUSTICE DONE BETWEEN THE SETING AND RISING SUN IN
		HISTORY LAY LIKE BONES EACH ONE
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:41:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr14.172208.18111@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:
>
>>The fetus is not her property.  Her body is not her property.  She cannot
>>do anything she wishes with her body.
>
>
>That was the final blow to your credibility.

Mary Anne Warren:

"It is probably inappropriate to describe a woman's body as her property,
since it seems natural to hold that a person is something distinct from
her property..."

Face, David.  I was waiting for you to send that one.


>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************


--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: THE RATIONALIZATION OF ABORTION
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:17:20 GMT

IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42) writes:

> For some inexplicable reason, my last commentary was erased.  Oh well, I'm new
> at this, maybe I didn't do it right.  My point again:  The only way that
> abortion advocates can rationalize their position with no sense of guilt is to
> look upon the baby as a lifeless lump of tissue.

No, John, bad start.  It is alive, it is genetically human, but it is not a
human _being_ in any legal or practical way.

> Only then can the conscience be ignored, and abortion remain legal.  If the
> pro-abortionists looked at the truth: that it is human lives that are being
> ended, then perhaps there would be quite a few less pro-abortionists.

Let's get something clear, here, Mr. 1:42.  Most of us are pro-choice, not pro-
abortion.  Anyway, under the wrong circumstances, an unwanted pregnancy can
be a one-way ticket to a dead-end life.  The most important reason for a woman
to be pregnant, IMHO, is that she _wants_ to be pregnant.

> Roe vs. Wade will, given time, be overturned.  One can only ignore the
> conscience for so long before they give into its voice of reason.

RvW may or may not be overturned.  If it is, that event will not lead inevitably
to the banning of abortion.  In case you haven't noticed, John, the political
climate has changed.  It seems that many state legislatures are passing bills
that affirm the right of choice wrt reproduction.

One more thing:  your blatent assertions != 'voice of reason.'

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:13:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr15.231356.26824
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <73893@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:
>Nora

>>No, it doesn't; that's why I said "another idiot Kevin". There is a
>>Kevin or two on the group who doesn't fit into the category, but yonder
>>Brawley fellow ain't one of them.
>
>Kevin Brawley, Kevin Darcy, Kevin Welch.  Am I one?  :-(

You do a first-class imitation of one of the nasty Kevins on occasion.
I am not convinced that you are one, at least not entirely, because I've
seen too many decent things you've done as well. I'd be more comfortable
about the premise with a bit more evidence...

>>Right. And he's refused to respect mine. If he starts behaving in a
>>civilized fashion, I will stop treating him in an offensive manner.
>
>This is good.  If he refuses to respect yours, will you continue to do
>wrong to him?  Is that right, Nora?  

Yes. I don't especially believe in mercy.

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: emotion
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:44:17 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr13.184200.3309@news.iastate.edu> xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>talking about emotional stabes parasitic life forms? in case you failed to
>catch it the majority are only for abortion in extream cases. Not because
>she doesnt want the child or cant aford it.

Absolutelty.  In fact, as much as 60% of the people advocate limiting abortion
to cases of rape, incest or death of the mother.

>ELF-KIN 	on the side of the majority saying take your own advice

welch


--
FORCE IS MACHINE             -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-		WE ARE THE BOYS
VISIONS OF ORDER        -=(kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)=-       WE ARE BIG BOYS
MUSCLE AND  HATE						WE'RE SO STRONG
JOIN IN THE CHANT	         - NitzerEbb -			WE'RE SO PURE
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: MORALITY
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:21:34 GMT

	 Our morality is at stake on this subject. As things stand a person can go to gail for involentary manslotter if he kills an unborn child that the mother has the right to abort. In uthere words A Fetuse only has rights and is a life if it is wanted. Where will this mentality take us? Where will it end? Who nextxt t t
to fall under such classification? Where will it end? The old? the menataly unstabal? the homeless (it would solve the problem)? you? me? everyone? As for chose what about adoption? There are couples who have been whating on a list for years with no end in sight. Why? Because there aren't enough infints being put up for adoption. Also what about the father? It's as much his child as hers. Should
he not have a say in the mater. He may wont that child.
______________________________________________________________________________ELF-KIN		/Tommy James on life "only god has the right to decide whos to     
live and die" Why does religen have to be a part of this issue? It is more A mater of life and death!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A (Tentative) Position for Debate
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:31:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr9.030725.2415@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:
>
> It is NOT safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term, provide
> the woman has access to good medical care all along the way (including before
> she becomes pregnant).  I suspect that figures that state otherwise are
> reflecting the sad state of medical care to poor, single women in this country.

Do you have *anything* to back this up other than your suspicion?
(I suspect not...)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:02:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Nora
>Kevin
>>Nora

>>>Oh, G-d; another idiot Kevin. Where do we find these assholes?
	^
	o

Assholes?  Come on.  Logic is twisted here.  Does Kevin => asshole ?  NOT.

Neither does asshole => Kevin.

>>>Will somebody please explain to this person (a) that I'm not particularly
>>>pro-choice, let alone pro-death, and (b) that telling someone who is un-
>>>certain of their position that stating openly that you do not care if 
>>>they are enslaved and murdered and that if *they* care about their own
>>>safety they are "ignoring the issue" is not going to score any new pro-
>>>lifers for you?

>>Asshole?  Thanks for the assessment, bitch.  

>No problem. It fit so perfectly....

Look, people.  Lets watch the name calling here.  (Hey, did I say that?)
Nora, This is a little unjustified coming from you.  Let's not judge
people.  There are words offensive to YOU and there are words others
don't particulary want to hear either.


>	-Nora

kcw



--
                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-
                    -*- kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -*-
     And all you have to do is catch me, when I'm back on the real scene.
And all the things that I don't do just make me laugh 'cause they irritate you.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Please, tell me more about myself. (formerly: THE RATIONALIZATION...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:35:08 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty) writes:

>From the Gospel of: <92100.151951IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
>According to:       IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)

>>My point again:  The only way that
>>abortion advocates can rationalize their position with no sense of guilt is to
>>look upon the baby as a lifeless lump of tissue.  

>Spoken like a man who has absolutely no insight into the mind of those he
>claims to know.  Since you seem to be such an expert in matters of my own
>psychology, tell me - what career should I be in?  Should I have picked
>something different from engineering?

>My position needs no rationalization, thank you.  It is the only conclusion
>consistent with my belief system.  And before you flame my belief system, 
>I would remind you that there are pro-chocie Christians, and they might
>take exception to your comments.

I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to 
start reading your Bible.  There are wonderful insights as to God's Pro-Life
stance.

>As for the rest of your statement, I am fully aware of what is killed during
>an abortion.  Are you aware of the woman whom you would force to be a host?

Why are women given ZERO responsibility for their actions?  Since a woman's
body is your issue then why not tell women to quit letting men exploit them?
I get tired of the "everybody's a victim" attitude of society.  Sometimes it
appears that all minorities assume that ALL their problems are someones elses
fault (ie. generally males, usually white males).  

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: denmak@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Michele Keffer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: re: a woman's choice
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

No, a man has no choice - absolutely no choice -
over whata woman does with her own body, and as
long as the fetus is in there, it is only under her
control... accept that men cannot control something,
for once....
justly....