HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

demonstrating a marked lach of character ....

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> In <1992Aug25.121138.22714@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com writes:
-> > HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> > ->   Wrong, RVW breath!  You're on.  That is, in
-> > -> fact, exactly what I support.  Now, please
-> > -> start supporting a ban on 3rd trimester
-> > -> abortions.
-> > 
-> > it's interesting watching you guys trade away the
-> > rights of women.
-> 
->   Do grow up.

why is that, jimmie? don't adults comment on two men
publically trading away the rights of all women? or is
it just that you had no idea what you were saying in
the first place?

-> > do you have special powers to do this or do you
-> > think any male has the power to barter away the
-> > rights of all females?
-> 
->   As Grand Poobah of the He-Man Woman-Hater's
-> Society, I have in fact, been granted just those
-> powers under our Constitutional Charter.  In the
-> interests of peace, I have entered into this
-> agreement with well-known bomb-throwing reactionary,
-> Mark "IRA" Kaufman, to subjugate all women to our
-> will, return them to the kitchens and washrooms
-> where they belong, and create a harem of sex-slaves
-> to service our every depraved whim.  OUR SACRED
-> CAUSE WILL TRIUMPH OVER RIGHT-LEFT WING
-> COMMIEPUBLICANOCRAT WEENIES!

do you think making jokes about your willingness to
trade away the rights of others will fool people.
(actually, it probably will fool many of the fools who
have been posting to this group lately.)






-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:13:03 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <czbna2q.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:

> I've seen the term "potential" life used several times and I'm still not
> sure what it is supposed to mean.  Could you please explain what a potential 
> life is and its relevence?
> Ray Fischer

  A potential life is just that -- a life that *could* be.  A fetus is at least
a potential human being/person/citizen.  That is not, so far as I know, in any 
doubt.  It is relevant because if there were no potential people concerned in
the abortion question, there would be no debate.

  Now as to the next stage, one could easily say sperm and ova are potential
people too (or at least half-people(?)), I can only say we all draw our lines
somewhere, and the purpose of this forum should be to bring them closer to-
gether.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:43:20 GMT

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

>In article <BtM9BC.7sq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.714853495@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>#In <1992Aug24.222123.25747@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>[text deleted]
>>
>>##What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by a septic abortion.
>>#
>>#What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by vomit going back down
>>#the wrong way, said vomit being caused by the drugs she was taking
>>#recreationally.
>>
>>What the death certificate says is this:  "septic abortion with
>>pneumonia."
>>
>>Nyikos vile accusation originates with Willke and the NRLC.  The
>>coroner who performed the autopsy has stated publicly that he
>>does not believe Willke's fantasy about how Ms. Bell died, and
>>that Willke's fantasy is not based on medical evidence.
>>
>>Some fools will continue to give voice to the lies of a twisted
>>old man, but the facts remain.
>>
>>Susan

>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.)  

You still haven't refuted it, you've only applauded Susan for doing
so, in your eyes.

>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.

None of this was done to my knowledge.

>  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.

Especially if the political impact is the result of damned lies.  I'm
not saying the parents engaged in them, but Willke seems to sincerely
believe that they did, and he has forensic experts to back him up.

>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.

Well, that's all assuming the Bells are telling the truth.  And if I see
a halfway decent reason to think they are, I'll personally write to them
about my concern.   And I'm not being sarcastic either.  Becky's death
was a tragedy, regardless of how it happened.

>Sarah McCabe

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:30:58 GMT

From article <1992Aug22.130432.2159@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
> In article <1992Aug22.001019.17734@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>>> In article ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>> 
>>> [Loren and Ilana discussing various forms of what they call
>>>  "non-contact sex", the details of which I just can't bear to repeat.]
>> 
>> My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>> "non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>> now is it.
>> 
>> Why don't y'all just buy yourselves trashy novels and be done with it.
> 
> Masturbation and phone sex are forms of sex.


Some people might indulge in such activities, but I would be willing to bet
that no one in the world would claim he could possibly have lost his virginity
over the telephone.

SF
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:40:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <BtM9BC.7sq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <nyikos.714853495@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Aug24.222123.25747@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>[text deleted]
>
>##What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by a septic abortion.
>#
>#What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by vomit going back down
>#the wrong way, said vomit being caused by the drugs she was taking
>#recreationally.
>
>What the death certificate says is this:  "septic abortion with
>pneumonia."
>
>Nyikos vile accusation originates with Willke and the NRLC.  The
>coroner who performed the autopsy has stated publicly that he
>does not believe Willke's fantasy about how Ms. Bell died, and
>that Willke's fantasy is not based on medical evidence.
>
>Some fools will continue to give voice to the lies of a twisted
>old man, but the facts remain.
>
>Susan

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.)  

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.

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 20:01:37 GMT

In <17s3nmINN73o@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715040868@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <17glukINN3jn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>As Suzanne said last month....Nah, I won't say it, Miss Manners wouldn't
>>approve.

>There are lots of folks who decide not to repeat some of the dumb things
>Suzanne says.  Maybe you have more sense than we had hitherto dreamed of.

Don't be so hard on Suzanne. [This refers not so much to what you've just 
said as some of the things I've heard before.] 
Her heart is in the right place about
99% of the time.  I wish I could say the same for you.

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34131 alt.flame:12451
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:06:09 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> > addressing the chaneyhall thing,
-> > decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
-> > [...]
-> > -> And he says his home life was not
-> > -> dysfunctional, yet look at what it produced.
-> > -> 
-> > -> He's one sick little boy.  His mommy and daddy
-> > -> better get him some serious psychiatric
-> > -> treatment before his visions of his inheritance
-> > -> get the better of what passes for his patience.
-> > -> I won't be surprised if I see him on A Current
-> > -> Affair somewhere down the road.
-> > 
-> > hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it
-> > was prejudicial to suggest that someone seek
-> > psychiatric help when i suggested that DODie do
-> > so.
-> > 
-> > i wonder if he'll think the same here.
-> 
-> Yeah, well I wasn't sure what Bill was driving at
-> with that one.  

i'm not sure bill knows either. he did just post and
say that this type of remark is prejudicial when it is
made to denigrate; an opinion i don't share.

in fact, i'm not at all sure that i've ever seen this
type of remark made in this newsgroup when it doesn't
appear to be made to denigrate, at least denigrate to
some degree. i've seen days where remarks like this
are made several times, by several people. perhaps my
post was the first bill ever noticed, although that
does seen quite unlikely, doesn't it? in fact, several
people posted  remarks like mine on the same day that i
did.

i suspect he probably had another reason for singling
out my remark. i hope he's not irritated at the outcome
of our net.discussions on other matters.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34828 alt.abortion.inequity:3469
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
[post responded to deleted]

>
> You seem intent to make this a religious argument.  Whether or not 
> you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
> that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
> is based solely on emotional responses of humans.  

Ah, good. I'm glad we've got that settled.

> Yes, I believe abortion is wrong.  I do not think it is right to take 
> a potential life because you were not prepared to deal with that life. 

Then don't do it. Frankly, because I believe in personal freedom to control
one's own body, I am working to protect your right to not have an abortion.

You will have to stop masturbating because each of those sperm can be paired
with an egg and is therefore part of a potential human being.


> Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does 
> not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.

Whoaa.... holy cow. Now I'm totally confused by your position.

> I do believe
> that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my unwanted,
> illegal or immoral actions from a man.

So that abortion isn't a bad thing *then* right? Is it slaughtering an innocent
baby when it's just a mistake and justly removing a burden on the mother when
it was a malicious act?  

Sorry, but that sounds absurd.






-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:25:22 GMT

From article by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
> In article <1992Aug31.014234.22338@samba.oit.unc.edu>
> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> 
>>	What I *really* want to know is:  why does she feel that someone who
>>contracts for the murder of a child shouldn't be punished?
>>	Sounds like a lack of family values to me!  >:-)>
> 
> In the past she's said that the woman can fool herself into thinking a
> z/e/f isn't a child; an abortionist of necessity has enough
> information about embryology to know better.
> 
> Personally, I find that line of reasoning rather insulting.
> 
> And she's always ignored my repeated comments that I got *more*
> comfortable about abortion when I studied embryology, not less
> (because I found out how long it took the brain to develop).

Brain waves are recordable at 6 weeks, the earliest stage any abortion
is done.  Dr. Len Howard himself refuted your obsessive over-fascination
with "mylenation" having anything to do with when human life begins.

Ms. E. Elizabeth Self-Liar strikes again.  At herself!!


Suzanne Forgach
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 27 Aug 1992 14:17:47 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <67044@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <17j6hfINNkc2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>How about: Would marriage exist at all without the sex urge?  
>>Yes.
>>Marriage is basically an economic contract.  It only recently became the 
>
>I'm not sure what ecomomic contract comes with marriage, for if it
>was such, then there would be no use for pre-nuptual agreements.
>There is responsibility in marriage of which finances are a part.
>As far as taxes go, marriage doesn't really give you a break.

Oh, Richard, don't get me on my (other) hobby horse!  Marriage is a legal
contract in the various states in the union -- I can't speak to foreign
law -- as well as a religious ceremony.  The reason for pre-nuptual agree-
ments is to create an agreement that either changes the current marriage
contract that one intends to enter into, or protect against changes that
may occur in marriage law while one is in a marriage (it's one of the 
things I hate most about marriage -- there you go, getting married, and
someone else's case law changes what your contract is about whether you 
like it or not.)  Marriage creates a whole bundle of handly assumptions
that serve the state if one of the partners happens to die or do something
nasty.  Whether it also serves the partners is for them to decide.

>Actually, the need for such contracts shows a lack of trust in the
>person one is supposedly committing for a life time, isn't it?

I would disagree, but I'll spare you all the argument.

>As far as the Christian and Jewish adherents (I being a Christian) are
>concerned, the marriage covenant originated a little farther back than
>'recently' and was then, as is now, within these two groups at least
>the only approved environment for sex.
>Marriage was sanctioned at the very beginning and has not been repealed.

Marriage has been around a heck of a longer time than Christianity.  Not
knowing how far back the Jewish faith goes, I couldn't say.  However,
the notion of fidelity is fairly 'recent' within human history.  Back in
the beginning tribes, and even in some existing tribes today, marriage is
not the only approved environment for sex.

Adrienne Regard
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: NYTimes article on Robertson letter
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:37:56 GMT

Here's the AP wire report on the Pat Robertson letter.

NY Times, p.A16, 8/26/92

ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS

-----
Says Effort in Iowa Supports Witches and Child Killers
-----

DES MOINES, Aug 25 (AP) -- A fund-raising letter written by the
evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights
amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women
to kill their children and practice witchcraft.

The equal rights amendment, on which Iowans will vote Nov. 3, is a
broadly worded measure that would bar sex discrimination.

But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters
of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the
proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal
rights for women."

Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
become lesbians."

Mr. Robertson, a 1988 Republican Presidential contender, included in
the letter a plea that money be sent to the group Stop ERA to "help
defeat ERA and defend the family in Iowa."

Betty Durden, head of the group Iowa Equal Rights Amendment 1992,
said Mr. Robertson's letter was "ridiculous."

But Ione Dilley, a member of Stop ERA and chairwoman of the Iowa
Christian Coalition, said that although she would not defend Mr.
Robertson's references to child-killing and witchcraft, he was
correct about hidden agendas.

She said her proof came from a hearing called by state officials
seeking opinions on how the amendment should be summarized on the
Iowa ballot.  She said the meeting had been attended by officials for
the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and "the
homosexuals."

"If this resolution to change our Constitution were not vital to
them," Mrs. Dilley said, "why would they show up at this hearing?"

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:38:34 GMT

In <1992Sep1.151316.11437@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:


>In article <BtvMtL.22B@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>   Oh now - coincedence? I chose it silly fool. I suppose I should upgrade
>>my username, having undergone superpuberty, but I never really got around
>>to it. Incedentally, you know I'm 19 Lefty - why the hell won't you answer
>>me, and tell me how old you are (sorry, i just remembered to ask this question.
>>Been a whil ain't it?) you gonna answer?
> 
>So Steve,
>maybe you could clear up what the heck you were trying to say here.

Yes, sorry Dan - you see, the drag about sifting through all the bull that
Lefty and I exude, is that you sometimes miss vital points of discourse. One of
these was the question of Lefty's age. Lefty knew exactly what I"m talking
about, but of course, in the process, I left the rest of the alt.flame
audience in the dark. Sorry ol' chap. Still, aren't ya a little curious
to know how old Leftie is? My point is, that LEftie LIVES on USENET,
replying to threads immediately after they're posted. I argue that 
a) leftie can't have any other social life
b) this is not a phase for Lefty (Usenet has become a compulsion for him,
rather than a) a tool, or b) a teenage phase.)
   Sorry - I'm just a curious George at heart, and can't wait for the answer.

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: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clinton == !Choice
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:57:34 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

>	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
>kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.
>
>

	Seems I forgot to relate this more to this group.  With Clinton's
economic/tax/health aide plan, we will all pay more taxes so that the
government will pay for health care, thereby dictating to us where we can
go.  So, under Clinton, women will have the choice to abort, but they will
not have the choice of doctor.  If a woman chooses to have the child, then
she cannot choose the school.  Boy, talk about odd.  Oh well, at least a
woman can choose whether or not to bring this child into the world....


Bryon Lape
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion