HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:42:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
->In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L
->Humphrey) writes:
->Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?


>Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die?


>I am not Chaney. I hope you can prove what you say, Patrick L Humphrey,
>otherwise I demand a retraction from you. Either you're listening to a
>liar, or you are a liar. I don't know which, and frankly, I don't care,
>but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
>and you owe me an immediate retraction.


>And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
>someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
>sysadmin, I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next
>person that gets brought down.

>Comprende?

Wow, this sounds a lot like the David J. Rasmussen that was boycotted.


Eric, any comments? I just read your file, but I wasn't around at the
time, whoever was can be the judge.

It sure sounds like his tactics, however.


Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mleigh@infocenter.encore.com (Madeline Leigh)
Subject: Pregnancy Vaccine
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:29:14 GMT

Ortho Pharmaceutical Company is developing a contraceptive
vaccine that will work by making a woman immune to sperm.
If successful, the vaccine will be the most radical new
development in contraceptive technology since the pill.

The vaccine, invented by Dr. John C. Herr of the University
of Virginia, uses the immune system to create antibodies to
a protein found on the head of sperm.  The antibodies destroy
the sperm's ability to fertilize the woman's egg.  Unlike the
pill and Norplant, the vaccine does not use hormones to prevent
conception.

The vaccine, still being tested, will be administered by pill
or injection and could last from two to five years.  Dr. Herr
estimates that it will be at least two years before the vaccine
can be tested on humans.

***

Thought y'all might be interested in this tidbit.

Madeline
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:18:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: s1.1992Apr16.001851.22687
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr15.185131.22860@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) asserts:
:
:::The end result, the child has
:::lost priority and is often forgotten. That's what having sex is
:::for dude.
:
::Jesus H Christ, dude.  The primary purpose of sex is NOT to procreate!
::If god wanted it that way, he wouldn't have made it so we could, or even,
::WANT sex at any other time except when conception was possible.
:
::Get off your religion and start THINKING.
:
:
:Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary" purpose
:of sex could be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose could be fun.
:Logic wins again.

	"could be"??? There are LOTS of things that "could be" true,
such as Jesus Christ having been homosexual. Can't you think of any
better argument than that?

:::And I'm going to try not to be rude, but don't you EVER treat abstinence
:::as an insult again. Lemme guess - you obviously didn't wait till marriage
:::for sex, but do you wait till Christmas to open your presents? There's
:::a time and a place for everything, and promiscuity is sure presenting
:::us with a hell of a problem now isn't it?
:
::I don't think anyone on this forum is against abstinence.  Abstinence is
::quite proper for all of us at some time or another.  I think you took the
::remarks in question as an insult because you are extremely sensitive.  
::Not that there's anything wrong with sensitivity, women find it an attractive
::trait, but on this forum, you can't wear your heart on your sleeve.
:
:Why shouldn't he be sensitive?  This group is full of insensitive
:boneheads who continually ridicule him for his belief in abstinence.
:I for one, am proud to see someone stand up for their unpopular
:(in this forum) belief.

	"Ridicule"? "Criticize" more likely, and legitimately so for
insisting that people try to act like eunuchs when they don't want to
and have no need to.

::I also think you're equating lack of abstinence with promiscuity.  While in
::some cases, that is true, it is not always, nor is it the norm.  Most people
::practice serial monogamy (as I've written to you in email, and you couldn't
::be "bothered" to reply).  Serial monogamy is not the same as promiscuity, nor
::is it bad.
:
:"Serial Monogamy" is PC promiscuity.

	Why's that, bud?

:::   Incedentally, I don't think there is a shred of insecurity in me.
:
::He he. As a psychologist, I can tell you that statement is a red flag to your
::insecurities.  A person who is unwilling to admit frailties is most boring
::and most frail.
:
:As a psychologist, why do you hide behind PC?

	She isn't hiding behind a damn thing.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: Whatta maroon.
Organization: Somewhere Absurdgent couldn't find with a map.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:30:55 GMT

Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                    I've fallen -- and I can't reach my beer!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:59:05 GMT

In article <9APR92.02500272@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>Abortion foes are trying to take away the right of women to terminate 
>>a pregnancy and the right to determine what happens to their bodies
>>and the lives.
>
>We are trying to stop the termination of children.  You think that by calling 
>it "terminating a pregnancy" you can hide the fact that you are talking about 
>killing children.  If you would stop hiding behind semantics and accept that 
>you are taking about ending a life, then you might just change your mind on 
>this issue.  
>
>					Loren Finkelstein

Okay, that's it.  I am forming a group that will lobby to pass laws to 
prevent people from wantonly destroying skin cells.  You people think 
that by calling it "scratching an itch" you can hide the fact that you are 
killing fully formed skin-children.  If you would stop hiding behind 
semantics and accept that you are talking about ending a life, then you 
might just change your mind on this issue.

Sarah "dry wit (or was that wry twit?)" McCabe
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: If you loved me...
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:27:05 GMT

jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") asks:

>Now let me put up a question: is there any difference between the 
>statement, "If you loved me, you would want to start a family" and 
>the infamous line, "If you loved me, you'd have sex with me"??? 
>If so, what is the difference? 

I don't see any of a difference between the two statements.  Both are
manipulative and a method of control.  I would turn it back and say "If
_you_ loved _me_, you wouldn't be making these kinds of demands on me."

The person who starts a sentence with "if you loved me" and finishes it
with "you would" do something that I want, clearly does not have your best
interests in mind.  I'd run like hell from this person as chances are they'll
never have your best interests in mind and can't possibly love you like
you deserve to be loved.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Why do men support abortion?
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:56:04 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:


>Why are there so few women supporting legal abortion?

>The nation's largest pro-choice organization, NARAL, had 121,000
>female members in 1986.  NOW had 250,000 members.

>The National Right to Life Committee had 7.5 million women.
What are the annual dues of the NRTLC? How does one become a member?

If these figures are true, then why is it that the majority of American's 
SUPPORTS a woman's right to choose? How many MEN are there in the NRTLC? Have
they ever had a female leader?

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"Birth Control is disgusting--people using each other for pleasure."
                               Randall Terry, Chairman, Operation Rescue.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
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: Thu, 9 Apr 92 00:44:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.130503.15133@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr08.033447.5308@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In  <1992Apr8.011210.18193@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>> You know what? You can't...
>>..and even if you could, it couldn't answer.  It has no mind.
>Ooooh, here's a man who knows what he's talking about. Larry, I could
>spew about how a baby responds to touch after 4 weeks, blah blah bla,
>but I won't. I know you know the stats. An unborn child HAS a mind.
>Arguably to you of course in the first, maybe second trimester, but
>in the third? I'll assume someone got a hold of your terminal for this
>post, because such lack of logic is purely beneath you. The unborn baby
>DOES have a mind. IT is a physiological fact. Now the argument comes
>up as to whether or not it is as developed as you might like...
>
>
>>Since we know that the fetus is not capable of sentience before 7 months,
>>this means that you'd have no objections to first or second trimester
>>abortions?
>   7 months? Where the (*5%^ did you get that? Hmmm. In any case, I would
>have objections, but my main goal is LESS abortions. You get rid of
>(ridiculous) 3rd trimester abortions, and THEN we'll talk.
                                           ^^^^

Gee, Steve, aren't you being just a litte...UNBENDING...there??

After all, less than 100 abortions are performed PER YEAR in the US after the
24th week of pregnancy.

If your goal really is to reduce the number of abortions, then getting rid of
<100 out of 1.3 million every year isn't much of a start.  How about if you
start by talking to Larry and helping stop the 675,000 abortions that occur
before the 8th week of pregnancy every year???

[Note:  The Alan Guttmacher Institute gave me those figures].

And a note for Steven.  Mylination(sp?) occurs around the 24th week.  Until
this time the "brain" of the Fetus can't carry the signals well enough to be
considered "functioning like a [born] human brain".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: STUPID EXAMPLES, BRIAN!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:49:06 GMT


The example you cite in regard to the pro-choice side are stupid.
The pro-choice movement is not fighting for a woman's right to
change her mind after 8 months!  The third trimester abortions in
America amount to one tenth of one percent!  And virtually ALL of
them are medically indicated!  Do you actually think that a woman
is going to sit around for eight months wondering if she REALLY
want to have a baby, and then say to herself, "Well, I think I've
changed my mind!"?  To focus on non-existant extremes to make a
point is not going to prove anything.  My point was that the ones
who are for choice, do not necessarily like abortions.  I would
bet that most women who have abortions have thought lond and hard
before making the choice.  The point is that it IS their choice!
And the anti-abortion movement says that it is not!  Where is the
middle ground?  I do not hear any anti-abortion types saying that
they are willing to allow a woman to decide for herself, with a
specific set of guidelines.  If the anti-abortion movement would do
something like this, then a middle ground could be found.  But this
has not happened.  The anti-abortion movement is against a woman's
right to choose for herself under any circumstances, during any
trimester.  While it is true that the anti's have said that there
are some ways a woman might get pregnant that allow for abortions,
if a woman gets pregnant while NOT being raped, or NOT the victim
of incest, then forget it.  If the woman gets pregnant as a result
of non-incestual, non-forced sex, then no abortion would be allowed.
The issue to these anti's appears to be enjoyment.  If the woman is
raped, then she has suffered, and the aboriton might be allowed. 
But if she got pregnant while ENJOYING sex, forget it!  What kind
of mentality is that?P
X
Y
X
Y
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:02:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.113641.26221@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.050014.15949@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr13.224356.6901@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>
>>I hadn't intended to bring it up, and I won't continue it past the time
>>when you stop it. If you want it off this newsgroup, all you have to do
>>is not reply to this article.

>Go ahead, Nora: Ask her if she'll stab you in the back if you turn
>around....

She hasn't given me any reason to think she would. You had.

>-Ekr

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:11:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.185620.15429@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.ED
>U (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>To claim that you are not judging people is little more than self 
>>delusion.

>   I do not. The message of God tells me that ALL human life is precious,

Tells you alone???? Maybe I got a different message...

>that conception is the ultimate goal of sex, and that we must defend

Ultimate goal? Let's say it is, and after much use of contraception,
one or two abortions, and several miscarriages, my wife and I now have
a child when we're ready for it. Have we not fulfilled this 'ultimate
goal'?

>the weak, innocent and oppressed. I am not a judge, nor am I a hero.

Yes, we should defend them, from being oppressed, taken advantage of,
and being bullied...

>I am merely a Catholic, and a moderately intelligent one, enough that

Modesty, at this point, is a complete farce...

>I would never refer to the bible as you have done yet incorrectly.
						      ^again(added byme)
Judging again, are we?

> Bzzzzt Sorry, you fail the test. Read the old and new testament again.

And yet again.... BTW, what was the test? A mere concoction of your
brain?


Sorry folks, but I couldn't let go of this spout of irrationality.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 22:41:24 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  <1992Apr7.225824.11667@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> How do you know it could never happen? Do you have a crystal ball?

Two of them, actually; I tinkle when I walk.  :-)

> Maybe it doesn't bother you that you ran away from this reasoning. It bothers
> me. It bothers me a LOT, Larry, and I don't have any pat answers. But at
> least, unlike you, I'm at least willing to explore the question...

You presented it as a (hypothetical) fait accompli, and asked "what's wrong
with this?"  I say it's obvious what's wrong, and it would never happen.
If you want to discuss *how* it could happen, then I'll explore the
scenario with you in order to ensure that it never comes to pass.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:49:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>   I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
>the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
>that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
>a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
>against choice?

You'll have excuse Steve Franklin, he seems to have totally lost his
mind for the moment. He seems to believe that everyone will except his
terms for a peaceful solution, ie that everyone will not want abortions.

He doesn't realize that no one wants an abortion, the same way no one
wants a pregnancy, at least, until the situation arises. The woman,
(with or without a man {for those single women who want kids but no
husband}) decides to have a child, or the pregnant woman who decides
that she doesn't. This seems completely obvious to us, but Steve just
can't seem to clue in.

Ron
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mommy! They Called Me Names! (Was: Implications of Abortion...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:51:00 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <EJONES.92Apr13160022@umassmed.ummed.edu> ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu (Erik Jo
>nes) writes:

>>Do you consider yourself a real man, Steve?  How many children
>>have you fathered?  Have you ever married?  Are you talking from

>   I'm 19 fool. It would be pretty damn responsible for me to
>have children this early in lifewouldn't it?

19 explains even more. I'll give you until 22 before the virginity question
becomes moot. What you do then, that's up to you. But at least I figure
you'll probably be speaking from experience then, although it will probably
have been with some promiscuous woman who decided to tackle you.

In those not so long ago times of the beginning of this century, many
were married before age twenty and had started a family. In the previous
century, the 19th, it was not unheard of for people to be married
as young as 13 or 14 and have children by the time they were 15. This
was all approved by your church and considered loyal by the church.
Other odd cases are from centuries before the 19th, when the church,
through various priests, condoned marriages between elderly noblemen
and 13/14 year old girls. This was all considered standard behavior
in those times.

>   Hey - I've learneda hell of a lot more in real life than
>I have on Internet. While you spend all you frigging time posting,
>I'm out educating myself. Not just in school either. You should
>try it sometime.

You should listen, sometime. It's pretty obvious to the rest of us that
you could quadruple your knowledge and still be on the short end of
the stick.

By the way, how could you have a lot of time, judging by your posts,
you must spend a minimum of three hours a day opn the net, do you not
study?
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:39:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <92105.154400ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article  <1992Apr12.161004.18631@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin says:
>>In <92101.130850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:

>The leadership of REAL Women would be offended by your
>combining the term feminist with their organization.  They
>have been very clear about their antifeminist beliefs.  I
>find it hard to ascribe "morals" to a group that would deny
>a sizeable number of women with the resources to support
>themselves and their children.
   Well... You're wrong. REAL women term themselves the "new feminists"
or something along those lines. They liken their attitudes as 90's
women who have responsibility, faith, and morals. Period. They have
tried to overcome the notion that a feminist must be amoral in nature.
I think they have succeeded...

>Your point was that women are leading the prolife movement
>in Canada.  This is not borne out in the organizations
>listed.
   yeah, you're wrong. I must have mentioned this in anotehr post. Go
check up on who the (female) leader of the Canadian branch of HLI
(Human Life International) is...

   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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:11:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Janice Kendall) writes:
>> = (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>> = (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>>>I'm not against sex in relationships,...

Boy, are *you* confused about yourself!

>>>...but if you have it in every one (whether that be 2 or 100), you're
>>>a slut.

I'm not against idiocy in postings, but if you have it in every one,
you're a moron.

>>But, it's a *grand* idea to force these sluts, these sleeparounds, these
>>promiscuous people to become PARENTS isn't it?  

Hell yeah!  What *else* could bring around these, these...lower than
*prostitutes*, these...these Carnal Carnivores, these ABOMINATIONS IN
THE FACE OF GAWD!!

>>Parenthood as punishment.  What a wonderful, wholesome, family-strenghtening
>>ideal!

> What about all those slutty men they're sleeping with?  What punishment
> should we cook up for them? :-o

Hey!  I resembled that remark!!

Hmm...punishment for slutty men...this, of course, is assuming they
wouldn't *like* being punished...hmmm...how about a male chastity belt, 
to be removed after 18 months only if his parental duties are being 
performed satisfactorily?  This would be a new part of the same society 
that would force all pregnant women to carry to term, so the idea kinda
segues together with this Enlightened Philosophy most nicely, yes?


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