HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spinoza@next07wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PatricKKK the Liar Humphrey strikes again! (was Re: threatening larry, again (was Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported)
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:06:45 GMT
Distribution: na

> Yoo hoo!  Bill Overpeck.  You really think he's not a sick
> little puppy in need of therapy for his mental aberrations?
> He's supposedly an adult in college, and yet he acts like
> a flipping two year old on a tantrum.  He crows about how as
> soon as his parents are dead he's gonna have it made in such a
> way you suspect he wouldn't mind helping them "across the river."
> 
> Dean Kaflowitz
I'm afraid I'd be inclined to agree with Mr. Overpeck if he were to  
consider Chahallaney sane in this one regard . While this aspect of  
Chahallaney's character is indeed loathesome, as is the BorgoidIdiot(tm)  
himself, it is not insane or an aberration to be a greedy little scumbag.
It may be immoral and, again, thoroughly loathesome, but this is different  
from insanity. Further,  Chahallaney's macho posturing, while infantile,  
does not indicate,mIMHO, any break with reality. If he has an inferiority  
complex, the evidence we've seen would seem to indicate that it is well  
founded. I've dealt with soil samples that evinced more intelligence than  
the Propeller-child, but that does make  Borgie a nutcase. An incredible  
waste of protoplasm perhaps, and a noxious person, most definitely, but  
not an insane organism. 
		ON THE OTHER HAND, these antics with the borg bit , the  
jet plane, and 'Dennis Hall' would seem to indicate a breakdown or mental  
deficit.



jeff skorecki-weiss
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:13:08 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?

Sanctimonious hypocrite.  Why don't you give all of your money to save
the lives of people who are starving?  After all, getting an
education, reading t.a., watching TV, and the like are also just
"social" reasons.  Do _your_ social reasons take precedence over human
life?

>The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
>out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
>whatever.  

Unmitigated bullshit.  To suggest that there are, or ever have been,
embryonic pianists is too ridiculous a claim for even this forum.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Question for Eric Gorr
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:03:52 GMT

In article <Bv7u1z.LEp.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
writes:
> 
> 
> The protesters at the local women's clinics spend a good
> part of their time praying at the top of their voices for
> various things - an end to all abortions, conversion for
> all who are not supporting them, etc.  Do you think that
> there is Biblical support for this activity?

I don't believe that is it right to make other peoples lives living hells
if they happen to not agree with you.  And I don't believe that there
is any support for doing this in the bible.

does this answer your question?
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: threatening larry, again
Summary: Something I've always wondered about...
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:52:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep29.141339.7399@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes to chaneyhall:
>-> I hear lithium carbonate and tegretol are helpful
>-> for problems like yours, Steve.
>
>oh boy. i wonder if dr. bill will be calling on you.

I hope so...I've always wanted to see a Doctor Bill send a doctor bill...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:02:22 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>> Peter, I agree with this completely, the teaching of NFP in sex ed courses
>> alongside other methids of birth control, for the primary purpose of
>> putting women in better touch with how their bodies work. (Might be
>> a good idea for men to learn this too, so that they understand how women's
>> bodies work, instead of some magical process). I also agree with you
>> that sex ed in most schools today is a total joke, however badly written.

> That's the up-side of NFP. It gets the men involved as much as the women.
> But now, since the RCC has approved it, I'm sure that Doofus, Tweedledee
> and Tweedledum, will probably (likely - I admit room for error in case
> these folks lie through their crooked never-been-brushed teeth and tell us
> that they would not oppose NFP teaching in the classroom) oppose it.

The truth of the matter is, Official Virus, is that I oppose the teaching of
NFP because it does not work.  It makes about as much sense as including an
ephemeris for the phases of the moon in the drivers' education curriculum.

[--dopey satire on PP sex ed deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:57:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.183529.26696@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>I'm not saying that the birth giving process is something trivial to
>>be ignored and looked down upon.  I'm just saying when the choice is between
>>the life of a human and the mother's situation, the life of a human being
>>must be protected.
>
>Yeah, right.  And how about when the choice is between _your_ convenience
>and the lives of people dying in the streets or starving in Africa?
>
>Or is that "different?"  It's always easy to impose unrealistic expectations
>on someone else, isn't it?
>
Did somebody make those starving in Africa starve intentionally?  Is someone
diceing and slicing those people in Africa right now?  

The choice is not between two somewhat separate things.  The mother
is pregnant.  The mother, with the help of doctors, can destroy the human
life within her.  Both are directly related to each other.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 05:21:25 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  <1992Oct1.142920.1767@acd4.acd.com>  wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Sep29.230649.4628@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM
>    (Nadja Adolf) writes: >
> In article <4588@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com
>    (David Favor) writes: >>
>
> >> [deleted] My aunt and uncle have
> >>been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.
>
> >> evertime I hear of people 'waiting' to adopt a child I wonder what these
> >> people are really 'waiting' for. if they were truely concerned with the
> >> care of a child they would simply adopt one out of their backyard... the
> >> entire adoption process truely puzzles me.
> >
> > They are waiting for a blue eyed unhandicapped white child, preferably
> > male.  Ask any social worker.
>
> Ask this one.  The most recent adoptive home study I conducted
> involves a couple who are more than willing to consider a non-
> white, handicapped (especially hearing or speech impaired, as
> the woman is a Speech and Language Pathologist) child.  Gender
> is irrelevant also.

OK, I'll ask this social worker.  How long did they have to wait?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.032540.166031@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
(Larry Margolis) writes:
> 
> In  <1992Sep25.171158.20935@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep25.002553.124013@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > >
> > > In  <1992Sep24.011307.7484@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.e
> > > > In article <v67nb=k.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, I'm afraid that in this case human eggs and sperm are undeniably
> > > > > human life.
> > > >
> > > > Left seperated and with no interference, neither will ever be "born."
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, they are not human life...where as, when joined, they are.
> > >
> > > 1.  They're human and they're alive, so they constitute "human life".
> >
> > Well, let me explain again.  What I mean be human life is something human
> > that will develop into a child (be born).  Comments?
> 
> What I mean by human life is human life.  Comments?

Please exapand and give examples.  It is not clear what you are calling
human
life and what you are not...also what exactly do you mean by life?
 
> > > 2.  Left by itself and with no interference, no zygote will ever be
> > >     "born" either.
> >
> > True.  But that would be bad interference.
> 
> How does *no* interference constitute *bad* interference?

Because, IMHO, it would be murder to prevent a wanted and healthy child
from 
comming into the world.

> > If something it "bad," it shouldn't be done.
> 
> But no interference *means* nothing is done.

Exactly.  Let me give you something to think about.

See someone fall off a cliff and they just happen to catch hold of
something, which saves their life temporarly...they will no be able to hold
on forever.  You are able to save this persons life with absolutly no risk
to yourself in any way, shape or form.  Is it permissable to allow this
person to die?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: This is getting so funny that I had to cross post it to alt.pagan (Was: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 22:32:59 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <lck5akINNcn6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>  emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> Can you say "clueless"?

(I already answered Kevin in talk.abortion, under the original subject line:
 Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39622 alt.pagan:10316
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Nyikos Does NOT Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:08:18 GMT

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

] Since this thread has gone on for so long, I thought I'd answer
] the question, even though I answered it on other threads:
] 
] No. I consider it to be homicide.  Next question.

Well Thank You for Clearing that Up....

All these Years I had thought Murder was Homicide,
and Now I can see the Clear Difference....

ciao
drieux

ps: do you also hold that minus one is a positive number?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:44:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.123347.8191@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Kibble, you are an extraordinary ass, and you are too
>pompous and boring for me to read your assinine excuse
>fest through to the end.  But one of your idiotic "points"
>gave me a chuckle, so I thought I'd address it.  The
>rest of your nonsense speaks for its own stupidity.  After
>this I am done with you.  I know you love nothing more
>than to spend weeks making a fool of yourself, but I
>don't have the time to play with your pointy little
>head anymore.

Translation: Dean is too much of a wimp to address the rest of my post.

Surprise, surprise.

>In article <1992Oct2.014742.14799@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >> GENERAL CORRECTION: None of those flames were ever intended by me to reach
>> >> talk.abortion. If you want to whine about their presence here, please
>> >> direct your whines to the responsible parties. I only responded in the same
>> >> forums where I saw baseless charges, accusations and untruths, as is my
>> >> right. I never imported any of it into talk.abortion.
>> >
>> >I never complained about their being in talk.abortion.  Whatever
>> >are you talking about?  This is clearly an attempt to misdirect
>> >the discussion.  As such, it is a failure.  It is not based on
>> >reality.
>> 
>> Dean, Dean, Dean, didn't you write this a couple of articles ago:
>> 
>> "...Kevin, ever
>> needful of attention, even if it is usually negative attention
>> in the form of flames, brings it up again weeks later."
>> 
>> Does this not refer to my recent passing references in talk.abortion?
>> If this is not a complaint, then why the conspicuous mention in the context
>> of insulting me? "Not based on reality", indeed! You are betrayed by your own 
>> words.
>
>What an idiot you manage to make of yourself, Kibble.  

In your opinion.

>There is
>not a single thing there about your posting your idiocy to
>talk.abortion, 

No, of course not, just a conspicuous, unsolicited mention of the fact 
that I did so.

>just a note that you haven't the sense to
>leave your embarrassments alone, but drag them out again,
>like an old cigar box full of childhood memorabilia, in
>order to get attention.  

Still glibly attributing motives to others, Dean? How's the mind-reading
course coming along?

>I was expressing, clearly, my astonishment 

"Astonishment", eh? Interesting way to describe a complaint.

>at your bringing it up again, and there is nothing
>there that is evenly remotely a complaint about it.

No, of course not. You're so believable when you backpedal.

>Now I can understand when some high school football hero feels
>the need to pull out his All-City trophy to show his dinner
>guests that he was, once upon a time, a halfback of some
>renown, ...

More Kaflowitz Blather (TM).

							- Kevin
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A Brief Discourse of Darwinian Reality for Martin (Re: In Suzanne's
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:40:41 GMT
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD

Expires: 
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: 
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
in:<1992Sep30.184027.3858@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>

#Disrupts the normal biological process of that organism?  Do
#you really mean to say that women were never biologically
#designed to carry on the human race?  I mean, the wider hips. 
#Were they just accidental?  Or were they widened to allow
#births?

Hate to break it to you, but they are most likely the result of
many women dying during child-birth if they had narrow hips.
The excessive bleeding and damage done during the birth of
generally the first child killed the mother, and in many cases
the child also, thus ending that particular genetic trait. Over
many, many centuries, through Darwinian selection, this has
resulted in most women having wider hips, as these were the
ones that readily survived and were able to have multiple
births, thus passing on the trait of wider hips. So you could
call it an "accident" if you want. Might be seen as a bit
callous, however.

#I don't want to get into detail, but it seems to me that our
#babies are designed to be biologically compatible with their 
#mothers.
I would argue no such thing. In many cases, a fetus does such
harm to a woman that she cannot bear another child easily
again, without significant risk to herself or the next fetus. This
is after millenia of selection.

#As for "mere mutations," the new unborn is a product of two
#people, not just one.  And even if you were to think of it as
#a "mutation," what other mutation can you claim that is
#human life itself?

As someone other than me has pointed out, tumors can be
exchanged with embryos. An embryo moved into a location
outside the uterus will develop into a tumor-like growth, while
a tumor placed into the uterus will develop into an embryo-like
growth. Did you miss this set of posts? It was only two weeks
ago or so. Now what would you claim to be "human life"?
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,alt.peeves,soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Another Answer from Miss Drieux
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:04:55 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] Well, that answered that question, I guess.
] 
] Now, the next problem I have to drop in your lap is the
] question of women and killfiles.  Can we use them if we
] have permission from our RealMan[tm], or is it denying
] our feminity to use something with such a butch name?

dear susan,

It is Important in these days of Questionable 
Sexual and Social Mores to try to return to
certain Fundamental Wholesome Traditonal Family Values.

I am So Pleased that you have Asked this question
as it is an important point that needs to be
clarified.

Women should NOT engage in DickSizeWars,
it is NOT Lady Like at all.

They can, however, engage in JaneSizeWars,
but the criterion for these are completely different.


ciao
Miss Drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Summary: Chaney *knows* threats.
Organization: You'll never know.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:05:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.165935.16938@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> Tweedledum posting as margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>> But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
>>> services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
>>> I will pull the plug on YOU.
>>
>>I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
>>Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?
>
>Hah! 
>So you're saying you'll just sit there if someone tries to pull the
>plug on your kid's life support? 

Only you would think so -- actually, Larry was asking if you'd actually
act like you so loudly demand that others act.  I guess you
can't give an honest answer to *that*, though.  You're still obviously a
fervent practicioner of "do as I say, NOT as I do!"...

>Get lost - protection of one's children is the first law of humankind.
>If you can't relate to that, then I truly understand why you are a
>pro-abort. 

I can truly understand why you deliberately lie about others' positions and
then attack them based on your lies -- you're not pro-life.  You're
pro-Steve Chaney, and damn anyone who isn't, eh?  

>If someone tries to kill Suzanne's kids, she has a legal right to do
>whatever it takes to defend their lives. Of course you might oppose
>that, but that's your problem, and it's not your kids. Fortunately.  

Neither are they yours -- *very* fortunately.

>More proof that you don't give anymore of a damn about born children
>than unborn ones. 

The only "proof" that exists is in that diseased skull of yours, Bore Boy.
Point out to me *exactly* where Larry said he'd "just sit there" if someone
tried to 86 his kid's life support.  You can't -- because you made it up
yourself.

(And you wonder why *I* think about as much of you as I do pond scum?)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 01:02:06 GMT

In <23SEP92.16160470@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>>In  <nyikos.716934353@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> In <16SEP92.17080297@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>Most *current* laws allow an exception for rape or incest, but the
>>Republican party platform allows *no* exceptions for rape or incest.

The platform is symbolic.  Senator Simpson made that abundantly clear
to Andrea Mitchell of NBC when she tried to fish for Casey-like
dissent at the Republican convention.  

Simpson, like Spector, is pro-choice.  The interrogation of Anita Hill
went along party lines more than abortion lines.

>And even if the situation does not change, I'm sure it will be next to 
>impossible to get abortions for these reasons.

Bullshit.  There is an enormous support network, of which I am a member,
to help make it easy for women to report rapes.  Once a woman goes through
the protocols, there will be a legal presumption, for purposes of 
abortion, that she was raped.

>  People who don't trust women 
>to make decisions are not likely to trust a woman just because she says she 
>was raped.

I think pro-choicers are MORE likely not to trust women to make decisions
than pro-lifers.  Why are they so afraid of laws that give women the 
OPTION to view information on fetal development.

>  Even with these exceptions, plenty of rape/incest victims will be 
>disbelieved and denied abortions.

In an earlier post, I mentioned _To Kill a Mockingbird_.  For a real
life example, there is Willie Smith, although in his case I personally
am almost as likely to believe his victim.  

Perhaps readers can come up with more clear-cut real-life examples that
are matters of public information.  

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion