HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 17:55:54 GMT

<1992Jul20.151317.7243@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0)  said:
><1992Jul17.161503.19180@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) earns the first Klondike Bar Award:
>>   Casey supports capital punishment, but also claims to be "pro-
>>life!"  What kind of a bonehead could endorse someone like Casey?
>>Let's take a look and see who put this inane suggestion up.  Do I
>>see a familiar name?  Do I spy a recognizably ill-conceived idea?
>>Why, it's the Borgie Boy himself!  Didn't we have a bit of a talk
>>with you about what could happen to your little borgie brain when
>>you try to use it for activities such as independent thought?  It
>>can be quite damaging, so be careful.  And remember, never try to
>>form whole sentences right after eating.  We love ya!
>
>Mark Kaufman, you are far and wide the stupidest human being on Earth.
>I know some anencephalic chimps with more intellegence than you have.

Personal friends of yours, Steve?  Perhaps relatives?

>Do you spend your days screaming at fire hydrants like you do on this 
>newsgroup? Or do you regularly make threats at women like you did 
>Suzanne Forgach, because you figure you can threaten and scare women?

As opposed to spending your weekends harassing them?

>Have you ever been committed? No? Well, that proves that the crazies
>that need to be committed, aren't always discovered. You must be one
>of those bleeding heart liberals who scream the death penalty is
>killing and is hence wrong, but who see the word abortion and don't
>apply the same standards. Pro-choicers are known to oppose war and the
>death penalty on the grounds that "it's killing!" Now, THAT's funny! 

You think war and death are funny?  You are a sick puppy.

>About the only people I know who would hate Casey are pro-choicers and
>deadbeat fathers. Birds of a feather, do fly together. 

So you do claim to share the same personal habits and views of Randall
Terry?  You claim to share the same view of Blacks as that of Jesse Helms?

BTW, in case it hasn't penetrated your Borg consciousness, many men of
this board are pro-choice and have NO children.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and 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: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:15:56 GMT

In article <23007@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul30.115822.7033@wetware.com>
>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) 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.

>> A man cannot be said to be "seeking to Kill" his partner because the
>> woman consents to the risks involved in sexual intercourse. Consent to
>> sexual intercourse implies the consent to the possibility of pregnancy
>> and all its attendant risks.

> If this doesn't qualify as the MaleChauvinisticPig Quote of the day,
> what does? So the man doesn't consent to the risks involved in sexual
> intercourse? What?!? You're directly implying that it is entirely the
> woman's risk! 

Since the man doesn't get pregnant, he bears no risk. Of course, 
he does have a responsibility towards the woman and the child. 

>Ron


Doug Holtsinger
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:48:07 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <nse5nu4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> ---
> From talk.bizarre & alt.sex, of all places:
> 
> In article <Bs225t.LI5@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> |This is ridiculous. I am afraid that I no longer can sit passively during 
> |this thread. Homophobia is an IRRATIONAL response to homosexuals and 
> |their practices. It is NOT irrational to be disgusted by the concept of two
> |(wo)men having sex. Although one should tolerate and leave alone such men and
> |women, they should never be forced to accept, practice, or condone it.
> 
> This man claims not to be a homophobe?  Ugh.  I think he 
> disgusts me.

Why?  Because he thinks homosexual intercourse is disgusting and will
never accept, practice, or condone it?  How is this homophobic?
There are many people who think the same of homosexual intercourse,
but do not have a problem with socializing/doing business/etc with
homosexuals.  To be completely honest, the thought of another man's
penis entering my anus or my mouth disgusts me.  Does this make me
a homophobe, or have I missed your point?
 
> ---
> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
> "Oh, you're a bigot all right, you just feel that saying you have the 
> right to be one means you're liberal.  If it didn't happen so often, 
> it would be funny."  Mark Sobolewski, in talk.religion.misc

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:03:36 GMT

---
dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|A man cannot be said to be "seeking to Kill" his partner because the 
|woman consents to the risks involved in sexual intercourse. Consent to
|sexual intercourse implies the consent to the possibility of pregnancy
|and all its attendant risks.

This doesn't mean that the woman has to sit & suffer with an
unwanted pregnancy, of course, any more than a car accident
victim has to suffer with his injuries.  She consented to sex, 
orgasm, and a small chance of pregnancy, not to pregnancy itself.
The woman can choose from a wide variety of options once she's
found out she's got an unwanted pregancy.  She can have an 
abortion, bring to term & give the baby up for adoption, or 
bring to term & keep the baby.  It's all up to her.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:40:24 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <cd1xrwn@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> 
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> 
>>In article <!mvxtjk@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>> 
>>> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>>> 
>>>>The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
>>>>recorded. 
>>> 
>>> This statement is not correct.
> 
>>Sure it is, he said approximately 100%.  The accuracy depends entirely
>>on the number of significant figures he was thinking of.
> 
> McBean, I go to an engineering school.  

Whoopty shit, I have a BSc with a major in chemistry (whoopty shit).

> Try coming here and taking
> a test and writing ~ in front of all your answers.  Try defending
> yourself by saying "Hey, you didn't specify the number of significant
> figures!"  You might give the prof a good laugh, but you'd still
> fail.

If there was no statement of the number of significant figures, then you'd
be entirely correct.  You can be just as vague as your test.  Besides that,
Mr. Franklin was not being tested in the first place.  He made a very
broad approximation.

> Franklin's statement is just inaccurate, sloppy math.

It was neither of the two.
 
>>Brian McBean  
> 
>                     -rocker
>                      are you one of those liberal arts majors?

PUHLEEEEEZE!  :-)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:37:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.220341.247412@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>> This is just something interesting I noted when reading the text of the
>> Supreme Court's decision.  It has been mentioned (at least in passing)
>> before. While RVW is generally considered as granting women the right to 
>> choose (and has been treated that way by the laws), it actually (as the 
>> text is written) does no such thing.  What it does do is prevent the states
>> from interfering with the DOCTOR's decision vis a vis abortion prior to 
>> the first trimester etc. etc.
>>
>> RVW *as written* does not *seem* to grant the choice to women.  Obviously
>> that is how it has turned out in practice.  [...]

> No, you didn't suddenly discover a major flaw in Roe, as you
> seem to believe.  I can see that you are basing your erroneous 
> interpretation on a few words in the decision, while ignoring 
> the lengthy discussion of the right to privacy.  Perhaps you
> should read the decision again.

I think Mr. Miller's reading of Roe is correct. The Court ruled 
that the privacy right involved "cannot be said to be absolute",
and that the state does have an interest in protecting the woman's
health.

I think the key test of the validity of Mr. Miller's thesis is
whether or not women have the right to self-abort under Roe.  
Roe allows the states to require licensed physicians to perform
the abortion procedure; it seems that the state could prohibit 
non-physicians from self-aborting. 

The basis for the Court's ruling is the supposition that a first 
trimester abortion performed by a physician is safer than childbirth,
and so the state cannot restrict first trimester abortions on the
basis of protecting the woman's health. If self-induced abortions
were more dangerous than childbirth, then the state could use that
as a basis for prohibiting (or restricting) self-induced abortions.

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:36:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.163919.28253@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.025548.12689@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>I claim only that there
>>are Extremist pro-choicers lurking hereabouts who argue for an abortion
>>"right", even after the point of fetal viability. As far as I'm concerned,
>>such a position is not different in any important respect from condoning 
>>infanticide.
>
>"Gee, that's pretty close to my definition too."
>    <1992Jun21.012016.066@rotag.mi.org>

Connection? Context? Are you turning into Keith the Keegan Klone?

								- Kevin
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:40:59 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <22868@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>> To state it at your level, No, her opinion was not derived in part from
>> the actions of a few radicals.

>What business do you have telling everyone how Vickie feels about
>the abortion issue? Butt out and let the woman speak for herself!

I only analyzed what she wrote in response to you, to show you where
you failed to comprehend what she said. I'm sure if I stated something
incorrectly, Vickie will respond herself, so take your own advice, and
take a comprehension class while you're out.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29731 talk.religion.misc:13143
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Scriptural Food for Thought
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:04:22 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul31.134637.20136@linus.mitre.org> zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.214253.5281@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
::Such is the "Final Solution of the Canaanite Question". The only
::justification other than "the land is for us, not for them" that is
::ever presented is given in Leviticus (which describes none of these
::great victories), where we are told that they practiced homosexual
::acts and other wicked things -- right after where it states that male
::homosexual acts should be punished by death to all participants. 
:
:God clearly stated His reason for the genocide:
:
:    Otherwise they will teach you to follow all the detestable 
:    things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin 
:    against the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 20:18 - NIV)
:
:As if there was something more detestable than genocide!

	They were *EVIL*, that's why :-)

	What better reason could one need? :-):-)

	Why weren't they reformed? An omnipotent being could certainly
imprint correct behavior on troublesome people and not go through the
trouble that human moralists have to go through.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:13:05 GMT

In article <adams.712521565@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

> What the "Pro-Life" people want is an end to abortion.  Period.  Therefore,
> the proper appelation would well be "anti-abortion." 

Not necessarily. Many of the pro-life people also oppose euthanasia
and the use of anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 
Therefore, the "proper appelation" is pro-life, not anti-abortion.

>Steve Adams


Doug Holtsinger
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:21:41 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <22dml=#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>   One of the techniques to abolish a woman's constitutional right 
>to abortion is to focus on some difficult aspect of abortion.  
>One favorite ploy used by the less intelligent pro-force fanatics 
>is to evoke the subject of third trimester abortions.  They evoke the 
>subject as if it were some significant part of the big picture of abortion 
>in America.  It is usually suggested by these zealots that there are 
>thousands of women in America who are daily aborting their about-to-be-born
>children.

4000 abortions/day - 1,500,000 abortions/year - these are approximations,
but pretty good ones, correct?

Let's say that 1% of abortions are third trimester ones.

1% of 1,500,000 is about 15,000 per year or 40 per day.

Are these ok numbers?

>Religion stops a thinking brain.

Fear (reverence) of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Children's reaction to abortion
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:19:10 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  <1992Jul30.201510.1750@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
> I am mindful though, of the frequent arguments in this newsgroup that
> children will simply pick up the attitude of whatever adult is trying to
> explain it to them.  So one day at the models, without saying a word, or
> any leading conversation whatsoever, I held my 18 month old daughter up to
> where she could see the models.  She pointed with glee and said, "Baby!"

And of course your daughter has been carefully shielded from you these
past 18 months so she couldn't pick up any of your attitudes.  Or was
there no point to your story?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:25:48 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul24.140726.17502@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) stuns us all:
>
>>> ===========================================================================
>>>                 Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>>> ===========================================================================
>
>>'B.O.S.S.' means 'Better Off Shoveling Shit.'
>
>> So Chris Lyman challenges my historical fact with a joke. 
>
>No, you doofus.  I challenge your "Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex!"
>comment with a darn good joke, a "keeper" in the words of another poster.

Quit calling me doofus. I am not a part of your family. 

>Did I hear someone say that you were Roman Catholic?  If you are, that's a
>pretty tasteless thing to say, given the numbers of RC priests in hot water
>for sexually abusing children, wouldn't you agree?

Did I hear about the number of pro-choicers in hot shit for anything
from rape to being drunk all the time (Ted Kennedy, anyone)? 

>> Yeah, I might be better off shoveling shit.
>
>Finally, an accurate self-assessment.

And like I said, the problem would be, I'd end up shoveling you in the
process. 

>> The problem is, I might end up accidentally shoveling you in the process.
>
>Then you've really got a problem.
>If you can't distinguish shit from me, then...

>that would mean that _I_ must be shit... 
- No, he didn't say that BUT that can be taken as a translation... 

>ps - That's a nice tap dance you're doing regarding Susan B. Anthony.  How's
>the choreography coming for the "Margaret Sanger Backpedal?"

Susan Garvin's leading the dance. I'm just a spectator.  

>-- 
>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


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:01:41 CDT

In article <1992Jul26.190121.20155@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>> [some self-righteous nonsense]
>
>Please leave this discussion in alt.flame where I originally posted it, 
>Ms. Garvin. Do you wish me to dredge up your old quote about "flames belong
>in alt.flame" as a painful reminder, hmmmm??
>
Kevin, grow up.  You've already caused more than your lifetime
allotment of pain for Susan, by ridiculing and trivializing the
painful experiences of someone she loves.  You have hit bottom,
Kevin. Time to go for help.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Creating Real Choices
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:57:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.011621.10950@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>There is a group in Minnesota, I think, who are pro-lifers and
>pro-choicers together. They call themselves  Common Ground, and work
>on reforms like the ones I mentioned in my post. They have one ground
>rule: They do not discuss abortion, because I would detract from their
>reform efforts.
>
>I'll have to do some research on this....
>
	In fact, it's my understanding that the movement started here in
St. Louis as a result of meetings between Missouri Citizens for Life and
(I think) Planned Parenthood (it might have been Mo. NARAL..memory fails).
The bottom line was that they wanted to look for ways in which they could
cooperate on issues that both regarded as problems, such as lack of prenatal
care for poor women, lack of contraceptive information, and so on.
	IMO, support for such efforts tends to separate the reasonable
members of the pro-life and pro-choice camps from the extremists on both
sides.  I wonder how many of the posters here would support such efforts?
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
>			-Joseph Beam_
>Terrance Heath 
>heath@athena.cs.uga.edu


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28506 alt.politics.homosexuality:5140
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:50:50 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Jul23.012328.16153@noao.edu>, 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!
|> 
|> Don'tcha get it?  Condoms were _never_designed_ to stop a virus millions of
|> times smaller than a sperm.    WhatEVER gives you the idea that it would??
|> 
|> 

Please cite your source for information on virology and
the manufacturing of plastics.

If the condom passes the electricity test (insulation) then
electrons (which are smaller than viruses) cannot pass through it.

Logic isn't one of your better subjects is it ?

Later,
George


-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion