HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Summary: ...still going...
Date: 20 Aug 1992 23:56:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Are you kidding?

In article <1992Aug20.222226.3056@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.172947.3242@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># In article <Bt9q3K.As@rice.edu> 
># patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
># 
># >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
># 
># >> 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 L. Humphrey  
># 
># > That's right.  I wrote it, and I apologized to anyone else who was offended
># > by it.  The only apology you'll get from me is when you show enough backbone
># > to come down here and get it in person.  If you're too chicken for that, hey
># > -- you're the one that has to live with that...
># 
># I'm offended that you did not apologize to Steve Chaney for that remark.
># Apologize and get it over with.  Nobody is going to hoot and holler over
># it.  I will continue to ask you to apologize to Steve Chaney.  
>
>Far be it from *me* to suggest that Mr. Chaney deserves the courtesy
>of an apology, but I would like to express my desire to see Mr.
>Humphrey issue an unconditional apology for said remark for the
>following reasons:
>
>	A.  Chaney could fairly be flamed into oblivion should he
>	    refuse to accept it.

True, but that can be accomplished regardless, considering his attitude...

>	B.  I can't think of anything less interesting to read than
>	    fights over whether Chaney does or doesn't deserve an
>	    apology.

You'll get no argument from me on *that* one.

>	C.  This whole thread has been nothing but an opportunity for
>	    everybody involved to demonstrate a fundamental
>	    misunderstanding of the dynamics of race and racism.  It
>	    serves as Yet Another Reminder that the struggle against
>	    institutional racism is far from over, and, being that
>	    there is already plenty of depressing news to occupy idle
>	    minds in this forum, we all might be substantially better
>	    off if this thread would simply die die die.

Three for three!  But -- try convincing Chaney and his kindred soul Doug of
that.  There's the rub.

>Additionally, I would call for Mr. Chaney to refrain from race baiting
>with his nonchalant bandying about of accusations of Klan association,
>if he expects his grievances to be taken seriously.

Let him rave about them all they want to -- some of us were around when he
made his little "Jews of New York" slam, and thus are acquainted with his
tactics (and their results).  As long as he's loose in this newsgroup, the
man's a living testimonial to being pro-choice...


-- 
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. 

        Beware of being the Roller when there's nothing left to roll...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: repost
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:22:06 GMT

I got this note in my mailbox, and am reposting it intact, so the
attribution lines remain somewhat intact.  You should regard this as
coming from Peter.  I have not edited it or anything.

I tried to post this follow-up, but something is wrong with my network
server, so I'm mailing it to you personally via e-mail.  Your comments
appreciated.

In <1992Aug10.011014.5711@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:



>Were this a perfect world, in which "family values" thrived, humans
>counciled and advised, rather than coerced, emotionalism didn't 
>cloud intellect, and if legality had the same definition of 
>morality, then perhaps laws or various restrictions concerning 
>abortion might make some sense.

>It is not.  The world shows no evidence that it will become "perfect"
>any time soon, legality often has little to do with morality, and 
>coercion is oft employed when council might be more appropriate.

See, for example, my post of last month, COERCED ABORTION.  Any requests
for a re-posting?

>What we face, when the rhetoric and fluff is removed, is a set of
>laws or regulations which would affect (by biological necessity)
>females alone. 

A textbook case of begging the question.  Approximately one-half
of all fetuses are male.

The following is displaced from its original position:

>"Ah Love, could thou and I with Fate conspire,
> to grasp this sorry Scheme of things entire
> Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
> Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire?"
>                       - Fitzgerald, rather loosely translating from
>                         Omar

I too am a fan of Fitzgerald.  Now consider this:

One Moment in Annihilation's Waste,
One Moment, of the Well of Life to taste--
The Stars are setting and the Caravan
Draws to the Dawn of Nothing--Oh, make Haste!
			-from the 2nd Edition of Fitzgerald's opus

Comment: The Moment accorded the fetus prior to abortion is the 
briefest of all.

Oh Threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One Thing at least is certain--*This* Life flies;
One Thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once is blown forever dies.   [ibid.]

Comment: And the aborted fetus is nipped in the bud.

Peter Ny.

			*******************

Here are two other failed posts, relevant to a thread you are
interested in:

>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 11:26:33 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:29:11 GMT


In article <1992Aug16.183946.5674@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu writes:
|fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
||I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
||another human being.  

|Ripping a child apart with a powerful vacuum pump is 
|certainly not the same thing as "witholding assistance".  
|You are terribly ill-informed about abortion methods.

You are apparently ill-informed yourself.
No children are involved in abortion, unless 
the abortion is sought by a teenager who wishes
to end her pregnancy.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the 
same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many 
idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will 
lead." --Jane Austen
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:37:41 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug12.225352.3394@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>
> Have you ever heard of the French saying, "You gotta want not only
> what you want, but what it leads to?" 

Well, no, and I suspect neither have you.

But since you seem to enjoy French, Dennis, va te faire foutre.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:14:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug12.231006.3811@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.164436.28257@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> 
> >>By the way, I was kidding about the anonymous e-mail. You can now say
> >>you're sorry for hurriedly firing this off along with your whining, to
> >>my sysadmin.
> >
> >Chaney, you are insinuating that I, Steve Novak, sent something to your
> >sysadmin.  I've never sent anything to anyone's sysadmin, much less a
> >colon amongst t.a. text like you.             
> 
> It was a joke, kid.

Listen little boy, first you tell a lie and then we're supposed to
believe that "Gee, it was all a joke.  Ain't I a card?"

You, Stephen Chaney/Dennis Hall, are such a complete liar,
without any moral sense or character, that I cannot believe
your mommy and daddy let you play with their computer.  I'd
think they'd take it away as punishment for your antics.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Red Button Scenario
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:33:40 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
# >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# >> It was no more irrational or bizarre than the "famous violinist" scenario
# >> that the pro-abortionists like to trot out, or rocker's "The Value of a
# >> Man" post.  
# 
# > Interesting.  The only medical doctor who posts to this group labels
# > _The Value of a Man_ as "the best analogy to what women go through
# > during pregnancy that I've ever seen", quite a few women who have had
# > children laud the post as being parallel to their experience, and yet
# > you, who are neither of these things, smugly label it as "irrational
# > and bizarre".
# 
# I did not label your scenario "irrational and bizarre". I said that
# Mr. Arnold's scenario was NO MORE irrational or bizarre than your
# scenario, i.e. if Mr. Woodyatt wants to ridicule Mr. Arnold's 
# scenario, then he must also ridicule your scenario.  Mr. Woodyatt 
# chose to remain a hypocrite. 

Hypocrite? Feh. Let me clear this up.

I haven't seen the `Value of a Man' post. I *have* seen the `famous
violinist' post, and I thought it was pretty bizarre, and not a
terribly useful analogy for use in the abortion debate. It was nowhere
near as bizarre as `The Red Button Scenario' which was TOH-tally
wonderful.

So here it is:

	1. I brazenly continue to ridicule Steven Arnold's `Red Button
	   Scenario' as bizarre, irrational, and knee-slappingly
	   funny. I want Paul Reubens to play the man in the cage,
	   Sandra Bernhardt to play the woman with the button, Tony
	   Randall to play the rapist, Tim Burton to direct, and Danny
	   Elfman to do the score. 

	2. I hereby announce my contention that the `famous violinist'
	   post I am familiar with is more than a little bizarre and,
	   as such, not a very useful analogy.

	3. When I see the `Value of a Man' reposted, I'll decide
	   whether to ridicule it or not at my convenience. My
	   opinions are generally available for the asking, and
	   usually without a fee.

And, no, Mr. Holtsinger, to ridicule Mr. Arnold's Red Button Scenario,
yet remain innocent on the charge of hypocrisy, I need only refrain
from haranguing him about needless levity on such a serious subject as
abortion rights.

So, bite my everlasting cheeseweasel, you twit.

<*ppphththhhtt!*>

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"I am fully prepared to anoint myself with the rancid fat of a feral
sow and run naked through town while the villagers throw pot-stickers
at me."
                                                     -- Michael Rigler
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Apologies
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:57:30 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  <1992Aug21.210836.27003@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.202853.21312@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> I have never posted racial slanders, and neither has Mr. Kellmeyer or
> >> Mr. Chaney.
>
> > This statement is not correct.
>
> I have never posted racial slanders.  I have never seen Mr. Kellmeyer or
> Mr. Chaney post racial slanders.

I *have* seen Chaney post racial slurs.  I don't know whether or not
*you* saw it, but your statement that he never did so is incorrect.

> But that's irrelevant.  And you know that.

The question remains, if *you* knew it was irrelevant, why did you
bring it up in the first place?  (Can you say "backpedal"?)

> I will continue to press him to apologize to Mr. Chaney.  As long
> as it takes.  Does everyone understand that?

By the way - did you ever agree that Susan Garvin gave a valid answered
to your question regarding the difference between a late-term fetus
and a neo-nate?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.154042.9507@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	I've seen the claim here that "Dennis Hall" was really Steve
> Chaney trying to satirize the pro-choice movement with preposterous
> pro-choice postings.
> 
> 	What did "Dennis Hall" say, and what's the full story?

Last spring "Dennis Hall" posted some really extremist and
nasty stuff that was supposedly pro-choice.  The views he
espoused were the same ones that Stephen Chaney frequently
ascribes, wrongly, to those who are pro-choice.  Additionally,
"Dennis Hall" had a habit of making the same spelling errors
as Chaney, and of refering to Usenet as "Unix."  (Note:
UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T.)  Scott Roby was curious
about this and suspected that Chaney was posting under an
assumed name from a different account.  Scott confirmed this
by contacting Chaney's system administrator.

I had supported Scott's version of events, but later decided
that, to be fair, I should confirm it independently before
continuing to support Scott's story, which is that Stephen
Chaney was, in fact, the owner of the "Dennis Hall" account.
I wrote to the account's administrator and asked what for the
truth.  He later called me and confirmed Scott's story.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>It was getting on the verge of the
>downright irritating because of the bogus prank by Scott
>Humphrey/Roby, 

It was your stupid prank to pretend to be two people.
Everyone saw through it.  You were irritated because 
you couldn't fool anybody.


-- 
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*
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31927 alt.flame:12106
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Chaney admits he is Dennis Hall, or vice versa
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:01:49 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

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
-> I am pleased, though, that Chaney has finally put
-> the matter to rest by establishing the simple
-> options of his either/or....

actually, isn't it both?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:45:00 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <92215.152601ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>, by Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>:
> 
> While the majority of the quotes are Canadian, I am
> sure Ms. Forgach if you did a little reading on the
> topic you will find that feminist organizations
> around the world have been lobbying and funding
> such initiatives as you described above.  

No, Linda.  They've been talking the talk, but they haven't been
walking the walk.   Walk into ANY, and I mean ANY abortion alternative
organization ANYWHERE, and you will not find even one pro-"choicer" among
them.  It always has been and always will be the pro-lifers who provide any
non-abortive help to pregnant women in trouble.


> The
> main difference is that the feminist groups want
> to see this provided to all women in society, not
> just those able to meet the requirements of
> organizations that may or may not be operating
> in their area.


Being pregnant and in need of help doesn't sound like stringent "requirements"
whatsoever to me.   But do not ever expect an organization devoted to providing
alternatives to abortion to _ever_ aid someone in _obtaining_ an abortion.
That's just garbage.



> Linda

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Extremism
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:18:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.025409.5875@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}The Master of Confused Doublespeak strikes again!

Most of us had figured out from the header that it was you striking again.
You needen't point that out a second time.

}Say, Galen, are you still simultaneously both in support of, and NOT in 
}support of, the FOCA? How's that support/non-support going?

It isn't going too bad, thanks for your concern Kevin.  Unlike some, I am
able to hold two seemingly conflicting ideas in my head at the same time.
It helps me to distinguish between reality and fantasy.  Oftentimes I find
that what I would wish is not exactly how I find the world -- hence two 
different ideas.  Sometimes those ideas are the same, sometimes they are
not.  Sometimes I find myself forced to select the best option of those
offered, and not the best option of all those of which I can conceive.
I find in a number of instances those selections are not the same.

Some people, however, find such a notion curious and even threatening.
Some people find it difficult to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Of course, I don't suspect you have that difficulty, as I have never
seen you acknowledge the existance of reality.


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 1992 12:51:11 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug13.153220.15332@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
>In article <16drfkINNbst@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?
>
>All human females would have the right to life. 


Oh, well, this is comforting.  All her *other* rights can go hang, but we 
will allow her to live.  Big of you, Doug.

Adrienne Regard
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:26:48 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.713455768@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Aug7.123733.22339@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug7.023624.16364@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> If a developing child should not possess rights because the child 
> >> is not sentient, then shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?  
> 
> >Fetuses that occupy a woman's womb against her wishes are a
> >different matter, and sentience is not the issue.  For many of
> >us, sentience is not and never has been the issue.
> 
> It IS the issue where laws against cruelty to animals are concerned.
> These do not cover cruelty to fire ants, for example, which are
> assumed not to possess sentience, or at least to feel pain.

Mr. Nyikos, this is (pardon the pun) specious nonsense.  I suspect that you
won't find many prosecutions of people for cruelty to:

*	sewer rats
* field mice
*	deer and other game animals (in season, anyway)

Certainly neither sentience nor ability to feel pain are the issue.

> I'll have a lot more to say on this subject, hopefully as soon as 
> later this week.

I'd suggest that it might be more appropriately posted to misc.test. 
Before you spend all that time typing, you might be well advised to locate
and read the text of some representative animal cruelty laws.  See whether
you can spot the word "sentience".

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:14:28 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug19.192754.16560@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

> And as far as the
> woman's life being in danger, apparently you do not know too much
> about pregnancy.  A pregnant woman is ALWAYS at risk.  Many women
> in America die in childbirth EVERY DAY.  And since pregnancy will
> ALWAYS involve a degree of risk to a woman's life, she should not
> be compelled to bear young against her will.  Since a man's being
> is never at any risk, he must never be allowed to force that risk
> on someone else.
[stuff I gereally agree with deleted]

  Death rate due to pregnancy is about 8.4 per 100,000 live births (1988)
  Total deaths due to pregnancy in 1988 was 330. ("Vital Statistics of the US")
  That would be somewhat less than 1 per day.

  Could be higher now, but I doubt it has doubled.  "Many" usually requires
there to be somwhat more than 2.

  I do not consider even 1 death all year to be trivial.  I do consider Mark's
use of "many" to be a gross misrepresentation, not unlike Doug Holtzinger's
definition of "abortion on demand".

  We impose risks upon others every day.  While I am not in favor of forcing
birth on those who do not want it, "imposition of risk is" a spurious argument.


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