HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:47:30 GMT

In article <Jan.25.07.03.00.1993.27037@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <22JAN199316125435@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>
>>> The Presidential candidate in question happens to be Michael Dukakis,
>>> and I'm proud to say that I helped shout him down -- because he
>>> happened to be saying lies at the time, and I happen to disagree with
>>> lies. . . .
>
>> Lies?  What lies?
>
>He claimed that he was qualified to be President of the U.S., for one.

Indeed he was. So he did not lie. Therefore you are a lier. So shut up. :-)

Dan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 06:27:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.205920.27585@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.180226.29763@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>
>>>>>    [.. disgusting bigotry against Mexican nationals ..] 
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Kolker
>
>>>> And this is a person that Holtsinger called "pro-choice"?
>
>>> He's obviously pro-choice.  
>
>> What he supported, DODie, was forced abortion,
>> forced sterilization, 
>
>No, he did not support forced abortion or forced sterilization:
>
>   "Frankly I am not in favor of involuntary anything (including
>    sterilization), niether am I in favor of being taxed to support these
>    discultured primitives."
>
>       <C0ytpq.3CG@world.std.com>
>
Nice of you to delete his earlier statement in favor of forced
sterilization DODie.

>> and unmitigated racism. 
>
>You finally got one right, Cochran.
>
>> That's not pro-choice
>
>No, he's pro-choice.  He supports the legal availability
>of abortion, just like you. 
>
Nice of you to finally admit that I'm Pro-Choice, not Pro-Abort as you
usually (and falsely) try to claim.
Kolker is still not pro-choice, as his original post clearly
indicates. Nor would it be fair, if he were pro-choice, to
characterise the entire movement based on him. That would be as silly
as basing a judgement of the entire pro-life side on idiots like you
and PHoney.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- nietS T yaJ)
Subject: Suuuuuuuure... (formerly: Does James Keegan support...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:58:26 GMT

What: <1993Jan25.010941.27047@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>>  = margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>> = dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>>>= ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ started by the thread in which Doug says that forced reversible
  sterilization is as repugnant as forced IRreversible sterilization ]

>>>> [...]  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?
>>>
>>> No, I don't believe that people should be forced to have sexual
>>> intercourse against their will.  [...]
>
>> Funny, I thought you had stated that you are in favor of forcing women
>> to remain pregnant.  
>
>I don't know of anyone who favors forcing women to remain pregnant.
>I do know of people who oppose killing human beings, or allowing 
>them to die. 

C'mon Doug, you know better than this.  Outlawing abortion is equivalent
to forcing women to remain pregnant.  How do you figure it isn't?

Also, aren't you always careful to distinguish between "killing human
beings" and "allowing them to die?"  Why bunch them together now?

--Jay T Stein

If any pro-choicer fingers dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu for documentation showing
that quoting Bill Clinton out of context throughout the Democratic
Convention is unrestricted pregnancy-on-demand and refuses to apologize
for insults about a deaf and mute newsreader which provides a direct quote
about the closing of the Margolis mind or the mendacity of Gordon Storga
or voluntarily adds their name to the Susan Garvin fan club list, assume
they're a Borg and be sure to add an extra K to Patrick's name.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Is Petey Ny an idiot?
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:07:00 GMT

In article <nyikos.727642795@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1993Jan20.071011.953@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.727475676@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan19.062300.12195@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>>I don't think I've ever seen anybody 'cozy up' to Steve. However, in
>>>>the event they did, I suppose it might be because Steve has a very
>>>>rational attitude, in that he divorces his religious values from the
>>>>secular issue of abortion.
>>>
>>>So do I.  Looks like you missed "Abortion and Religion I: The Great
>>>Paradox," copyright by a certain Peter J. Nyikos.
>
>>How lucky we are to have missed it!
>
>See thread title.
>
I did. I corrected it to make it more accurate.

>>>>In other words
>>>
>>>This shows how ignorant you are about the role of religion in the
>>>abortion debate. 
>
>Marcus, indulging in baseless speculation about my religious views:
>
>>Why? because I don't choose to let you ram your religious views down
>>my throat (or anybody elses)?
>
>Because you equate divorcing one's religious values from one's stand
>on abortion with being pro-choice, or, as you so endearingly put it:
>
No PHoney, I equate divorcing ones religious views from a secular
issue with being rational, regardless of which side of the fence the person
ends up on. 
You *have* heard of rationality, haven't you PHoney? You really should
try it sometime...

>>>> he doesn't insist on trying to control the
>>>>lives of others.
>
>I guess you'd do away with prisons, if you are opposed to laws that
>control the lives of others.  Of cours, if you are a solipsist, you
>cannot be hurt by this silly little dream, a.k.a. real life, that 
>you are having, so why bother with prisons?  [Further cheap shots
>omitted.]
>
Oh, poor little PHoney can't see the difference between a personal
choice to control ones own reproductive life and a criminal act.
Why doesn't this suprise me?


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:47:41 GMT

snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - K31) writes:

>Funny, I am aging.  Eventually I shall retire.  There needs to be a workforce
>after me... don't get me wrong, I don't figure I have a snowball's chance
>of seeing a dime of social security... but nothing comes from nothing and
>1.6 million children *could* be a serious component to growing GDP.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.....

And people claim pro-_choice_rs are selfish....

>		Stephen Ray Northcutt (703) 663-4447

          -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:41:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.203032.25963@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.184837.2119@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^
>>>   steralized to enter school."
>>>
>>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>>>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>
>> Keith may be going a bit far if he's serious about making this
>> mandatory, 
>
>Of course he's serious about making it mandatory, weren't you
>able to read his proposal? 
>
Of course, DODie. But I also know Keith a bit better then you, and I
know his tendancy towards sarcasm.
On the other hand, I just read through an article in which you totally
failed to realise that the poster you replied to was refering to me,
not Keith. I gather you're too brain damaged to remember which of us
you're quoting?


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Back at you, Peter (was: Re: The ball's in your court, Larry)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:20:46 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.727656933@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1993Jan19.075232.25287@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <nyikos.727403401@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>>True.  On the other hand, they were relevant to the canard Larry Margolis
>>>made of me, when he said I had shown myself to be quite ignorant of
>>>set theory and logic.
>
>>Not a canard; I backed it up, and you backed down.
>
>In my initial reaction, I said I saw no reason to spend any more time
>with your tedious post.  In a later post, I addressed these issues in
>detail.  I never saw a follow-up from you to that post.

In email, you said "I did resolve these claims, only it looks as though
the post in which I did this defaulted to the local net,".  Doesn't that
suggest why you never saw a follow-up from me?  Your comment strikes me
as a bit dishonest...

>I e-mailed you a copy several days ago and have not seen any e-mail
>messages from you since then.

You've been emailing me copies of a number of posts.  I've been responding
when I see them in the newsgroup.  As I've said before, I prefer to limit
my t.a discussion to the newsgroup.  That I was kind enough to send you
some stuff when your newsserver was broken does not alter this.  Post it
and I'll respond.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:38:31 GMT

<6005@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
><1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>>will be taken as men.
>>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>>the natural differences between them.
>
>Explain to me how a penis makes a person capable of being a spiritual
>leader, and how the absence of one renders a person unfit for such a
>position.

Especially since Jesus suggested that people make eunichs of themselves
for him.


Gordon
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:00:29 GMT

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

>In <1993Jan20.201852.25441@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student) writes:

>>[--fire and brimstone sermon deleted--]

>>May I ask a question, as one God-fearing Christian to another?

>>Is God playing some kind of "gotcha"-type game?  I mean, if
>>getting or administering an abortion merited eternal damnation,
>>don't you think God would have explicitly warned us?

>>Seriously,

>Does this mean you are not a God-fearing Christian?

>A yes answer requires no further explanation.

>A no answer, i.e. that you ARE a God-fearing Christian, does.  

I don't see how that answer would require further explanation either.  Could
you explain why it does?  Isn't God described as "good"?  Isn't Satan the one
described as trying to "trick" people?  Why does someone believing in the
*goodness* of God have to explain that goodness to others who believe in God?

>Peter Nyikos

-Rob, who *used* to believe in God.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie? 
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:16:13 CST

In article <1993Jan21.020412.9422@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.175344.22861@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>> Any attempts to get me to
>>>> violate ethical and legal standards is gong to be ignored.
>
>>> Cochran, I have a newspaper article in front of me which names
>>> Baby Theresa's neonatalogist, along with the hospital where he
>>> works.  If you'll publically name the baby's neonatalogist,
>>> as you have stated that you know him, I'll publically post the
>>> article reference.  
>
>> Mark didn't say whether the neonatologist he spoke with
>> was working with the potential donor, or a potential
>> recipient.  
>
>He claims to know a "director of neonatology, a neonatal surgeon, 
>and a couple of the nursing staff" who were "directly involved"
>in the case.  Is it too much to ask where these people work?
>He has refused to answer that simple question, which leads me
>to believe that he's lying. 
>
Gee, what an ethical dilemma for poor Mark.  He has to choose
between violating his personal and professional commitment to
patient confidentiality and being thought a liar by a paragon 
of honesty such as yourself.  Whatever will you do, Mark?

BTW, Doug, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop telling the
pro-choice contingency what we mean by bodily autonomy.
In spite of many, many patient attempts to explain it to
you, you don't get it yet.  I'm beginning to think that
you're never going to get the point through this electronic
conversation.  Perhaps you should attempt some in-person 
interaction with a real woman or two.  It's possible that 
you will find one with enough patience to explain it.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:44:57 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan21.204923.16528@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
|God has warned us of many things but we still ingnore him. What makes
|you so sure that he has not warned us against abortion?(not saying that
|he has its just that I haven't read to much of the Bible yet but I feel
|that abortion is something he would not support).

I've read more of the Bible than you have, apparently.  I am "so
sure" that the god of the bible hasn't warned us against
abortion because the few mentions of abortion in the bible are
remarkably vague, and consistent with the idea that the god of
the Israelites thought that abortion was okay.  

One passage seems to assess monetary fines for accidental injury
to a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage or premature birth.
(Exodus 21:22-25)  The other passage seems to require an induced
miscarriage (aka abortion) in a woman suspected of carrying a
child not her husband's.  (Numbers 5:12-31)  The NT seems to have
nothing to say about abortion, even vaguely.

There's some controversy about the Numbers passage, but it
certainly isn't an explicit "warning against abortion".  No such
warning exists, unlike, say, the clear warnings against eating
certain foods or wearing fringes on your garments or having sex
with a menstruating woman.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there 
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than of blind 
faith." --Jefferson (letter to his nephew, Peter Carr) 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:47:22 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan25.170443.23758@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
#All the quotes you have are from the Old Testament and as I have stated 
#earlier that the Old Testament is Old history and no longer valid....
#Although it is useful for studying history all the laws are not valid...
#Before Jesus came the OT was what counted and If I am correct still counts
#taoday for Jews but Christian follow the NT as the Law....

But there is no NT law proscribing abortion.  Therefore, the OT stands.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: numbers
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:00:08 GMT

In <1993Jan27.151634.19036@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:


>It seems like the numbers keep creeping up.  1.3 million, 1.4 million,
>1.5 million, 1.6 million.  

For a number of years, the figure was 1.6 million. According to a t.a 
pro-choicer (I forget who), the number has more recently been 1.4 million.
(This same pro-choicer, BTW, flamed the 1.6 million figure as not just
outdated, but a "lie".)

>It looks like about .1 million a semester.
>Soon, some bright cookie will look at the numbers, and just simply
>round off to the closest million, and say 2 million.  Then some clown
>like me will probably round off to the nearest billion, and say 
>zero.  No problem.  It's all in the way you look at it...


>--
>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
>                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:29:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.002031.13994@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
>the pro-life position.  The label implies that pro-lifers are
>opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy", which is false.
>They are opposed to an action which results in the death of an
>innocent human being.  If it were possible to transfer the child
>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".
Neither would many pro-choicers.

>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
>pro-choice position.
Ratshit.

>Pro-choicers not only want the right to
>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 
Even were this true, it would not follow that the position was
pro-abortion.

In fact, I, for one, support the right to terminate a pregnancy
in the circumstances you mention. I don't know what "to have
the child executed in the womb" except that you are indulging
in cheap emotionalism.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:07:37 GMT

Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran (kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan18.042845.19695@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
: 
: In yet another example of hypocrisy, Kevin "keep government out of women's
: bodies" Darcy proposes laws which would require every man, woman, doctor,
: and hospital to report any sexual intercourse which resulted in pregnancy.

As well as a large army of tax inspectors (who would be in a fine position
to fiddle results).

: 
: He then goes on to propose that mandatory paternity tests be performed on
: every live birth.

Does he not think that medical people have better things to do, like looking
after ILL people.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc