HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:49:12 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct16.195113.7552@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Oct15.230439.6883@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> >In article <nyikos.719096777@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >}
> >}                                            No penis penetrates
> >}as deeply nor as savagely into the woman as a suction curette
> >}or any of the other D& whatever devices.
> >
> >This guy ought to pair up with Simon.  What with his gift for turning
> >a phrase and Booth's flair for plot development...
> >
>  What?? I just now saw this.
> 
>  Another pro-lifer on the net might pose a few problems.

That's highly doubtful.  Did you imagine you were the only one here?

Here's an interesting aside for the mathematicians in the audience,
however: isn't it peculiar that two half-wits don't add up to a wit?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41441 talk.politics.guns:21906 alt.conspiracy:11087 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5128 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6506 talk.bizarre:33352
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:24:39 GMT
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation

In article <1b1mngINNdh1@overload.lbl.gov>, inspecti@ux7.lbl.gov () writes:
>
>I want both of you to scroll back to the header of this message.  Look 
[...]
>
>In this "Newsgroups:" line is a phrase.  This phrase is "talk.bizarre."

	And, if YOU would look, there are lots of groups that are NOT
talk.bizarre.  In fact, only one out of the many groups this is sent to is
talk.bizarre.  If the poor writing stayed there and only there, there would be
no problem.


>In summation, one should never declare someone's words "meaningless" simply
>because one is ignorant of the mode of speaking which the speaker uses.  This
>kind of devaluation of language is evidential of a small, inflexible
>intellect.  Please try not to make this mistake again.

	If you understand it so well, perhaps you would like to translate what
he keeps writing?  Not only on talk.bizarre, but on all of the groups to which
he posts.

	I agree that "devaluation of language is evidential of a small,
inflexible intellect".  If everyone used only their own words, that they made
up, and ignored anything resembling a sentence structure, there would be no
communication.  Nobody would be able to understand anyone else, and language
would be valueless.

	I believe that the way "drieux" treats language devalues it, because no
meaning is conveyed.

Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:31:25 GMT

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

> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
> the term of pregnancy.  In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states 
> may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary 
> to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad 
> definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
> health (see the documentation below).

[--'documentation' deleted--]

Doug, you are not merely a liar, you are a shameless, pig-headed, mule-brained,
eyes-scrunched-shut, fingers-in-ears, flatulence-breathed, rat-fucking liar.
Roe vs. Wade does not allow abortion on demand throughout the course of the
pregnancy.  Here's the relevant text (caps mine):


	On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
	argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
	terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
	whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
	Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all
	in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
	support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
	unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy
	also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that
	right is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly assert
	important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical
	standards, and in protecting potential life.  AT SOME POINT IN
	PREGNANCY, THESE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BECOME SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING
	TO SUSTAIN REGULATION OF THE FACTORS THAT GOVERN THE ABORTION DECISION.
	The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.
	In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some *amici*
	that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases
	bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously
	articulated in the Court's decisions.  The Court has refused to
	recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.


Thanks for reinforcing the perception that many anti-abortion people use lies 
to further their cause.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:25:05 GMT

In article <5960@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> But then the arguments blur: the woman
>should abort the child because she won't be able to take care of the
>baby, or all her career plans will be destroyed, ... etc. These answers
>seem a very convienient way to avoid the consequences of consentual sex,

AND 
>place? This pregnancy is shown to be so inconvienient for the future of
>the expectant mother that the only way to get her life back on track is
>aborting the pregnancy. Sex without consequences and avoiding the
>consequences of one's actions is the problem. Everyone has the right to
>do whatever good or bad to one's body as long as they accept the
>consequences of their actions.

What this is really about is that consensual sex has always been without
this sort of consequence for men. Mr. Chuck is upset since it is now
without this sort of consequence for women.

What Mr. Chuck's position is about is punishing women for having consensual
sex with babies, herein referred to as 'consequences.'




-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Brain Waves
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:27:11 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct12.141850.21533@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>> There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
>> brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
>> abortion the killing of that child.
>
>There have been discussions about the possiblility that an aardvark does show
>brainwave activity.  This would make a aardvark a living child, and thus make
>abortion the killing of that aardvark.
>
>But seriously, Simon, there is no evidence that this brainwave activity can be
>likened to anything more than the white noise you hear when you tune your radio
>between stations.
>
I always had thought that brain activity was alot more than mere static.
The suggestion that there is brain activity present even in an unborn fetus
seems to offend people.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:08:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a 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  <1992Oct12.152931.17066@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>  krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.084401.98012@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Oct9.203639.19616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.p
>>> >there are infertile couples waiting in line
>>> >to pay for the expenses of pregnant women who will then let those
>>> >infertile couples adopt her baby.
>>>
>>> So you see, there are better alternatives.
>>
>>You're wrong.  Adoption is an alternative to keeping the child.  Both
>>options involve going through pregnancy.  Abortion is the only way to
>>*stop* the pregnancy.
>>
>Except, of course, not getting pregnant in the first place.

I fail to see how "not getting pregnant in the first place" can be
considered a way of stopping an existing pregnancy.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:42:34 GMT

In article <9508@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <adams.718476286@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>MW:I also didn't see anything in the constitution about rape and pillage
>MW:either.  I guess if the states felt the strange urge to ban or regulate
>MW:either of those things, you would claim that that would also be
>MW:unconstitutional.
>
>SA:Not at all.  Raping and pillaging are invasions of other persons (we're
>SA:talking legal definition here) rights.  Society has deemed that such acts
>SA:are to be punished as they deprive another person (again, legal definition)
>SA:of their right to life or privacy.
>
>So once again we are back to legal definitions.  Legal definitions can
>be changed if enough persons want them to be.  If the legal definition
>of a person is changed so that it includes fetuses, then would not the
>fetuse now enjoy a right to life.

That definition of "person" would have to be changed at a federal level, 
however, since it's already been authoritatively ruled that z/e/f's are not 
"persons" as the term is used in the federal Constitution. You'd need either 
a federal ruling reversing that part of RvW, or a Constitutional Amendment 
such as the Human Life Amendment. The likelihood of either of those happening 
is rather slim, especially if Clinton gets elected, since he'd probably mount 
serious opposition to anything like the HLA, and he's not likely to oppose the 
FOCA, which, along with the ability to appoint justices, will pretty much 
remove the threat of a RvW-reversal.

Besides, even if the personhood of the z/e/f was established, a compelling
case can be made that, EVEN AS A PERSON, z/e/f's can't be given an 
unconditional right to life, since that violates the woman's Bodily Autonomy
rights. I prefer this legal approach, actually, to endless academic bickering 
over the semantics of "person".

>SA:The states and the people are allowed to regulate in these areas. The
>
>So individual states have the right to regulate abortions.

Only if they can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so (actually,
the new Casey standard is "no undue burden", right?). Anti-choice states have 
thus far been poignantly INCAPABLE of meeting such standards. 

								- Kevin
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:34:16 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct14.204014.779@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.051623.122379@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Oct12.200432.9297@muddcs.claremont.edu>  weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>>>
>>> Requiring people to be responsible for their actions is not a punishment.
>>
>>Taking away one of their responsible choices, however, is.
> 
> Larry, you seem to be a reasonable person so I have chosen you to ask this
> question.  

So you want Larry to ask the question?  I think it's past my bedtime.

>Do you believe that both parents of the child are responsible
> for the child if it were to be born?  I suspect the answer is yes so I will
> move on to the next question, if you believe in equal rights then should not
> the male have the option to have the child aborted even if it is against the
> will of the mother?

This would be reasonable if the baby were born into being by passing through
the man's genetalia (and we all want that, now, don't we?).

> I am attacking the stance that it's the woman's body and the woman's choice
> yet it is also the man's responsibility if she should decide to have the
> child in the first place.  

Well, the man helped put it there, didn't he?  He's at least partly responsible
for causing the women to have to deal with pregnancy.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:20:54 CST
 <1992Oct8.114408.2452@brandonu.ca> <ldbso2INNbbh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <ldbso2INNbbh@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.114408.2452@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>In article <ld3bm7INN2um@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
>>> Again, this is truth by blatant assertion. You have admitted that the
>>> sperm/egg is human. Now, is it or is it not alive?
> 
>>Well, considering a biological standpoint:  Do you remember the 7 or so
>>characteristics of living things?  I don't, but I know one of them
>>is being able to reproduce, and a sperm can't get together with another
>>sperm to make offspring sperm, so I would assume that sperm/eggs are not
>>classified as living things.  Then again, under these constraints, neither
>>is a zygote.  Then AGAIN, I bet these characteristics are able to be
>>fulfilled at any life stage (otherwise kids would be non-living things too),
[...]
> OK, I've had a vasectomy. Does that mean that I'm dead?

I assume you were capable of reproduction before your vasectomy, but there
are of course exceptions to the rule, such as impotent males and
whatever.  As long as you have the genetic makeup for the hardware
(no pun intended of course), then consider yourself living.  As for
those born with both bits-o-genitalia and other such oddities,
well mutations and whatnot can cause members of a species to be
sterile, eh?  I'm foggy on an answer to this, maybe a bio prof
would be able to explain it better.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:43:53 GMT

In article <BvoDE2.AEE@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer 
Brindle) writes:>>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>>  Abortion is not a crime.
>
>	Unfortunately

No.

>	It will - someday - some glorious day when all human beings
>learn to respect each other's right to live.

They already do (have a right to live).
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:08:43 GMT

In article <pmxz8zp@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

> the issue was force. force. force.

Abortion is force.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:38:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu>, kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes:

>drieux@wetware.com  writes:
>
[babble deleted]

>I'm not on drugs, and it's not that late in the night.  Plus, I know I'm not
>stupid because I made it through graduate school with honors.  What in the
>heck does this say?
[...]
>there is simply no excuse for such wildly in-
>comprehensible messages as this.


	I have to say that I agree with Kurt here.  I gave up reading anything
from "drieux" quite a while ago, in spite of the fact that we seem to agree on
some issues, because of the headaches that it was causing.  Perhaps a lesson is
in order...("drieux", please pay attention).

	This is a period.  It is used to separate sentences.  It makes a 60
line post that much easier to read.  With no period, there are no sentences.

	This sentence is made up of words.  Words generally have standard
meanings.  These meanings can be found in the dictionary.  I could not find
"WarmCuteFuzzies" or "AntiChristianDogma" or even "BigBluedBarrels" in the
dictionary.  Therefore, they are not words.

	Hence, since you did not use words, and did not use sentences, you did
not convey any meaning.  Since you did not convey meaning, you have wasted your
time in writing your post, wasted the net resources in transmitting your post,
and wasted my time in attempting to read your post.

	So, drieux, why do you post?

Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:50:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.085016.15276@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
> What is wrong with allowing a doctor to assist somebody in commiting suicide?
> 
> As I understand it, suicide is still illegal in this cuontry, and still
> classified as murder.  Therefore anybody assisting in a suicide is assisting
> a murder.  And that is illegal too.

Are you sure suicide is classified as murder?  I thought murder was
the taking of someone else's life, and that suicide was classified,
curiously enough, as suicide.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:26:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.
>
>Role of the government: forcing someone to donate parts.
>
>>Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.
>
>Role of the government: Prevent someone from killing the human unborn child.

No.  You are mistaken here.  The objective is =>NOT<= to kill the
embryo/fetus.  The government is =>NOT<= specifically allowing 
people to kill fetuses.  The objective is primarily to END THE
PREGNANCY.

Thus, your restatement is incorrect.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: shallow thoughts by mr. bill
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:01:41 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >>>
->wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
->   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>>>
->>>>>>First, I don't think Susan does see misogyny 'round every corner,
->>>>>>but she certainly does see it enough on talk.abortion, as do I
->>>>>>and quite a few others.  
->>
->>>>>I think invoking "misogyny" is a convenient attempt to undermine
->>>>>the credibility of any substantive arguments.  
->>
->>>>can you list the criteria you evaluated to reach this
->>>>conclusion. 
->>
->>>Yes, Jim, I can, and have done so in other places.  
->>
->>then it should be little problem for you to reproduce
->>it here, yes?

->please provide some substantive reason for this unusual
->request for data that you've already seen.  

sure bill. i have copies of all of your posts and the
data i requested doesn't seem to be contained in any of
them. i suppose that one of your posts didn't reach
either of the sites i read news from, although, to the
best of my knowledge, that has never happened in the
past. and heck, if you've sone so in other places, it
should be little problem for you to reproduce it here,
yes?

->>>However, 
->>>I'm unlikely to provide *you* with much of anything substantive
->>
->>yes, i've noticed, nor anyone else for that matter.

->Feelings still hurt?

you sound a bit defensive bill. if you don't have the
material, you can admit it to me.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 07:05:55 GMT

<nyikos.719094797@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) :
><26094@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Recently she denied ever saying that she said gay men hate women, she
>>>tried to back-pedal out of it until people posted her own words which make
>>>her a liar. She's been strangely quiet since then.
>
>>Perhaps she just gets too flustered of late. It tends to cause hot flashes
>>when consistent adrenaline rushes for an extended period of time keep
>>coursing through your brain, you know. Maybe she just can't take it
>>anymore. Maybe her doctor told her to stop posting when her husband 
>>drove her into the office because she was ranting and raving continuously
>>and it scared him. :)
>
>I think this ad hominem, baseless speculation is way out of line, your
>smiley notwithstanding. 

And I think your baseless (and ineffective) defense of Suzanne is way out
of line.  But it was farely funny.

>I wouldn't bother telling this to the likes of Gordon, but I expected
>better of you, Ron.

Well Peter, perhaps you can tell me, how do you defend a person who states
emphatically that they did not say "gay men hate women" when the posts are
presented for everyone to see?  Did I miss the post where Suzanne said,
"Oops!  I guess I did say that. Sorry."?

How can you defend someone who won't admit to a lie when confronted with
the unambiguous evidence?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, 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