HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 13:59:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Peter Nyikos claims that he has never heard of doctors turning
away minors who wanted an abortion.  This statment by Nyikos does
not reflect on anything but his ignorance.  He has never heard of
this, because he does not want to know the truth.  Then he passes
off his ignorance as if it was information.  He is, of course, an
irredeemable liar.
   I have been active in the fight for choice for over ten years.
And I know many people at abortion clinics here in Cleveland.  If
Nyikos cared at all about truth, he would know that clinics don't
automatically perform aobrtions on minors.  Minors are constantly
refused abortions on request.  They are refused every day!  Peter
is implying something that is completely false.  Once again he is
showing his eagerness to bear false witness, to lie, to violate a
Commandment, just so he can oppose a woman's right to choose.  He
has shown no regard for the truth.  He and his ilk are willing to
tell the most amazing lies in their fight to prevent the women of
America from exercising their right to choose.  By engaging in an
attempt to take away choice, he is messing with MY FAMILY.  I can
tolerate religious zealots only so far.  When they attempt to get
laws passed that will hurt my family, I get a bit angry.
   Peter, you had better wake up to the fact that the men to back
a woman's right to choose number in the MILLIONS!  And they don't
take kindly to people messing with the well-being of their female
family members.
   If you want to oppose abortion, go ahead.  But when you try to
force EVERYONE to obey your beliefs, you are being un-American in
the extreme.  People won't put up with this shit any more.  It is
becoming a different America.  You fundies have had your day.  It
is over for you intolerant bastards.  Go crawl back to that swamp
from which you came.  And don't come out until you can stop lying
to everyone.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:12:46 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
->Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall 
->continue to post to soc.singles. 

i'd like to see some proof of this allegation, unless
it's just another lie, of course.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:43:26 GMT

> K.E. Hauk

> For all those out there who have had an abortion or are considering it:  YOU 
>MADE THAT CHOICE BEFORE YOU GOT PREGNANT!

Any comparable choice the MAN made before the pregnancy occurred, or is this
just another woman who hates women?

>Ok, excluding that small percentage
>of rape victims who get pregnant.

How do you know only a small percenntage of women who have abortions are
rape victims?  Millions of women are raped each year.  Only 1.25 million
women get abortions each year.  Do you blindly believe EVERYTHING Mr.
Preacher tells you, or have you actually exercised that couch-potato
neuron lately?

>But for the majority, don't tell me about 
>your freedoms of choice. 

Okay, I won't.  It's none of your damn business anyway.

>You made that choice the moment you had sexual 
>intercourse.  

Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy.  Say, Hauk, do you
"think" you are bringing up anything new here?

>What CHOICES did that baby have?  

What CHOICES did that roach have that you squished?

>And how can you tell me when
>life begins?  

Life on Earth has been an unbroken chain from billions of years ago to
the present.

>Can you prove to me that life doen't begin until birth?  

That's ridiculous.  I just said life on Earth began billions of years
ago.  It certainly was there before the birth of any baby.

>Can you
>define life? 

Life The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead
     organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as
     metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction.

     The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, p. 728.

>What about the man.  He's not always the one to push for the abortion.  Doesn't
>he have his choices also?  

If the man wants a baby, he cann make one with a willing partner, or, better
yet, adopt one.  He (and you) has no right to force me to risk my life and
health.

>Or do you also want the right to control his sperm? 

Well, you seem to want the right to control my body.  This is truly the pot
calling the kettle black here.

At least "controlling his sperm" does not put his life and health at risk.

>These are just few of my many thoughts...

I'd say that's open to debate.

>And I must note that I wouldn't be 
>able to voice these thoughts if my birthmother had opted to have an abortion
>instead of giving me up for adoption in Bogota, Columbia!

In other words, you wouldn't be here to nauseate people with your mindless
blathering if your mother had not been hopelessly brainwashed by Catholicism.

I am sorry you hate your mother so much that you would force her to carry
you to term, no matter what the cost to her in terms of her life, health,
education, and finances.  I personally cannot think of anything more selfish.
-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:45:34 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1eds9jINNl85@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>            indeed, if I, and I alone CAUSED an auto accident....
>that, just for the sake of argument, killed me and maimed another person,
>the medical community STILL couldn't seize organs out of my dead body
>to save the life of the other person.  Even if I were a perfect tissue
>match.  They would need either my CONSENT (via an organ donor card) or
>the consent of my next-of-kin.

>Even DEAD, society cannot violate my body against my will.

>Do you think that should be changed?

To me, it wouldn't seem unjust in principle to change it in the
situation you describe.  Would it to you?

As to whether it should be changed, I see practical problems that
distinguish it from the abortion situation.  The situation you
describe is quite a rare one, and the decisions would have to be made
very quickly.  Some of them would be hard to make quickly -- for
example, in order to decide whether the situation you describe exists
the authorities would have to determine whether you alone had caused
the accident, which would likely be rather difficult.  So it doesn't
seem sensible to go to the trouble of establishing institutions and
procedures that could deal competently with that kind of unusual
occurrence.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
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: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:24:33 GMT


Mark pointed out a lie spread by Nyikos and others in the
right-to-lie movement - that every woman who requests an
abortion is given one.   Either these people do not understand
how clinics operate, or they're just lying again.

A woman who is obviously ambivalent about her decision will not
be allowed to undergo the procedure in a reputable clinic.  She
will be counselled and perhaps rescheduled, but both the
counselors and doctors are aware of the problems that can result
if a woman is unsure of her choice.

I escorted such a woman into a clinic recently.  When the
sidewalk harasser showed her the little plastic fetus and
said, "This is what your baby looks like and your baby loves
you", the woman replied, "I love my baby but we can't afford
to have one right now."  At this, the harasser (an unemployed
19 year old college student) said, "I'll pay your rent.  I'll
pay your doctor bills.  I'll buy your clothes."  I told the
woman that the professional counselors in the clinic could help
her.   She decided to go on in.

The harasser started crying, and I realized that she was just as
sure that the woman was going to have an abortion that day as
I was sure she was not.  Coincidentally, I saw the woman inside
the clinic later that day.  (Otherwise, I'd have no way of
knowing what happened.)  She told me that she had decided to
continue the pregnancy, but that she was waiting inside until
"those people" were gone.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:40:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <1992Nov23.145056.21943@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.150930.374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just
>>because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?
>
>I know! I know! Because they've learned that the people who _oppose_
>free sex, safe sex, and abortion can't keep _their_ zippers up either.

I like the way George Carlin put it:
   Did you ever notice that most of the people who are anti-abortion
   are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?

>[Good examples might be Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, all those Catholic
>priests that travel around the country molesting children, and possibly
>Ronald Reagan...

Ronald Reagan was possibly molested by a Catholic priest?!?  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:05:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.133648.25175@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

}That was so lame I had to include it again.  I may have to make
}it a .sig.  I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet, so I move
}we nominate Dr Giggles Nyikos for the net.council of idiots.
}He would be right at home with Tire Iron Kaldis and Kibble Darcy.

I second the nomination.


--
       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!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:24:34 GMT

In article <Ef2zRZq00WBLE4rVkJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Elizabeth Cornelia Green 
<eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

}Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
}only 100% certain method.  

Tee hee.

}Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
}already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
}of you?

Nothing is the matter with us.   Maybe the defect is in your figuring...

--
       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!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:17:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.172142.3363@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.042445.3279@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> >> I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
> >> 
> >>    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
> >>    authority that grants you this right?
> >
> >RIghts are not granted.  Rights are recognized.
> >
> >Dean Kaflowitz
> 
> Oh?  The authors and signers of America's own Declaration of
> Indepence would disagree with you.  Even Thomas Jefferson,
> a probable non-Christian, author of the Declaration of
> Independence would even disagree with you.

Can you support this assertion?

I cite John Jay, in Federalist No. 2.

"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of
government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however
it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their
natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers."

If rights are not inherent and must be granted by an authority,
the first Chief Justice's statement above becomes meaningless, since
your version would require government granting rights before
people cede them in order to form the government.

I find your notion of rights bizarre, in that it presumes an authority
that precedes the people who organize it and rule it.  It presumes
an authority that rules the people from above, but since that
authority is made by the people, and in the case of this country
the people may arguably dissolve that authority, and since the
people ultimately rule the authority, what authority then grants
rights but the people?  And if the people grant rights, it must be
presupposed that they possess them, so that they are not granting
rights at all, but recognizing them.  A right is that which is
anyone's legal due.  You do not grant people what they are legally
and properly entitled to; you recognize that entitlement.

I really want to see your Jeffersonian support, since the notion
of natural rights was recognized and agreed with by the FOunding
Fathers, and since they were also in agreement that rights are
retained by the people but, as John Jay said, ceded to the government
for its requisite powers.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Summary: Does DOD think he's everybody?  You be the judge... 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 00:56:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.050154.27714@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.030651.69140@watson.ibm.com> 
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Nov21.003516.21632@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
>
>>> Here's the e-mail that Larry Margolis sent to my system
>>> administrators, forwarded from one of the NCSU sysadmins.
>>> I omitted the sender's address from the e-mail.
>
>>>      To whom it may concern,
>>>         Apparently someone at your site is "letter-bombing" various newsgroups
                       ^^^^^^^

Gee, does DOD log in as someone@ncsu.edu?  Or what???

>You made a very serious and false accusation that I had been
>"letter-bombing" various newsgroups with abortion-related material, 
>when in fact, I had only made ONE post each to soc.singles,
>a.r, and a.r.c.  The term "letter-bombing" implies that I had
>been flooding newsgroups with material, and that my postings 
>were a very serious problem to be dealt with in the harshest
>manner.  To further suggest that my system administrator should
>talk to me about my alleged "letter-bombing" activities is
>threatening e-mail.  I don't care if you think it's innocuous,
>because I'm on the one on the receiving end.  

And now you're lying again, DearOldDoug.

--
=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???=
=***************DON'T SHOOT!! I'M REALLY A BLACK BEAR!!!**********************=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:22:46 GMT

In article <1eooc0INN4p5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>I would venture to say that, in a significant percentage of the cases under
>>discussion, for the man to insist on wearing a condom, when the woman has
>>already assured him that birth control is "taken care of", there will be
>>no sex at all, regardless of whether the woman is a #1 or a #2. 
>
>Are you claiming that women refuse to have sex with men who want to use
>condoms?  Weird!   I've heard arguments that men don't like condoms, but I
>don't think I've ever heard one that women don't.

Some women find it physically irritating. Others think it feels like a dildo, 
and find that unappealing. Maybe they're in the distinct minority, but they
do exist.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: twisting words(about Thans for life)
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:46:39 GMT

In article <nyikos.721421472@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov2.223133.8359@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

  [Just noting that there is no attribute line for the quote below.
   So at this point, it is not clear who wrote it.  The article previous to 
   Peter's posting (Clifton's ?) is either canceled or expired -- I can't 
   read it.  I suspect Clifton cut the attribute line (as he has done before) 
   but can NOT be sure.]

  [Unknown writes:]
>>>  When a woman
>>> is pregnant and that is ruining her life (no, this doesn't happen in *all*
>>> cases, but it does in some and those are the cases that are important to the
>>> pro-choice position) the pro-lifers would PREVENT her from getting "help"
>>> (ie an abortion) to put her life back on track?

  [Nyikos writes:]
>There are other kinds of help, from crisis pregnancy centers, to help women
>carry to term if that is what they would prefer.  Just how "pro-choice"
>is this person at rice.edu?  Pro-choice-for-abortion?

Who are you referring to?  The person who made the quote above which 
is currently un-attributed?  Or someone else?  If you had access to the 
previous posts and you know for sure who made the above quote which is 
now un-attributed, would you be so nice as to let us know who it is?
Please note that I think you are innocent of cutting the attribute line, 
but if you are addressing the un-attributed person and know who they 
are, it would be a courtesy to the rest of us to let us know who you 
are talking to/about.  Thanks.

  [Clifton writes:]
>>twisting is twisting when it is not true.  I think life is very important. 
>>Even clinton said himself that he thinks abortion is a very bad thing and
>>should be avoided if possible.  I wonder why he said that.

  [Nyikos writes:]
>Maybe he hates it the way Bush hates broccoli? :-)
>
>All kidding aside, if that is the way he feels, why is he so gung-ho
>on FOCA, federal financing of abortions, federal funding of fetal 
>harvesting, etc.?
>
>Peter Ny.
>


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:05:47 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->In <_3s1=gk@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>peter honey, you just quoted someone other than susan
->>garvin as if the person you were quoting were susan
->>garvin. what you just did could be referred to as
->>forgery.

->Show me where I did that.

certainly. there are three posts appended in their
entirety. the first, <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu> is a
post by susan garvin which includes extensive quotes
from a person named greenfield.

the second is your reply to susan's post
<nyikos.721692137@milo.math.scarolina.edu> where you
delete the attributions to greenfield and attribute
greenfield's words to susan garvin. simply stated, you
got caught faking quotes again.

the third included post is by susan garvin which points
out your dishonesty.

->>as i told you when you lied about adrienne regard
->>posting a forgery,

->I never *said* she posted a forgery.  What does ?!?!?!?!? mean to you?

stop lying peter. you said it. many, many people saw
your lie and called you on it. no one really expects to
to actually apologize imo. they just like beating you
up because you were too stupid to do so.

->I never lied about adrienne.

you're lying again peter.

=======begin included posts==================

>From talk.abortion Sat Nov  7 22:34:21 1992
Xref: rpi talk.abortion:98643 alt.abortion.inequity:3103 soc.women:46471 soc.men:51245 alt.feminism:3843
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:45:24 CST

In article <Ef2zRZq00WBLE4rVkJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Boy do you have some messed up ideas!  
>You think abortions should be used as a source of birthcontrol if
>necessary?!?  And that the practice of abstinence is a ridiculous
>solution?!?!!  Wow you're confused.  
>
>I (obviously) agree with the other side of the argument.
>
>Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
>only 100% certain method.  

Neither of these statements is correct.

>If a couple considers themselves adult enough to engage in sex, they
>should face the adult responsibilities that might accompany the action. 
>And making sure that the child that results from your actions is cared
>for is an obvious responsibility.  I strongly believe that killing that
>child through an abortion is not facing your responsibilities.
>
>Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>No Sex is Safe Sex.  
>Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>result from sex, either.
>
>Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
>already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
>of you?
>
Some of us live in a place called Reality.  Some of us
are no longer nineteen.  Tell me this, oh wise youngster:
how do you suggest that a couple keep a healthy marriage
going with NO sex, after they already have all the kids
they can reasonably provide for?

muriel
standard disclaimer