HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Summary: Nyikos returns determined to make himself look even more foolish
Keywords: Carol Mosely Braun
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:52:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.720712856@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#Last night, NBC Nightly News carried information about women and minority
#candidates.  It said that there were 11 women candidates for the US Senate,
#and over a hundred (I forget the exact number) for the House.  When it
#came the turn of Blacks, however, all we were told was that there were
#approximately 60 candidates for the House.
#
#But there is at least one Black candidate for the US Senate.  If there
#is only one, it is easy to see why NBC news chose not to even hint
#at his existence.

It sounds as if Petey Honey didn't watch the report on which he
is commenting.  I can't imagine how anyone who has paid any 
attention at all could fail to notice the candidacy of Carol
Mosely Braun.  I rather doubt that NBC failed to mention her.

Since Petey Honey thinks that there is some sort of racial issue
involved, I'll spell it out for him.  Ms. Braun is an African-
American.  Ms. Braun supports abortion rights.  Ms. Braun received
lots of attention from the media during her campaign.  Ms. Braun
won her election.  

Viable candidates tend to get more coverage than candidates who
have little chance of succeeding, regardless of political stance,
gender or race.  Barbara Mikulski won the senate seat with
71% of the vote.  


[the rest of his rant deleted]

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: False claim by usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Nov 92 23:09:55 GMT

In <31867@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

I believe this post contains a false claim by smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU

>In article <1992Oct29.175021.6317@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes: 

>>So that means you're opposed to Roe vs. Wade, right?  I'm honestly
>>curious; this (the role of Roe vs. Wade in the pro-choice argument)
>>is something I'm a little confused about.

>I support RvW as well as the Freedom of Choice Act because they come
>closer to supporting the right to bodily autonomy then the status quo
>prior to Roe.  I don't think there should be restrictions on abortion,
>period.  Nonetheless, I prefer a law/legal precedent that allows
>states to pass restrictions to a status quo that allows them to be
>forbidden.  

>>Steve Matheson, a nervous "newbie".  Please be gentle.

>I'm always gentle.

>Outta town til' Thurs (11/4) sundown.  Email for response.

Trouble is, last time I e-mailed Mezias, he was anything but gentle
about it.  Fortunately, it is now November 5, past sundown, so I
don't have to run the risk of him flaming me again.

Peter Nyikos

Organization: Systems Group 98, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri,  6 Nov 1992 17:11:44 -0500 
From: David Allen Markley <dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 4-Nov-92 Choice, what a beautiful
li.. Vickie Mapes@pilot.njin. (721)

> I haven't been able to read talk.abortion for quite a while, but
> I just had to chime in with cries of HOORAYs and YAYs!!!

> Anti-choicers, believe what you believe, you have a right, now...

> GET OUT OF MY LIFE AND AWAY FROM MY BODY!!!

> Hooray for the people of America! (anti-choicers, is it clear now?)
> Hooray for the people of Oregon! (gay-bashers, go screw yourselves!)
> Hooray for the people of Missouri! (Webster, you're not wanted)      
> Hooray for the people of Illinois! (proud to be one of 'em)

> And on and on and on and on and on........

> What a great day for America!
> What a great day for freedom and democracy!
> What a great day for abortion rights!

> Vickie (from Chicago "home of Carol Moseley Braun" Illinois)

You're happy that a minority of people (< 43%) in the United States have
chosen an incompetent draft-dodging tax and spend extreme liberal?

OK. Just wanted to be clear on this.

++David
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Quotes
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:16:40 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

I would like to thank Brian Ceccarelli for reminding us that
throughout history people have been trying to deny women the
right to choose.  It's important to be aware of this because
I have seen people on here claim that the fight is over just
because Clinton has been elected.  There will always be people
like those Brian has quoted.  We can't relax the fight now. 

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Teddi: baby killer
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:44:45 GMT

In article <5838@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

> the lovely German folks who are pumping air and nutrients
> into a dead pregnant woman so the fetus can keep on keepin' on.  

How does this case justify the annual slaughter of 1.5 million
human beings? 

>Teddi


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:57:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.160124.18027@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>
>> I own some property.  I own a tree on my property.  I can destroy 
>> the tree.  Which part didn't you understand? 

> trees may be protected because of their own worth, 
> or because of their value to others.  

Human beings may be protected because of their own worth,
or because of their value to others.  I value all human
beings, and I believe that they all have inherent worth. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.214842.15573@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1d982oINN1vj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> 
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>> In the vast majority of abortions, the foetus will die in short order once 
>> it has been removed.  
>
>Let's say that I should have the right to leave a dying accident victim
>alongside the road, and to refuse to drive them to the hospital.  Does it
>follow that I should have the right to kill them?  

If you KNOW that they won't survive for very long, and won't have any chance
to enjoy what little time they have left, and there is some marginal moral/
social value to killing them on the spot, rather than having them die later 
on, why not? If they are in pain and suffering, for instance, and you know 
they won't survive, then why _not_ put them out of their misery? What if they
ask you to?

A suffering life can be worse than no life, Doug. Certainly, actual, real
suffering is worse than the "loss of a 'potential' life": the latter is just 
an abstraction.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:34:22 GMT

In article <nvk1aj-@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>David Allen Markley <dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>You're happy that a minority of people (< 43%) in the United States have
>>chosen an incompetent draft-dodging tax and spend extreme liberal?
>
>Yes.
>
>>OK. Just wanted to be clear on this.
>
>Now you are.
	Hey, speak for yourself!  Personally, I'm happy that an even smaller
minority of people (38% of the 55% of eligible citizens who voted) failed to
retain an unprincipled liar who sold out to the hypernationalist religious-
fanatic fringe of his party in a feeble effort to retain power.
	But I guess we'll just have to get used to whining alternating with
the verbal equivalent of vitriol-throwing from the far right for the next
four years.
>
>>++David
>
>                     -rocker

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:45:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct18.225317.25561@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <4er5S7G00YUoE5=Zpl@andrew.cmu.edu> 
>"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>> How do most people here perceive what the word 'person' means? I thought 
>> I knew what it meant. But I've never thought of a person as 'cognizant' 
>> which is one definition that's been proposed.
>
>I think a "person" should be defined as an entity which possesses
>rights under the Constitution.  

Then a fetus isn't a "person" since currently it possesses no rights under 
the Constitution. Agreed?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: does ray fischer want to imprison women who have banned abortions?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:01:48 GMT

dodging a simple, straightforward question,
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
->>abortions, ray?

->Do you want a woman in labor to be able to have the doctor kill the 
->fetus just before it emerges if labor becomes too painful?

did you have a problem with my question, ray? it was a
very simple question.

had someone asked me the question i asked you, i would
have replied "no." i would have gone on to say "i don't
want to ban abortions." now i'm not suggesting you go
that far, yet. i am suggesting that your apparent
inability to answer "yes" or "no" to a question as to
whether you want to imprison women who have "banned"
abortions strikes me as cowardly.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:15:56 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov5.133158.8441@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 
> If you agree what is with the flames?  God owns the world and is the CREATOR 
> or all life. 

So which is it?  Creator?  Or all life?  I'd go with the latter more than the
former.  I wonder who's actually right.

> Don't you think he had a reason for a baby. 

Don't you think he had a reason for an ejaculate?  Every sperm is sacred.

> We only go through the process, but God gives the life. 

Yeah, the parents really have nothing to do with it, especially not the
mother.  She should be grateful to be barefoot, pregnant and fulfilling
her reproductive responsibilities, eh?

> The world needs Jesus.  That is a given. 

Maybe your world does, but what makes you think everyone needs Jesus?

> It is a seperate subject, true, but the world needs Jesus.  We, his
> ambassadors, should stand up for him.  I don't know about you but I don't want
> Him ashamed of me for not doing something. 

Like not allowing women to hold their right to control their bodies?

> Remember in Rev. when he flamed the
> church for allowing evil to come in among them.  Why don't we learn a lesson. 

Yeah, don't let evil go in among you.  Don't have an abortion.  Don't force
people to do something they don't want to do.

> If our 'freedom' as we define it goes against God's creative power, We DO have
> a problem.  Don't you agree?

Yeah, everybody should be constantly having unprotected sex just in case
an ejaculate was meant to fertilize an ovum by the Will of God.  Don't
you agree?
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:21:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <23971@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:

>"What any person chooses to do with their own body is
>their own business!!!"

This statement expresses much of what lies behind the pro-choice view,
and I find it puzzling.  I can't understand why the fact that my body
is involved in an action makes it inappropriate for other people to
form judgements about the action.

To give a few examples, if I commit rape, I am doing something with my
body.  If a guest in my house chokes on something I serve him, and I
just sit there and watch him die, I'm doing something with my body.
Ditto if I have German Measles but make no effort to avoid pregnant
women.  So it seems to me that acts I perform that involve my own body
should have no special exemption from moral or legal judgement.  What
am I missing?
-- 
Jim Kalb 		"Not drunk is he who from the floor
(jk@panix.com)		 can rise alone and still drink more.
			 But drunk is he who prostrate lies
			 Without the power to drink or rise." (Clough)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Holtsinger destroys trees (was Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:01:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.031221.27218@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) 
writes:

}I own some property.  I own a tree on my property.  I can destroy 
}the tree.  Which part didn't you understand? 

The "can" part.  I don't understand that.  It implies physical ability.
I'm not sure of the implications of mental ability.  Father Holtsinger
would probably cut down the person standing next to him in his attempt
to destroy the tree.  

But more seriously, Reverend Father, trees may be protected because
of their own worth, or because of their value to others.  While
you may be physically capable of destroying such a tree, it might
be quite illegal to do so.  You may not receive any compenstation,
depending on the circumstances.




--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47599 alt.abortion.inequity:5013 soc.women:19280 soc.men:19044
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 11 Nov 1992 04:48:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:

>Also, why do you assume that the
>woman is more important than the "defined" life inside her?

Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
an unborn foetus.

							--  Michal 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computers
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Answer to: *what can one do with a stale source?*
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:46:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.173843.26445@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>
>] kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>] ->No, stale Darcy QUOTES are often the main ingredient (or, as Kellmeyer would
>] ->probably put it - "raw material") of Keeganblather. But they don't actually 
>] ->get blatherized (TM) until Keegan gets his filthy mitts on them.
>] 
>] at least you're willing to admit what a horrid and
>] pedantic writer you are. you do have a point:
>] reading something you write the second time is
>] definately worse than reading it the first time.
>
>
>If the two of you are going to WHINE about 'stale sources'
>why not run the 'Makefile' again, and see what has changed.
>
>	make all
>	make install
>	make clean

	make up
	make do
	make shift
	make me one with everything
	make love, not war
	make me gag
	make my day, punk

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46604 talk.religion.misc:20423 alt.atheism:20614
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:18:29 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <1992Nov5.040534.24054@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Nov03.052939.28813@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>><1992Oct29.084242.24379@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Again, since you state "by Storga's atheistic standards..." I assume that
>>>you believe I have some special Atheistic standards that deviate from the
>>>norm significantly.  Please explain what they are, or just confirm that
>>>you did not mean that I had any special standards.
>>
>>Presumably, you have higher standards, since you can't resort on an appeal
>>to the almighty, or invoke "And then a miracle occurs" in a proof.  :-)
>
>Apparently "a miracle" occured:  Mr Nyikos has not responded to any of my
>posts in days.  Maybe he actually has work to do....  Nah!

Maybe he's working on his apology for his ignorant and libelous attack on
Adrienne...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date:  6 NOV 92 14:26:19    

In article <1992Nov5.161257.16911@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes...
> 
>To all thoose celebrating Clinton's election,


It is good stuff, too.

>I congrratulate Bill for his wonderful comeback and election to the White House.
>Although I feel he will not be a good president I am hoping I am wrong.
> 
>Now as to his views on abortion:
> 
>All you Anti-Lifer's ( I use this wording because I have seen pro-lifers called
> anti-choicer's so turn-abouts fair play) think (and are probably correct in
> that you feel Clinton will do alot to keep abortion legal and secure a woman's
> right to kill (I could have said choose but since ya'll say we want to take 
> away her choice I'll say you want to take away the baby's life).

Jeff, I was just thinking you were going along so much better this time, 
and now this.  Think about it, what the devil is meant by anti-life?  Does 
this mean we are against life in general?  Not hardly, you won't see posts 
advocating death of random people.  I have seen posts that could be said to 
be anti-choice, they generally say that having sex is the choice and after 
that you pay the consequences.  But most people respect the labels that any 
individual chooses to use.  We have a couple of pro-abortions, many 
pro-choice, some pro-life and a few undefined.  Show respect and you are 
more likely to get it in return.

>Yes the FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) will probably pass but I don't think it
> will be by a large margin and I know North Carolina will having nothing to
> do with it because both our senators are anti-choice and N.C. went to 
> Bush anyways (Ha! Ha!).

Oh, the pain of knowing that I once lived in North Carolina while Jesse 
Helms was senator.  Man run the muddiest campaign while we lived there that 
I had ever seen (no commercials about issues ever, just mud at the 
opponent.)  I hope FOCA does pass, and by a reasonable margin.

>The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait
>for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
>but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
>morals again

We will remember and be watching for the next time.  BTW what do you mean, 
a president with a few morals again?  Are you trying to say that Clinton 
has *none*?  Or just none that you approve of?  Or what?

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/     \
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:38:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>>I have apperantley struck on nerve on this issue of responsibility
[...]
>>I think I'll post something about it. (in a while) :-0

>Why not now?  Could it be that you don't have anything to cover up your lack
>of thought about it, and are trying to buy some time?

Could it be that he has a test?

[me:]

>>|>How is abortion an irresponsible choice?  Justify your answer.

>>Wait for post, because this is growing as it is.

>Why the difficulty in answering the question?  Having trouble trying to
>think up an excuse?

He may just not want to deal with it...there are times I want to respond
to an article, just not right then.  I think he's being reasonable.

Patrick, I think you're being too hard on Jeff here, not that I'll say
anything, as we pro-choicers never disagree...

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.