HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: control
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 23:40:09 GMT

In article <88501@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:

Hi, Kevin!  Welcome back!

So, would you propose charging a woman who self-aborts with murder?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:57:23 GMT
     <1992Sep10.233549.3460@csus.edu>
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>>Chaney again:
>>.. What does Gloria Steinem have? 
>>.Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with
>>.1.  Dignity.
>Rush has tons of that. 

Unsurprisingly, our favorite Sopwith Camel can't tell the difference between
dignity and condescension.  Here's a clue, boy -- Rush spends his entire radio
show either sucking up to those in positions of power (and bragging to the
world when they deign to listen) or acting insufferably superior to those he
deems beneath his station.  This is not the sign of a healthy mind.

>He's also got: 
>
>1) Pride

Snort.  Pride IS a deadly sin, isn't it?

>2) Fame

So did John Hinckley.

>3) Lots more fans than Gloria Steinem 

So did Jim Jones.

>4) Lots more $$$$ than Gloria Steinem, probably. (Though that's pure
>speculation.) 

So does Donald Trump.

A word about money -- you seem to think it's the only real measure of a
person's worth.  That's fine, I'm not going to bother disagreeing with 
that.  I'd like to point out, however, that money is pointless unless you
*do* *something* *with* *it*.  Steinem has put her money in support of
causes she believes in, and I respect that.  Many other people just like
to sit on their pile of wealth (or imagined pile of wealth) (or, even,
future pile of wealth dependent on not pissing off your parents before
they die), doing nothing worthwhile with it.  What's the point of having
it, then?
 
>> 2.  The freedom to control the use of her body, for the time being at least.
>
>Too bad marijuana users and hungry folks on the street, don't have
>that. 

Here I agree.  Why not convince your parents to spend all that money they've
been setting aside for you on feeding the hungry in your neighborhood?  Why
not join your local chapter of NORML -- if there isn't one, start one!

You seem to think that because one group of people doesn't have full rights,
that others shouldn't either.  I submit that because one group of people
doesn't have full rights, we should work to GIVE them full rights. (This is
subject to suitable restrictions -- people who commit crimes against society
have, IMO, rejected any claims on protection by that society.)

>-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
>	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

I have to admit my astonishment at this one.  A two-line .sig?  Steve, you're
slipping.  :-)

-- 
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                              Eddie/Marvin '92:
               We support a kindler, gentler depressive state...
                        as improbable as it may seem.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:25:38 GMT


dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

>If you cannot do this, then who really cares what amuses you?  Let's get
>on with representing the other side correctly and get away from the stupid,
>childish mockery 

I believe the first term that comes to mind is "delicious irony".

               -rocker
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sigh. (was: Re: Attention!)
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:13:24 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Sep8.151356.9274@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

[One hundred and eighty two lines of paranoid stuff deleted]

You say that you flame to siphon flame-energy off so other pro-lifers can
post more moderate stuff without getting fried, *then* you complain that
you *are* being flamed and that the moderate posters are not joining you
in the flame-fest.

This is USENET, hon.  If you enter a group with a war mentality, war is
certainly what you will get.  I certainly get my jollies flaming obviously
stupid articles, but I know that flaming will never change anyone's mind.
It's a release valve for me because in clinic defense I can't say the things
I'm dying to say to the opposition because I'm trying to keep things as calm
as possible.  But if I am trying to "win" an argument, flaming is not the
route I take.  When you flame, you merely preach to the converted and get
your verbal rocks off.  That's fine as long as you recognize it for what it
is and don't get bent out of shape if no one takes you seriously.

I do listen to an calmly stated arguments and personal anecdotes, though.
I wouldn't be human if I weren't constantly seeking new thoughts and ideas
to help shape my world view.

So, to sum:  flaming?  A fun pasttime, a psychological vent.  But if you want
to "win" anything, with the unconverted or the fence-straddlers, flaming is
about as convincing as the "UFO Elvis" stories in the Weekly World News.

Relax, already.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:10:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep8.194210.18655@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1992Sep8.153658.10289@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
## 
## What makes me laugh the most, is that Rush Limbaugh has succeeded despite
## the fact that when people take that Susan Garvin/Rocker attitude and scream
## "Abortion is strictly a FEMALE issue!"...
#
#That's not Rocker's or Susan's attitude.  To say so is to lie.

You expected something else from POC?

#Chahallney, noted for his attempts to deceive more than
#for his reasoning skills, lies yet again.

Give him points for consistency.  He has said little that is true
to date - I'm unable to think of a single example.

#I am delighted by his latest rants.  They speak eloquently
#in favor of the pro-choice side of the argument.

Oh, I am, too.  While Ron Graham is attempting to convince the
net at large that Feminists for Life is composed solely of
people who detest gender discrimination, we have Chaney/Hall
spouting every gender-specific slur he's ever heard and proclaiming
his FFL membership.  It is to laugh.

I'm glad, too, that DOD's moderator suggestion was made so
recently.  Great choice, DOD.  I can imagine a newsgroup 
moderated by this child, and it sounds hysterical.

I'm also glad that Nyikos has a chance to prove that he's
not as hypocritical as DOD.  He can threaten to "r" Chaney/Hall,
and demand endless apologies.  Dennis's attacks on Patrick's
wife are nothing less than disgusting.  (I predict, of course,
complete silence from Chaney/Hall's fellow travelers.)

I remain grateful to the AB for reminding me just what I'm
opposing, too.  The world he wishes for is a world I'll
fight to never see.

Susan
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:55:28 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Chahallnney
>> Susan Garvin

>>(I'm still amused that POC thinks that the 1st Ammendment prohibits
>>Ms. Feldt from practicing her religion.)

>No. It only prohibits her from slamming her RELIGION into POLITICS. 

But, of course, the young dicktator here is exempt from his own rule.

-- 
I feel like a gay man trapped inside a woman's body.

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:49:54 GMT

In article <lyznblf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> >Why not back it up to the lustful gleams?  This answer should be clear.
> >
> >Before the egg and sperm join, there exists nothing that could be
> >considered
> >a person.  
> 
> You believe that personhood begins at conception?  Why?
> What is a person anyway?
> 
> To me it looks like conception, gleam, birth, and viability are all
> largely arbitrary distinctions.  One could just as well pick one's 
> high school graduation.
> 
> What makes _your_ choice the Correct Choice?


Precisely because it is not arbitrary.  At the moment of conception, a
change
occurs of such a tremendous magnitude that nothing can compare to it
after.  Not the development of a brain, etc..  

Also, save this one moment, every other point in time after it has serious
problems that most people do not recognize unless they look deeply into the
ramifications of their beliefs.  

What is a person?  The notion of personhood can be applied to anything you 
like.  Typically it has only been applied to human beings and I have yet to
see a reasonable arguement for appling it to anything else.  But if you
want a more specific answer from me, I would have to say that a person
is something that must be given full moral consideration - or if you like,
legal consideration - but I prefer moral.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Clueless Newbie or just a Complete Ditz?  You be the judge!
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: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 17:48:36 GMT


[Note:  Lots of deletions...]

In article <nyikos.715653137@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Bu0otI.10B@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>(2) This docter would never be defended as caring about women based 
>>on his activities described in the article.
>
>But some people will defend all abortionists and challenge the evidence
>that any such thing as the Ft. Lauderdale case could ever have happened.

Gee, just like "some people" defend all pro-lifers, and refue all evidence
that abortion clininc bombings could ever have happened?

You're living in a dream world, Peter.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:21:17 GMT

In article <BuCK85.12t@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) 
writes:

}[Stuff about becoming one with your hang-gliding harness]

I mentioned some stuff in which you become one with you hang gliding
harness while flying.

Don goes on to imagine the following testimony:

Don: }"That is correct your honor.  I merely shot a hole in a
     }hang-gliding harness.  No your honor.  There was not a
     }person inside.  It was merely part of the harness."

Judge:  Then how do you explain this hole in Galen?  Could it
        be that there was a person inside who was also part
        of the harness, or did you just fail to identify your
        target?  Whatever posessed you to shoot at the 
        glider anyway?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:49:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.160722.22559@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>db>In article <Bu1E8z.DIn@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> 
>db>PRECISELY!  How can a man make a fully informed decision about whom
>db>to have children with, when his "offspring" can be aborted without
>db>his knowledge?
>
>db>How How can you justify responsibilities of husbands (child support, etc.)
>db>based upon their entering into a "marriage contract," without also
>db>providing them full information in these specific respects?
>
>db>Why do you want to repress men so strongly?
>
>I believe Will Steeves already answered that question in an earlier post
>in this same thread:
> 
>ws>In article <1992Sep3.025255.4014@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>
>ws>And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
>ws>situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
>ws>but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
>ws>or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
>ws>stood.
> 
>I believe that Will is not anywhere near the norm.  I think the majority of
>men would not respond in the same fashion as Will would.  For these men,
>I would hope that the woman would go to them and discuss the options 
>rationally.  However, since men such as Will exist, I believe we must not 
>pass legislation that would force a woman to be put at Will's mercy.  
>The price for such legislation is just to damn high.

We return to "PRECISELY!"  If the woman doesn't want to inform her
husband, she can break the legally binding marriage contract (which 
exacts certain costs from him in exchange for supporting certain vested
interests, and vice versa) and divorce him.  

It might not be so bad to have a clause saying notification is 
not necessary if the woman can reasonably demonstrate it would put 
her life in danger, but such a clause permitting her a release from 
part of her obligations in the marriage contract should be her burden 
to prove.  It should not be +presumed+ that notification puts a woman's 
life in danger.

Why should we repress the "majority of men" because of instances 
"not anywhere near the norm"?  

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:29:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

CJ
>Ah, the inimitable Mr "Pregnancy is harmless slavery" Welch is
>back with us.

Oh, boy, yes I am.  Quit the name game.  I don't do it with you.

>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes:
>|In article <pmar1vs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>|>Gosh, Nyikos, why don't you name for me a contraceptive
>|>that's 100% effective?  That is, a contraceptive that will
>|>prevent pregnancy for sexually active het women 100% of the
>|>time.  Can you name one?

>|Pants ( for both ).

>Nice try, Mr Welch, but "dry humping" (as it is sometimes
>called) is still not 100% effective.  Sperm can still make
>their way from those wet, stained jeans up into the woman's
>fallopian tubes.

I would like you to cite one documented case of this happening.

>And even if a woman should decide only to dry hump, and
>never to engage in clothes-off intercourse, she could still
>be raped.  Rapists are probably not going to respect her
>wishes, don't you think, Mr Welch?

Yes she could be raped; I never said that was NOT a possibility.  My use of
"pants" referred to abstinence.  Obviously, very few of you  understood
the reference.

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"So starvation is not the direct cause of death.  Starvation alone 
>does not cause death.  Starvation does not cause death." --Kevin Welch

nice quote.


kcw


--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:24:59 GMT

In article <nyikos.716331450@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep11.155334.8415@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep10.184620.8392@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
> >>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >># nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> Following a quote from Frederica Mathewes-Green about the unhealthiness
> of holding pregnancy in contempt:
> 
> >># #{Satire, but with a grain of truth: Now do you see why I have such a
> >># #bad case of womb envy?}
> >># 
> >># Right, Nyikos, it makes as much sense as envying soldiers because
> >># they get to wear such pretty uniforms while ignoring the dangers
> >># that they face.
> >>
> >>So who's going to write the lyrics to `Pregnancy Hymn of the Republic?'
> >>
> >You HAD to ask.
> 
> >Mine eyes have seen the glory of my breakfast being lost,
> >And I'm still sick in the nighttime when the backache makes me toss,
> >And if I have stopped my weeping it's because I am too cross,
> >With Hormones raging on!
> 
> >Run, run into the bathroom,
> >Run, run into the bathroom,
> >Run, run into the bathroom,
> >With Hormones raging on!
> 
> >muriel
> >standard disclaimer
> 
> Do we have here another case of pregnancy being held in contempt?


Sounds more like we have another case of a "pro-lifer"
without a sense of humor.  That lyric is funny.  Actually,
so good that I am jealous.

If I recognize and speak of drawbacks to putting the hit and run
on, am I holding the hit and run in contempt?  If I note that
driving a tractor-trailer may be uncomfortable and difficult,
or even unpleasant, does that mean I am holding truck-driving
in contempt?  Muriel just came up with a terrific bit of lyric,
but Peter, in a lurching desire to slam anything that looks
like it might give him an advantage, asks his "question"
rather than enjoys a good bit of writing.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:56:25 GMT

In article <nyikos.715884967@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter Nyikos) writes:

}You don't know Galen Hekhuis like I do, apparently.  

uh, in the biblical sense?  Peter, you said you'd never tell...

}Watch for a
}post later this week, "You Should Have Known I Would Do This. (To Galen et
}al)"

How much later?  I have to make plans...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:44:46 GMT

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

>In article <1992Sep11.013353.10741@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>#In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
>#(Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>#
>#}                                                                    ... a case
>#}can be made that generally as a group, they [gays] do hate women.   

A case, of course, that Suzanne has been completely unable to make.
By her standards, of course, gay men also hate men, in that ~50% of
aborted fetuses are male.

>#
>#How?  The only case that I can make, generally, as a group, about gays,
>#is their sexual orientation.  If a case can be made, then make the case.

>I have a feeling that this is one of those Suzanne "proofs" that
>require you to make some pretty bizarre assumptions and confuse
>"some" with "all."

Well, you start by taking the limit of a polygon....

>#As far as non-woman-hating gays being the exception, I am associated
>#with a number of folk who consider themselves "gay."  I must be blessed
>#with associating with a number of exceptional people.

>Gee, Galen, me, too.  What do you think the odds are of both you and
>I being associated with a number of exceptional people?  

Well, folks, I've met 'em everywhere I've lived.  Whoever these 
"exceptional" people are, they sure get around.

>Do you
>think that Suzanne believes that there is a group of non-women
>hating gay men who travel around the world befriending people
>just to fool us into thinking that there are more of them than
>there really are?

I think they're like those devious underhanded NOW members, who
seduce women into their subversive organization by doing evil
things like getting them prenatal care, baby clothes, and 
friendship.

Face it folks, we've been used.

>Susan

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:07:13 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  <1992Sep10.004307.17436@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> I've run you over with facts. Take the Gloria Feldt debate.
> You're about to be majorly embarrassed by my facts and your lies.

Yes, like your "fact" that Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion
(at age 89???).  We're still reeling from the shock of that one.  (Or is
that shaking with laughter?)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion