HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:03:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.085353.24603@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Also, I mentioned several times that I do recognize the plight of the women.
>People may not trust me in saying that, but that is understandable.  

Very.  I don't think anything else you have said evidences
any compassion or concern for women.

>The woman is very special, but I don't think the woman has the right to kill
>in most circumstances.
>
You don't even think she has a right to say how her body
will be used.  If you think life is more important than
that freedom, would you submit to a rapist rather than
kill him?  Pretend those are your only choices.

>Legalized abortion cannot stand.  Some words have trouble sinking in because
>abortion would still be available to most people.  Abortion, sanctioned
>by law, is a sickening thought, as even you would agree. (I hope.)

You cluless twit.  If you think illegal abortion is better,
you are not showing much concern for women.  Some of us are
old enough to remember what women went through before RvW.
The essence of your statement is that you think it would
be better if more women died as a consequence of taking an
action that you disapprove of.  Forgive me if I have trouble 
believing that you care about women.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.flame
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Danger Danger!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:58:41 GMT

cj@sgi.com writes:
] In article <1992Oct9.121940.2421@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com writes:
] |OH YUK!
] |they're playing Kissy Face Again and In PUBLIC!!!!!
] |ps: as a small point of reminder for the new folks,
] |this is NO WAY to conduct a flamefest.
] 
] You're quite right. I should have called her a Nazi, in proper
] net.form.  And THEN she should have asked me for my SAT scores.

I will NOT Stand for that type of Behavior at ALL!!!!

You should have called her a RadFemSurfNazi,
and then Ask for her SIT scores.

Verb conjugation is IMPORTANT!!!!

ciao
drieux


ps: next week an RFC for a JaneSizeWar....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:33:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.180154.15941@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.205902.7543@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes ...
>>> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>
>>>>>I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)
>
>>>>Not if the fundies get their way. Then you won't be allowed to enjoy
>>>>sex because your enjoying sex gets in the way of their practicing
>>>>their religion. :-)
>
>>>Agreed!  Have you noticed how the "fundies" have avoided this line?
>>>Seems it hits all too close for them.                           
>
>>Either that or the concept of a woman ejoying sex has so wigged them
>>out that they are unable to comment.
>
>Nah. I think their WIVES read this and want to know what non-fundie men
>do differently. :-)
> 

Maybe we could recomend some good "pillow book"...at least let them know
that there is more than one position.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Modesty, Don't You Just Love it...
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:36:11 GMT


mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
] 
] Let the debates continue, and may the best ideas win. (Mine of course. ;^) )
]

Mark,

We may Agree on nothing Else, 
But we Does agree on the WORDING
of the above....


ciao
drieux

ps: now if only he would understand that when I
say it, the Propositon is TRUE!


One of Us is Humble and the Other.....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What the hell is a "born fetus"?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:22:11 GMT

In <1992Oct11.152927.3783@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <3913@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>
>>
>>Its hard for us to argue on an even plane from this stance.  To me the 
>>conflict is between two equal entities - Mother vs Child.  Subjugation
>> implies superior over inferior.  Furthermore, I'll admit that even if 
>>you were to agree that an unborn and born fetus are equivalent 
                           >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>What the fuck are you talking about?

Believe it or not, Keith, "Killer Tiller" of Wichita uses the word
"fetus" even after a "live birth" takes place, under those (rare?)
(hypothetical?) conditions in which his cardiac injection of 
digoxin does not do the job of killing the (as yet unborn) fetus.

I hope I have the time to post on this soon.

Peter Nyikos
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Circles of Influence (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:52:23 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Oct7.184345.5510@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.121730.19860@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.030332.8476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>}If my social reasons are directly starving certain people (like me buying
>>}a better car at the expense of not getting my son or daughter some food)
>>}then my social reasons are definitely not going to take precedence over
>>}the life of my son or daughter.
>>
>>How about the son or daughter of your neighbor?  The sons or daughters
>>in the next county?  The next state?  Another country?
>>
>>
>If your neighbor was starving their children to death, wouldn't
>you do anything about it?

   So, have you sold your car and sent the proceeds to Somalia yet?

                                                    MP
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:57:31 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:

>Do they teach sociology or (cultural) anthropology at Texas A&M?

Being a former student, I can say that they do. Cheap shot, Bill.

>The law represents not only a set of prohibitions and mandates,
>but also provides an authoritative medium for the transmission
>of a great many social values.

I do believe you need to return and take another course. The entire
point of the American legal system was to make it as free and open as
possible while still having a civilized society base. They ran from
the oppressive rule of mandated morals in Europe, in case you have forgotten.
Geez! Bill, get with it.

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
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:42:35 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct13.191614.13665@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
|Abortions are never ok, in my opinion.

Even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:11:39 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->>so, you were half right, which is an improvement.

->Feelings hurt, Jim?

hell no. i like seeing you pull yourself up like this.

you're not being paranoid, are you?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: The DOI and alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die
Summary: No, followups are NOT set to alt.non-sequitor! 
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 17:41:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.020146.7139@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> 
>> And the DOI <Declaration of Independence> has no legal bearing, thank Dean.
>
>Tell it to Mother England, Keithy.

Suxanne, as a person who has dual American/English citizenship, I find it
sad that you would attempt to use the phrase "Mother England" as a
derogatory phrase.

--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:12:20 GMT

<1992Oct9.193604.208@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>This is posted for Peter Nyikos, whose netserver is down today.
[post deleted]

Suzanne, Peter is having fun at your expense.  This post he asked you to
send out was already posted here.  It seems from the evidence that Mr
Nyikos was a might dishonest about his needing your services, so to speak.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 13:45:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.195245.18561@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
>Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
                                                 ^^^^^
I'm as hip as the next guy, but would you be proud if your wife was telling
thousands of strangers on a computer network of the ten men she had done
before you came along?
And I can't believe any man could be with a woman named "Cathi". :-)

Alan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.154110.29197@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (Charles Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.135246.24319@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>>It seems to me that if you think "liberalism" is such a bad thing, you
>>should write a novel about a "liberalist dystopia" rather than a novel
>>about a "facist dystopia".  After all, if the worst thing about
>>"liberalism" is that it goads its opponents into behaving as piggishly
>>as possible, it looks like the problem lies with "liberalism's"
>>opponents rather than "liberalism" itself.
>>
>>Its like saying that gay people are bad because their mere existance
>>incites gay-bashers to beat them up.  One hopes that you would recognise
>>an argument of "he was gay so I was forced to beat him up" as completely
>>and utterly morally bankrupt.
>>
>	Bingo!  Give the man a cigar.  The really amusing thing is that this
>Booth kid apparently thinks that this "blame the victim" approach is something
>novel (pun intended) that he just discovered.  Doesn't he follow the news?
>This has been the standard excuse for terrorists and thugs for years.  How
>often have we heard some group of hijackers blame the USA when they kill
>hostages, on the premise that our support of Israel "forced" them to resort
>to violence?  How many fascist governments have used "civil unrest" or
>"outside agitators" as an excuse for engaging in the violent repression that
>they want to use in any case?
>	Whether Booth is simply so gullible that he has actually swallowed
>this bogus line of argument, or so enamored of the police state that he has
>chosen to cynically exploit this particular bit of propaganda, is an open
>question.
>	It does seem, though, that I was a bit unfair to the boy in an earlier
>post.  I assumed he was simply trying to be annoying.  Now it appears that
>there actually is an agenda here, albeit it a fairly obnoxious and
>fundamentally anti-American one.



Look, I'm still planning this story, and I admit there are some flaws in
the original idea, but I'm not promoting anything criticism of all types
of totalitarian systems, and the ways such a system might come to power.
Not a blueprint for the future, not propaganda, not an agenda, and definitely
not any of my beliefs--I oppose the "police state" you all all so fond
of accusing me of supporting.

Simon


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:54:59 GMT

In article <1b45ceINNcpv@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.222752.5269@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>#
>#You people are so twisted!  You think that never having a life is better 
>#than being abused in your life!  In most cases of abuse, the person's 
>#life is not totally ruined.  Are you saying that being beaten by your 
>#father is so bad that you would rather not have been born?  And anyway, 
>#who the hell are you to decide if a person wants to live or not?
>#
>#Ted
>#

>What life experiences are you basing this argument on?

>I'll be happy to clue you in on what an abused person really
>thinks. Just send me email.

>                mike@east.sun.com

Ditto, dear. Email me as nadja@node.com and I will be delighted to tell
you all about it. Try being beaten, humiliated, and felt up by the family.
As a child I used to pray to die, since there wasn't really any other way
out.
 


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41437 talk.politics.misc:50382 alt.sex:32371 alt.rush-limbaugh:6896 alt.politics.elections:15694 alt.politics.clinton:9140 alt.politics.bush:8242
From: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:17:54 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

>it wasn't that subtle.
>you're obviously another flag waving, law abiding, epsilon.

First off, what is an epsilon?  That is the fourth time you have used this
word.

>the point is that a dictionary of law is not necessarily the final word for
>any definition, it's merely one reference source.

True, but it is the only one that counts when law is concerned...
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:55:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1bn8uaINN978@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
#In article <nyikos.719184600@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
##In <5806@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
#
##In case you missed it, I consider this use of the word "honey" to
##be sexual harrassment when preceded by "Petey".  Got that, tanj@catnip?
##
#Gee, Peter, I had no idea you worked for her.  Or were applying to work for
#her.  Gee, Peter, guess you don't know what the range of sexual harrassment
#proscription covers, huh?  But I'm sure you have an OPINION.....

I wonder if Petey Honey thinks that this is a case of creating a
hostile environment in the workplace.   I'd love to see his 
reasoning if he does.  

I can just see his contract - 2 classes, 2 preps, read talk.abortion.

#Really, it's just too damned *easy*.  Sigh.

That it is.  

I think it's nice of him, though, to prove beyond the shadow of a
doubt that some people still don't get it a year after the Thomas
hearings.

Susan
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-life NRL symbolism and terminology
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:23:41 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Oct10.000550.7747@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>I believe you are referring to the ROSE, Ron.   Yes Ron, a red ROSE, the
>flower Our Lady of Guadeloupe presented to St. (?) in the dead of winter,
>so is now the symbol of Right To Life.   If anyone understands the plight
>of women with problem pregnancies, it is this woman, who experienced an
>unwed teenage pregnancy herself, yet went to term and gave birth to the
>greatest man who ever lived.

Sure, honey.  At least God gave Mary a CHOICE, huh?  I guess the rest of us
poor benighted schmoettes who weren't SPECIAL enough to get conceived
without sin don't GET a choice, is that it?

Thanks but no thanks.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41364 talk.politics.misc:50301 alt.rush-limbaugh:6865 alt.politics.elections:15633 alt.politics.clinton:9079 alt.politics.bush:8187
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:05:45 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <Bvrz74.7yt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
..
>
>	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
>bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
>Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
>RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.
...
>
>
>		Bruce


Gee! It seems like you are angry!

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.015543.20389@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <BvppHG.Ds9@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>
>>I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)
>
>>CRS
>
>Not if the fundies get their way. Then you won't be allowed to enjoy
>sex because your enjoying sex gets in the way of their practicing
>their religion. :-)

Agreed!  Have you noticed how the "fundies" have avoided this line?
Seems it hits all too close for them.                           

CRS



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:57:47 GMT

In article <1ausptINN2hn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.191835.22191@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.170250.14130@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>>Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
>
>Yes, in approximately 98% of the cases.
>
>Adrienne Regard
>

Well, at least you are honest.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Reply-To: waw0026@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:14:56 GMT

In article <7186@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>#Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>#bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>#in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>#that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>#this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>#being
>
>Please tell me just where in the B of R a right to life is granted.

I guess it's nowhere implied.  Nor was it thought of by the framers.  They were
more concerned with more important things like the right to bear arms and the
right to assemble.  

Right.

>
>Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh