HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doug and Me (formerly: PP executive says...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:30:38 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul26.221925.4416@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- passing the savings on to you) writes:
>[to DOD]
>I'm telling you right now that I'm not claiming what you say I'm claiming.
>Pleaase stop misrepresenting me.  (Or should I go back to including your
>"birth is an event" quote in my .sig, which I deleted only because you
>asked me to?)
>     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-

Aw, gee, I *loved* that quote!  Will you put it back if I ask you?  Please?
Pretty-please-with-sugar-and-whipped-cream-and-a-big-marashcino-cherry-on-top?

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The C word
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:27:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul14.021009.22839@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.UUCP (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
> [Re: compromise proposal]
>
>Until viability, a woman must be allowed to obtain an abortion for any reason
>whatsoever.
>
>After viability, a woman must be allowed to obtain an abortion for any reason
>whatsoever, but the life of the fetus must be preserved also.
                                       ^^^^ 

There's that word again, "must", signifying a moral position. Do you think it 
is morally WRONG to kill a viable fetus when there are alternatives available, 
Keith? Would you support legislation enforcing that? If not, would you at 
least refrain from _opposing_ such legislation, if it was voted in 
democratically? 

Last time I pursued this line of inquiry, I seem to recall you speaking out of 
both sides of your orifice for a while and then mysteriously disappearing from 
the thread...

								- Kevin
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Summary: one-handed
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:06:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul30.004703.9157@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
## In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
## 
## #If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
## #his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child 
## #sex, what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!
## 
## Suzanne, my SO asked me to tell you that he finds you disgusting,
#
#
#Too bad he doesn't find that all too frequent classroom scene itself disgusting.
#

Okay, Suzanne, before we go any further, please provide verifiable
documentation that the scene you described above has occurred.

If this is just another of your exaggerated descriptions of
safer sex education, tell me why my SO should be disgusted
by an attempt to save the lives of young people.


## and he said that he is willing to explain to you just what
## adult/child sex involves so that you will no longer feel a need
## to misrepresent this crime as an innocuous action.
#
#
#Say, I always knew your brain was operating backwards.
#
#Susan, I was representing an innocuous action, the classroom scene, as a crime.
#Innocuous, but disgusting all the same.
#
#

Your continual attempts to trivialize atrocities are disgusting.

Susan
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: THE REAL LOWDOWN ON "CLOT," "CLUMP OF CELLS," AND "FETUS"
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:40:01 GMT

>"...'I want you to meet my friend Baby Tia,' Schenck says, meaning
>to horrify them, to make them listen to words they don't want to
>hear.  'A beautiful little girl who was aborted.'
>...[scuffle over fetus deleted]
>     A county coroner, who later examines it, decides the fetus
>is a stillborn, at least 20 weeks old.  But Schenck and his
>twin brother Paul, who were raised Jewish and are now ministers 
>in an evangelical church in a Buffalo suburb, insist the fetus was
>aborted. ..."

>I would argue that the phrase "insist the fetus was aborted", when
>following the coroner's determination of a stillbirth, means
>that the the ministers were claiming that the fetus was the
>result of an induced abortion, if we restricted the source
>to just the "Life" article.  

>From "The Buffalo News" (4-25-92) - 
>     "Tia, the fetus.  The Re. Paul H. Schenck shocked reporters
>Monday, when he introduced the fetus at a news conference.
>     'This is Tia,' he said.  'She is less than 25 weeks in
>her development. ... [sic]  She is a primary victim of the abortion
>holocaust.'"

>It sounds as if you have a different definition of dishonesty for
>each side of the abortion debate, Nyikos.  Your easy acceptance
>of the Schencks' deception casts a rather poor light on the
>first part of your article.

I've heard that the Schenck's fetus was actually a victim of a type
of late term abortion called a prostoglandin abortion. This is occasionally
used for late term fetuses. It is injected into the woman, and the
hormone then artificially induces abortion, resulting in a stillbirth.
If that's the case, then there is no deception. 
.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:41:13 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: alt.be-like.kevin-darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> > you made another unsupported statement. i think, as i said,
-> > that your statement is unsupported because it's not true.
-> > and i think it's not true because you seem so intimidated by
-> > ms garvin
-> 
-> intimidated by ms. garvin => not true statement => unsupported statement

oh we can do it much more simply than that. all you need do is
support your claim.

i noticed that you deleted it from this reply. was that because
you're uncomfortable with it? if you've forgotten what it was,
i'll be happy to repost it for you. 

i'll bet you will not be supporting your claim.






-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:21:32 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

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> > The "customs" that Miller refers to are laws if one is
-> > Jewish.
-> 
-> Oh, so now you're telling everyone how Mr. Miller's posts
-> should be read?

you must really be intimidated by ms. garvin's posts to
misrepresent them so thoroughly.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Distribution: na
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:13:16 CDT

In article <1992Jul24.153727.6528@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.101440.23207@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
>tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>
>>In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>>> In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>>> of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. 
>
>> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
>> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
>> it was autonomous.  
>
>A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is not "autonomous",

Excuse me, Doug.  I Have nursed three infants, and these 
particular three precocious little darlings were able to
pull away from the breast at will, and, of their own volition,
decide to cry for awhile or take a nap instead of nursing.

Perhaps the ones you've nursed were different.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:47:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <BrpvEx.GK6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Jul15.190345.8500@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>><1992Jul15.000936.23520@cfctech.cfc.com>:
>>>>>><1992Jul14.183221.9819@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>:
>>>>>>><Br3DoJ.8Ew@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>:

>>>>"Can't afford a baby
>>>>now"--obviously has NO connection with the physical and economic
>>>>realities of being pregnant.  

>>>The cost of raising a child for 18+ years dwarfs the typical costs 
>>>associated with pregnancy and birth.

>>     I understand that. However, there are women who can afford neither,
>>not just the former.

>>>>"Not ready for responsibility" couldn't
>>>>POSSIBLY include the responsibility involved with pre-natal care,
>>>>nutrition, health etc. 

>>>Nutrition, pediatric care, clothing, schooling, psychological nurturing and 
>>>support etc. are responsibilities which require a broader and longer 
>>>commitment.

>>     I am not denying that. However, there are women who cannot cope
>>with either.

>Let's hope these women don't have parents in nursing homes.
>If insufficient finances and maturity are acceptable determining factors,
>it is reasonable to allow them to euthanize their parents.
>Regardless of whether or not their parents want to be killed.
>Note that this situation (the killing of patients who are not known to
>desire it) already obtains in Denmark and Holland.

     Look, why don't you just stop this silly analogy. It is insulting
and demeaning to insinuate that women who choose or have chosen to have
an abortion would just as readily euthanize their parents or children. I
know of no pro-choice woman who believes that involuntary euthanasia is a logical
consequence or extension of abortion. The analogy is pointless and
offensive (unless offensiveness is your point). Any further use of this
sort of analogy is a fruitless waste of bandwidth.

>>                                                               MP

>SK         

                                                                 MP
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29622 alt.birthright:176 alt.abortion.inequity:2770
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:19:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>>>If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>>>end of discussion :-)
>
>>This is unreasonable.
>
>yes, it is.  How about if you choose to have sex, be prepared
>to deal with the possibility of pregnancy.  If you know that
>you can't handle a pregnancy, avoid getting pregnant.  

What you have failed to support is why anyone else should be 
constrained to follow _your_ preferred course of action.  Like
it or not, getting an abortion can be a responsible way of
handling a pregnancy.

Example: Mother, married, three kids already.  Her doctor told her 
after her last pregancy that another would leave her permanently 
disabled, possibly dead.

What's the responsible thing to do?  Avoid having sex with her
husband?  Get an abortion if the contraception fails?  Or end 
up unable to care for her children by having a fourth baby?

No flame here, just questions.  Any answers?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28623 alt.politics.homosexuality:5150
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:43:22 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul23.012328.16153@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Jul22.211155.13409@amhux2.amherst.edu>, by twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce):

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

	That's because it works :-).

>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??

	Baloney. Viruses may be smaller than sperm cells, but they are
still a Hades of a lot bigger than water molecules.

	If condoms are successfully waterproof, they will also be
virus-proof, as well as sperm-proof.

/Loren
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:54:33 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

> In <22872@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense writes:
>> In talk.abortion, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> >In article <1992Jul22.211417.17188@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER
>> >, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> 
>> >  After, we are no longer discussing preventing something that happens pretty
>> >rarely (from the standpoint of the eggs and sperm) anyhow.  Once implanted,
                                                                --------------
>> >its a pretty safe bet that, barring unseen complications or outside interfe-
>> >rence, said sperm/egg combo will emerge in about 9 months as a baby.
>> 
>> You missed some of that freshman biology, I guess. 2/3 of those fertilized
>> eggs spontaneously abort. 

I guess you missed some too.  After implantation, isn't the statistic
that 80% of "fertilized eggs" will survive and come to term (ie mature
to the point of birth and becoming a baby)?

>> That's a 66.66667% failure rate, or more than
>> 1 out of 2 that will not become a baby. So babies are the exception,
>> not the rule. Now for the tough question, do you shed a tear for all
>> those that fail to come to term naturally? If not, why do you make such
>> a fuss over one that is ended artificially at the same point in the
>> cycle? If you want the actual numbers that produce that 2/3s figure,
>> I'll go look it up, or you can ask Len Howard, a medical doctor, for
>> the stats.

hmmmmmm...  Is he the only medical doctor that knows?  I thought mine did
too!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:51:37 GMT

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?

Believe what you want to believe, Lefty. Just don't think for a second that
your beliefs have anything to do with my thoughts.

>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...

Context -matters-, Lefty.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Organization: .
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:52:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.162222.2854@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>If he's at their meetings and he tries to cause trouble, that'll be
>the last time we ever see Chris Long. 
>
>I hope. 

What fine pro-life values you show here, Airplane Boy!

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:17:00 GMT

> = (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>> = (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>   Well, how are you supposed to "understand" that this superior being
>   is good, or merciful, or any of the other characteristics you claim
>   to understand about this being that you can't completely
>   understand?

>You must really be dim.  

So speaketh a man who goes on to list four analogies that have nothing to
do with supernatural beings; they all deal with PHYSICAL phenomena.

Your god is complete speculation and wishful thinking.

>I don't completely understand my computer,
>but I know how its instruction set works.  

Of course, there *are* people that DO fully understand your computer.

There are none such god worshippers.

>I don't completely understand the sun, but I know that it warms me
>when I stand under it.

There *are* scientists who fully understand the workings of stars including
our own.  Your claimed supernatural being has been interpreted every which
way by anyone with an agenda, and of course no one really knows.

>I don't completely understand my CD player, but I know how to play a
>CD on it, and even enjoy the music.  

(Your Pat Boone tunes?  Just kidding! :)

Plenty of people know EXACTLY how CD players work.  No one similarly
understands one of many supernatural beings that are purported by some to
exist.

>I don't completely understand my coffee mug, nor the capuccino in it,
>and yet I get a great deal of pleasure from drinking coffee.

This statement makes no sense.  Are you baffled my the mug's rim, or the
handle?

>Why do you have trouble with the concept that I don't completely
>understand God, and yet there are certain things that I do know about
>the divine?

No, there's certain things you've gleaned from the man-made bible or had
preached to you, but you don't *know* a damn thing about your alleged
"God".  It's called faith.

You only think you know something about YOUR divinity, a big difference
from "...I do know about the divine".

>  Benedictus qui venit
>        in
>      Nomine
>      Domini

   Savicus Ameri qua
		from
   Fantici Fundamentalistum

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: COERCED ABORTION [Can you help me polish this up?]
Keywords: felony, sexual battery, coerced, abortion
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:21:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.070322.19014@cc.uow.edu.au>, nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:

[long article deleted, equating coerced abortion with rape]

Fine.  So abortion should be made illegal since some women are coerced
into having abortions.

I take it you think that, since some women are raped, the solution to
this is to make all sex illegal, both consensual sex and rape?

-- 
/\        Ilana Stern DoD#009 | Whoever first said, "Things are seldom as they 
  \_][    ilana@ncar.ucar.edu | seem," was wrong.  Things are usually as they
      \_______________________| seem.  Otherwise, they wouldn't seem that way.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:17:35 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

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.  No mind reading required.

It's not as though you've done anything out of character, you see.  You've
simply plummeted to a new nadir that none of us, in our wildest imaginings,
could have possibly foreseen.

Of course, if I _could_ read your mind, I'm sure what I would find there
is an unending and tiresome litany of "Fuck 'em _all_!  See if _I_ care!
Fuck 'em _all_!"

I hope you never develop any degree of empathy, Darcy.  If you did, you
would surely do away with yourself.  The only worthwhile thing I can
possibly see about your continued presence on the net is that it probably
diverts you from torturing small animals.

> Believe what you want to believe, Lefty. Just don't think for a second that
> your beliefs have anything to do with my thoughts.

Presuming you have any worthy of note.

Who, in fact, gives a shit about your _thoughts_, Darcy?  It's your scummy
actions that I object to.  There is apparently no depth to which you will
not stoop, no sleazy trick of which you will not avail yourself in order to
satisfy your need to "win".

Guess what, Darcy?  That makes you a loser.  A big loser.

> >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".  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.

> Context -matters-, Lefty.

Do tell.  Explain to me then, what specific elements of this magical
"context" you happen to be privy to that I'm missing out on.  Please,
please, exculpate yourself, Kevin.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:45:17 GMT

In <l6ogprINN5th@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
   (Eric Marsh) writes: >
In article <1992Jul20.202431.13636@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dhanson@nyx.cs.du.edu 
   (David L. Hanson) writes: >>

>>Killing babies, born or unborn, is a sin against the God that made
>>everything and everyone.  Children are a heritage from the Lord to be
>>trained and nurtured to worship and glorify Him.

>I don't suppose that you can provide any emperical evidence for this
>mythological god of yours.

Mythology and empiricism are mutually exclusive concepts.  The answer 
is implicit in your assumption.  I wonder if you're open to any other 
possibility?

Bill