HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:25:09 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <lefty-300792095443@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.045137.3266@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <lefty-280792092833@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >In article <Bs3oIH.9rp@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified"
>> >Franklin) writes to Mr. Keegan:
>> >> 
>> >I didn't consider Susan's post to be either vague or unsubstantiated.  I
>> >didn't consider Darcy's reply to be a misinterpretation.  I believe that
>> >Darcy knew _exactly_ what he was saying.  I believe that he said out of no
>> >other motive than pure spite.
>> 
>> Mind-reading again?
>
>Spare me, Kevin, please spare me.  Anyone who has followed your checkered
>"career" can have no doubt as to what kind of vapid, uncaring, malicious,
>spiteful maggot you are.  

Only if they read the official, selectively-edited version of net.history
pumped out by TSAKC on occasion.

Or, of course, if they're predisposed to a negative opinion...

>> >You're not one whit better than he is, Franklin.  What's next for you two? 
>> >Planning to get onto talk.rape and tell people that they were asking for
>> >it, or that they should just lie back and enjoy it?
>> 
>> Hey, howzabout you hop over there and post something like "Yeah, I know all 
>> about rape". Then wait and see if people can read YOUR mind...
>
>As you love to say, "non sequitur".  

As usual, you try to just hand-wave the "inconvenient" facts away.

Susie said, essentially, "My S.O. knows all about child molestation". 
Somehow, I was supposed to read her mind and just "know" that she meant
"... from the point of view of a victim thereof".

Analogously, if you poked your sorry little excuse for a head into talk.rape
and said "I know all about rape", what do you think the gut-reaction would
be???

Are you going to run away from the question again, coward?

>Don't worry about me, Kevin.  I'm not
>the one who's guaranteed that no word he posts from now on will ever be
>taken seriously by anyone with two neurons to rub together.

Yeah, and you're the same person who, two years ago, predicted I wouldn't
last but a few weeks, right? The track record on your predictions isn't
anything to brag about, Lefty...

I AM pleasantly surprised that you haven't threatened to take me to court, 
though. Finally got that litigiousness under control, have you?

								- Kevin

						"See you in court, sucker!"
							Litigious Lefty
							<51630@apple.Apple.COM>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:23:28 GMT

From article <1992Jul22.211155.13409@amhux2.amherst.edu>, by twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce):
> In article <1992Jul21.175139.29433@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> 
>>Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
>>remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
>>See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.
> 
> Either monogamy or contraception will halt the spread of AIDS.

I find it pretty strange to see people advocating something designed for
something totally unrelated -- birth control --, as a method of desease
control!

Don'tcha get it?  Condoms were _never_designed_ to stop a virus millions of
times smaller than a sperm.    WhatEVER gives you the idea that it would??


> People aren't monogamous.  Welcome to the real world.

Many people aren't very smart either.
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CNN CENSORS PRO-LIFE AD
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:59:57 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

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

>In article fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>> Prostoglandin abortions, which is a technique that is sometimes used
>> today, will result in the abortion of a stillborn fetus. That is the
>> fetus Rev. Shenck was carrying.

> There is no way of proving your assertion.  A fetus aborted by
> prostaglandin is indistinguishable from one spontaneously
> aborted.  I doubt that we'll ever know what the truth is here.

I think it's more likely that the fetus was spontaneously aborted.
Most induced abortions result in the dismemberment of the fetus; there's 
no way the Reverend could have carried around blood and body parts. 


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Ice Cubes Applied To The Genitals..."
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:48:16 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> >wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> >>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: 
-> >>>Which means, that IMNSHO, you're an asshole.  You're an
-> >>>intelligent asshole, but still an asshole.
-> > 
-> >> Vilifier!  Hey Keegan, Keith is vilifying me!
-> >
-> >is he now? i'm not surprised that you'd include keith's
-> >comment under your "vilification" umbrella. adrienne really
-> >has you on the run, doesn't she? what credible t.a. poster
-> >ever said there was anything wrong with villification anyway?
-> 
-> Losing your sense of humor, Jim?

heavens no. are you?



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Scriptural Food for Thought
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:09:07 GMT

In article <adams.712426668@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

|> So, at least in this case, God DEMANDS miscarrieag (euphamism for abortion!)
|> of a child conceived in adultery, if charges are brought against the woman.

This should not be surprising to people knowledgable about the Bible.
Elsewhere in Numbers (I believe ch. 30 or 31, I don't have a Bible with
me) God directs Moses to order the infanticide (and genocide) of the
people the Israelites had just conquered.  They were to take all their
possessions and keep them, and also keep all the females that were
virgins.  All other females and males, including boy babies, were to be
slaughtered.  This was demanded by God.  It is really a shocking chapter
of the Bible and well worth reading.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: the Popeye Controversy (ooooooo!)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:22:50 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

      I noticed that no one has posted this yet, so maybe I was the only to
hear of it...
     See the guy who does the daily Popeye comic strips has been fired over
a cartoon he drew.  Olive Oyl (is that the right spelling?) has this Brutus
doll, and she obviously does not want a Brutus doll, and she is speaking
about "getting rid of it" with Popeye.  Some priests overhear the conversation
and think she has Bluto's *baby* and she wants an *abortion* (gasp!).
Anyway, the priests try to talk her out of it, and she tells them she can
do "whatever (she) wants."
     Anyway, the comic stripper was fired since he alluded to portraying
Olive Oyl as a pro-choicer.  Reminds me of the designer for Pepsi that
was fired a few years ago for making Pepsi cans with neon designs which,
when stacked on top of another can in the right way, would plainly spell
"SEX" in big letters.

     Who needs laws to control other people's lives?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 )
Subject: Steve Chaney posts .sig flame!
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:53:23 GMT



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  \______                          |     |       
     |   \                        /     / 
     |              |    __       \    \   
     |    /\   __   |/  /         /    /    
     \___/\_)_(__\__|\_/\__    ___\ ___\   
============
|T.S.A.K.C.| The Stupid Ass Kneejerks Coalition  
============

Members: 
-------- 

Scotty Dog Safier
The Rockbiter (Cathi Ann Cook) 
Drieux, just Drieux (thank goodness there's just one)  
Astro Boy Dan King  
Patrick L. Humphrey the Humpback Whale 
Keith Cochran 
Suzie Q Garvin 


			And the commune is still growing!  

Remember: to join, all you have to do is be an ex-boyfriend or 
girlfriend of one of those folks above! Simple as hell, huh? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:47:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes ...
>As for your restatement, the God of the Universe (even if you call 
>Him an imaginary being) is not an insignificant being.  Ladders, cats,
>and mirrors are in a different catagory.

You're not understanding.  Some people consider ladders, cats, and
mirrors to be in exactly the same category as gods.  They consider them 
all to be superstitions unsupported by reality.  You believe in God.  
Fine.  Some people believe that walking under a ladder is bad luck;
or that Elvis is still alive.

So then.  What's the difference?  And to cut off a possible line of
reply, I'll add that comments along the lines of "God actually exists",
are mere assertions, and are as useful and convincing as comments 
along the lines of "God is a superstition".  And comments along the
lines of "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is correct
because God says so" is circular reasoning, which can be used to prove
anything.

>>Do you have any evidence for these assertions of divinity outside of those
>>recorded in that work of historical fiction that you call "the Bible"?
>>If so, present the evidence or withdraw the claims of divinity.
>
>I see that your label of 'historical fiction' is sufficent to disprove the
>Bible - where is your proof? Have you got some other set of written work 
>or works that are better prepared to prove your statements?  Are they 
>written by eye-witnesses of the events?

How do you know the Bible is correct?  How do you know that it was written
by eye-witnesses?  Any corraboration from other sources?  Merely that it
isn't disproved is hardly any confirmation.  Rather like me saying you
cheat on your income taxes.

>>According to Tommy Kelley, everything is a religious belief, and there are
>>boneheads out there who even claim atheism is a religious belief, so I suppose
>>she does.
>
>I would tend to agree with Tommy.

I disagree.  You do not see your faith as a religious belief, but as 
indisputable fact.  There _is_ a difference.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:28:16 CDT

In article <1992Jul23.175956.18589@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.163309.13095@eco.twg.com> 
>chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>
>> Holtsinger's still plugging away on the "Abortion & Infanticide"
>> thread, still insisting that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK
>> to kill viable fetuses, and still ignoring the attempts of pro-choicers
>> to tell him what they REALLY believe. 
>
>I never said that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK to
>kill viable fetuses. That is your strawman argument. 
>
>If a pro-choicer is to avoid embracing infanticide, they 

Poor Doug.  Being opposed to legal restrictions on
a given act does not imply 'embracing' _that_ particular
act, let alone some other act you think is analogous.

>must offer a rational justification for killing a late-term
>fetus that would not also justify infanticide in similar 
>circumstances. Blatant assertions like "because it's inside
>the mother" have no rational justification.
>
Look, everybody!  "It's inside the mother" is a blatant
assertion!

>> The only thing that's changed
>> is that I've gotten fed up and left, 
>
>I think you got "fed up" because you haven't understood my
>argument. 
>
Perhaps you can demonstrate that you've understood his?

>> and Susan Garvin has stepped
>> in to take my place. [Thanks, Susan!]
>
>Ms. Garvin has simply asserted that it's "sometimes necessary"
>to kill a late-term fetus to remove it from its mother, but

And you agreed with that statement, Doug.  I saw it with
my own eyes!

>she hasn't defined "necessary". Her "necessary" might include

She doesn't have to define it Doug.  your agreement is now a
matter of public record.

>"necessary to avoid labor pains", or "necessary because it's 

Clue time.  In the third trimester, methods of removing
a fetus which result in fetal death are unlikely to result
in a net reduction in maternal pain.  A woman can be anesthetized
for a C-section or a hysterotomy, but the pain during recovery
is far worse.

>less expensive than labor", or "necessary because the woman 
>wants her down's syndrome child killed". Under similar 
>circumstances, these reasons would also justify infanticide. 
>
Do you think there are circumstances that are similar to
labor, that involve born children?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.175847.11369@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.165454.9517@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >
> >But women who choose to have abortions are dealing responsibly
> >with the result of their actions.  They examine the options and
> >make a responsible decision based upon their uderstanding of
> >the facts and circumstances.
> >
> 
> Often women who, in desperation, seek back alley abortions do so
> because there are no other options for them. A poor woman in a crisis
> pregnancy (where abortion is illegal), has three choices : [1] have an
> abortion, [2] carry the child and try to raise it in poverty [3] or
> give it up for adoption.
> 
> I do not believe a woman ought to have to deal with such bleak
> choices. Giving a child up for adoption is no easier than the decision
> to terminate a pregnancy, yet our society does little to make it
> easier for women to keep their children and raise them without
> suffering poverty. 

Giving a child up for adoption still entails remaining pregnant,
and some women decide, responsibly, that they do not want to
be pregnant at all.  Your posting, while interesting, does not
address the issue.

I am entirely confused by the reference to "back alley abortions."
I see that you are posting from Georgia, so I assume you are
referring to circumstances in the United States.  If not, then
I am in error, but currently there is no need to seek a "back
alley abortion" since abortion is a legal option in the
United States and can be obtained for a fee that is not
exceptional.

I agree that women should not have to deal with bleak choices.

I do not see how the choices outlined are, of necessity, bleak.
Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28694 alt.birthright:106
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:52:08 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
-> > garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> > -> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
-> > -> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have
-> > -> an abortion
-> > 
-> > wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
-> 
-> Could it be that Quayle, as a father, merely said he would
-> never turn his back on his own daughter?  Hmmmm?  

no. it couldn't. don't you have national news in arizona?

-> Hell, I could say the same thing.

and would, no doubt.

-> I'd like to hear Garvin expand on the context, or I'm afraid
-> I'll have to go on believing she's misquoted him as badly as
-> Doug's misquoted Clinton.

nope. she didn't misquote him. quayle is already backpedaling
though. and marilyn would force the girl to carry to term,
although i have my suspicions about where that remark really came
from.

interesting that quayle would now allow his daughter soem choice
but restrict that same choice for other women. kinda like the way
the catholic church redefines abortion when it's handy for them
to do so, isn't it?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28442 alt.abortion.inequity:2658
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Questionable Nature of Dr. Len Howard as a Source
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:59:56 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul22.211723.18001@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
[proof that Len Howard is a criminal in Missouri deleted]

#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#] 
#] The following quote is from Dr. Len Howard, posted here recently.
#] 
#] "According to the 17th edition of Williams Obstetrics, one of the three
#] positive signs of pregnancy is identification of the fetal heart
#] action separately and distinctly from that of the woman.  The three
#] methods of identification of fetal heart rate are auscultation with a
#] fetoscope, by use of the dopler principle with ultrasound, and by the
#] use of sonography.  The heart beat of the fetus can be detected by
#] auscultation with a stethoscope by 17 weeks gestation, on average, and
#] by 19 weeks in almost all pregnancies.  Fetal cardiac action can be
#] detected with appropriate doppler equipment almost always by the 10th
#] to 12th week of gestation.  Echocardiography can be used to detect
#] fetal heart action as early as 48 days after the first day of the last
#] menstrual period.  Real time sonography can be used to detect fetal
#] heart action and fetal movement after the second month of pregnancy." 
#] 
#] Susan
#
#In Light of the Above, Ms. Garvin, do you still wish to use
#the above Data, KNOWING that it has been hideously and 
#Heinously Tainted By A KNOWN GenocidalMassMurderer and
#AntiStateTerrorist!!!!

I thought that made him a better source.

#Are You willing to be Held Liable for AntiStateAgitation by
#supporting this Clearly Discredited Source!!!!!
#
#You HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!!

Before I can answer any more questions I need to know whether
or not you accepted the papal nomination.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:07:59 GMT

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
<1992Jul28.011150.14456@csus.edu>(Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>> The parents, once again, don't have to strike a single blow: the blow
>>> they strike is with the pen, signing her into an unwanted children's
>>> home.

<1992Jul28.145831.657@pwcs.stpaul.gov>(Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> You know, it occurs to me that consigning a teenager to a foster home is
>> a little more complicated than just signing a form.  Any juvenile law 
>> experts want to clarify things here? 

> I can't say one way or the other, but let's assume you're right
> and parents of teenagers have more than trivial hoops to
> jump through in order to rid themselves of their parental obligations.
> Do you have any opinion about such an anti-choice government
> policy that forces parents to conform to a state-imposed moral
> view of their duties to their children?

I talked to some friends who have served as foster parents in the past.  They
told me that their county has a mediation process to head off having to send
a child to a foster home.  If there are significant problems; i.e., substance
abuse or behavioral problems on the part of either the parents or the child,
the child is removed to a foster home.  If it's simply a matter of disagreement,
the family is referred to counseling.  The goal of the program is to keep the
family together and only splitting them up as a last resort.  This sounds like
a good way to do it although I'm sure it's not without its flaws.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- passing the savings on to you)
Subject: Oldie Alert (formerly: NEWBIE ALERT!)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:15:11 GMT

What: <1992Jul25.173011.23760@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Who:  conradv@eng.clemson.edu

>> = Bruce Cameron

>>	   again, if we are to look at this issue purely in a scientific
>>	   manner, there can be no difference between the termination
>>	   of a human life or the termination of a bovine life.
>
>From a scientific viewpoint, each species looks after its own members.
>You cant catch a cow advocating porcine rights.

You generally don't catch a cow "advocating" bovine rights either.
This hardly sounds like a scientific viewpoint.

>" All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing"
>						            Edmund Burke

That's why I'm an escort.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: chaney/hall backpedal (Re: And Fischer's Down! (was Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?))
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:59:38 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

chaney/hall posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> Planned Parenthood DID run an advertisement with the statement
-> that Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion.

i think this is just another chaney/hall lie.

of course, if it is not a lie, that will be easy for chaney/hall
to prove.

but i'll bet he doesn't.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test