HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:16:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

Someone asks:
>>What do you do with a woman who self-aborts?  Arrest _her_ and charge her
>> [with murder 1], since there is no doctor involved???

And Steve Chaney bleats:
>I'd agree with that.

Such warm compassion.  (don't you pro-lifers just _hate_ him?  :-)

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33490 alt.usage.english:6924
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.usage.english
Subject: Minor Technical Clarification of Word usage
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:00:00 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
] In <1992Aug25.174938.36880@watson.ibm.com> Larry writes:
] > In  <1992Aug25.125323.13224@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
] > >
[ totally OutRageous Rant deleted for Reasons of Moral Purity ] 
] > I will fight these efforts with everything in my power, you sexist, fascist,
] > misogynistic scum-sucking pig.
] 
]   DIE YOU LIBCONSERACOMMIEPUBLICAN WEENIE!!!

I think the word you were looking for is:

	LibroConServoKommiPubLicanWennie

How will people EVER understand what you mean if you
can not even SPELL it correctly.....

No wonder our country is suffering in the Moral morass of
EleetIstPsuedoSnopIsms that our Institutions of Higher LearntIng is 
turnings Outed.

] > > and create a harem of sex-slaves to service our every depraved whim.
] > 
] > Umm, but if you win, we're still pals, right?  :-)
] 
]   Well, I suppose if you've got a Mastercard, something might be arranged...
] 
] :-)

Does an American Express Gold Card count?????

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:12:37 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Aug26.015209.22867@u.washington.edu> jnorris@u.washington.edu writes:
>I don't normally follow talk.abortion, but I was wondering about something
>and this seemed to be an appropriate place to ask it. How do pro-choice
>people out there feel about a woman aborting a female fetus because she
>wanted a boy instead? Does a woman's right to an abortion include the right
>to abort a female fetus because she would grow up to be a woman instead of
>a man? I don't know whether this happens in the U.S., but it happens in
>other countries.

I may not like it, but I believe that it is her decision to make. I
may not like abortion, but I believe that that too is the woman's
decision to make.

>Joel
>

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Extremism
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:41:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.161852.23315@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.025409.5875@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}The Master of Confused Doublespeak strikes again!
>
>Most of us had figured out from the header that it was you striking again.
>You needen't point that out a second time.
>
>}Say, Galen, are you still simultaneously both in support of, and NOT in 
>}support of, the FOCA? How's that support/non-support going?
>
>It isn't going too bad, thanks for your concern Kevin.  Unlike some, I am
>able to hold two seemingly conflicting ideas in my head at the same time.

There ain't no "seemingly" about it, Kemosabe. And the sad part is you
don't even seem to realize that "support" and "not support" are logically
incompatible. Sigh.

>It helps me to distinguish between reality and fantasy.  Oftentimes I find
>that what I would wish is not exactly how I find the world -- hence two 
>different ideas.  Sometimes those ideas are the same, sometimes they are
>not.  Sometimes I find myself forced to select the best option of those
>offered, and not the best option of all those of which I can conceive.
>I find in a number of instances those selections are not the same.

Triplespeak. Quadruplespeak. Thanks for explanation, Galen. It's all clear
as mud now.

								- Kevin
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:06:13 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug25.162016.23519@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Aug25.124039.11946@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > Fetuses had never received legal protection under the law,
> 
> This statement is not correct.

Well, by all means, _correct_ it, Dougie.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33807 alt.flame:12385
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:08:29 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Btn5nI.1J0@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Aug27.115244.6089@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
> >
> >chaneyhall flames siren who has been off the net for a
> >month!!!!  what's next for you, chaneyhall? will you
> >begin to flame the names listed in the obituaries?
> 
> It's uncanny how he's apparently adopted one of the favorite practices of
> the departed DJR -- attack people he knows won't be around to defend
> themselves...

This approach works much better for him: when he claims that he's
"destroyed" the object of his five-watt flames, said object doesn't turn
right around and contradict him.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:36:16 GMT

In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter Nyikos) writes:

}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...

Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
where do you suppose those little buggers are?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:15:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug31.145104.12528@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
> If the pro-aborts get their way, this is EXACTLY what they will be doing,
> 'trying to legislate their beliefs as though they were facts'.

Sorry, but I don't know of any pro-aborts with a legislative agenda.
Who are they trying to force to get abortions?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:35:46 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep1.201106.19760@u.washington.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.180126.4779@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>   Actually, it seems that there are many people on the .net (some of
>>whom have applied to your posting) who would like there to be no
>>sex-selection abortions, but realize that there is absolutely no way it
>>could be legislated.
>>
>>                                                            MP

>But are these people pro-choice or not? I would expect that pro-life people
>wouldn't like sex-selection abortions.

    Sorry --I should have been clearer. And I can only speak for myself,
but I am pro-choice (despite Peter Nyikos's attempt to label me
otherwise. And I do not morally approve of sex-selction abortions.
However, it is not for me to decide that because I don't like them, they
should be illegal (Hint: I don't like smoking cigarettes much either).

   Clear enough for ya?

                                                     MP
>Joel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: List Doug's lies
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:02:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.011747.16087@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) deletes most of my text and replies to a sentence fragment:

>When?

Don't you remember?  Don't you read text before you delete it?
That's pathetic.

Look, DearOldDoug, you may enjoy endlessly repeating yourself, but
I don't.  You can trot over to the library and read what the man
really wrote, you can reread the article that Mr. Greenfield 
wrote, and you can read any post that you have written.  There's
some substantiation that you can find without having to
consult your no doubt extensive archives.  I can't imagine
why you want me to provide article numbers of posts to which
you replied, anyway.  Get a grip.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:15:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.044036.12912@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

[Nyikos' vile lies about Becky Bell and my comments deleted]

#Thanks, Susan for squelching this so quickly.  This is the second
#time in a week I have seen Peter come out with this crap and I am
#only sorry I didn't refute it the first time.  (What can I say,
#it's been a busy week for me.)  

No problem.  I noticed that this new idiot gets all of his
"information" from typical pro-force sources, so I'm watching
for his repetitions of their more obvious lies.

#On a more personal note, I find it repulsive that Peter and his
#ilk keep trying to impugn the character of Becky Bell and the 
#medical qualifications of her doctor and coroner.  Especially 
#since this is done solely as a method of "damage control" to limit the 
#political impact of a tragedy which they find politically inconvenient.
#If these people could extend to the Bells, for the loss of their daughter
#and sister, one iota of the concern they profess to lavish on the
#"murdered unborn" I might be able to muster some respect for them
#and their motives but as it is, I feel nothing for them but the 
#deepest contempt.

I fully agree.  

If it were really *abortion* itself, and not just safe, legal
abortion that these people opposed, they would have Becky Bell's
name (as well as Rosie Jimenez's name, and the names of other
women who have died of the effects of illegal abortion) on
those cardboard tombstones that they carry around.  (The
tombstones have the names, ages, and place of death for women
who they claim died from complications of legal abortions.
They do not ask the permission of the families involved to
exploit their personal tragedies, of course.) 

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:29:10 GMT

We have a real integrity issue here, Peter.

In article <nyikos.715471179@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep1.115604.23197@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.715287558@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> In <f2dng-=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> >What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
> >> >that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
> >> >while the doctor performs the abortion?
> >> 
> >> That is something only the abortionists know, and they aren't about 
> >> to tell you or me or any of the "million women" you talk about below.
> 
> 
> >In other words, you have nothing to go by and are just
> >constructing bizarre scenarios in the dimly lit theater
> >of your mind. 
> 
> And after I posted the case of the Fort Lauderdale doctor, you conveniently
> forgot having said this, and ripped into me about the pointlessness of
> my post.  Can't I at least defend myself against accusations of living
> in a fantasy world?

You posted a story about a doctor who was charged with child
molesting and claimed also that he provided abortion services.
You could not provide a single reason for anyone to think that
providing abortion services had anything to do with his
criminal behavior.  There's a hot story right now about a
pediatrician in New York who was arrested yesterday for
child molesting (a Dr Levinson).  If it turns out that he
is pro-life would that discredit the pro-life movement?

Yes, your posting about the Ft Lauderdale doctor is part of
the pattern of bizarre smears and speculation.  But that
specific issue was addressed separately.
> 
> > As with other postings you've given us,
> >you prefer to make outrageous, unfounded claims and
> >speculations that cast doctors who provide abortions in
> >the role of some sort of Jason With a Degree.
> 
> >You're a weird bird, Peter.  I just wonder how many
> >ultra-religious anti-abortion advocates are out there
> >forcibly artificially inseminating women and then keeping
> >them prisoner for nine months because of the biblical
> >injunction to "be fruitful and multiply?"  What?  You mean
> >I have no reason to believe this occurs?
> 
> Well, you certainly have no reason to believe that I am one
> of these birds.  Which I am not.  

Notice that there is no defense against the false and misleading
speculation he posts.  That is because there is no defense for
it.  It's like trying to defend against the statement that
the sky appears blue.
> 
> >  You mean it
> >is simply a baseless speculation?  Gee, I wonder where I
> >learned how to do that?
> 
> Maybe you read _A Handmaid's Tale_?

I see sarcasm is lost on you.  No, I read your postings and
employed your techniques.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:20:14 GMT
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <BtMK27.IHz.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.012112.2026@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> #No state may enact legislation which requires a physician 
> #to remove a viable fetus alive, because it would be unconstitutional 
> #under Roe.  
> 
> That's not true either, DOD.  Try reading Roe.

No state has done so.  Women cannot require doctors to perform
abortions, nor do states mandate abortions.  The essence of
the pro-choice position is that women be allowed to decide
for themselves whether to continue pregnancy to term or to
opt to have an abortion.  There are no requirements for
doctors to perform them.

What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
a very short step to compelling abortion.  The same people who
decry coerced abortion in China fail to recognize that they
put the same gun in the hands of their own government when they
advocate legislation that removes the decision-making power
from the hands of the people it most affects.

I have no quarrel with those who would seek to persuade, in a
legitimate and non-violent manner, women that abortion is
wrong.  My quarrel is with those who would legislate that
abortion is prohibited.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:54:08 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
># = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>#I disagree with Susan Garvin that _not_ requesting to be part of DOD's
>#.sig is a sign of anti-Semitism, for these reasons:
>#(1) Who gives any _real_ weight to the Doltmeister ANYway?

>DJR.  Dennis Hall.

So...*no* one, huh :-)? 

>#(2) How is anyone supposed to know that [a] Gloria Feldt is Jewish, or [b]
>#that her comments indicate a religious belief?  I didn't until reading this
>#group.

>[a] Well, I still don't *know* that she is Jewish.  It's just that
>the only religion I know of that has such a belief is Judaism.

Veddy likely conclusion, Ms. Garvin.

>[b]  She says so in the quote.  :-)

Oh, SURE.  Stoop to using FACTS.  

Are you trying to intimidate me off the net?

>If you're not careful, I'll intimidate you right off the net.

See?  SEE?  




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Date: 26 Aug 1992 12:30:31 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.714852140@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug24.203014.15935@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>Oh, silly Teddi! You fail to understand Peter's logic. Obviuosly,
>>they're not human beings--they're just women!
>Who authorized you to speak for me?  

Let me guess.

The same person who authorized you to "educate" those poor/defenseless/
ignorant/mislead/underinformed/pathetically incapable women???


Nah.

Adrienne Regard


Drieux, you are going to have to tell me what the real word is.
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:02:53 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep4.173611.6427@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>I don't understand how you can casually dismiss my unbiased sources 
>which show that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout 
>the term of pregnancy and then expect me to accept your pro-abortion
>sources.  (And please leave the preceeding sentence intact, if your
>honesty allows you to do so).  

Easy: You haven't provided unbiased sources to support your claim.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Suzanne finally sees the light
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:37:35 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Eric Marsh):
>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
>>>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>I'm glad.
>> ^^^^^^^^^

>> So here Suzanne says that no life is better than a poor quality of life.

>Where there is no pre-existing life is an entirely different matter from 
>killing a life that has already begun.

This mumble-y cover-up for having no answer doesn't even *parse*,
Forgach.  Maybe you could try again when you're not so embarrassed at
your Freudian slip.

>> Heck, that's what I've been saying all along. Glad that you finally have
>> come to see the light of reason, Suzanne.

>Go pound sand, Eric.

Is this a form of "non-contact" sex?  


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:03:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.164116.24432@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.a
t.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.154425.16868@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (
tephen A Chaney) writes:
>> Oh, yeah, by the way, Suzie Q, new things've been happenin' round
>> here. It's called  
>> 
>> 	/decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)/h:j 
>
>Considering how you're afraid to even read my postings, you
>ought not to claim you haven't "run away" from anybody, as
>you did not long ago.
>
Why should Chaney/Hall adhere to a higher level of honesty than,
say, Holtsinger?  

>Yes, I know he won't see this.  I guess when he's not busy
>pretending to be a robot or an airplane, he pretends he's
>an ostrich.

The way I see it, Dennis's ostrich act lets me do three fun
things.  I can waste his time by putting even more articles
in his killfile.  I can spare the rest of t.a. the tedium
of reading his bizarre and often obscene responses to each
of my articles.  I can mention the name of my beloved hero
in each article that I post.


>Dean Kaflowitz
>
Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 23:21:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>In <f2dng-=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>>>The outrage that was committed on my friend would be a felony
>>>punishable by thirty (30) years in jail were it not for the 
>>>common understanding, in the wake of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,
>>>that abortion is a "medical" act.
>
>>Forget to leave out the details?  Or are you making up some
>>emotional propaganda to further your cause?
>
>Sorry, I can't figure out what you are saying here.

Then I'll explain in simpler, clearer, terms.

Your posts, almost without exception, use innuendo, allegations, and 
unsupported (or unsupportable) claims.  You lie with half-truths and
implication.  You tactics are sleazy.  You debate with allegation,
apparently unable to support your position with any facts.

In the above paragraph you allude to some "outrage", yet conveniently
neglect (once again) to provide any details so that anyone can verify
or dispove you allegation.  

As an example of such sleazy tactics, just to make things a little 
clearer, I'll offer the following paragraph for your amusement.  I'll
even add the disclaimer that I have no reason to believe that any
allegations or assertions made in the following paragraph are true.

Have you stopped molesting children yet?  Are you opposed to
abortion because it reduces the number of unwanted children you
might otherwise be able to take advantage of?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com