HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:57:53 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>The same kind of discrimination that leads friends of yours, like PatricKKK
>Humphrey, to refer to people like me as "black ass".

I am just going to make oe statement about this comment of Patrick's.  While
I agree that his tone was rude and demanding, let's think about this for a
minute.     

His statement, as I understand it, was "Get your black ass down here" or 
something to that effect.

Now, while Patrick has no right to demand that you go anywhere, if you did
indeed go, would you not be taking your ass with you?  Are you ashamed that
you have a "black" ass, as opposed to some other color of ass?  If not, why
do you balk at the suggestion that your ass, which may happen to be black,
accompanies you wherever you go?

I suggest that you have taken advantage of the sensitivity that most people
have about being labeled a racist, and applied that to one of your most
rational, logical foes since it is so pathetically clear that you cannot
match his reasoning.

I agree that Patrick may have gone below the belt with that comment, but I
cannot blame him for becoming frustrated with a person who continually 
insists that the sky is green, even when confronted with a moutain of
evidence to contradict him.  Knowing how long Patrick has been on t.a.,
dealing with twits like yourself, I can only marvel at his self-restraint
for going on this long without sinking to that level.

If Patrick's short comment is the worst discrimination you experience in
your life, you will be a wildly lucky person.

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33077 talk.politics.misc:41431
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: A capital gains tax issuse
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:16:51 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] In  <1992Aug21.012139.5851@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
] >
] > Reproductive organs don't need to be justified.
] 
] They do if you want to deduct them as an entertainment expense.  :-)

Larry, Larry, Larry....

How Many Times do we have to Explain this to you....

Reproduction is a Capital Expansion Expense and
hence is automatically amortizable over the lifetime
of the Capital Asset.

Attempting to deduct it as an entertainment expense
would either by UnWise - as you have a smaller write off -
or an effort to defraud the government by double dipping.

God You "Tax and Spend" KneeJerkBleedingHeartWimpLiberals
just do not understand anything....

ciao
drieux


ps: and No, you can not depreciate your mistress
unless you can establish that it is not your 
primary domicile, and is merely used for business.






-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Mulvihill vs Chuck Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:12:22 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  <4800@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> one must take the same measures to avoid
> getting pregnant as one should also take those same measures to avoid
> getting HIV. HIV definitely doesn't give a damn if your condom breaks,
> and once you're infected, you can't reverse the effects (currently).

True.  Now imagine if you *could*, but there were some people claiming that
if you got HIV, it was God's will, and that the responsible thing to do
would be to accept your fate.  And imagine if they tried to get laws
passed making it illegal to take the cure.

Fortunately, this country is not a theocracy.

Yet.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:16:13 GMT

In <5739@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714171851@milo.math.scarolina.edu> (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Aug18.002226.21765@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>>   Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
>>>against her will, to bear young?

>>Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, [...]

>OK, Peter, you've convinced me.  Liberate each and every one to the outside
>world, and... oh.  Gee, that wouldn't work, would it?  Guess your analogy
>is pretty useless.

Don't get hung up on details.  I was being satirical. The original comment
of Kauffman is one of my pet peeves.  Literally, it would refer to raping
a woman or forcing her to have sex with someone,
and continuing with this until she gets pregnant,
 and then forbidding her to use an IUD or morning after pill, 
and forbidding all forms of abortion at any time.

But of course when people say things like what Kaufman does, they never
mean anything like this.  Had Kaufman expressed himself in a rational
manner, I would have responded in kind.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:18:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.123844.25790@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>> Holtsinger
>>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

>>> The patriarchal view is that women should not have the right to
>>> abortion.  The reason: it gives women the power to control
>>> reproduction.  

>> The patriarchal view is that abortion should be unrestricted 
>> so that men have a better chance of escaping from their 
>> responsibilities towards women and children.  

> Have you taken one single women's studies class, Holtsinger?  

Have you ever been a man, Ms. Mills?  

> Your statement is inncorrect.  Men gain a great deal more in a society where
> they can coerce women to marry and become financially dependent on them
> through pregnancy, than they lose through putting up a facade of beinng
> "responsible" towards their wife and children.

Are men actually going around impregnanting women against their 
will so that they can coerce women into marrying them?  How awful!  
You should call the police and have these men arrested at once!

>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)


Doug Holtsinger
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:27:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug25.211635.24353@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Why is not having an inheritance so terrible? 
> 
> Well, it's not like there _isn't_ an inheritance here: my folks have 2
> houses and now a condo, which they aren't exactly planning to give to
> the State when they die of old age. 
> 
> The issue is _losing_ what could be coming to you one day. 
> 
> Can you tell the difference between not having seen a million $ and
> then losing the clear and present promise of a million $ (well, 1/2
> mil in our case)? 

If I were your mother, I _certainly_ wouldn't trust you to make the coffee
in the morning.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: boutell@cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Re: been In Thearpy Long?????
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:27:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.103852.7379@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>PPPS: and since you asked: Yes my Dick Is Bigger....
>

ImproperAllegations OfSanityOr In SanityIs NotaProperBasis
ForADickSize War.

-T

Not drieux
But an inedible simulation

-- 
Tom Boutell, boutell@cshl.org

Clausthaler is the best non - alcoholic beer in the known universe.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clinton == !Choice
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:49:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Bryon S. Lape) writes:

>	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>"pro-choice."  

I see you've picked up Doogie's habit of purposefully twisting the
implied meaning of the phrase.  Original.

>Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
>kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.

I don't need right-wing religious dips to tell me anything.

I'll take government public schools (tho they could use
improvement), over taxpayer money going to bigotted, segregated piece
of shit schools like Bob Jones University.

And your callousness toward all those not able to afford decent health
care is quite revealing, Lape.                              

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:58:51 GMT

In <1992Aug31.144524.12413@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.200159.15919@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>>
>>If you'd like to learn more, I'd recommend John Kennedy Toole's novel, 
>>"A Confederacy of Dunces".

>Publisher please?  I haven't found this in my regular book store, so it
>will have to be a special order.  Which can't be done without the publisher,
>so they sez. . .

The publisher is Grove Press. Also, the book won a Pulitzer Prize, so
you can probably find it in most public libraries. 

>>Two of the characters (Ignatius J. Reilly 
>>and Myrna Minkoff) are role-models for Applied Philosophers everywhere.

Just a note: Some of the things that I've said about Applied 
Philosophy and Philosophy Licenses may have been...well, not
exactly false, but certainly misleading. I'd like to emphasize
that "A Confederacy of Dunces" is a real book, that it did
win a Pulitzer Prize, that it is one of the funniest books ever
written, and that it is well worth reading.

>John
>stevens@uswest.com
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:28:09 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: NYTimes article on Robertson letter


Mark Kaufman writes
>     I am continually amazed by the effortlessness with which those
>self-proclaimed Christians, such as Pat Robertson lie. 

   I don't mean to flame Mr. Kaufman, but after 2000 years of habitual
dishonesty and hatred by the advocates of christainity, it is amazing
that those not in faith should have to keep making this discovery.  It's
like discovering Pittsburgh in the 20th century.  Part of the confusion
may very well be liberal christainity.  "There are reasonable Quakers. 
Therefore, christainity is not clearly evil."  I would suggest to
secular people that Quakers are good and reasonable in spite of their
christainity (which is fairly minimal anyway).

   I would also suggest that the dishonesty of people like Pat Robertson
or Jerry Falwall is not their worst trait.  Dishonesty can almost be
amusing in some people.  (Perhaps this bboard would be improved if
people called each other amusing rather than liars.)  Their worst trait
is how they use hate to achieve power and money.

Michael Loomis

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Should abortionists be allowed to purposely kill viable fetu
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 15:09:41 GMT

Why stop there, Dan?  You can combine the best of Nyikos and
DOD's worlds by having the doctor use a BIG RUSTY NAIL to
perform the procedure.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Organization is a crutch for those who cannot handle chaos.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:42:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.151934.6784@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Aug19.205546.26173@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>We have different religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that.
>
>You might want to try to convert me to your religion. There is 
>nothing wrong with that, either. If you want to try, please post 
>some arguments showing why your religion's views on sex are superior
>to mine. 
>
>You also want to pass laws which force me to live according to
>the tenets of your religion. There IS something wrong with 
>that. For one thing, it's un-American. If you want to live in
>a theocracy, move to Iran.

Uhhh. . . How is it UnAmerican?  There are quite a few laws on the books
that were passed because of the Christian-Judeo religious beliefs.

Making prostitution, pornography and divorce illegal are just three
examples of sexual control laws that were entirely based on the
religious beliefs of the then-majority.  The last has long since
been removed, but to a greater or lesser degree, the first two are
still very much in force.

>I asked this is my last post, and I'll ask it again in this one: What,
>exactly, is wrong with abortion?
>
>You don't believe that the fetus has a right-to-life. If you did, you
>wouldn't allow exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

This does not logically follow.  It is possible to believe in the
right-to-life, and still allow for exceptions.  Consider the term
justifiable homicide.

>As far as I can tell, your only objection to abortion is that you
>don't like it. That's a good reason for YOU not to have an abortion.
>Can you think of a good reason for OTHER PEOPLE not to have abortions?

The belief that any abortion that doesn't meet the exceptional case is
murder.  You may ask, why should I have the right to keep you from
comiting murder?  Because I (and the majority, I hope) share a religious
belief in the right-to-life (with exceptions, of course).

We impose this religious belief on those who do not share it, by passing
laws punishing this action.

>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)

So who do you apply to for a license?  Or do you have a degree in
philosophy?

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:22:25 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  <1992Sep2.010215.21925@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> To waste the hard artillery on these idiots would be like using a
> steam engine to crack a nut.

Certainly wouldn't want you to crack a nut over this...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: wise words, sort of (was Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:51:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.173326.23838@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.135742.22730@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> -> Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, Dean.
>> 
>> especially when the same person does those wrongs, eh?
>
>Kevin's statement is based on such an obviously idiotic
>and self-serving reading of what I wrote (I did quote out
>of context, but I made it abundantly clear that my point
>was that it was easy to do so and also dishonest to do so
>and that I was opposed to such usages;
>Kevin's position was, bizarrely, that I was wrong to quote
>out of context) 

Ah, I see. On one side of your forked tongue, you're "opposed to such 
usages", but on the other, you feel completely at liberty to engage in
those same usages for their demonstrative value, as if Dean Kaflowitz
was some great ethical/spiritual leader whose only purpose is to instill
us all with the MorallyCorrectUprightValues (to emulate a Drieuxism),
and whose personal conduct is above reproach. Uh huh.

You remind me of the stereotypical leader of the Temperance League at the
height of Prohibition who glugs down several glasses of whiskey every day
"for medicinal purposes", Dean. "Do as I say, not as I do", in other words.

My only regret is that I mistook your plain old garden-variety hypocrisy
for a more exotic "two wrongs make a right" ethical fallacy. I'll try to be 
more insightful from now on.

> [blah, blah, no-one believes Darcy anyway, blah, blah]

You'd better hope so, Dean. That's about the only way the stench of your 
hypocrisy may be masked.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
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: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:49:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.000626.16177@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug20.023402.12479@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
>> In article <1992Aug20.010011.16783@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
>> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>> }                   The world IS what you make it.  
>> 
>> I know from rather bitter experience this statement is not correct, no
>> matter how badly you might wish it were true.  You can influence, you
>> can provide input, but you can never make the world what you wish it were.
>
>
>Well, if it is not prying, I would really like to know about this experience
>that leads you to this bitter conclusion.

Jesus Christ, Suxanne, I would think even you would know some of the answers
to this one:

This world is not exactly what I make of it because:

There are abortions.

There are unwanted children.

There are hungry people.

There is crime.

There is pollution.

Anything else, MissBitch?
--
=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 am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Oh, that?  I got it off of a toilet seat at work. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:24:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.204031.20902@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.211505.23998@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Aug31.145104.12528@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>The beliefs that would be legislated (and enforced on others) would be the
>>belief that abortion is not murder.  In other words, it would enforce a
>>belief about when a child becomes a human being.
>>
>>The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
>>who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.
>
>That is a highly rhetorical and simply incorrect response.

It isn't an incorrect response if you admit (and you don't) that abortion
affects men.  I've heard this before, always from people who seem to
think that a father is a second class parent.

>Men aren't forced to have abortions.

Yes, they are.  They cannot legally prevent it from occurring, so if they
don't want their baby aborted, but the mother does it anyway, the abortion
is forced on the man.

It is extremely short sighted (almost blind) to say that only the person
who is physically involved is affected by an abortion.  This is akin in
my mind to saying that only the woman is affected when her wedding ring
is stolen off of her finger.  Both the wife AND the husband are ripped
off.  The same with abortion.

>They are currently at the  mercy of their biological 
>situation. Men do not have the power to give birth to a child.

You slant this rather heavily by ignoring that fathers are the reason
mothers BECOME mothers.  Without fathers, there would be no pregnancy,
therefore no need for an abortion, or an abortion debate.

>The best you can hope for is to get used to the idea that you cannot have
>babies without the kindness of a woman.  I'm sorry.

The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
have babies without the kindness of a man.

>David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:42:13 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug30.010613.3907@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (Jame
>s G Keegan Jr):

>> can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
>> killed?

>Can you say --- Becky Bell?

Why yes, I can, and odds are, if she had been able to walk into one,
she'd still be walking today. Can we say "moronic, pig-headed, lead-sucking,
uncompassionate, bible-thumping bigoted fascist"? I thought so.

Oh, and no, these words aren't to start a fight with you, as I do have
a sense of honor and don't beat up helpless misguided waifs. They are
just to indicate what I've learned of your personality through what
you've posted. If you want that opinion to change, post something logical
or caring that will cause it to change.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion