HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: HeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality Batman!!!!
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:37:32 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux):
:kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
:
:] In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
:] jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
:] 
:]>[blahblahblah]ClearCut[blahblahblah]AbortionIsMurder[blahblahblah]
:]>LiberalSupporters[blahblahblah]OpposeTheDeathPenalty[blahblahblah]
:]>animalRightsAreMoreImportant[blahblahblah]LiberalTaxAndSpenders
:]>GoreAndClinton[blahblahblah]GeorgeBush[blahblahblah]LastHope
:]>[blahblahblah]HomosexualsTakeOver[blahblahblah]WrathOfGod
:]>[blahblahblah]
:] 
:]GoodGrief!AnotherAIExperimentGoneHaywire!
:
:PleaseFolks,NoticeTheInterestingConvolutions....
:
:ifAbortionIsMurder,ThenWeNeedToEcecuteThoseMurderes
:orWeWillFallVictimsOfKneeJerkWimpLiberalismThatOpposes
:capitalPunishment....
:
:NoticeAlsoHowThereIsNOMENTIONOfTheSecret
:heterosexualKabalThatHasBeenUnderminingTheMorals 
:ofInnocentsAndYouth....
:
:NowWouldANYDecentAIProgram,EvenIfGoneArye,
:orGoneAbourban,OrGoneAscotch,WouldBeSo
:UnderIntelligentAsToMISSTheFlagrantHeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality!!!!

I_really_hate_reading_things_without_word_separators.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

    Documentation is the castor oil of programming.  Managers know it must
    be good because the programmers hate it so much.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:37:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.161544.8180@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Jul23.211400.61702@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

## I believe that the laws of Mark Kaufman's religion have not 
## changed over time.
#
#I saw nothing in Mr. Miller's post which suggested that he was
#referring to Mr. Kaufman's religion. In fact, he specifically
#referred to "cultures" and "customs". 

I know that you have a blind sport when it comes to Judaism,
Holstinger.  You don't need to keep proving your bigotry.

The "customs" that Miller refers to are laws if one is Jewish.

##Might I suggest that you find another religion as well?
## If you feel free to tell Mark that his religion is wrong,
## and outdated, surely you won't object when I tell you
## the same thing.  
#
#Might I suggest that you refrain from blatantly misrepresenting
#other posters Ms. Garvin?  It doesn't help your credibility much.

Don't worry, DOD, I'm not trying to usurp your role here.

I misrepresented nothing.  

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: MEN FOR CHOICE.
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:34:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.223103.5326@coopsol.com> 
gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) said:

>> Nevertheless I also think that convenience is one motivation for a pro-
>> abortion position. And it is one of the worse motivations in a 
>> moral sense.

> Convenience might be one small motivation way down the line somewhere, but
> speaking for the pro-abortion block on this net I'd say that risk, cost,
> and freedom would be the three major motivations (in no particular order).
>
> Risk: It is far more dangerous to a woman to go through childbirth than it
> is to get an early term abortion.  The statistics range from 10 to 30
> times more *deadly*.

Even if your statement were true, the relative health risks of early-term 
abortion and childbirth is an argument limited to early-term abortion,
it does not extend to late-term abortion. I doubt that most pro-abortionists
would limit themselves to supporting early-term abortion.


> Cost: It is far more cost efficient to support abortion on demand than to
> support the welfare and social results of unwanted/unaffordable children.
> Something on the order of $1 to $14.

It is far more cost efficient to kill unwanted/unaffordable born children 
than to support them with taxpayer's money. Why should your argument
be limited to unborn children?  


> Freedom: We currently have no laws which allow the subjigation(sp?) of
> citizens to the slavery of others (the draft and encarceration are the
> gray areas).  The slippery slope of bodily servitude is not something that
> should be encouraged.  The 'right' of government to control bodily
> autonomy is not granted to the federal government, and it has been
> determined to be a violation of personal privacy.  

But why don't fetuses enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
In the vast majority of abortions, their bodies are ripped to pieces.


> And don't forget, lives were lost gaining and maintaining these freedoms.

Lives were lost due to starvation, poverty, and poor health. Should we 
legalize bank robbery so these people can buy food and obtain good health 
care? 


>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger

Organization: Internal Audit, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:46:45 GMT

<1992Jul21.184701.13427@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> (M. Price) writes: >
>>> Look, why don't you just stop this silly analogy. It is insulting
>>> and demeaning to insinuate that women who choose or have chosen to 
>>> have an abortion would just as readily euthanize their parents or 
>>> children. I know of no pro-choice woman who believes that involun-
>>> tary euthanasia is a logical consequence or extension of abortion. 

<1992Jul22.184355.3034@acd4.acd.com> (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>> It's a slippery slope argument of the same variety as "if we allow
>> the government to restrict abortion, what liberty will they rescind
>> next?".  Such trends are difficult to predict (on either side of the
>> inferred slope) but I was interested to hear that Dr. Jack Kevorkian
>> has explicitly expressed a desire to align himself with the pro-choice 
>> movement, claiming that the same ethic applies to both issues.  Of
>> course, involuntary euthanasia is a bit further down the slope than
>> the voluntary type, but the analogy is no more pointless or offen-
>> sive than the oft-heard "taking away the right to abortion is just
>> the beginning..." argument.

<1992Jul23.150016.3608@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> (M. Price) writes:
>      I disagree. First of all, involuntary euthanasia is a hell of a lot
> further down the slope than assisted suicide. 

In the ideal world of our abstractions perhaps.  But not so far in the
real world.  Absolute prohibitions are simply much easier to enforce
than conditional prohibitions.  Granny's been a burden due to her
long illness, and Hubby kills her.  Under an absolute prohibition,
he's guilty.  Under the conditional one, he's well on his way
to making reasonable doubt.  "Honest, your honor, I was following
my wife's earnest last wishes.  I regret that we did not follow
the regular legal procedures, but we were not knowledgeable about
them, and my wife's suffering was great."  

It's similar to the trouble with rape exceptions in anti-abortion
laws that is pointed out here frequently.  How do you determine
if the woman really has been raped?  Again, an absolute prohibition
would be far easier to enforce.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
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.
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 00:08:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.190121.20155@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>> [some self-righteous nonsense]
>
>Please leave this discussion in alt.flame where I originally posted it, 
>Ms. Garvin. Do you wish me to dredge up your old quote about "flames belong
>in alt.flame" as a painful reminder, hmmmm??


In case anybody missed the beginning of this, Darcy managed to stop sucking
the pus from his many facial zits just long enough to make a "joke" about
the sexual molestation that Susan's SO went through as a child.

He's now thrashing around in his own shit, desperatly trying to backpedal and
save his ass.

It's not going to work.

[Oh, and this whole episode provides ample evidence as to why Darcy is
a "voluntarily chaste virgin"...]
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:54:59 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Jul25.012638.15826@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>> Excuse me, Doug.  I Have nursed three infants, and these 
>> particular three precocious little darlings were able to
>> pull away from the breast at will, and, of their own volition,
>> decide to cry for awhile or take a nap instead of nursing.

>I suppose you could have then just handed the baby to _anybody_ to nurse
>when you didn't feel like doing it youself.    (And you darn well know as
>well as I do that breastmilk is far healthier for babies than formula is.)

She could have handed off the kid to any lactating woman, or to anyone with
a bottle filled with extracted breast milk.

Tell me one, ONE person a pregnant woman can hand a 8 week old fetus to.
Just one.  Or shut up.

--Teddi
------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Leland Gaunt)
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Organization: In Search of the Free Parking Space
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:04:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.164954.3957@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.165113.24546@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
>>># = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:
>>
>>>[text deleted]
>>>
>>>#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>>>#abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
>>>#
>>>#And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
>>>#big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
>>>#illegal abortion. 
>>>#
>>>#Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
>>
>>>Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
>>>
>>>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
>>
>>Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
>>Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).
>
>Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
>gave it to you guys on the chin. 

Coming from you, that immediately casts doubt on that claim -- and the point
is, it's that you made such a fool of yourself with the other 1%.  Scream,
holler, and threaten all you want -- it won't be forgotten.

>That and now, Susan Garvin has herself called Planned Parenthood a
>bold-faced liar. 

She called YOU a liar.  I can see why you get yourself confused with Planned
Parenthood, though.  (Not to mention Dennis Hall. :-)

>That's a punch that ought to kill her, much less score a KO. 

Wow.  More like a punch that couldn't tear wet tissue paper, which is about
your speed.

>>Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
>>of your ass like Holtsinger does?
>
>Well, we would first have to learn the skill from you and Garvin, undoubtedly
>masters at the art. The art of blowing smoke out of your ass...  

Go right ahead.  It'll be fun to watch you when the fire department
arrives...


-- 
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. 
  Pro-life means you never have to think, or show consideration for those you
               disagree with -- just ask Chaney.  Or Dennis Hall.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: And Fischer's Down! (was Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:52:14 GMT

<1992Jul24.001713.19641@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
>In article <l8gmtvj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>>> = Susan Garvin writes:
...
>Maybe YOU need to go fish, Ray. Say hi to Jaws. But don't worry; he
>won't eat you because he's scared it might make him stupid like you. 
...
>And now... 
>
><POOF!> You're awake again and there's a great, big bullet hole in
>your foot, Ray! 
...
>Yeah, put out that fire in your brain. You're thinking too hard and
>it's causing shortouts in your head. 

Ok, who left the computer terminal hooked up in the high school
locker room?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:50:42 GMT

In article <nkkbsug@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

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

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>>> Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
>>>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

>>> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
>>> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
>>> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
>>> woman.

>> It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus to remove it 
>> from the pregnant woman.  [...]  Try again.

> Could Holtsinger please explain the crucial difference 
> between "sometimes necessary" and "not always necessary"


Sorry, I should have said, "it's never necessary to kill a late term 
fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman during an elective abortion.
Try again."

It is sometimes necessary to kill a late term fetus during a medically 
indicated abortion. The woman's immediate physical health or life may be  
threatened by the presence of the fetus, and often the fastest remedy 
is to perform an abortion. Inducing labor may take too long to remove 
the fetus, by which time the woman's condition might worsen. 

>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 07:00:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: na

nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent) writes ...
>In article <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us
>> Now, as far as I know, the only biblical reference to it is Exodus 21:22
>> (I think it's that-- I just moved and my bible is still packed) where the
>> penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is monetary compensation.  Doesn't
>> sound like murder to me.
>
>  It appears that they considered the unborn as "property." Of course
>to get to verse 22 you had to notice this (verse 21):
>
>  "If, however, [a man strikes his male or female slave witha rod and]
>  the slave survives for a day or two [before dying] he is not to be
>  punished, since the slave is his own property."
>
>  I think (hope) our standards of morality and "property" have evolved
>beyond the Code of the Covenant in Exodus. What do you think?

So then, you agree that the Bible cannot be used as a standard for morality?

>> My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..."
>
>  Yup. Early Church teaching, the Didache Apostolicae (Teachings of
>the Apostles, ~ 100 AD) says:
>
>  "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion, or destroy the infant
>  already born."

And 1200 years later the same church burned people at the stake for 
possessing a Bible.

Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose and expect it to be a convincing
argument.  Either the Bible and the Church are useful authorities, or 
they're not.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29710 alt.abortion.inequity:2793 soc.men:13983
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Segmentation Fault Core Dump
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:18:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: gandalf.Jul.31.11.18.07.1992.23797
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>] 
>] Pro-abortion means pro the choice to kill a baby.  I would appreciate it

Once again, for the intellectually-challenged:

There is **no such thing** as a "Pro-Abortion" movement, side, advocate, etc.
There is such a thing as a "Pro-Choice" movement, side, advocate, etc.

The Pro-Choice movement **does not** advocate, encourage, prefer, or push
abortion as the solution to unwanted pregnancy.

The Pro-Choice movement **does** advocate, encourage, prefer, and push
for the right of women to decide  for themselves, invidiually
and privately, how they will handle an unwanted pregnancy, and to that
end, advocates, encourages, prefers, and pushes for all options to be
available, safe, and legal.

That is all.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Letter in SF Chronicle
Date: 30 Jul 1992 18:39:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu

The following is a letter to the editor in the 7/30/92 San Francisco
Chronicle.  I'd say that my reactions to this letter range from laughter
to feeling very sorry for the writer.
---------
Editor --  I am really sick of some women yelling about wanting to have
the right to control what happens to their bodies.  They do indeed have that
right.  When are they going to exercise that right?
   Most of these women know that there is only one act which can result
in the conception of a baby.  It does not just happen to people walking
down the street, shopping in the market, working in the office, or playing
golf.  It does not happen while baking a cake or while sitting in Congress.
   The basic purpose of sexual intercourse is the procreation of children.
Except in cases of rape, it is easy to avoid.
   There are many ways, outside of sex, to express deep love for another
person.  How about doing some extra house cleaning and ironing for him
or for her?  How about washing and waxing the other person's car?  You
could help the other person by lightening that person's particular load.
You could do some special good deed for the other person's parents or
near ones.  Show your love and respect for that special someone by
going the extra mile for her/him.  You may be glad to find that refraining
from sexual intercourse puts the romance back into holding hands.
   Take control of your body and of your life.  It can be very satisfying.
  
				LOUISE B. BROWN
				Whittier (Los Angeles County)

--------------------------
mitja@hera.berkeley.edu
Pro-choice and I vote!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:48:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.115822.7033@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi) writes:

>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>> { its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
>>> you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
>>> level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
>>> the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.

A man cannot be said to be "seeking to Kill" his partner because the 
woman consents to the risks involved in sexual intercourse. Consent to
sexual intercourse implies the consent to the possibility of pregnancy
and all its attendant risks.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion