HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Riddle me this Batnetters
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:20:26 GMT
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL

I have a question, I guess directed at you Catholics out there in netland.
(like Matt Hew?) Here goes:

You've heard of Lucrezia Borgia (sp?), eh?  Wasn't she the daughter of a 
Pope?  Pope Genuflect III or something?  That would seem to indicate that
priests and Popes, were, at one time, permitted to marry and have children.
Now they aren't.  I was wondering why, and I figured that either
(A) God changed His mind; he was wrong, or
(B) The Roman Catholic Church changed its mind; it was wrong.
Choosing option (B) as the more likely of the two, could it not also be
*conceivable* that the Catholic Church is also wrong about other issues,
say, for example, its stand on abortion?  (IMHO, there is plenty of historical
precedent for this concept.) Is is not also *conceivable* that when the 
Bible says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and "Judge 
not lest ye be judged"  or some such, God was *really* saying the equivalent 
of "Butt the hell out of other people's business"?  And if that's really 
what God meant, then by inflicting your own brand of morality on innocent 
people, would it not be true that you yourselves are sinning, and will 
either fry in hell or do time in Pergatory (sp?)?

Just wondering.
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I like to think big.  If you're going to     |
 | EG & G Florida           |    be thinking anyway, you might as well        |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |    think big."                 Donald Trump     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 11:24:10 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proforce. Procontrol. A Rose by any other name
Distribution: na
 <1992Mar26.032539.18753@cfctech.cfc.com>
 <92087.134344ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> <1992Apr5.005107.23864@rotag.mi.org>

In article <1992Apr5.005107.23864@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:

>Also inaccurate. "Pro-control" implies control for its own sake,
>whereas I propose "control", if at all, only as a means to an
>end - justice. I'm no more "pro-control" than ANYONE who wishes
>to change ANY law for ANY reason.
>You may feel free to pin the label "pro-justice man" on me
>anytime, Linda.

This from a man who has stated that the default position of an
unwanted pregnancy where a "contract" has not been signed should
be the woman either aborts or forfeits child support?

This from a man who has stated that a man who has abdicated his
role in birth control still regains the right to dictate to the
woman her options?

This from a man who has stated that women should not publicly
identify their attackers?

This from a man who makes allegations and then does not support them?

This from a man who feels he can publicly threaten someone with debt
collectors over an imagined service charge?

Darcy the day I call you "pro-justice man" is the day God appears
on Larry King Live to discuss her views on abortion.



Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"We must face the dynasty of the dames at once, deprive them of
our pocketbooks" Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers 1942
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: "Starvation does not cause death" (Re: We Won't Go Back/April 5th/
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 20:34:14 GMT

<71720@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (BioJerk) said:
>Linda
>
>>>kwelch@eniac (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>>>-> Starvation does not cause death.
>
>>IMHO I think those POWs have suffered enough for their country
>>and do not need to endure the company of Kevin Welch.  Perhaps
>>Mr. Welch could watch a few documentaries on Ethiopia or closer
>>to home go to his local library and read about anorexia.
>>Not only is Welch a fool, he is rather uninformed.
>
>
>Hey, Linda.  I'm totally wrong in this matter.  Since I'm totally
>wrong, you are totally right.  Please explain how starvation and
>starvation alone causes death.  I am confused.  You seem to know more
>about it than I.  Enlighten me.  Enlighten us all.

Heck, I suppse we should release all murderers from jail.  It's obvious
that they never killed anyone (Note: obvious by Welch's standards).  The
people they are accused of killing died because their hearts stopped
beating or their brains stopped functioning.  Small pellets of lead
travelling at high velocity had nothing to do with it.  Neither did all
the thin pieces of metal slid between their ribs repeatedly.  And of
course, no one dies from a car accident.  It's just the sudden
deceleration when the car stops and they don't.  It's much clearer now,
thanks Kevin.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:39:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

CJ
>In article <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
>|But you people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:  

>What is it with the name "Kevin"?  I haven't seen a
>sensible, coherent poster with that name in years.

I have.  Why just yesterday I was walking down Locust Walk (our main campus
drag) and I saw a yellow poster on the ground that had words stated in a
clear, concise, coherent manner.  It made a lot of sense too.  The poster
advertised that a speaker by the name of Kevin Fortico would be speaking
on Latin American Studies.

Well, it WAS a "sensible, coherent poster with that name".  I'll send
it to you.

BTW, I haven't seen a single person with the initials "C" and "J" (in
that order) who have posted to talk.abortion who have submitted
coherent, sensible articles.

>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

kcw


--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Encore Computer
	<92084.120514ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
	<1992Mar27.100342.10059@newstand.syr.edu>
	<92090.131502ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> <1992Apr3.184053.8009@ncsu.edu>
	<46ztaxb@rpi.edu> <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp>
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:25:02

In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> 
kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>The reason for so little response would be self-evident to the rational
>person.  In preparing for this "debate" you force the respondent to 
>automatically take up the defensive position.  Hardly an intelligent way
>to start any argument or debate.  So if you are so proud (haughtily) of
>the ammo you wish to annihilate the respondent with ... you answered the
>question first with some proposals and we'll go from there.  If you have
>posted some of these ideas before then please reiterate as I have not
>seen any.  And people wonder why I have so little respect for pro-death,
>over-emotional, gullible females.

This just does not parse. I think he's a freshman's AI project run amok.

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Why 100 years?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:02:15 GMT
Summary:  How di I miss this one?

In article <1992Apr14.214340.16062@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr3.050938.12490@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> 
> >   What I _AM_ saying (as you so ineptly paraphrased) is that society
> >is setting a trend. By first tackling the _WEAKEST_ of it's members,
> >I ask you, what's next? 100 years ago, you tell any "ordinary" joe
> >about a homosexual, or abortion, and they'd think you were mad. Well,

One hundred years ago.  That would bring us back to the Victorian
Era.  While homosexualtiy was illegal in England, there is evidence
that it was practiced widely among the upper classes.  Something
to do with the public school system.

Abortion was legal before that, and most texts I have seen
indicate that it was made illegal because of the threat it
represented to the woman's health.  Medical science
has fortunately advanced since then.

One hundred years ago is hardly sufficient, Steve.  But let's
look at it.  Infanticide was widely practiced in some cultures
one hundred years ago.  It is less widespread and growing less,
by all acounts, than one hundred years ago.  Is that a bad trend?

One hundred years ago women could not vote.  Now women can
vote.  Is this another evil trend?  Why, if you'd told
any "ordinary" Bruce that his wife ought to vote, he'd
think you were mad.

History is an interesting topic, Steve, and something of a hobby
of mine.  Did you know that about one hundred years ago Dreyfuss
was convicted of treason?  He was acquitted in 1906.  I
suppose that was the beginning of the end for France as a world power.

Do you wonder, when I read your readings of trends, I see
you as theguy with the sign saying "The End is Near?"

> >you just let you imagination go crazy and try and envision what society
> >will be like in another 100 years if it continues with this trend.

You have provided no evidence of any trend.  Your imagination
seems to be leading you by the nose.  One data point does
not make a trend.

> >Society can't exist like this. It _WILL_ change. Whether under influence
> >of people like me, or through natural socio-economic evolution.

Society existed without laws againsst abortion for millenia.

Please provide evidence to the contrary.  I am open to correction.
Curiously, even with populations that were much smaller,
society managed to grow in spite of the practice of infanticide,
abortion, war, and poor medical services which allowed
diseases to fluorish.

Steve, the end is not near.  Everything is right now, without
beginning or end.  You don't live tomorrow or yesterday.
If you live, you live now.  What are you doing about it?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: keegan@pookie.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:42:35 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-> >>>>>mgaylord@rodan (Gaylord) posts "Laws force beliefs"
-> >>Gaylord seems to be describing the "active" sense of
-> >>"forcing beliefs", i.e. forcing beliefs *ON* someone, rather
-> >>than the "passive" sense of "forcing beliefs" *IN* someone.
-> >>In that former, more straightforward, obvious sense, Gaylord
-> >>is correct, and Keegan is not. That is my only point.

and one you, have been unable to support. no surprise.

-> >Well, he said it wrong, then.  "Laws force beliefs" means
-> >forcing people to believe something.  If he meant forcing
-> >people to behave in accordance with beliefs, he should have
-> >said "laws enforce beliefs".
-> 
-> Yes, "laws enforce beliefs" would have been optimal, but I
-> think "laws force beliefs" is also valid in the same way that
-> we would almost certainly interpret "don't force morality" in
-> what I have called the "active" sense (even though the
-> "passive" sense is a _potential_ interpretation).
-> 
-> In any case, Gaylord is the final arbiter of what Gaylord
-> meant, so I'm not about to push the issue, unless Mr. Keegan
-> persists on calling an "error" what is far more probably just
-> bad phrasing...

nobody commented on what gaylord meant, only on what he said. he
said, "Laws force beliefs." they do not. you can push any issue
you want. but you can't prove that laws force beliefs. i suspect
that even you know this before you began your silly argument. if
you didn't, that's ok. just so state. if you did, then perhaps
you'd share your motivations for raising the issue in the first
place. game. set. match.

        'Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game
        is that the sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe
        him. "Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...'
				-- lefty@apple.com
				<9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: "Dances with MorallyQuestionableOnes"[1]
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:42:12 GMT

fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes (to drieux):
>> Or perhaps you are still trying to sort out the difference between newborns
>> and management types???

> Take that difference and shove it way up.

When you learn to set up a kill file to filter out humorous or bizarre
content, don't let me know, ok?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to
T.S.A.K.C.   /  settle a question without debating it."  --  Joseph Joubert
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14683 alt.abortion.inequity:662
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: How does this sound?
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:14:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: coopsol.1992Apr9.201425.3116
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr4.183335.18781@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
><1992Apr1.023317.3239@galois.mit.edu> boyiny@math.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
...
>>Each man has the option of co-signing a document with any woman, BEFORE the
>>sex acct, or at any rate BEFORE the pregnancy is discovered. This document
>>will in essence reduce him to speerm donor and entertainer.

I'm confused.  Haven't I been saying this all along?  Isn't this the same
sort of proposal I put forth to Kellmeyer months ago when he first accused
me of wanting to weaken child support laws?  Am I living in a time warp?

...

>>If the woman shouldd get pregnant, thee man will be liable for his portion
>>of the medical expenses associated with an abortion. Otherwise, he has no
>>responsibility toward his biological offspring, and no rights.
>>
>>If the woman is ussing a valid form of birth control in a consensual
>>relationsship, the default will bee that shee has consented to the above,
>>should the man make hiss claim in a short periodd AFTER pregnancy is
>>discovered.  The samee occurs if a previous contract of the same nature has
>>not been renounced by either side (again BEFORE pregnancy can be detected).

Ok, so it's not exactly like my proposal.  Close though.

>>Is this an improvement? Obviously I think so. However, let me present a
>>couple of arguments WHY:
>>
>>[A]	In a lot of cases this will force man and woman to UNDERSTAND each
>>other BEFORE they commit to the ultimate intimate act [okay, so I am
>>repressed, sue me] I consider it a pluss that people be made to think.
>>
>>[B]	Due to the above, the number, or at least the RATE of aboortions
>>that occur, will decrease. Abortions occur, if I understandd what I have
>>read correctly, mostly in casual relationships. If casual relationships
>>decreasse, abortions should also. I consider abortion a necessary evil.
>>
>>[C]	Due to different plumbing, matters of reproduction cannot be
>>gender-blind legally. However,  this way at least men gain the option of
>>making informed decisions, as opposed to being entirely passive.
>
>I like it.

Me too.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn 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.
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:31:24 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> Why is your email "private", but Welch's isn't?
-> >
-> >who said that mine was (other than you)? 
-> 
-> The mail which Kellmeyer posted was "private", was it not? If
-> not, why did you title your article "Kellmeyer posts private
-> email"???

you've heard of mailing lists, haven't you? (that was in the oist
you replied to [see below] but you seem to have not grasped it's
implications).

here it is. see?

-> >you have heard of mailing lists haven't you?
-> 
-> You mean VOLUNTARY WAIVERS of email privacy? 

no. i meant mailing lists, as i wrote. if i had meant to write
"VOLUNTARY WAIVERS," i would have written VOLUNTARY WAIVERS. that
trait is no doubt so for all of the people who write things which
you rewrite.

but, as you often have trouble grasping concepts, i'll help you
with this one. the descriptive word "private" which troubles you
so was attached to email to distinguish that email from email
taken from a mailing list.

do you now understand?

        'Mr. Darcy may I suggest that you enroll yourself
        posthaste in a remedial english programme, your lack of
        reading comprehension is astounding.  However, until you
        are able to secure such a class, I recommend that in the
        future you read very slowly, saying each word out loud as
        you come to it.  It is possible that this method will
        help to override your megalomaniacal, paranoid, "there's
        a sychophant behind every bush", thought process and
        maybe, just maybe, you will stop presenting yourself as
        such a complete and utter imbecile.'
				Linda Birmingham
				<91147.150725ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:56:30 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Apr12.002855.14981@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:

>Alison! It's the guy from alt.personals, soc.singles, etc.! I finally
>wandered onto this net. A little gunfire there for a while, but I'm
>rearin' to help you folks out now.. e-mail me soon!  
>

Watch out, Alison.  This person calling himself "Dennis Hall" has posted 
private Email without just cause only last month.

> 
> Yessiree, folks, that's 70,000 versus 500,000. We had more people at
>that pro-choice march for women's lives, than Saddam Hussein had troops
>in Kuwait! We had more pro-choicers at that march, I believe, than all
>the American troops who died in World War II - about 3 times as many. If
>that 1 million count is more accurate, we had almost as many people willing 
>to fight for choice, out there, as there were Allied troops lined up against 
>Wham Bam Saddam...  
>

Exactly the kind of lame comparison one might expects from a closet 
pro-lifer posing as a "pro-choicer" to make the pro-choice side 
look dumb.

> If we lose this election season, folks, I think we should all drum
>ourselves on the head with a thighbone of an ass, because there is no way
>in hell, with an army bigger than that of some nations, that the
>pro-choice movement could lose. Unless we sit on our butts.  
>

More lame-o stuff intended to make the pro-choice side look bad.  

>
>- Dennis Hall. 

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's back!!

Note to occasional readers of this group: 
The previous poster is really a pro-life person 
submitting posts under the fraudulent name of "Dennis Hall" 
and posing as a pro-choice person.  His lame and sometimes 
chauvinistic postings as a "pro-choicer" are meant to 
undermine the pro-choice side in this debate.  His 
pro-life posts under his real name were so ineffectual that 
he apparently decided to resort to this chicanery.

The wise thing to do is to simply ignore the postings of 
this changelyng who switches from one identity to another 
because he thinks no one sees.  

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////  -> Mad Max b/y Thunderdome
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: The March in D.C.)
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:54:35 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.182357.9777@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Apr12.204155.28349@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr12.191044.1137@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>>>=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
>>Nope. I don't get it. Why not explain this for us? I don't find it funny.

>It's not supposed to be funny.  It's BearCode, as anybody with half-a-clue
>would understand...

Okay then rocker... Let's see how many people have half-a-clue. ANyone
who knows what the hell this bearcode means, mail me. I'll count the votes
and post the results at the end of the week. We'll see just how many of
the hundreds that read this group "have half-a-clue". 
   I won't expect my mail to be overflowing, and then we'll see about getting
you a new .sig "rocker"...
  steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:21:16 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>Where do we put the clue fairy wand when we're done with it?

Stick it up Ted Kaldis' ass.

(You asked that on purpose, huh Chris?  Just waiting for some low-life
to answer in a _crude manner_.  Well...thanks! :)




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion