HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:12:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug20.062552.33853@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug20.021010.16000@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>> But I WOULD like to see the foetus recognised as a person,
>
>And I'd like to see myself recognized as emperor of the world.
>I mean, the fact that I'm not shouldn't make any difference, right?  :-) 

Hey, I think this Will guy is on to something here.  I mean look guys (and 
pay attention all you out there who have any income or assets you want to 
protect).  First you go out and get some in-vitro fertilization done.  Then 
you get SS numbers for each of the zygotes.  Then you set up
a series of Trusts (call them Petri Dish #1 Trust, Petri Dish #2 Trust,...)
and you divert all you income and assets through those trusts with the 
zygotes as beneficieries.  Make yourself trustee and pay yourself an
income from the trust, but your home and everything else is a business
expense.   You can even have the zygotes living in a state like Texas with 
no state income tax while you live in a cool state like California.  And 
since these zygotes would stay  frozen indefinitely, this setup could
go on for perpetuity.  Now I don't have all the details worked out here, 
but I think this could revolutioniize financial planning strategies.

Of course, it would mean constructing the laws carefully so that
the right to bodily autonomy was explicitly protected.  But I can see
a lot of possible benefits here.

Sarah McCabe
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Keywords: lies, Dennis, Chaney
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:23:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug21.003937.28175@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <Bsz6qn.1yo.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >In article <yd6mlza.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> >#<1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
> >##<1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
> >
> >
> >###Kinda like a barnacle.  Seriously, has someone *really* tried to get your
> >###net access removed?  Do you have proof of this accusation?  Isn't true
> >###that you think it was wonderful that Dan Bredy lost his net access?  And
> >###now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.
> >##
> >##Susan Garvin? 
> >#
> >#I see a name.  I don't see any *proof*.
> >
> >And you won't, since Dennis is lying again.
> >
> >I have never written Chaney's sysadmins.  I did report his forgery
> >to my sysadmins at CMU, as policy here requires.  
> 
> "As policy requires"? Why does this sound faintly reminiscent of "I was only
> following the Fuehrer's orders" (sorry, Nora)?

Damn but you're an idiot, Darcy.  Someone reports to their
administrators that a lame attempt at an article forgery was
made and you compare that person to a Nazi?  You really are
a first class asshole, Kebbie.  Yet again, where there is no
case, you just fly off into the stratosphere looking for a
chance to flame someone you don't like.  The pity of it all
is that this lame crap is the best you can manage.
> 
> Working as I do at a large corporation, I'm aware of hundreds, if not 
> thousands of policies affecting my day-to-day work. Ninety-nine percent or 
> more of those policies are routinely and flagrantly  I G N O R E D. Is CMU so 

So what?  That is absolutely irrelevant, as are you when it
comes to any rational or intelligent discussion, come to think
of it.

> different, I wonder? How would they police such a policy, inasmuch as it 
> refers only to _knowledge_ of a forgery. Orbital Mind Control Lasers?

Here we go.  The usual Kebbie "Let's try to make any discussion
a nit-picking little game so I can twiddle on my keyboard since
I have nothing useful to say about anything."

> I'm sorry, but the observance of this "policy requirement" sure seems to smell
> like a conveeeenient post-hoc rationalization to me...

Your posting is just another idiotic shot at Susan because
you don't like her, she has taken you apart in posting after
posting, and you're an asshole.

Grow up, Kebbie.  Be a man for a change.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Study of Numbers 5 in relation to abortion discussion
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<Bsxoq3.8pB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:15:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.002134.16131@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>"distend: To swell out or expand from or as if from internal pressure."
>[American Heritage, ISBN: 0395-32944-2]
>BTW, just a warning: The tactic of generating another dictionary
>entry with a different entry for "distend" won't work. You'll have
>to go back to the original text to make your case, because all
>you'll be able to show with another dictionary entry is that
>the text is ambiguous, which only serves to undermine your conclusion.

Fairly sophomoric chess moves there, you've been reading Machiavelli's
The Prince again, haven't you? However, and of course none the less, the
word distend is very poetic. The roots may provide some insite:
dis = apart	ex = out	tendere = to stretch
I leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out the meaning of
distend and extend, and no, I will not be providing references.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:24:27 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Aug16.155304.2078@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
|So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't respond, it's not
|because he's right and I don't have a defense; it's because I
|didn't see the attack in the first place.

Wise move, and one that will greatly help your peace of mind.
That debate would be just as stupid in reruns as it was the
first time.

Usenet is full of posters expert in the one-note samba, who'll
rant and rave on their topic long after anyone else is
interested.  Let them drone on all they want-- just refuse to
listen.  The man who invented the killfile deserves the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Long (but appropriate) sig follows...

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good communication 
skills, it is a trap for losers, because it deprives them of any natural 
way out of the pointless debate loops which they fall into so easily.  
As many of us have realized, the Usenet environment is intrinsicly dry 
and blind and it is up to its inhabitants to injecting deeper meanings 
and feelings into their words and arguments in order to accomplish 
anything worthwhile, be it art, debate, or pure transformation of
information.  But those who are deficient in verbal and mental skills 
can only exchange clublike blows with with each other ad nauseum."
-- Michael Rigler, in talk.bizarre
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:18:58 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <Bt7p75.Ayo@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.025727.27959@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>>	Thanx for the info on "Dennis Hall".
>>
>>	I wonder why Steven Chaney is called the "Propeller Boy" and
>>the "Dirigible Boy"? Is "Propeller Boy" an implication that he wears a
>>propeller beanie?
>
>Actually, when he first inflicted himself on this newsgroup (because us
>evil, mean, nasty pro-choicers *forced* him to -- just ask him :) he
>wouldn't even use his real name and went by "The Interceptor".  He
>accompanied that with the whole works of fantasies about being some
>invincible fighter pilot -- and true to form, he's been shooting himself
>down ever since...

More lies as usual, PatricKKK Harumphrey. 

I always put the name Steve Chaney at the end or beginning of my
articles, most if not all of the time. 

I look forward to the day that I can march "my black ass" (as you,
PatricKKK Harumphrey, put it) and list out to you the tons of lies you
keep spewing onto this net about me.  

Translation of your text: I shot down Siren, Dan Bredy (though I
missed the account.bombing-run, but give me the chance, if he "claims"
to represent Kodak again, I'll definitely inform his system admins
just as surely as Scott Roby nagged my system admins with his pranks -
but in my case, it'll be the truth), and a bunch of others who either
tried to flame or out-debate me, and you typed 'n' whenever you knew
I was posting, and typed "s" for "save" whenever someone made a
wisecrack at me...

NOW, we understand how you can come up with something as outrageous as
"Steve's been shooting himself down ever since..." 



===============================================================================
Another non-sexist shirt I saw today: 
	PMS: Putting up with Male Shit.  
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:55:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug20.173537.3550@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> The issue is killing.

This statement by Doug Holtsinger is, as usual, incorrect,
simplistic, and ignores the fact that the issue is not one
single issue, but a number of issues, and that if there is
any one issue, it is the relative values that people assign
to different things.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:12:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug20.121744.5285@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.194600.15777@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug
> > In article <1992Aug18.143553.466@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> > decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >
> > >dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> > >>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> > >>>john@anasazi.com writes:
> >
> > >>>> Hmmm... that's odd. I heard a PRO-CHOICE advocate state that 1% of
> > >>>> abortions in the US are in the 3rd trimester. These must be very
> > >>>> busy and rich doctors.
> >
> > >>> That's *less* than 1%.
> >
> > >> The annual number of abortions performed at 21 weeks and after tends
> > >> to number in the thousands.  Percentages always make the numbers look
> > >> smaller than people might realize.  That's because there are millions
> > >> of abortions performed every year.
> > >>
> > >> And it's not clear what Ms. Garvin defines as "third trimester". The
> > >> definition of third trimester varies; some put it at 28 weeks, others
> > >> at 24 weeks.
> >
> > > Then what is the relevance of your putting it at 21 weeks?
> >
> > I didn't place the third trimester at 21 weeks. The implication in
> > this thread is that the third trimester corresponds to the period
> > when the fetus is viable, which isn't always true.  Some pro-aborts
> > place the third trimester at either 24 or 28 weeks, but viability
> > can occur before then.
> >
> > > Could there be an attempt there to, dare I say it, muddy the waters?
> > > Misrepresent?
> >
> > By certain pro-aborts?  You bet.
>
> Rather by you, as a pro-lier.
>
> 21 weeks is not at all a standard definition of thrid trimester.
> Now you try to slip this "viability" issue in, just to keep
> yourself from looking like a liar, which at this juncture is
> probably impossible for you to do.  However, viability at less
> than five and a half months is very rare.  It is unusual for
> preemies born that early to survive, despite heroic efforts.
>
> Once again you are trying to deceive, Doug.  I can't for
> the life of me imagine what you hope to accomplish by giving
> yourself a reputation as a liar who will say anything and
> be caught in the act repeatedly.

Just to be fair, I should point out that (as the subject suggests) this
did start out discussing the Freedom of Choice Act, which mentions
viability, not third trimester.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:26:09 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  <1992Aug15.195905.7786@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <lefty-120892143620@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >
> >Arguments?  You say you have _arguments_?
>
> I'm known for them.

Not around here.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:33:21 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <1992Aug18.131040.6159@mcs.gvsu.edu>, orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
# I suppose if we withheld food and water from a newborn it
# wouldn't be murder either, hmmm.

Depends. I expect it could either be murder or criminal neglect --
depending on the circumstances.

What's yer point?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (The Right Rev. Philo 01 Drummond)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Rice University  
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 05:01:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.232518.14958@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 
>
>In article <Bsz7Cr.2K7.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>Suzie Q steps in her own shit by claiming that Mark Kaufman is still
>in my killfile when I said before that I took him out of the killfile.
 
Which, I suppose, completely invalidates every statement ever made
by any pro-choicer on Usenet, right?
 
(Susan's skepticism is very understandable, considering the number
of times you've claimed to have someone in your killfile, yet still
managed to find a way to respond to them...but hey, that's all in a
day's work for the Brainless Borg, isn't it?)
 
--PLH, still waiting for li'l Stevie Witless to actually DO something
other than foam at the mouth and drool all over his keyboard...
 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32731 alt.abortion.inequity:3188
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:30:58 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) suggests
a moderated t.a group, because he doesn't like getting flamed
for his quote-doctoring habits.  Doug then intelligently 
suggests as moderators two of the least coherent flame-meisters 
t.a can boast of:

	Suzanne Forgach & Steve Chaney

Doug is nuts.  He's lost all sense of reality.

Oooohhh, no, wait!  I know what Doug's problem is.  He
tried to come up with 6 reasonable pro-lifers to balance
against the 8 pro-choicers he chose, but he couldn't list
6 sane pro-lifers.  I must admit, once you write down the
names of Don Porter and Jimmy Miller, you're kinda stuck
for more.

It'll never fly, kiddo.  Moderating t.a is like trying to
moderate alt.flame, or talk.politics.misc.  The sludge and
anger you see here reflects the sludge and anger out in the
real political world.  If you can't take your lumps here,
you're going to be always crying back to mommy out in the
real world of clinic defenses and poll results.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice.
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:52:25 GMT


In article <1992Aug18.195404.14918@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug18.172452.10417@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug18.162323.30924@watson.ibm.com>
>> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>
>> > Of course it is.  You asked what I was talking about, and I told you.
>>
>> Try addressing the substance of my argument instead of resorting to
>> character assassination.
>
>"Assassination"?  Assuming you had any character to begin with, a better
>description would be "suicide".  You *earned* your reputation for
>deceit.
>
>And as for your bogus claim that we have "virtual abortion-on-demand
>throught the entire pregnancy", a simple way of disproving it is
>pointing out the fact that there are only 3 doctors in the US who
>perform third-trimester abortions, and they only do these for serious
>medical reasons.  So even though RvW gives states the *option* of
>deciding whether or not third-trimester restrictions are appropriate,
>what we have in reality is a nationwide ban on third trimester abortions
>for reasons other than severe threat to the woman's health.
>
>If you disagree with this *reality*, then please provide documentation
>showing that third-trimester abortions are taking place for trivial
>reasons.  Otherwise, admit that your scare tactics are just that.
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

I believe there was a case recently (last 5 months or so?) of a
woman who was accosted for going to an abortion clinic in the
midwest somewhere....the story was on CNN. But what caught my
notice was that she testified that she was in for a THIRD
TRIMESTER ABORTION!!!!! And that my friends is murder by
mutilation In My Opinion! Abortions must remain available ONLY
while the fetus is still just a fetus. When that thing
develops neurons...it is human IMO. With neurons whether you
consider it human or not it feels pain. I believe that
abortions should be strictly contained to the first 2-3
months. Anything beyond that and it is my opinion that the
doctor and the mother both conspire to kill another human
being; whether by concious design or by ignorance. 
And this should be stopped. But abortion itself, if
performed during the first trimester, is a harmless procedure
for the mother and cuases no pain to the fetus because it is a
fetus......simply that. Similar to a plant which is unfolding
within the shell. Once that plant pops up thru the shel and
dirt.....it is no longer just a seed but a real and viable
plant. IMO this analogy can be easily used in this debate.

Len
 DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my own and do not reflect any
held by my employer.


----- End Included Message -----

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:53:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>> platforms.
>
>Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

Joy.  I'm sooo happy for these exceptions.


--
This is not a .signature
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A little known fact...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.184425.29185@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The Western ethic against infanticide gained its roots from
>> early Judeo-Christian thought. 

> Substantiate this accusation or retract it.

  "The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is,
   like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part,
   a product of Christianity."

   Peter Singer, _Practical Ethics_, Cambridge University Press, 
   1979, p. 125


See also, Michael Tooley, _Abortion and Infanticide_, chapter 10.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: Chaney/Hall for President (was Re: Revised consistency check)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:12:48 GMT

Stephen A Chaney writes
> In article <darkstar.713555772@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu  
(Alden Hackmann) writes:
> 
> Quiet now, Alden Roby. 

Having a little trouble identifying who's who?  I guess he and I both know how  
to spell "harass", so we must be the same person...
> 
>=============================================================================
> 		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
> 	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
> 		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
>=============================================================================

Still no proof, Dirigible Boy.  I'm waiting. 


Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 18:18:31 GMT





              Dear Steve,

                 What's your point?


                           Love,

                           Mark

-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988