HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:15:27 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr10.224333.2502@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr10.152706.408@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) w
>
> >What is it with the name "Kevin"?  I haven't seen a
> >sensible, coherent poster with that name in years.
>
> Your tactics are embarassing to your movement.

I'm not embarrassed.  Anybody else embarrassed?

> When I started to post here, the
> first thing you guys wrote was "what is with the name "steve"? "

A reference to Steve Chaney and Steve Kellmeyer, a couple of other idiots.
Just like Kevin Brawley joins Kevin Welch.

> Suppression of ideas and intimidation of individuals should be a crime.

Should you happen to come up with a thought, be sure and let us know.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:52:36 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>I have had a lot of time to form my rational and balanced opinion.

Evidently, it wasn't nearly long enough.

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The Ego that Ate the Net
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 04:34:13 GMT

In article <92104.132217ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.170548.11840@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>
>>In article <92100.114119ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>
>>>>>Idiot.  The net is not here to serve you, and you alone.
>>>>
>>>>Where did I imply that the Net existed to serve me ALONE??
>>>
>>>"What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve
>>> TO ME?" Kevin Darcy <1992Mar29.182951.28031@rotag.mi.org>
>>> ^^^^^^
>>
>>"To me" is clearly a subset of "to everyone", Linda.
>
>Really?  Name all the individuals, in fact name one besides
>yourself, in this subset of "everyone" Kevin.

Just *WHAT* set are you trying to enumerate here, Linda? If it's the set
of "people who are served by Usenet", then I don't have a hope of coming
up with a -complete- list EVER, since the list changes faster than I can
hope to track the changes. But, I can certainly name one other individual 
besides myself who is a member of the set - Linda Birmingham. Happy now?

(Or, are you referring to some OTHER set, perchance?)

								- Kevin
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:56:54 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <16802@plains.NoDak.edu> 
        compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:

> Likewise, a pregnant woman cannot be forced by the human being inside her
> into a state of slavery.  She may chose to enter into this slavery
> willingly, but she is not forced to do so.  Thus, we can see how a
> pro-choice stand can still be valid EVEN IF THE FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING.

No, the pro-choice stand is not valid even if the fetus is a human being. 
Killing a human life, and refusing to support that life, are two totally
different moral concepts. You cannot deny that an abortion kills the 
fetus as a matter of convenience, the mother does not simply refuse
to support the fetus. Oh sure, the outcome is the same, but killing a 
dying person also gives the same results. 

If medical science advanced to the point where the fetus could be 
transferred from one person to another without being killed, then 
your entire argument would fall apart. Are you prepared for that 
possibility?  

> Somewhere in between, then, it must become a
> human being (I favor myelination as a turning point).  However, considering
> the above arguments, I feel a pro-choice view is valid regardless of the
> fetus's status.

If you grant the fetus any rights at all during pregnancy, then by
your own argument, that is tantamount to slavery.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:49:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr15.225741.25161@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a 
>>woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like 
>>yourself are fighting against it.

>The problem is your nearsighted inability to see the REAL issue.  If the
>fetus is human, it's murder.  If the fetus isn't human, then it doesn't 
>matter at all.  It's the ONLY issue.

At this point your statement constitutes what we call truth by blatant
assertion. However I will give you the opportunity to back up your
statement with facts. Why don't you start out by looking up the definition
of the word murder. Then give a little thought to the implications of
all the possible meanings of the word "human". If you are able to
provide a proof of your statement within this framework (a hint: you
won't be able to) then why don't you consider whether the woman
should be factored into this equations.

Silly twit.

>Kevin 
>Brawley

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: pro-whatever
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:15:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.152547.694@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> 
> Most of you people would claim to have an open mind, and then be so
> quick to point the finger at others.
> 
> Well....take at look at yourself today.
> Every single one of us is a hypocrite.

By all means, please prove me a hypocrite.  I wish I were
18 and knew everything about everyone.

> Watch more Zoo TV.

Stop spending so much time watching television and get out
in the world and interact with real people.  Television
is a false construct that generally mirrors little and
teaches less.  The best teacher is experience and experience
of people is the best of the best.  If you really want to
know something about abortion, volunteer to work in a women's
health clinic, if they have a place for you, or work as a
clinic escort.  Speak to the people you meet.  Don't
pre-judge them, but learn from them, learn to understand
them, learn some compassion.

And turn the television off.  You learn only what other's think
you should learn from that.  When you experience life and
people, you experience the uncontrolled learning environment
that can help you to grow as a human being, because the unexpected
and that which forces one to shed one's expectations make you
use your mind.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:04:34 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr4.034309.3983@galois.mit.edu> boyiny@math.mit.edu (Siren) said:
...

>[Also wrong are, for example, the practice of tarring all Christians with
>the same brush.]

Oh, I always try to use a fresh brush.  It makes for a more even coating
and you don't have to go back as often to touch up.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:21:18 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr8.184637.2419@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <8APR92.16582442@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>(Naive oversimplifications deleted)



>And if any of those other groups ever started saying they had the
>>right to kill other people, you can bet your sweet ass that we would try to
>>stop them. 

>     Really. Do you try to stop the Pentagon, the CIA, state law
>enforcement officials, Schwartzkopf,(sp?) Powell, etc.? Thought not. Our
> sweet pro-choice asses remain firmly attached.

   "Thought not"? Yes we do - we will not do it physically or through violence.
IS that ALL you think about my friend? Well, you're wrong.  People
like myself go into politics. We get elected by the people FOR the people.
We get into positions of media. We get into public positions. We
are amiable intelligent people that appeal to people's conscience. This 
newsgroup is a game. We will never win on here because of the narrow audience
it caters to... But out in the REAL world, while you're busy writing your
posts, I CARE for the victims you talk about. I spend time supporting, 
learning, educating and being educated. Just give us a little time to 
catch up. It's hard fighting against glamour and superficiality, but we'll
win. We've got God on our side 8)
   
>                    MP              (Too sexy for Pro-life)
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                   Jee, what a loss...
steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 12:55:38 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.
 <p8rt_j=@rpi.edu> <1992Apr4.193857.22743@rotag.mi.org>

In article <1992Apr4.193857.22743@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>
>In article <p8rt_j=@rpi.edu> James G. Keegan Jr. writes:
>>>>kwelch@eniac (Kevin C. Welch) writes:

kw> Well, since we all go by the law around here
>>>>
kg>wait a minute sonny!

kw>        "I harass pregnant women who kill their children."
>>>>              <67853@netnews.upenn.edu>
>>>>
kg>and this?
>>>>
kg>     >did you get to intimidate any women on spring break?
kw>     "No, just harass"
>>>>     <69866@netnews.upenn.edu>

>Please cite chapter and verse as to how and why Welch's harrassing acts might
>be construed as being in any way "illegal", or withdraw the whole line of
>questioning.

Well isn't this interesting.

Please cite where Kevin Welch admitted to doing anything
other than "harassing pregnant women", behaviour you seem
to think shouldn't be construed as illegal and that Welch
validates because it is in pursuit of saving a fetus.

Then cite where Kevin Welch admitted to sending Ms. Garvin
harassing and intimidating mail, prior to Ms. Garvin posting
his email.  I see above, in text you Mr. Darcy quote,
Mr. Welch dening he intimidated women.  Where did he ever
confess to doing anything other than "harass" with a smiley
no less.

Or are you so concerned with pursuing your vendetta
against Keegan that you will defend and obscure the
hypocrisy of Kevin Welch?



Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"All that has been written about women by men should be suspect
 for men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit"
 Francois Poulain de la Barre, 1673
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:17:11 GMT

In article <+44tn#a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:
>
>What is the value of a man?
>
>What is he worth to his children?  Because, after all, the ultimate
>biological purpose of males is that of starting and supporting families.

Bzzzzzzzz...nice try. The ultimate biological purpose of a male human is
                      to provide genetic diversity for the offspring through
                      providing sperm to fertilize the egg. It is NOT 
                      "startign and supporting families". I know LOTS and 
                      LOTS of families without males in them.

:-)
anne
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SNOOPER IN THE NET
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:46:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Pat
>Kevin W.

>>No, Patrick.  I am the one who apologized to Susan *for* myself.

>No, Kevin...you did that well *after* you sent your little whine to Conrad
>so HE could mail it to Susan.  (Why are you responding to something I
>aimed at him, anyway?  Thanks for doind your part to prove my point...)

What is it with you, Pat?  I was asked not to mail Susan so I apologized
the only way I could.  Then when I got mail that I thought was from Susan,
I apologized directly to her then.

I did not whine to Conrad.  I simply asked him to do something for me.
I'm not defending his thread here; I'm refuting your statement.

Why do continually insist on being an ass?  I've brought myself out into
the open and apologized.  Now you keep kicking me while I'm down.

Nice philosophy.


>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
>    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
>             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
						^^^^^^^^^^^^^
evident



--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: do unborn have rights????
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:28:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Mark

>   Can anything be called a 'right' if it violates someone else's
>rights?

No it can't.  That's why the right to abortion insofar as the Right
of Privacy goes, is nonexistent.

>Do you have the right to impose your definition of a fetus
>growing inside a woman, if your definition violates some woman's
>rights?

Huh?  Does you is making liitle sense none me not understanding here.

Come on, form coherent sentences...or at least logical ones.  What
exactly is the definition of a "fetus growing inside a woman" and
how is that relevant to rights?  I think medical definitions on the
growing of fetuses are pretty irrefutable.  

What's this definition got to do with rights?

>Besides, do you call an acorn an 'ungrown oak'?

Not before, but you are right.

>Do you call
>a steel ingot an 'unmanufactured Buick'?

No, it may be an unmanufactured Nissan (sorry cars).  An ignot is not
of the Buick species.  A human fetus is of the human species.  A human
fetus WILL be a person.  An ignot, not so.

Dumb analogy there, Mark.

>Have you adopted an HIV-
>positive infant?  Have you adopted a crack-addicted infant?  Have you
>adoptede an infant with Down Syndrome?  Have you done ANYTHING besides
>oppose abortion to establish 'personhood' for the fetus(such as calling
>for tax deductions for the fetus, habeas corpus for the fetus growing
>inside a woman who is in prison, citizenship for any child of a woman
>who conceived the child on American soil, etc.)?  If the answer to these
>questions is 'no'(which it probably is!) then shut your stupid mouth
>and humiliate your family somewhere else!

Hey, like you say, below, it's my birthright.  I am an American.  I can
say anything I want.  ANd I will continue to speak out against abortion,
long after Roe is aborted.

>And if you don't like being
>called the bonehead that you are, that is too fucking bad!  I can call
>you any damn thing I want.  I am an American.  It is my BIRTHRIGHT!

Ah, the language problems you have.  You just stated that we couldn't 
talk around you, now you're saying that you can talk around us?  Hypocrite.


And it's your BIRTHRIGHT???  Better call Amnesty International and tell them
to change their "Human Rights" clauses and slogans to "Birthright rights".


by bye, Marky.

welch


--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM!  (Was:  What pro-lifers don't tell you)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 18:45:46 GMT

<1992Apr3.012204.6777@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) said:
><1992Apr2.224755.14728@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:
>>
>>>A: The Pro-life movement is not a pro-life at all, it is some
>>>cute name for PR. The real idea is the the pro-lifers are nazi's
>
>[Deleted:  Steven shows how he never learns, and expects up to believe 40+
>lines of "verbatim" articles.  Then...]
>
>>This feeling is quite similar to those posited by "pro-choice" men,
>>who, coincidentally, support weakening the child support law in 
>>order to create situations in which the man is under no legal
>>obligation to provide any support whatsoever.  
>>Male posters on this net who support both positions include:
>>Gordon Storga, Larry Margolis, Eric Rescorla, and Kevin Darcy.
>
>[192 more lines of pure crap deleted.  Maybe he was hoping Gordon, Larry, Eric
>and Kevin wouldn't see this????]

Actually I didn't see it because it was wedged in the middle of a post.
Only after seeing your post did I go back and examine the article.
Thanks.

Dear Steve,  I thought we had this settled.  You had denied ever seeing my
posts where I told you I didn't support weakening of the child-support
laws.  I clarified it here for you just a few weeks ago, yet here you are
again making the same stupid claim.  What's the problem?  Short term
memory loss?  Unable to retain things longer than a few weeks?  Just
*what* is your problem?

Note: I do think there are situations where the man should be under no
legal obligation to pay child-support.  Actually, the present law already
recognizes situations like this.  I personally think the CS laws need to
be rewritten for fairness to all parties.  That is not "weakening".

Really Steve, for claiming such high moral standards you seem to have no
compunction against lying.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov gone?  Oh no!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:49:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.031216.3069@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch):
>>
>> R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
>
>I am really sad to hear this.  I grew up on his books :-(
>                                                       `
>                                                        `
>They were great science fiction without the sleeze factor!
>
>Well, I guess he's not an atheist anymore.
No, but neither is he a theist. He simply is not.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@saturn.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Why do men support abortion?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:44:13 GMT

<1992Apr15.233556.11377@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>Why are there so few women supporting legal abortion?
     ^^^
Don't you mean "were"?

>The nation's largest pro-choice organization, NARAL, had 121,000
>female members in 1986.  NOW had 250,000 members.
                   ^^^^
>The National Right to Life Committee had 7.5 million women.

That was six years ago.  Before Webster.  I'd lay big bucks the numbers
are dramatically different today.

>According to the 1990 ABC Genetics Poll, however, men showed significantly
>more support for abortion than did women.                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm curious what "significant" means here.  Greater than the sample
error?  25% more support?  50%? 100%?

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming!  The Pope is coming!
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:08:43 GMT

franklin at ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
-
|    Sheeez Pat, WHy would Sue go through all of that when I've already
| done it.
-
The hubris of the newbie ... *we've* already done it, nigh on a year ago;
Forgach tried to speak ex cathedra at us, and got her theology really
hopelessly tangled.
-
| I've tried to share all of the facets of my religion with you
| people.
-
My religion too, Steve.  Did you include the 'facet' of faithful Catholics
who want to keep abortion legal ... like myself?
-
... watch out ... here it comes again ...]
-
Suzanne Lucia.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 08:51:58 GMT

<1992Apr13.210853.12547@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com said:
><1992Apr9.204909.3490@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
...

>> Be proud of it.  Just don't come in here and tell us what sex is all about
>> when you've never experienced it first hand.
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
>Perhaps you should phrase that a little differently, in order to avoid
>tempting those of us who are weak in spirit:
>  when you've never experienced it in person.
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^

Heck, I've been fed so many straight lines here I thought I'd give someone
an easy shot.  I still don't think he's experienced sex first hand.  I'll
leave all the implications up to you. ;-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.