HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:32:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.015024.17310@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <By0uut.F7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov20.011111.3228@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>>>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>>>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>>>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>>>>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.
>>>>No flame intended.  Just fact.
>>>In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?
>>I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.
>>Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.
>>That's something I call a lie.
>It's not what I call a lie. I'm prepared to grant that it is not descriptive
>of you, but you need to show that she knew it to be untrue for it
>to be a lie.

So, one is allowed to make unequivocal and unsupported statements 
about people as long as one doesn't know that they are untrue?

And that's not called lying?

That sounds pretty equivocal to me.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:47:27 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> I've got better things to do with my time than reply to claims that
> are totally irrelevant to abortion.

May I suggest that you not make any claims that are totally irrelevant
to abortion, then?  Cases in point: 1) your accusations (J'ACCUSE!) that
Joan Campbell and others are apostate; 2) the suspension of Ismail Elguindi's
license to practice medicine.

> It is still fun to do it with Dean Kaflowitz; it ceased being fun with
> Larry Margolis and Chris Lyman a long time ago.

It's no fun being bested by the chief janitors at IBM and St. Paul Public
Works, is it? :-)

-- 
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
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:03:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <92324.231526ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>"The advertisement of the 'Comstock Syringe...had one sole,
>exclusive purpose, vs.: the proclamation of an opinion, the
>assertion of Woman's Natural Right to ownership and control
>over her own body-self - a right inseparable from Women's
>intelligent existence; a right unquestionably, precious,
>inalienable, real - beyond words to express..."
>  Ezra Heywood, Free Speech: Report of Ezra Heywood's
>     Defence before the United States Court, in Boston,
>     April 10, 11, and 12, 1873

What was the Comstock Syringe?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Male contraception
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:23:47 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
Followup-To: soc.men,talk.abortion

In <1992Nov20.195113.23422@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>
>I have used condoms exclusively for more than ten years.  I have
>broken less than six, and all of them were broken before I learned the
>SooperSecretMagick for preventing condom failure eight years ago.

Don't use staples to hold them on?

>My favorite is the macho macho macho
>maCHEEZEmo macho macho macho man who can't use condoms ``because they
>don't fit'' -- mister, if your johnson is too big for a condom, it's
>too big... period.  You need a surgeon, not a sex partner.

No, they make larger sizes now.  (And before they did, "skins" work quite
well.  Drawbacks are, they're more expensive, and they are more porous than
latex, so don't protect against the AIDS virus.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:08:23 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <lefty-161192123613@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
#In article <BxKA1t.BM6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
#(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
#> 
#> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
#> 
#> >In article <Bx3I9x.G8y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
#> >(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
#> >> 
#> >> In the case of a pregnancy it is perfectly natural for the baby to be 
#> >> inside the mother to grow.  Human beings cannot grow normally in any 
#> >> other enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The mothers body 
#> >> accomodates the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  Women are 
#> >> designed to be able to be pregnant.
#> 
#> >Hmm.  Let's see what we can do with this, through the magic of "search and
#> >replace"...
#> 
#> >> In the case of cancer it is perfectly natural for the tumor to be inside 
#> >> the host to grow.  Tumors cannot grow normally in any other 
#> >> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The host's body accomodates
#> >> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  People are designed to be 
#> >> able to develop cancer.
#> 
[...]
#In point of fact, my observation is of equal substance to your original
#one.  The cases, as far as I can see are 100 per cent parallel.  If you
#disagree, please feel free to explain why.

I disagree.  Cancer cells never result in autonomous human beings.  Cancer
is a disease, and always unwelcome, pregnancy isn't.  

#As an alternative, please consider the following: I have a good friend who
#has been diagnosed as having an internal "growth" of some sort.  The cells
#comprising this "growth" have different DNA than my friend; the cells,
#moreover, are differentiating as it grows; it is growing at a somewhat
#alarming, and potentially health-threatening rate.
#
#Should my friend have this growth removed?  Should my friend be _permitted_
#to have this growth removed?

Yep.  And so should a woman be entitled to have an abortion.  But in the
latter case, it is a person that is being removed from the woman's body,
not a cancerous growth.

#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,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:27:50 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Nov23.210005.13072@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>>    Still not sure?  Then, by your incredibly simplistic definition,
>>everyone who commits male-male rape in prison is gay.  I doubt many of the
>>inmates would agree with that assertion. 
>
>They certainly have homosexual tendancies/DESIRES...

    Well then, the Kinsey (and similar) survey numbers indicating that 10%
of the population is primarily gay had better be revised, and fast!  There
are a hell of a lot more than originally thought.  It's also amazing that
so many gays are arrested and tossed in jail.

    Come on.  You've *got* to see the error in your association.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:00:30 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Nov13.163212.27900@ncsu.edu> <adams.721675706@spssig> <1992Nov17.202633.24525@ncsu.edu>
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 <1992Nov17.202633.24525@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>
>In article <adams.721675706@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>|>
>|> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>|> >  [What he wrote is further down]
>
>|> In a purely historical sense, the Bible is rightly grouped with other
>|> ancient and modern religious texts.  What's wrong with this?  Surely you
>|> don't need some sort of secular approval for the Bible!  Either you believe
>|> or you don't...passing a law 'approving' or 'sanctioning' the Bible doesn't
>|> do one whit to increase or decrease the level of truth contained therein,
>|> nor should it affect ones view of that truth.
>
>No, but I amn trying to get some credibility for it. And trying to make it not
>just another old book.

Why do you want to make it more than it is?

>There are no laws against having sex, and there should not be any, there

(Actually, there are; I agree that there *shouldn't* be any laws against
consensual sex.)

>SHOULD be laws prohibiting the ending of a life if precautions are not taken
>while having sex.

And if precautions *are* taken, but they fail?  Would abortion then be
OK according to you, or is this just a red herring?

>|> >Let's see, can't have prayer in public schools (my family=me),
>
>|> You can pray all you want.  Even aloud.  No official from the school can
>|> lead a prayer.  How exactly does that violate your rights?  You can still
>|> pray!  And, by the way, what of Jesus command that you should go and pray
>|> in private to God, who is in private, and not stand in public like the
>|> hypocrites???  Hmm?
>
>OK, good point, I may have gotten carried away, and exagerated, even to myself,
>but yes praying in public is prohibited, even if led by a student taking the
>place of a leader.

Praying in public is prohibited, or *organized* praying?

>Yes prayer is  private thing most of the time, but sometimes
>public prayer is neccessary.

I'd like to see you prove that *praying* is ever necessary, much less
*public* praying.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: It's time for me to go home
Date: 19 Nov 92 07:00:52 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <1992Nov19.063441.22999@wdl.loral.com>, I blathered:
# Wow.  _Stanger_In_A_Strange_Land_.

_Stranger_...

Damn it.  I've been working too hard.  I *need* a vacation.  Bad.
Three posts today.  And every single one has a bad typo in it.  This
one probably will too, even though I won't see it when I click on the
send widget.

Apologies.  Please read what I mean to write -- not what I actually
write.  I seem to have developed a bad habit of dropping letters,
words and sometimes whole civilizations out of my thought train.

(Don't worry -- I'm saving up for one of drieux's famous
head-scrubbings.  I'll be a New Man after the holidays.)


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49026 alt.abortion.inequity:5237 soc.women:20104 soc.men:19738
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Thursday, 19 Nov 1992 23:15:26 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Distribution: na
 <1992Nov13.154128.22668@panix.com> <32628@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>
 <1992Nov14.153750.9326@panix.com>

In article <1992Nov14.153750.9326@panix.com> Jim Kalb says:
>
>In <32628@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> Stephen J. Mezias writes:
>
>>A person has a right to refuse
>>to have their bodies used for purposes to which they do not consent.
>
>Where does this principle come from?  Did anyone assert it before the
>modern debate over abortion began in the 1960s?

"The advertisement of the 'Comstock Syringe...had one sole,
exclusive purpose, vs.: the proclamation of an opinion, the
assertion of Woman's Natural Right to ownership and control
over her own body-self - a right inseparable from Women's
intelligent existence; a right unquestionably, precious,
inalienable, real - beyond words to express..."
  Ezra Heywood, Free Speech: Report of Ezra Heywood's
     Defence before the United States Court, in Boston,
     April 10, 11, and 12, 1873



Linda
--
How lively anti-feminism still is can be judged by the
eagerness of certain men to reject everything favourable
to the emancipation of women.
 Simon DeBeauvoir, 1953
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Hey, Hoffmeyer...
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:04:29 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Are you going to do any imaginary conversations with the women
in talk.abortion, or do you only do that in talk.rape? :-)

Or are you going to take the boys to the imaginary coffee house over
here?

BTW, in personal email, you were recently described to me as
'Hoffmeyer is yet another smart-ass who isn't nearly as smart as 
he thinks he is.' By a man, no less.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 3
Keywords: forgery, tampering with evidence, lying, false accusations, empty
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:14:54 GMT

Phoney, you falsly accused adrienne regard of forgery.

you attributed someone else's words to susan garvin.

both of these statements have been demonstrated to be
true.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: In which Petie gets nastier, this time without a false attribution.
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:28:48 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.722213027@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 

>>I didn't know this statement required strong indicators that it was
>>issued tongue in cheek.  I'm sorry if some people believed that I had
>>a perception of my talk.abortion persona as always gentle; I don't.
>
>You were talking to a person who *identified* himself as a newbie,
>you jerk.  

I thought it was obvious by the tone, absent any history about me,
even to a newbie.  However, I have to admit to having suspected that
the obvious sarcasm might penetrate even your thick skull given that
you do know my posting style; I guess I was wrong.

Deletia of more whining from Petie about my mistreatment of him:

>Right, and I told you my netserver wasn't posting properly, and it 
>was only *after* I said this that your real flaming commenced, you
>insufferable "gentle-man".

Your netserver is to blame for everything, Petie.  I suggest you speak
to the people in charge of it instead of whining to me.  I have no
obligation to respond to your email; I told you this relatively
politely in the first email.  It was only when you persisted in
sending me email that I made it clear that I had no intention of
carrying on a private dialog with a fetus fanatic who wants to force
women to carry unwanted pregnancies.

SJM
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:33:46 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov21.155258.2967@wetware.com> 
diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> You know, the really funny thing is that you didn't
>> contact me first via e-mail -- you went straight to
>> the NCSU system administrators.  What does that say 
>> about you Margolis? 

> Could it be, Doug, that Larry didn't bother writing
> to the 'dsh' account because he knew that he would
> not get any answer?  

How would he know that I wouldn't respond? 

> I know *I* haven't gotten any
> answer from the mail I sent to you off of the very
> FIRST post from this week - 

I don't recall ever receiving any e-mail from you.
In fact, I remember seeing drieux complain about
not being able to reach me via e-mail, and he's
at the same site as you.  

>Diana


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:43:47 GMT
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: The Village Waterbed

In <Bxv81E.39s@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>1)     Provides a declaration of a woman's right to choose up to the 12th
>       week of pregnancy whether or not to have an abortion -- as a federal
>       law.  Not on privacy grounds -- but on ownership of one's body.

What about the second trimester?

>Further, I will go so far as to suggest that there is a simpler solution to
>the problem of "fair" reproductive freedom that is now present in law:
>       Remove a woman's right to choose whether or not to become a parent
>       after a pregnancy occurs.
>
>I think it is obvious to both men and women that this is a less desirable
>alternative than the proposal above.  Nonetheless, I believe it is a
>defensible position for men should women decide not to permit equality,
>within the limits of biology, in this process.

I think anyone who'd consider this as a less desireable and yet reasonable
or defensible alternative is a sick individual, and there is no way I could
back them.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Date: 23 Nov 1992 10:07:36 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

> Ferrari
>> O'Dwyer
>># Ferrari

>>#10. It is hateful to assume that many women, or even teenage girls, are a
>>#    bunch of mindless zombies who cave in to society's "trivialization of
>>#    sex" without a thought as to the possible consequences.
>
>>No it isn't.  And not to entertain the idea is stupid.
>
>I'm sorry you think that women and teenage girls are a bunch of mindless
>zombies.  I'm sorry that your girlfriend or wife, your daughter, your 
>mother, and all of your female friends and coworkers are a bunch of
>mindless zombies, but that does explain why you hate women so much.  And
>perhaps, since every woman or girl you have ever known is a mindless
>zombie, you are justified in having such a low opinion of women.  Maybe
>that will change if you ever meet a female human who is not a mindless
>zombie.  Again, my condolences.

I don't think that, and you know it.  Nevertheless, I do _entertain_ the idea
that many women _and_ many men are highly suggestible, and do indeed cave
into society with scarcely a thought.  "mindless zombie" is not the phrase I
would use, but it does describe the phenomenon.  It seems more sensible to me
to entertain this idea, and take it very seriously indeed, than to adopt a
feelgood philosophy of "everyone is equal, nobody is stupid".

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


-- 
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: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 14:30:43 GMT

Good Grief!  He's actually following the posts
in soc.singles - and responding to the responses!

Diana

In soc.singles I found:
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:

] margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] >jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
] 
] >>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
] 
] >>>   a sack of blood and globs of tissue
] 
] >> You know dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu that was beautiful also. I think it would be
] >> a little more appropriate and make more of an impact on
] >> alt.romance.chat. Hey, it's a suggestion.
] 
] > Wouldn't rec.food.cooking be more appropriate?  :-)
] 
] Why don't you e-mail that suggestion to my system administrators,
] in addition to the threatening e-mail you sent them today about
] my post. 
] 
] 
]   "It was easy to shrug off an aborted pregnancy as nothing more than
]    a sack of blood and globs of tissue--as many pro-choice activists
]    did--if one never saw fetal remains, or products of conception (POC),
]    as they were known in medical circles.  But the nurses, medical
]    assistants, and doctors who worked inside procedure rooms knew
]    that while an eight-week POC was indeed a sack of blood and
]    globs of tissue, an eleven-week POC harbored tiny arms and legs
]    and feet with toes.  At twelve weeks, those tiny hands had tiny
]    nails.  Although the fetal head was too small at that stage to
]    withstand the evacuation machine's suction, pieces of face--a nose
]    and a mouth, or a black eye (all fetal eyes are black in the
]    first trimester) the size of a pea--were sometimes found in
]    the aftermath.
] 
]    Later abortions spawned even more gruesome fetal remains.  Between
]    the twelfth and the sixteenth week, early in the second trimester,
]    the fetus almost doubled in length as its body caught up to its
]    large head, and it filled out to the point where it looked like
]    a human baby for the first time.  Since the fetal skull was 
]    still soft, the head did not come out whole during the evacuation,
]    but the legs and arms and rib cage made it through intact.  The
]    hand of a second trimester fetus, as a Preterm doctor described
]    it, seemed big enough to shake.
] 
]    Most of Preterm's abortion staff didn't volunteer to work ``seconds''.
]    Late first trimester POCs were hard enough.  The counselor/medical
]    assistants (CMAs) met regularly to discuss their feelings about
]    their work, and often the discussion focused on the POC.  Inside
]    a procedure room, facing the contents of the uterus, there was
]    no denying what abortion was." 
] 
]    Sue Hertz, _Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front Line_,
]    Prentice Hall Press, 1991, pg. 104.
] 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion