HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Men Learning About Women?
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:34:54 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>Ron,

Hello, drieux.

>dangerous thinking there.

is thinking dangerous, or only thinking dangerously?

>ps: why is it that women seem to 'know' when its
>that time of the month for themselves or another woman,
>but men, in the main seem to be ClueLess, and taken
>somewhat by surprise.....

I don't know, as I wasn't a student in a school that
subscribed to the idea of teaching
men about women, but concentrated instead on abstinence, by indicating
all those horrible diseases that would make your wanker fall off.

(Evidently it had GREAT effect!:)

Ron 
Another bumper sticker:
I love animals!
They're delicious!
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 4
Date: 2 Oct 1992 16:33:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <9415@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>Anyone who has sex runs the risk of getting pregnant.  Even the best
 ~~~~~~
>preventative measures aren't perfect.

No shit? 

Can you say "clueless?"

>Mark

Eric
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:40:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
]>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
]>  Abortion is not a crime.
]>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
]>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
]>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
]>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
]>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.

]>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
]>Are you getting it yet?

This is repeated so that micheal can insert this into his little member.

>Let's see if I can get this into your little head.

>        ABORTION IS MURDER

Untrue

>        FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN

untrue

>        JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR CHILDREN INSIDE YOU, DOESN'T MEAN
>                THAT THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.

untrue

>        THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NINE MONTH OLD FETUS AND A NEWBORN BABY
>                IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY NOURISHING A NEWBORN.

untrue - one lives in and off the body of a sentient person. (BTW, both
a fetus and a baby are non-sentient) Oooohhh...

>        A FETUS IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER, IT ONLY RECEIVES FOOD AND OXYGEN
>                THROUGH THE UMBILICAL CORD.

untrue, it also recieves liquids, minerals, etc and deposits wastes.

>        WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
>                BY LIMB, HAVING YOUR SKIN EATEN BY SALT SOLUTION, OR BEING
>                DUMPED INTO A CAN, AND SUFFOCATING TO DEATH BECAUSE YOUR
>                LUNGS WEREN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET???

Let me guess, you're a masochist, aren't you? You lie around all day
and are saddened by the thought that you missed this one vital experience.
If your mother could only see you now, I'm sure she'd rethink her decision
18 years ago.

>I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
>what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
>at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
>at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO THEIR
>FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

Couldn't come up with a rational argument, and so you were reduced to
screaming. Evidently you haven't completely exited puberty yet, and
are still prone to those hormonal temper tantrums. Please call back
in ten years, when cognitive though is possible for you, and enjoy some
cherry slurpees on the way, will you.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:19:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>> That doesn't change
>> the fact that 50% of the zygotes implant naturally and 50%
>> don't implant (also from natural causes).
>
>So, are you saying that if a couple wants a child, we should not utilize
>every means available to help them have that child?

What's this "we" shit, Kemosabe?  You want to help someone, by all means
please do so.  I'm sure that their are many couples who could use help
paying the $10,000 to $20,000 it takes for trying in-vitro fertilization.
If you have a few thousand bucks lying around, go for it.  I don't.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:42:07 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|> Lori Smallwood) writes:
|> >I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice") 
|> >in a big way.
|> 
|> If there is nothing wrong with abortion, I wonder why so many Pro-Choice
|> get so angry (I'm not saying you do Lori) when they are called
|> "Pro-Abortion"?  Why is this distinction so important?  It seems to be more
|> than just a legitimate concern over getting the issues straight.  I can't
|> think of any other issue where people react this way.
|> 
|> I think the answer is obvious: most people do find something wrong with
|> abortion, but they aren't willing to impose that on others.
|> 
Pro-choice persons probably object to the term Pro-Abortion, for the same
reasons Pro-life persons object to the term Anti-Abortion.  Abortion is
an event, but Choice and Life are the belief structures that drive
the two sides.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:10:25 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <fpjz-2h@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <1992Sep24.151734.14352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:

>>>I am not pleased with myself.  I am not posting this to brag.  For one
>>>thing, the abortion itself was the most physical pain I have ever felt in 
>>>my life (I'm sure there are some of you who are satisfied by that). 

>>I sure am not, it is one of the things I am angry at abortion mills for,
>>not offering anesthesia as a matter of course.  As one can gather from
>>my SUFFERING OF SOME... post and follow-ups, I care very much about
>>women going through abortion, and this post only reinforces that 
>>attitude.

>Why have we not seen similar concern from you about the agony of
>childbirth?  Myself, I am angry at birth mills for not offering
>anesthesia as a matter of course.  In fact, the refusal of the
>medical staff to provide painkillers has created needless misery
>in the birth experiences of many women.  Does _this_ sort of thing
>horrify you, or are you only horrified when an abortion is involved?

It would horrify me if I saw evidence this actually existed.
Kindly give examples of medical staff refusing to give painkillers
in the present-day USA.

But as you can see from an earlier follow-up of mine along this
thread, a WIDE range of anesthetics is offered in birthing, at
least in the hospitals I am familiar with.
Do you know how wide the range is in a typical abortion mill?

>Oh, and btw, with regards to your continuing snotty remarks to
>Adrienne, I know SEVERAL women who begged doctors to stop during
>childbirth.  I know women who were reduced to begging for C-sections,
>because they knew that was the ONLY WAY IN HELL (and I do mean hell)
>that they were going to get any painkiller.  Women who are breast-
>feeding are often refused pain medication AFTER the birth as well.

>But we don't see you talking about how terrible THAT situation is.

Because I never heard of it before.  And so far, I only have your
word for it that this has happened.  Which hospital(s) did this take
place in?  What was the reason for this strange split between
natural birth and C-sections?  Sounds like grounds for a malpractice
suit.  

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:03:58 GMT

In article <BvGHAs.n0p@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Redneckus) writes:
>
>This is almost as funny as your claim that there's a place called "Naziism"
>and that there's a religion called "Hymietown".  Sounds like you got a few
>connections cross-wired wrong, to me...:-)

Show where I said there is a religion called "Hymietown" and a place
called "Naziism," PatricKKK. 

WHY CAN'T YOU STOP  L Y I N G ?! 

DAMN, PATRICKKK! WE NOW HAVE NINE CLEAR LIES BY YOU AGAINST ME. WE'LL BE
AT TEN BY MID OCTOBER, AT THIS RATE. 


=============================================================================
                   /\
                  /  \
                 /    \
                /      \ 
               /  KKK   \ 
              /          \ 
             / ---   ---  \
            /  [ ]   [ ]   \ 
           /                \ 
          /                  \
         /      --------      \  
        /       |      |       \ 
       /        --------        \ 
      /                          \ 
     /                            \ 
/--------------------------------------\ 
|      |Come on, Steve.  Let's  |      | 
|      |see just how much of a  |      | 
|      |boy you are.  March     |      | 
|      |your fat black ass down |      | 
|      |here and tell me I'm a  |      | 
|      |liar, to my face.       |      | 
|      |  - PatricKKK Humphrey  |      | 

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt you for a little while" - "Prince"
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:59:59 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Only in some states.
>Please post the name of a state which has a law forbidding the use of lethal
>force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

>>Only as a recent innovation.
>Please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder for
>using lethal force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

(Somewhat) relevent case happened recently in this part of California.
Man breaks into house, rapes woman.  She gets away and runs to kitchen
while the guy trips over the pants around his knees.  By time he
catches up to her she has a large knife.  Result: if the police hadn't
found him unconcious in his car, he would have bled to death.  He's
facing many years in prison, she isn't.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:08:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.185444.9832@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <BvAtuu.G96@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep28.153959.3058@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >In article <BvAnLI.AvL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> >> The essence is this:  rape/incest may alter the balance of rights
>> >> between woman and fetus, because it nullifies a "voluntary" acceptance
>> >> of obligations and because it may represent an extra burden to the woman
>> >> not present in the case of voluntary sex.
>> >
>> >Why is a woman, in your view, "obligated" to carry a pregnancy
>> >to term if she had sex voluntarily?
>> 
>> 
>> I have never stated that a woman is, in my view, "obligated" 
>> to carry a pregnancy to term if she had sex voluntarily.
>
>Well the implication of what you said above seems to me to clearly
>indicate that you believe a woman is obligated to carry a
>pregnancy to term if she has sex voluntarily.  Please clarify
>what you mean above when you speak of "nullify[ing] a
>'voluntary' acceptance of obligations..."  My understanding
>was that you believe voluntary sex is an implicit acceptance
>of an obligation to carry any resulting pregnancy to term on
>the part of the woman.


You deleted the following statements of mine (from the ">> >>" level):

  Your suspicions may arise from not having followed/seen all the arguments.

  AGAIN:  I am arguing whether this is *consistent* or not.
  Please avoid "you are advocating" responses, thanks.


To those, I add my earlier words from +this+ thread (25 Sep 1992):

  Whether this *SHOULD* be law is another question.


As for "nullifying a 'voluntary' acceptance of obligations,'
the distinction between "a" and "the" is very important,
and I chose those words specifically.  

It may be clearer for you to read "any," but I stand by my choice 
of words --- especially because the context stipulates that
voluntary sex implies voluntary acceptance of obligations.

Feel free to disagree with that stipulation.  Don't feel free to
"accuse" me of holding that belief.  But the system of beliefs 
is still consistent, whether you agree with it or not.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:40:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
 bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>"Let's ban all abortions sought for convenience, then; that would
>>help."  Who's going to define convenience?  You?  Me?  Can we come up
>>with a nice simple law that would apply to any case?  Where do we draw
>>the line?
>>
>How about LIFE?

Alright! [applause]  Guerrero responds in true pro-life fashion,
completely avoiding the question and responding with meaningless
pro-life propaganda!  Way to go!

(yes, he's got a brain, but aint NOBODY gonna make him USE it.)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 07:09:55 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  <1992Oct3.180259.402@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
> >If you press up against a woman without her permission, she doesn't have
> >the right to blow you away.  If you try to stick your dick in her without
> >her permission, she does.
>
> Only in some states.

Certainly in NY.  I don't know of any states in which this *isn't* true,
but I haven't done a survey.

> Only for deterrent effect, which doesn't apply to the abortion issue.

To prevent *or* terminate; the latter applies to the abortion issue.

> Please stop citing this aberration as if it were a relevant, established
> legal principle, Larry.

I don't think it's an aberration; I feel it *is* relevant, and it is an
established legal principle in New York.  If you want to argue law with
the NYPD, be my guest; I have no interest in getting sidetracked.  The point,
which I think my analogy made quite well, is that those 3 inches are the
body of another person, which certainly *is* a meaningful separation.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Threats?
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 16:09:29 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  <nyikos.718031409@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <6355@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >In article <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >#In  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) write
> >##
> >## But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
> >## services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
> >## I will pull the plug on YOU.
> >#
> >#I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
> >#Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?
>
> >I wondered the same thing.  Suzanne's comments are phrased the same
> >way that Mark's were.
>
> Andy, Ray, and now Mark.  Who are these people?

Andy and Ray are the "either of you" at whom that Suzanne directed her
"threat".  Mark is the one who made a similar "threat" against
Suzanne.  Chaney's ravings about the latter occurred before you were
posting here, but Andy and Ray were quoted in Suzanne's post.  Don't
you read these things before you comment on them?

(Perhaps if you asked the questions *before* making the ignorant
allegations, your reputation here would be more like what you think
you deserve, instead of the one you've earned.  Just a friendly
suggestion...)

> >I doubt that he will complain, though.  Dennis will cite his "two
> >wrongs make a right" rule and carry on.
>
> Now wait a minute.  A conditional threat is different from a wrong.

To a rational person, yes.  But Susan was talking about Chaney, who's
been flaming Mark for months about an identically phrased conditional
threat.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40607 talk.politics.misc:49601 alt.sex:31947 alt.rush-limbaugh:6551 alt.politics.elections:15191 alt.politics.clinton:8516 alt.politics.bush:7751
From: mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:09:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

This "borned" shit is starting to piss me off, so:

ENGLISH 0001
Lesson 1
Principal parts of "bear"
I bear, I bore, I have born(e)
Herendethelessun
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:36:44 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Sep28.222512.22658@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>>Now cut off the an unborn baby a few weeks before birth.  Would you consider
>>>that the unborn baby is a human life?  You might say yes (I have to say
>>>might because of the amazing rationalizations some people have).  ...
>>
>>If it's alive, yes.  Now try it 7 months before birth.  Is THAT a person?
>
>It is a member of homo sapiens, and is definitely human.

That wasn't the question.  It's empirically verifiable that it's
human, because it has human DNA.  But is it a PERSON?  If not, why not?

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:35:43 GMT

In article <Qenlkia00iUz4153J7@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>On a different note, I met Ms. Garvin at the Sarah Weddington lecture at
>CMU. I felt comfortable talking with her.  She was different that I had
>imagined from her post.  

Imagining what people look like from their typed words is hard to do. 
I was shocked last week to see on the cover of Time magazine 
an image close to the way I had first envisioned Steve Chaney.  :-)


-- 
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 \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion