HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:41:04 GMT

In article <26986@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>|> >Do you have any data that can help
>|> >convince the reasonable persons on this net that we are facing a 'real'
>|> >problem that needs a legislative solution?
>|> 
>|> I guess all those men who are being jailed, or their lives and/or careers
>|> otherwise destroyed, are "invisible" to you, eh? How conveeeeeenient.
>
>How many of those men who are being jailed for not paying child support
>were men who would have wanted their partner to get an abortion _at the
>time_ of her pregnancy?
>
Very Damned Few IMNSHO!! We oppose the Family Court system, not our kids.

>My father was briefly jailed for contempt of court--refusing to pay child
>support.  He says that the first two of us were planned, the second two
>were accidents, but he didn't want Mom to have an abortion (which wasn't
>legal then anyway).  What does this jail time have to do with "forced
>fatherhood"?   
           <the following does not follow topic, but So?>
>
I have no objection to paying to support my son. I object to having
to pay $800.00 for the 16 days a month h3e spends with my ex. If she
can't (read WON"T) support herself, It's NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM. She
divorced me to spend time with her boyfriend (who dumped her) Why
should I have to pay because she was unwilling to work? Give me my son!

>I'd be interested in knowing how many of the men who don't pay child
>support after being ordered to do so wanted the child at the time it was
>conceived, or decided he wanted it during the pregnancy.
>
>-- 
>--Beth Weiss
>bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Some Pro-life...conclusions?
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:53:53 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

Sometimes abortions fail and children get born.  This shows that
abortion is wrong.

Sometimes contraceptives fail and children get born.  This shows that
contraceptives are wrong.

Sometimes people fail at abstinence and children get born.  This shows
that abstinence is wrong.

....

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:12:13 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <s6qpd0o@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com 
->>We have Overpeck talking in his condescending way about women
->>under stress making bad decisions, and about how they need
->>counselling.

->Why would you say this?  It isn't true.

that doesn't seem to have bothered cj in the past. why
would it bother her now?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:42:54 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>->I think that your scheme would deny abortions to women who
>->aren't wealthy and/or well-connected.

Yes ... the doctors' legal risk would translate into very high costs; in
practice only those women who could pledge to pay for good lawyers in the
event of a judicial review would be able to have third-tri abortions.  

Indigent women have enough trouble getting decent attention from one
doctor, never mind two; and who would ever take that expensive legal 
risk for them?

Fortunately our legal system is designed not to allow abuses like
Elizabeth's proposal.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                    suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:36:17 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov21.034023.26197@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.024428.134895@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>
>But are you admitting that you sent e-mail to my system administrators
>asking that someone should talk to me about my posts?

Sure.

>You don't call that threatening?

Nope.

>What were you expecting them to do?

Educate whatever clueless idiot was posting that.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49366 soc.men:19867 soc.women:20235 alt.politics.homosexuality:7569
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:51:58 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
# margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
# >Yeah, and if you get drunk in a bar and wake up naked in an alley somewhere,
# >you gave your consent to being robbed, too, right?  Idjit.
# 
# No, but you took it upon yourself to give up your choice of being able
# to make enough decision not to let yourself pass out, and then get robbed.
# Once again, it's your own fault.

[80 column .sig deleted]

Great!  Hey Darren, next time you're in the City, let me know -- I
know this great bar in the Tenderloin...  Don't worry.  You can trust
me.  I swear on a stack of bibles I won't rob you.  Honest.

Darren, you are a complete feeb.  I figgered your first post was flame
bait, but then you clued me in with your second post that you really
are one of those savage brain-damaged walking dead who actually
believe that anything bad that ever happens to you has to be your own
fault.  I don't ordinarily wish tragedy upon other humans, but for you
I'll break my own rules -- you sir, are in dire need of being held at
gunpoint and made to do horrible things for fear of disfigurement.
Anybody amoral enough to subscribe to the beliefs you expound above
deserves the heinousity you're proposing.  *I* certainly wouldn't do
such a thing to you, but it'll happen to somebody somewhere soon --
and I, for one, would rather it happened to somebody like you than
somebody with a scrap of decency and ethics left in his/her miserable
soul.  Here's hoping the wheel of karma brings you an extra helping of
torment and misfortune.


+---------------------------+  ``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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:10:58 GMT

In article <1ebu7hINNchd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>>>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>>>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>>>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>>>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
>>>
>>>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
>>>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
>>>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.
>
>What is so hard about donning a condom to protect yourself?

Perhaps here's the problem:  in the last couple of posts I've seen,
only the women seem to believe that condoms are highly reliable.
That's an interesting comment in itself.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48862 news.admin.misc:388 talk.bizarre:38924
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Purpose of lat/longs
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:14:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:

] In article <1992Nov15.062558.14903@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes:
] >1. so there is a good reason to get sites into the UCCP map 
] >project, and keep it up to date?                   ^^^^
]                                                     ^^^^
] Obviously a typo.  It should have been "CCCP".

coincidence or conspiracy?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:51:44 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 <WIGGINS.92Nov17135439@hurricane.cs.odu.edu> wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov16.205155.9951@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>   ...and an unimaginable vengeful asshole who murdered whole cities because of
>   the sins of a few (including, for you crocodile tear-droppers, many
>   "innocent babes" and other exalted types of human life).
>-------
[...]
>And, He would have saved Sodom and Gomorrah if just a few (10?)  righteous
>men were found in them, which probably had very large populations.

But an omniscient god would have known that there weren't that many.  So was
he not omniscient, or did he just get off on fucking with people's heads?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:24:24 GMT

In article <BxvDH0.Jtz.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I will be glad to mail both my original article and Nyikos'
> reply to anyone who wants them, or I'll repost both if anyone
> asks.  I'm not marking deletions here.)

I'd like to see a re-post of Mr. Nyikos' reply so that
everyone can see his refutation of Greenfield's arguments.   
Who knows, perhaps one of you pro-aborts might get up the 
courage to actually reply to Mr. Nyikos' arguments, instead
attacking him for an accidental misattribution.  

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jay.wise@mail.trincoll.edu
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: Trinity College
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:01:34 GMT

In article <phil.722110508@seidel> phil@seidel.ucsb.edu (Philip Papadopoulos)
writes:
>
>>   If you want to oppose abortion, go ahead.  But when you try to
>>force EVERYONE to obey your beliefs, you are being un-American in
>>the extreme.  People won't put up with this shit any more.  It is
>>becoming a different America.  You fundies have had your day.  It
>>is over for you intolerant bastards.  Go crawl back to that swamp
>>from which you came.  And don't come out until you can stop lying
>>to everyone.
>
>Since you have lowered the level of this conversation. I will
>respond in kind:
>
>"Fuck all you want. Get as many abortions as you want. I don't give flying
>fuck about people who want abortions on demand - at any time - for any 
>reason.  -- Just don't ask me (a person who doesn't screw anything
>that moves, and a taxpayer) to pay for it"
>
Well, boys (or girls). Don't you just love high-minded discourse!
Unfortunately, this appears to be the level to which most discussion of
this issue of this issue inevitably descends, which is pathetic.

First of all, the "taxpayers complaint" doesn't carry much weight.
Tax-paying pacifists are still forced to contribute funds towards, say,
B-1 bombers; federally funded abortions are a matter of health care, a matter
of equity, and if the government decides accordingly, I don't think
you have much of a case.

On the other hand, the kind of puerile exchange that went on above only
illustrates how fundamental this problem is. We should (as Dan Quayle said
in the VP debate (although if anyone had ever told me I'd be quoting DQ,
I'd have hit them over the head with a blunt instrument)) be searching for
middle ground, talking about things we can agree over, rather than wasting
time with juvenile name-calling. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:17:19 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>impeachment in a year or two.  :-)

Nah.  Since GHWB has managed to avoid impeachment for about 12 years
(all that pesky "aid and comfort to the enemy" stuff), doesn't seem
likely that anyone is going to be impeached any time soon.  Particularly
since your comment was random ad hominem, with zip, zilch, nada to back
it up.

And just think, Forgach, (but don't hurt yourself) no matter what it is
you're fantasizing about President-elect Clinton, just how likely do
you suppose it is that he'll be impeached with a majority-controlled
Congress?

>> and your state referendum on abortion was voted down by almost 2 to 1.

>Didja ever notice, Chris, that I have never once posted that I supported
>that referendum?  Ya know why?   It allowed for the killing of the children
>of rape and incest.   _ALOT_ of pro-lifers actually voted against that
>referendum, for precisely that reason.   Since Arizona law _already_ outlaws
>all abortions except to save the life of the mother, what incentive would
>any pro-lifer have had to vote for it?   The day that Roe v Wade falls,
>one or the other of those laws would be reinstated.   So why the hell should
>we have settled for the lesser one?

Golly gosh, Forgach, what ever happened to "one step at a time" and "as
long as it takes"?  Your claims of ideological purity don't hold much
water around here....

>Suzanne Forgach

                        -rocker
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:44:34 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Nov14.151657.8820@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>In <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>>When nobody else is involved, nobody else has the right to
>>interfere.

>If my greatest joy in life is torturing cats to death, does anyone
>else have the right to interfere?

  What massive egotistical brainwave led you to assume that a
non-sentient human fetus is more important than a suffering animal?

                                                             MP
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48535 talk.religion.misc:21487 alt.atheism:21617
From: simon@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David Joseph Simon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Pro choice question
Date: 19 Nov 1992 14:52:32 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Keywords: choice question

Hi there all
someone named Brian I think from Arizona asked the question of pro-choice people:
 "You say you have the "right to choose".  Who is the authority that grants you this right?
I have a simple answer for this.
1.	Its called the constitution.  You know, the paper that grants us freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  Be sure and grab a copy of this next time you are at the library.

       	Dont shovel this "authority" stuff on me!! Who is the authority that grants you the right to harass pro-choice people at the homes, for expressing their opinions, something else also guaranteed in the constitution.
And, who is the" authority" that give the anti-choice side the right to trash and judge everyone else's belief systems based on their own view of everything.

So spare me your whining about "authority".  I don't want to hear it.  

David Simon



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:51:55 GMT

> = Scott @Brandeis:

>> = Mark McCullough writes:

>>How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>>do appear to be quite different):

>Let's see, in the OT God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable wrath and
>unimaginable love. 

...and an unimaginable vengeful asshole who murdered whole cities because of
the sins of a few (including, for you crocodile tear-droppers, many
"innocent babes" and other exalted types of human life).

>In the NT, God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable
>wrath and unimaginable love.  Yep, they are different.

How would you know, since obviously you haven't READ it?  Just picked a
few smarmy quotes so you could create an arrogant .sig.

>	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
>	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
>	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
>	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
>					 who need no repentance." 
>		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]

This is pathetically preachy; pull your head out of your Christian ass and
try living with the rest of humanity.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48767 soc.men:19642 soc.women:20008 alt.politics.bush:13965 talk.politics.misc:61054 alt.activism:19041
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Doug Holtsinger's dishonest tactics re: Roe v Wade.
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:33:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Doug Holtsinger, a well-known liar in talk.abortion, has an agenda of
passing legislation to force all women to carry all pregnancies to
term.  As part of this agenda he tirelessly repeats lies,
misrepresentations, and misquotes about anyone or anything that deigns
to allow women to control their own bodies.  Part of this pattern is
represented in his latest thread on R v W and his tactics for
disseminating it.  He posts his lies to:

talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism

But then sets the follow-ups only to Talk.abortion.  In Talk.abortion,
there are knowledgable people who have demonstrated that Holtsinger
has lied, misrepresented, and misquoted in his characterizations of R
v W.  This is why he wants to restrict follow-ups to there so that
those of you in other newsgroups will not see them.  While I will not
pester other groups with reposts of the refutations of the liar
Holtsinger, I will point out to those who are interested that the
documentation refuting Holtsinger's dishonest claims is posted in
Talk.abortion.

Sorry to have bothered you.  

SJM

PS Of the newsgroups in which Holtsinger has spewed his lies, I read
only talk.abortion.  If you want me to see a response to this post, be
sure that it goes there or email me.  I have set follow-ups to include
Talk.abortion as well as the other groups.  Also, my newsreader would
not accept alt.politics.clinton, so apparently my message will not
reach that group despite the fact that Holtsinger apparently posted
there as well.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Men Getting Pregnant... (was: Nadja...)
X-To: ALLEN WARREN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:51:00 GMT

allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes...
AW> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

AW> >NA> If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

AW> >IF MEN COULD GET PREGNANT, WE WOULD *KEEP* OUR CHILDREN!

AW> I'm a male and I can think of plenty of guys who would abort if men could
AW> get pregnant and they did.

And there are plenty of women who did, as well!  I can't see why you would
say that the statement has any more validity for men than women, when we don't
even have statistics on how many men who have gone through an abortion situation
and have declared that they would have carried the child themselves, *had* they
been able to.

I am one such person...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Hey... the show is doing GREAT, lets replace it!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:50:56 GMT

In <1992Nov20.150930.374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
>because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?

I know! I know! Because they've learned that the people who _oppose_ 
free sex, safe sex, and abortion can't keep _their_ zippers up either.

[Good examples might be Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, all those Catholic
priests that travel around the country molesting children, and possibly
Ronald Reagan...although, as has been pointed out here, he did have the
decency to marry the woman that he got pregnant out of wedlock.]

[Jimi Hendrix has analyzed some of the other issues involved, in his
philosophical study, "Fire Down Below". It's really worth looking
into...]

>Ted

>-- 
>"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
>      - some ex-Soviet leader            
>                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality