HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 20:23:35 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Sep12.083739.44238@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
><v=tny+f.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> <Sep09.195258.92238@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ><fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> ><1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
...
>|> >	Ask an ignorant question.....
>|> >	It certainly involves force against the living human being inside the
>|> >mother's womb.
>|> >	I know, I know, this particular living human being is not deserving of
>|> >the protection of human rights.  In your opinion.
>|> 
>|> Now Steve, I don't know why you think you know what I'm thinking.  In this
>|> case you are dead wrong.  I absolutely believe that a fetus is a living
>|> human being.  It's just not a person.  And (are you ready for this?) even
>|> if it was a person I would support unrestricted abortion upto the time of
>|> birth.  You see, the being that the fetus resides in is normally called a
>|> 'woman'.  If you'll check your biology books you'll see that she is a
>|> human being too.  If you'll check your legal books you'll see that she is
>|> a person.  And if you'll check the constitution you'll find that no
>|> *person* unconvicted of a crime my be forced into bodily servitude against
>|> their will.
>
>	I do not suggest that the woman be forced into bodily servitude.  I do
>assert, however, that she is responsible for the consequences of her behavior on
>others, including the living human being in her womb for whose existence she is responsible.

And you believe she should be forced into bodily servitude (read: slavery)
because of an action she may or may not have taken voluntarily.  Do you
also believe that this should be the case for other actions taken by
people in other situations?  Car accidents and car insurance come to mind.

>	Gordon, you're a person (I hope).  Suppose I push a button which causes
>you to be in my body.  Can I abort you?  Yes or no?

Sure.

>Live long and prosper....well, now that I think about it....at
>least prosper....well....

Nice of you to wish an early death on me Steve.  Such kind and
compassionate people these pro-"life"rs are.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and 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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35610 alt.birthright:451 alt.abortion.inequity:3619
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Pro-Life Company needs help!
Keywords: Chaney needs more Valium!
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:10:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T's favorite customer since Sept. 1

In article <1992Sep8.154244.10519@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
>
>Okay, off of the bombing raids, here is some more good news for pro-lifers:

Don't tell me -- you're leaving Usenet permanently? :-)

>Save money on Long Distance!

I already do -- Reach Out America, thanks to AT&T.

>Save unborn babies by helping support Feminists for Life
>(816) 753-2130

Uh, Steve (and Dennis) -- Internet isn't exactly for commercial advertisements.

>There is a long distance phone company called Coast International, INC.,
>that makes donations to FFL.

So?  That's their problem.

>* You can expect savings off your current long distance bills.

...which you can get more of with AT&T, most likely...

>* FFL will receive a percentage of the income on all participant's
>bills monthly.

That's a good enough reason for me to "dance with the one that brung me"...

>* You do not change your method of dialing.
>* You do not change any local telephone service.
>* 100% fiber optics lines are used, the most advanced telecommunications
>  system in the world.

...until you try to dial a cellular number, or a number in an NPA that's
just been activated (like 310 and 706 this year, and 210 and 909 later
this year)...

>* You will receive calling cards free.
>* You may change your service at any time at no charge. 

La dee da.  So far, that's just what every other IXC offers.

>Coast International has proven itself through similar arrangements with
>over a dozen other pro-life groups, and it comes highly recommended. Your
>first bill will arrive from Coast International, in about 60 days. (Local
>telephone companies may assess a switch charge of $5.00; CII will offset
>this with 30 minutes free evening calling on your third month's bill.)

No thanks -- when I call 606 848-1200 to tell my parents that their 
favorite daughter-in-law is going to be all right, I'm not going to be
putting any money in the pockets of slugs like you.

>Write for more details to:
>Coast International, INC.
>10975 Benson Drive, Suite 250
>Overland Park, KS 66210-9765.

Interesting -- how come their mailing address is in Overland Park, but the
phone is in Kansas City, Missouri?  (I know a bit about the greater Kansas City area, and it must be nice that your FFL friends have the money to burn on an FX
line, since there are *no* COs in the Kansas City local-calling area that cross
the state line...)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 797-2646 at Hermann Hospital. 
                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
    (and Steve Chaney is *definitely* a Pink Boy if ever there was one...:-)
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:05:41 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
> chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> So Kevin, have you harassed any pregnant women lately? >:-|

>> I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually congratulate
>> them for achieving it.      ^|^
                                |
Nice semantic dodge.  -----------

Kevin, I don't have your comments archived, but I distinctly remember you
bragging about harassing pregnant women outside abortion clinics.  My
response was something like, "Thanks for the confession to assault.  Too
bad it won't hold up in court."

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:33:38 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <adams.716150797@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>>Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>>American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
>>contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
>>terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.
>
>Calling him an African American is a disservice to all other African
>Americans.

As long as it is accurate, one can only regret that it is a
disservice.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:29:54 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

   From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
   > 
   > Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
   > they won't have sex with them".


   What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.

Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 

___/\___  __
\      / /  \
 \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (corwin+@cmu.edu)
/_\  /_\    \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
   \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
        B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++             Carnegie Mellon

"Christians maintain a higher enjoyment level in the intamacy of their
love life than the population in general."
        Beverly LaHaye, President Concerned Women of America, 1976

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36522 talk.religion.misc:16228
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:01:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.125404.202724@uctvax.uct.ac.za>
wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>That is so true!  It is a question of whose morals will be legislated. 
>Pro-aborts want their morals legislated; making murder nice and antiseptic -
>removing all feelings of guilt.

Gordon, do you want to legislate your morals?  Catwoman, do you want
to legislate yours?  Um, who's the third pro-abortion person on t.a.?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Sep 92 00:14:52 GMT

In <1992Sep2.233728.9796@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@handel.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

>In article <180ulpINNn1a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.715380785@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
>>>quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?
>>>A being, by the way, which would become one of us unless some drastic

>I agreed to make a bargain with Peter.  In the even that I ever
>get pregnant, I agree not to have an elective abortion, and in 
>return Peter agrees to have the person of my choice use his body
>for nine months.  This use would include, but not be limited to:
>having my champion occupy certain portions of Peter's body for
>extended periouds of time, allowing my champion to pump random
>chemicals into Peter's blood stream, and forcing Peter to undergo
>minor surgery which may or may not have any lasting effects.  

>The more I think of this, the better this idea seems for the pro-lifers.
>Here is a guaranteed way to reduce the number of abortions in this
>country for I am sure that some other pro-choice women would be
>willing to make the same deal, although others may not be as generous as 
>I and also make a requirement for financial support.  But even with that
>extra stipualation, it seems that the pro-lifers would jump at the chance
>to eliminate these potential abortions.  As a matter of fact, each pro-lifer
>could "cover" multiple women since the pro-lifer's services would only
>be required in the event of a pregnancy and even then only for nine months.  
>Female as well as male pro-lifers could perform this service too.

>Keith Cocharan has graciously offered to be my champion in this
>situation .  Keith, there is no one I would rather have.  Your posting
>on fisting was the partial inspiration for this idea in the first 
>place.  So now Peter, you even know who your "occupier" would
>be.  Since I missed your response before, please post it again
>just so I have your agreement on record.

>Thanks ever so.

>Sarah McCabe

You are just trying to gross me out, and as I said to Keith, it cannot
be done in talk.abortion without getting so explicit as to bring the
wrath of network censors down on your head, and bringing pressure to
make ALL talk.abortion moderated, something none of us wants.

Back in Wollongong I saw a newsgroup with a name like alt.sex.kinky
but there's nothing like it here.  So you can't gross me out by
posting there either.

But as I said to Keith, I can't stop you from e-mailing me.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: TbBA alert!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:53:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.125042.202723@uctvax.uct.ac.za>
wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>Rubbish!  Most medical doctors in the U.S. agree with the ex (~1986) U.S.
>surgeon general- C.Everret Koop - there is a new human being from conception.

Truth by Blatant Assertion.  Please provide the quote where Dr. Koop
said this, the statistics and source showing that most M.Ds agree with
this, and the definition of "human being" the M.Ds are using
(basically, whether they are equating "human being" withe "human
entity" or "person".)

Personally, I think "human being" means "human entity" and as such, I
consider a z/e/f technically a "human being".  However, I also think
sperm and eggs are entities and human, therefore "human beings".  I
don't think this entitles either haploid humans or z/e/fs to rights,
since I think moral rights derive from potential for thought rather
than species membership.

>Sure; the baby is dependent on the mother for 9 months for nourishment and a
>protective environment.  Does this make it sub-human?!

Certainly not.  A z/e/f is definitely a member of the human species.
So are sperm and eggs (well, provided the "parent" is human).  So?

>Most people who choose to
>kill their pre-born children do so because it makes life easier for them.

Oh, great, yet another term for zygotes/embryoes/fetuses.  Just don't
refer to me as "pre-dead", please.

I suppose most women do have abortions because it's "easier" [HOW that
word phrase above trivializes pregnancy, though] than pregnancy and
giving birth.  But I don't think most women would even consider
abortion if they thought the z/e/f a person in the first place.

>Life
>would certainly be easier if we could kill everyone who makes it difficult for
>us - but then some people might not agree to being murdered without some sort
>of fight!

Go talk to a woman who's been pregnant, and see how the words "easier"
and "difficult" understate and trivialize pregnancy.

Then come back and try to understand that many of us do *not* consider
an entity without a terribly functional brain, let alone a mind, to be
a person.  Even you just might be able to understand some of the
abortion debate if you accepted that we really, honestly, don't think
a mindless human is entited to rights and aren't just saying that
because we want to be allowed to legally kill people.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
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: Sat, 5 Sep 92 16:40:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.201333.13485@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> 
>> [Gee, Suxanne the Bitch is back, and just as "compassionate" as ever...]
>> 
>> Fuck off and die, bitch.
>
>
>Ah yes, I should take you as my model of compassion and kindness.

Answer the question, Suxanne.

Have you ever seen anybody die from:  CP?
                                      AIDS?
                                      MD?
                                      AD?
                                      KS?

The net is awaiting your response...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit against Dr. Mildred Hanson
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:10:53 GMT

In <1992Sep10.123039.23351@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.182012.13494@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> Last week, Peter Nyikos mentioned that a lawsuit was filed against
>> Dr. Mildred Hanson of Minneapolis for failing to inform a patient
>> of the results of a pap smear in a timely manner.  Too bad he didn't
>> include the whole story.

I was working from a source that was over a year old, and at that time
the suit was still pending.

>>  The suit was thrown out before it ever went
>> to trial.  It seems that Dr. Hanson's office repeatedly sent the
>> results to the woman by mail and by telephone.  I learned this during
>> a telephone conversation with one of Dr. Hanson's associates.

Hardly an unbiased source.  But I'll accept it temporarily, until I
can check with someone who has really up-to-date information.

>Did you know about this, Peter?

No, as you can see, I did not.  

>  Were you deliberately trying to
>mislead us?

Of course not.  I would never deliberately try to mislead anyone.  (I know
many pro-choicers will find this statement incredible, but I am telling
you anyway.)

>Thanks to Chris for going after the COMPLETE STORY.  It is
>a good example of how posting just a BIT OF THE STORY is used
>to mislead and deceive.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I could post the whole (obsolete, according to Mildred Hanson's associate)
article which I used as my source, but I doubt that's what 
you pro-choicers want.

>One might say that someone who posts just a bit of the story in
>order to deceive the reader is lacking in character, or is
>engaging in a sleazy smear campaign.

None of which applies to me, although many pro-choicers might be
misled and deceived by Dean Kaflowitz into thinking otherwise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Dean Kaflowitz

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Abortion rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:08:01 GMT


In article <sehFRsm00WB001PlEh@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
|You mean like minors informing their parents.
|Or waiting periods (some states do have them for elective surgery).

Such as?  Give some examples.

|Anyone noticed that the people claiming abortion should be
|treated like any other elective surgery are the ones who scream
|loudest when it actually is.

What?  You mean it's normal to have people picketing your
orthodontist and screaming about "tooth murder" when you go in
for orthodontic work?  Radical fundamentalists harass doctors
who perform vasectomies?  Really?  

Guess there are more lunatics in the world than I thought.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Summary: Which version of the dictionary?
Organization: Ask me when I wake up.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:52:08 GMT

In article <SCOTTS.92Sep5142954@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>   From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>   > 
>   > Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>   > they won't have sex with them".
>
>
>   What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
>
>Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 

You know that, I know that, most people with more than a single functioning
neuron know that -- but you have to keep in mind that "not being sexually
attracted to" is the definition of "hate" in this week's version of
Suzanne's Variable Dictionary of the English Language...:-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:43:29 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

In article <1992Sep8.211617.5889@acd4.acd.com>
-> In <1992Sep5.013427.10017@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
-> > my apologies. i hadn't realized you were so far
-> > removed from what had been posted to t.a. over the
-> > past several months. nonetheless, just the
-> > comments of others over the past few days should
-> > have given you some idea. i do find it kind of odd
-> > that you'd post like this without knowing what you
-> > were talking about.
-> 
-> Apparently this means that I would have concurred
-> with your assessment had I not been "so far removed
-> from...t.a.", which is an incorrect assumption on
-> your part.

perhaps. i suggest that we wait for you to take a
further peek at the data before you jump to any
conclusions. you wouldn't want to appear capricious,
would you? if, after you do that, you still think that
neither chaney, DODie or the others could be helped by
therapy, well that's ok. 

[...]

-> > that's ok. i have no problem with your believing
-> > that.  i don't share your belief. i think i have
-> > exactly the right information to make the labels
-> > that i make.
-> 
-> Excellent.  In that case, perhaps you'd be willing
-> to provide a list of symptoms which substantiate
-> your assessment of Doug (and Chaney, if you like).

several people posted to explain DODie to you. and i
provided a list of chaney articles and even offered to
email them. they contain all the information i need to
form my opinion.

why are you so opposed to therapy, bill?






-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What if???
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:24:49 CST
 <nyikos.715541196@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <kt1yj9c@rpi.edu> <1992Sep6.034653.12421@news.vanderbilt.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep6.034653.12421@news.vanderbilt.edu>, LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu () writes:
> In <kt1yj9c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu writes:
>  
>> This is idiotic.  One free clue, Nyikos:  When the joey is in the
>> pouch, can you SEE the eyes, ears, etc, as the original poster
>> specified? 
>>                     -rocker
>> 
> Maybe not while they're IN the pouch, but definitely while going From the
> uterus to the pouch.

Quite true, but the last time I heard about it, the time it takes
for the li'l roo thing to get to the pouch is slightly less than
9 months.  Point is, kangaroo's don't develop on the visible
exterior of their mothers.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca