HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:51:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.070011.27651@Princeton.EDU> 
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>>>> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>>>> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>>>> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>>>> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>>>> hypocrisy?

>>> Well, if we want to talk abotu liars and hypocrites, if this
>>> is still about that lawsuit brought to halt the abortions
>>> being shown on television by some political candidate in
>>> the midwest, the suit was brought by a woman because it
>>> was upsetting to her children.  The woman who brought the
>>> suit is PRO-LIFE, and the suit therefore shows nothing
>>> about pro-choice people.

>> Does this pro-life woman claim that fetuses are nothing
>> more than a "clump of cells"?  If not, then I'd suggest
>> your point is irrelevant.  

> You were referring to the woman who filed suit when you called
> pro-choicers hypocrites.  

Please point to the sentence where I said I was referring
to the woman who filed suit. 

> But she isn't pro-choice, so you were mistaken
> or lying.

Or your point is irrelevant. 

>> A person who believes that there should be no restrictions 
>> on abortion IS pro-abortion, just as a person who believes that
>> there should be no restrictions on contraceptives (which I
>> believe) is pro-contraception.  

> And a person who feels that Nazis have the right to march is pro-Nazi,
> right, Doug?

Nazis don't violate anyone's rights when they march.  Abortion violates
the rights of a human being. 

> But they oppose government regulation of private lives.

I see nothing private about an abortion taking place in a public
facility. 

>David M. Nieporent   


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: psychological effects of abortion
Keywords: forced childbirth
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:10:40 GMT

zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:

>In article <BvzLAD.Byr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>It might be noted that one of the reasons the effects of psychological
>>sequelae are uncertain was outlined by Koop in a letter to the President
>>which accompanied the report.  It seems that it was impossible to get
>>women who had had an abortion to talk about the experience.  They simply
>>refused to co-operate with the data collectors.  Quite an unusual reaction

>	That's interesting; I hadn't heard it that way.  Could 
>	you please quote that part of the letter (I assume this
>	is first-hand knowledge)?

>				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org

Information presented at public lecture at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, Lincoln Hall Theatre, October 4, 2:00 p.m. by the founder
of Project Rachel, who's subject of talk was "Psychological Sequelae of
Abortion".  Dr. Koop also commented about this during a private
conversation with the speaker shortly after the report came out. 

Steven Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion doctor builds small empire through his practice 
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:06:16 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Did he use a big rusty nail to do the abortions, DOD?

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <26382@oasys.dt.navy.mil>  bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil
>   (Ron Bense) writes: >

>>Sorry, they were not. You are free to believe that abortion is not
>>correct.  You are not free to prevent others from thinking it is.

>What do you think the effect of Roe (or the FOCA) will be several
>generations from now, Ron?  As a member of the society whose
>Constitution is alleged to endorse the option of abortion, I
>object.  But that's too bad, huh?

The constitution endorsed religion also. Several here are free of *any*
religious convictions. Do you see the parallel? If not, here it is:
I imagine that in several generations, were this to occur, the feelings
held individually about abortion will probably mirror today's spread,
were everything else (meaning religious beliefs) to remain in proportion
to what they are today, with similar tenets.

>>In many cases it does, unless it interferes with anothers individual
>>choice. Then it must be weighed which, if either, are for the greater
>>good.

>We simply disagree about what constitutes the greater good.

Greater good between what two sets of individual rights? The woman's
and whose? The father? Nope, sorry. The fetus? But it has no rights,
as it is not a member of our society.

>>But one law allows for many sets of values, while the other limits
>>choice to a single set of values. That you are incapable of seeing this
>>explains why you are against pro-choice beliefs,

>Whoa.  I *do* see that.  On another level, though, that very law
>*endorses* the option of abortion.  I'm not sure you see that.

I think this is your problem, it doesn't endorse it any more than allowing
tobacco leaves to be farmed is endorsing smoking.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Does HUAC bring anything to mind?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:51:25 GMT

cortes@enuxva.eas.asu.edu (Enrique Cortes-Rello) writes:
]
] SOOOOO, is Ronald Reagan a pinko liberal?
] He seems to favor such absurdities as the Brady Bill.
] 
] ENRIQUE
 

Actually some of Have Had our Doubts about him
ever since the HayDays of HUAC.....

ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:03:54 GMT

> = Paul writes:
>> = (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> Of course, we're up to five FFLA spokespeople on the net,
>> now.  They all seem to be male.  I wonder why.

>Susan - I'd like to hear your "wondering" out loud.  What's you innuendo 
>here?

It couldn't be any _clearer_ unless I hit your head with this here cast
iron frying pan.

CLLAAAAANNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGnnGGGnGnnnnnnnn.....

There we go!  

Get it now?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:13:07 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Oct14.131446.25727@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>| Indeed, personal character is now marked by rapid response:
>| in particular by recognizing one's so-called "allies" as in
>| fact enemies the minute situations change, before they can 
>| hurt you, without any fettering by shreds of conscience or
>| altruism.
>
>Then I suppose I must compliment C.J. as a woman of character.  
>I've seen her leave Nora Rivkis, and Siren, and now (apparently)
>Rescorla to their fates when they got into trouble defending 
>her.

"Trouble"? What kind of "trouble"? Oh, you mean they pissed off the
Keegan Kworum? Big deal. That's one kind of "trouble" that doesn't really
bother me too much.

>And I still can't figure out why she turned on me and Keegan
>last May -- why people who had enjoyed friendly correspondence
>with her beyond all this talk.abortion bullshit suddenly found
>themselves on her public hit list, without *any* private warning
>of the coming storm.  Or why she ignored our e-mail appeals for
>discussion and peace.  

"Appeals for discussion and peace"? From Keegan? What Alternate Reality did
you say you were from, Suzanne? The Keegan in _this_ Reality *lives* to cause
conflict and annoyance. I doubt whether he can even grok the phrase 
"discussion and peace", being that those concepts are so far from his 
agenda...

If I were the type to post private email, I'd reproduce the little tidbit
from my archives where he sings a veritable ode to flames, and explains at
length how they're "good" for talk.abortion. Unlike some people, however 
(Keegan, Garvin & O'Tuama numbered among the worst offenders), I still follow 
the "archaic" net.etiquette of keeping private email private.

>Or why she won't let this depressing quarrel die.

She _did_ let it die. For months. Then Keegan used one little passing 
reference about CJ not having respect for him as an excuse to dredge the whole
thing back up again. Nice guy.

>| Mr. Keegan, clearly, is a beacon to us all.
>
>Well put.  He doesn't desert his allies under fire, or his
>friends when they disagree with him.

Yeah, great, just what you need in an ally -- someone who STARTS a war, drags
all of his "friends" into it, and then just keeps on fighting and fighting and 
fighting and fighting long after everyone else is sick of the conflict.

With allies like that...

Just out of curiosity, when has Keegan ever defended YOU in an argument that
he didn't help start, Suzanne? Has it ever occurred to you that your 
"relationship" with Keegan is basically one-way: him being the parasite, and 
you being the host?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:02:53 CST
 <1992Oct6.131719.2441@brandonu.ca> <1992Oct7.081848.18099@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct7.081848.18099@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> 
> BTW, when the sperm comes along, and it fertilizes an egg, at that exact
> point a new human is created.  There is no going back.  The only choice
> is to allow the z/e/f/unborn to CONTINUE living as a human, or else
> let the z/e/f unborn die.  

What makes you think that?  I thought a woman could get an abortion if
she wanted to.  Isn't that a choice?

>Either way,
> Before abortion, there is a special human life.  

A human life which is special in such a way that it has no legal rights.
Right?

>After abortion, there is death.

I would've said "during abortion"...  Death doesn't last all that long,
does it? 

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

PS.  Where do you get ova in unfertilized form to put into a woman's womb
     (come to think of it, you said "mother's womb" (is she a mother?))?
     Or were you talking about chicken eggs?  You know how I feel about
     chickens!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes)
Subject: Re: psychological effects of abortion
Keywords: forced childbirth
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:33:49 GMT

In article <Bw0FA6.ut@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>
>>In article <BvzLAD.Byr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>It might be noted that one of the reasons the effects of psychological
>>>sequelae are uncertain was outlined by Koop in a letter to the President
>>>which accompanied the report.  It seems that it was impossible to get
>>>women who had had an abortion to talk about the experience.  They simply
>>>refused to co-operate with the data collectors.  Quite an unusual reaction
>
>>	That's interesting; I hadn't heard it that way.  Could 
>>	you please quote that part of the letter (I assume this
>>	is first-hand knowledge)?
>
>>				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
>
>Information presented at public lecture at the University of Illinois,
>Urbana-Champaign, Lincoln Hall Theatre, October 4, 2:00 p.m. by the founder
>of Project Rachel, who's subject of talk was "Psychological Sequelae of
>Abortion".  Dr. Koop also commented about this during a private
>conversation with the speaker shortly after the report came out. 
>
>Steven Kellmeyer
>-- 
>
>Steve Kellmeyer 
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

Place, date, and time are a good start. Now would you provide the quote?

Sue Hughes
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:17:14 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>Well, I certainly do care about human life, born and unborn.  Whether
>>>you believe that or not is another thing.  But I know what is in my
>>>heart and what is in my head.  What is in my heart and what is in my
>>>head cannot be wrong.
>>
>>Tell that to the black South Africans, and to the Jews, and to the
>>Bosnians.  Ask the white South Africans, and the Nazis, and the Serbs
>>if they were justified in their actions.  Ask them if they were
>>wrong.
>>
>The Jews, Bosnians, Nazis, Serbs etc. were involved in some form of
>genocide or the other whether it be doing the killing or being killed.  In
>each case, the rights of each person to life was violated.  The rights
>of the Nazis, etc. to have "wanted" humans took precedence over the
>rights of the Jews, Catholics, etc. to live.  The Nazis, etc. actively
>killed the Jews, etc. because they were perceived to have no right to life.

The Jews were killed because they were greedy and thieves and because
they were clearly subhuman.  The Bosnians are being killed because the 
Serbs are defending themselves.  And black South Africans were not
being discriminated against any more than cows are discriminated
against.  In none of these cases did people believe they were doing
anything but the most noble actions.  Just like you.

(and no, I don't hold any of these beliefs personally)

>>>I don't know about the 'hard cases' but as for the 98% abortion rate for
>>>social reasons or so (which includes Birth control), human lives are
>>>what matter.
>>
>>And 400 years ago souls were what mattered, and people were tortured,
>>drowned, crushed, and burned alive in order to save their souls.
>
>This has a religous side of things.  Did I mention anything about
>religion?  No, I didn't.  I am not getting into a religious debate.  
>Religious and nonreligious alike care for human lives.

Religion is irrelevent; don't drag it in kicking and screaming.  Those
people knew they were correct, just as surely as you know you are
correct.   They didn't just _believe_ they were correct, they _knew_,
beyond any shadow of doubt, that they were correct.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:12:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.014554.25233@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
>>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
>>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
>>an abortion.
>
>It does without a doubt.  Are you proposing responsibility police?
>"Police!  Open up!  OK fella, pull out reealll slow and show us the
>condom."
>
You make it sound like it responsible sex is a bad thing.  And no, I'm
not talking about "police" of any kind.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (J.K. '[7mTGaPC[0m' Schechner)
Subject: Re: Let us Unto history Rewrite
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:13:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.132852.16970@gtech.com> ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov) writes:
>
>What about this simple model:
>
>
>More order,                                              More individualism,
>more state involvment into                               and wild capitalism
>economy and private life
>
><-----------                                   -------------------------------->
>
>Communits           Democrats                    Libertarians       Anarchists
>   Fascists            Republicans
>
>
>There is no circle here. I guess  that anarchia and concentration
>camps cannot coexist. 
>
>
>
>-- 
>Aleksey Y. Romanov
>
>DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
>necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else


	Actually, Libertarians would fit into the extreme of EITHER
side.  Think about it for a second:  Liberals want more personal
freedoms, but perhaps less economic freedom (yes, I know I'm
generalizing heavily, but bear with me).  Libertarians are the
ultimate party for personal freedom.  Yet, conservatives claim to like
small government (reagan/bush to the contrary).  Libertarians are the
ultimate party for personal small government.
	Consider this more fact to add to drieux's theory, which is
also my theory and the theory of a whole LOT of the political
scientists I've talked to.

-Jason
-- 
"Down here on the planet Earth 
They steal your back and leave the shirt.
Pay you a penny and call it a dime and then   -Jason and
Give you a watch when you run out of time."   -the Scorchers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: <None>
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:10:04 CST
 <1992Oct10.044307.28561@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <1992Oct11.014554.25233@netcom.com> <1992Oct12.041200.9583@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct12.041200.9583@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.014554.25233@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>
>>It does without a doubt.  Are you proposing responsibility police?
>>"Police!  Open up!  OK fella, pull out reealll slow and show us the
>>condom."
>>
> You make it sound like it responsible sex is a bad thing.  And no, I'm
> not talking about "police" of any kind.

Ok, let's see if we can't clarify a couple of things.  You say it's
ok to practice responsible sex (I'm assuming you mean sex with reliable
contraception).  Even with responsible sex though, there is a chance
of impregnantion.  So:  Are you saying, that as long as the woman
had used reliable contraception, then it's alright for her to get
an abortion if she wants to?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:34:50 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct13.200933.12903@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
]We also Know that 'Hanoi Jane' { for the kids out there, that
]is Henry Fonda's Daughter....} provided a prima facia case of
]treason during war - which, unless they have modified things, 
]is a CAPITAL OFFENSE - and hence without stautes of Limitations.
]
]Why then is it that Nixon, Reagan, AND BUSH, have not even
]sought a Grand Jury Investigation of this CRIME?

Because we were not formally at war (due to Johnson's sneakiness) and
thus Hanoi Jane is not legally a traitor, just morally so. 
]
]Could It be a Secret Conspiracy that they are NOT telling
]us about? Nixon 'opened china', Reagan stopped using the
]'evil empire' rhetoric - and of course Bush assisted in
]the 'alledged' suicide of Communism....

Could it be that there is a conspiracy theorist under every bed?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Bruce Proves that all WarMongerBabyKillers are Murders
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:48:03 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
] In <1992Oct7.174743.1685@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
] 
] >Bravo-bravo!  What a clever smoke & mirrors trick with semantics.
] >You don't demonstrate or argue anything, you merely play with the
] >meanings of words and ("depending on what dictionary you use")  ...
] >TA-DA: "abortion is murder"!!!  But if we trivialize the notion 
] >of "murder", will we invent a new word to takes it's place?
] 
] 
] 	I did not play with any words. Murder is "the killing of one
] human being by another". No playing needed. Mother is a human being, 
] fetus is a human being, abortion is murder. Just because you don't 
] agree with the definition of murder I choose, doesn't mean that I
] must agree with the one you use. 
] 	Neither am I trivializing the notion of murder. Murder is
] a horid and despicable act. It should not be allowed - this is
] why I get so upset that the slaughter of innocent, defenseless children
] has been legalized here.
 
That's Showing them Bruce!

yes sir...

And there goes all those Brutal Cops as well...

Murders Everyone of them....

ciao
drieux

ps: small word of advice, you might wish to
avoid the next gathering of veterans with
an attitude like yours....





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc