HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:23:25 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

Hello, you tweezer and magnifying glass using jerk-off. Are you going
to run away without responding to anything again, or will you actually
say something in response to the following points.

>        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.

It's not a human being with the connotations I believe you are implying.
It is a human life in the sense that all human tissue is human life.
This is not merely my opinion, but I dare say that you will not find
anyhtin in support of your absurd statement before approximately 100
years ago. Note that this allows inclusion of the bible, which has already
been discussed to death that a fetus is not a person, and that the wrong
is done to the *husband* of the intended mother. Go figure.

>|>  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
>|> sensibilities of the pro-lifers.

>        As it happens, the sensibilities of the pro-lifers inside the mother's
>womb are pretty delicate, so I suppose this covers it...

I didn't realize womb residents had sensibilities, or thoughts or emotions
or a host of other personality traits. Could that be because they aren't
persons? Naah, that would be self-evident, wouldn't it. :)

>        Oh, and you've never paid $5 to see one of Schwartzenegger's movies,
>right?  Get outta town!

No one ever said watching the movies was a problem, did they? They just
indicate that this supposed pillar for the American family symbolizes
anything but in his movies.

>        At least Schwartzenegger limits his violence to the movie screen.  The
>pro-legal-abortionists out there want to make it a living reality, and so far
>they're prevailing.

You see these people out shooting others willy-nilly? Call the police!!!
Why have you been so negligent in letting this continue?

Oh, you're speaking with your fetus-idolator persona. Sorry. Abortions,
miscarriages, and deaths will continue despite whatever you legislate.
Unless, of course, you favor an utopia like "The Handmaid's Tale". Steve,
did it ever occur to you that this might merely have been an extrapolation
of the religious rights views and statements coupled with past activities
sanctioned by the religious right types?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:57:24 GMT
	    <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

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

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

Thank you, Suzanne, for proving our point.

You are oblivious to reason when it comes to sexuality. It so happens
that while the vast majority of people engage in sexual activities which
are exclusively heterosexual, a surprisingly smaller fraction have
exclusively heterosexual fantasies. Back in 1948, Kinsey's sample of
over 5,000 men between the ages of 18 and 65 (that is, born between about
1883 and 1930!), 50% of them had sexual fantasies directed toward men.
37% had an actual homosexual experience. 25% had more than incidental
homosexual experience. 6% had predominantly homosexual experience. 4%
were exclusively homosexual.

So most of us fit in between somewhere, including myself.

How dare you say that I "hate women".

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Sep 92 08:29:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <24799@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
|> In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> 
|> Hello, you tweezer and magnifying glass using jerk-off. Are you going
|> to run away without responding to anything again, or will you actually
|> say something in response to the following points.

	Penetrating intellectual analysis at its finest.

|> >        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.
|> 
|> It's not a human being with the connotations I believe you are implying.

	The unborn child is a living member of the human species.  Mere human
tissue is not a living member of the human species.  I have the proof.

|> >|>  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
|> >|> sensibilities of the pro-lifers.
|> 
|> >        As it happens, the sensibilities of the pro-lifers inside the mother's
|> >womb are pretty delicate, so I suppose this covers it...
|> 
|> I didn't realize womb residents had sensibilities, or thoughts or emotions
|> or a host of other personality traits. Could that be because they aren't
|> persons? Naah, that would be self-evident, wouldn't it. :)

	If reaction to stimuli is the criterion for sensation, then unborn
children have sensations quite early in pregnancy.  I can't give you exact
figures just now, but if you're interested I'll provide them.

|> >        At least Schwartzenegger limits his violence to the movie screen.  The
|> >pro-legal-abortionists out there want to make it a living reality, and so far
|> >they're prevailing.
|> 
|> You see these people out shooting others willy-nilly? Call the police!!!
|> Why have you been so negligent in letting this continue?
|> 
|> Oh, you're speaking with your fetus-idolator persona. Sorry. Abortions,
|> miscarriages, and deaths will continue despite whatever you legislate.

	So will other forms of murder.  This does not mean we shouldn't take
steps to prevent it.

|> Unless, of course, you favor an utopia like "The Handmaid's Tale". Steve,
|> did it ever occur to you that this might merely have been an extrapolation
|> of the religious rights views and statements coupled with past activities
|> sanctioned by the religious right types?

	Religion has nothing to do with it.  I'm not a religious type myself.  A
human being is created at conception and it continues until death, regardless of
your opinion to the contrary.  This human being must be recognized as having the
same human rights as other human beings; to do otherwise is arbitrary.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:31:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep14.223450.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>  mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> >>talked in detail with my sister-in-law about the unborn.  She's an
> >>expert-an OBGyn, has worked on hundreds (or more) of pregnant women,
> >>delivered hundreds (or more) babies.  She says they can feel pain.
> >>That's her business.  I believe her.
..
> Okay, so you've chosen not to believe an expert...are you one?

I'll believe an expert in ObGyn in issues relating to obstetrics and
gynecology.  I'll believe an expert in neuroscience in issues relating
to neuroscience.

Also, note that the babies that your sister-in-law has delivered are
much more developed than the fetuses that are being aborted.  That a
newborn, or a fetus just prior to birth, can feel pain is very likely.
That a first or second trimester fetus can not is definite - according
to the experts in neurology and neuroscience.  (If you choose not to
believe the experts - are you one?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official researcher of USENET's Astro_Boy virus) 
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:06:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.152413.724@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>
>Not to mention all the laughter he has supplied us folks that get the
>joke.  He is a lot of fun to listen to once you understand the joke
>and it's a riot listening to the little pimply faced boys that don't 
>get it.  Keep it up Rush.  I'm thrilled you have such a large
>listening audience.  Rush's radio show is about as dangerous as 
>your postings Inturdgent.

Hey Astro Boy, didn't you READ the New Dimensions article I used as
reference here? 

Rush Limbaugh is DEAD serious. If you think he's not, then you're an
idiot and he clearly said you are an idiot. The man is serious, he's
making a lot of money, and little shits like you haven't stopped him
yet. 

Rumor has it, he's got a TV show coming soon. 

What does Gloria Steinem have? 
 

=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35700 talk.bizarre:29394
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
Subject: Should Victims of Hard Drug Abuse Be allowed to Post?
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:55:07 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

in talk.abortion
was Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup

mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
]
] O.K. On one condition--the moderator has to be drieux.
] 
] 
]                                                   MP


The Subject line Says it all....


ciao
drieux


ps: now watch some pinhead whine about how I might
be maligning hard drug abusers as not being the same
sort of competent persons as all the rest of us.....


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:36:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715653015@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Sep3.180335.8977@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

##Geez, Petey, do the continual anti-Jewish remarks by Holtsinger and
##Chaney really pale in your mind next to the one mistake made by
##Patrick?
#
#Sorry, I haven't seen any of them.  I simply don't have the time
#to read everything in talk.abortion.

Oh, yeah, right.  DOD uses one of his anti-Semitic slurs as a .sig.
Are you telling us that you don't read any of DOD's articles now,
or are you just using the "if I can't defend it, I never saw
it" excuse?

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:54:30 GMT

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


>What you find offensive is "I decided to give my life to the Lord,"
>as becomes obvious from your sig., and what comes directly before.

Oh good grief.  We've been burdened with yet _another_ graduate of
the Rasmussenian School of Mindreading.

                    -rocker
                     now, tell me i didn't really mean that
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:28:42 GMT

In article <88899@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>CJ
>Yes she could be raped; I never said that was NOT a possibility.  My use of
>"pants" referred to abstinence.  Obviously, very few of you  understood
>the reference.
I understood it, Mr. Welch. It's very difficult to be abstinent when
a man is holding you down to the floor, ripping your clothes off,
and forcibly penetrating you. Your snide comment was an insult to
rape victims everywhere.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:33:23 GMT

In article <BuBuHz.8w4@rice.edu> 
patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>> Patrick didn't call Chaney a "fat black ass".  He told him to get
>>> his "fat black ass" over to Houston if he wanted to see him.

>> Eyuuuiilllk.  Still pretty racist if you ask me.  Apologise and get it over
>> with.  Sheesh.

> Already did.  

No, you didn't apologize. 


> Just not to Chaney, though, because he wouldn't accept
> anything from me in anything but bad faith, anyway.  

How do you know he wouldn't accept an apology?  He's asked you for one.


> Watch and see how
> Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up 

I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.


> -- mainly so he can *brag*
> about it...

I don't think anyone would like to brag about being ordered to 
march their "fat black ass" to visit the likes of you.  


>Patrick L. Humphrey  


Doug Holtsinger

----------------

People who have publically expressed their clear and unequivocal
objection to Patrick Humphrey's use of term "fat black ass": 

   Steve Chaney
   Doug Holtsinger
   Scott Roby
   Suzanne Forgach
   Galen Hekhuis
   Will Steeves
   JH Woodyatt
   Peter Nyikos
   Elizabeth Bartley
   A. Werling
   Ren and Stimpy's Love Child

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:51:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world 

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen "Careful bending over" Chaney) ...
>If the z/e/f were a machine, of course. But once recognized as alive
>and a member of the human species, "damage done in rape" becomes
>highly irrelevant. 

?!?!?

Well, although my personal preferences don't go that way, I suspect
there might be one or two people available reading this that might be
willing to give you a personal demonstration of just how "highly
irrelevent" damage done in rape really is.	:-)

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The 91% Regret Rate
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:17:19 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep11.235958.28946@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

#The source is the Alan Guttmacher institute, although they refrain from
#calling it "Post Abortive Stress Syndrome".   The Alan Guttmacher survey
#found that of all women who have had abortions, a FULL 91% would have NOT
#aborted, if someone had presented them with help for an alternative.
#(Which, honestly, does translate into some measure of regret.)

Funny how Suzanne missed the previous discussion of this allegation.
The AGI did no such survey.  (The source of the erroneous claim
is _New Dimensions_ magazine, which quoted a statement from an AGI
publication out of context in an attempt to give the number
legitimacy.)  The comment addressed Reardon's WEBA study and merely
confirmed that Reardon had accurately tabulated the results of
his biased survey.  Obvioulsy, not all women who have had abortions
are WEBA members , as Suzanne claims above.

It's one thing to believe a lie when you read it.  That merely
demonstrates gullibility.  It's another thing altogether to
add to it and spread it when you know that it is untrue.
#Anyway, 91% is the exact same statistic as the founder of The Nurturing Network
#(1-800-TNN-4MOM) found, in her interviews with women who'd used the services
#of 10 different abortion clinics.  That was WHY she founded The Nurturing
#Network, to put women who need help in touch with all kinds of alternative
#services, all over the world.   If you want to move accross the continent
#to get away from family and boyfriend pressures to abort, she can arrange
#it.  If you need to transfer colleges, even in your senior year, she can
#arrange it.  If you need a job or to change jobs, she can arrange it.

I will repeat this, too.  Mary Cunningham Agee is the founder
of TNN.  Here's what a local anti-abortion publication says
about Ms. Agee's "study."

     "Mrs. Agee called 10 abortion clinics and asked each if it
would give her the first names and phone numbers of 10 women who
had abortions."

(_Lifelines_, Jan/Feb 1992, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.)

Suzanne, do you believe that this is true?  I don't believe that
any clinic would willingly violate the law like this, and I
further don't believe that pro-forcers would not encourage
these women to sue.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:14:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.004317.17482@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# Okay, Susan Garvin, I'll challenge you directly and show you once and
# for all how 100% WRONG you are. 
# 
# Of course it's always been well known that I could beat you in a
# debate hands-down, but seeing as that you want to press it, I'll show
# the newbies again.  

Well, I wasn't invited into this flame fest -- but that rarely stops
me...

# >##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
# >##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
# >##  we want to be precise)..."
# >##    -- Gloria Feldt,
# >##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
# 
# >##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
# >##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
# 
# Okay, Susan Garvin: Point out the anti-semitism in my .sig. 

Not that I'm trying to put words in Susan's mouth or anything, but
here are my answers to your silly quiz:

# 1) Did Gloria Feldt or did she not base her LOGIC on a religious
# perspective? 

The quote suggests she did.

# 2) Is there or is there not religious freedom in the First
Amendment?

Without quibbling about your ability to form a coherent question, I
will assume I understand what you're asking and say -- yes.

# 3) Does the 1st Am or does it not prohibit laws based on religion? 

It does not.  It prohibits the establishment of religion by the State.
How this has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court -- the
official authority on such matters -- in recent decades is too complex
to compress into a simple yes or no answer to your question, but I'll
give you the answer you're fishing for anyway: yes.

# 4) Yes or no: Is it or is it not unconstitutional to base legal action
# on religious principles?

Absolutely not.

# 5) Yes or no: Does Gloria Feldt or does she not base her legal action
# on her religious principles?

I have no information on that.  Do you?  You haven't shown it yet.

# Now, don't delete too much: Quiz: What did Gloria Feldt say her logic
# is based on? 

The quote suggests that Ms. Feldt based her logic on a religious
perspective.

# Quiz: How would you respond to: 
# "My logic is based on... a religious perspective that life begins at
# conception." - Catholic priest. 

``I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement.''

In fact,  I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement,
for the exactly the same reasons I see nothing extreme or
reprehensible about Ms. Feldt's statement.

There -- you may now add me to the list.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:50:45 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep4.202522.13847@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>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.

     So you don't consider the I.U.D. and morning-after pill to be
abortifacients? Why not?

                                                              MP
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let Galen speak for the undead (Was: Bats don't suck blood)
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:36:46 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

smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
-> Given his experience as spokesman for pre-born
-> children and apparently now as spokemsn for
-> post-dead children and adults, I nominate Galen to
-> speak for all pre-dead homo sapiens.

i wonder if you might be willing to rephrase that
nomination so that galen would be the spokesperson for
all things, living, dead, and pre-existence.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame