HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand"
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:05:55 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin. 
>In case you forgot, here it is again:

Doug, you must be on belladonnas (IQ erasers).  Not only do you have
trouble posting honestly, you have trouble reading, and it's getting
worse. 

Ms. Garvin has already stated that she's through with this thread.

_I_ hope you continue, because we haven't had a fun DJR-like human bullseye to
play with in a while.

You're it.

>Substantiate this accusation or retract it.

Let me, please, translate Garvin's *exact* wording into Steve-speak:

  What Susan Said                        What Susan Meant in Steve-speak
  ---------------                        -------------------------------

I'm through with this thread, DOD.       Fuck off.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Did Arnold wimp out?
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:41:22 CDT

In article <BtAGAt.Aq2@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>Funny, I've posted and then re-posted my questions for Steve
>Arnold regarding his views. 
>
>I have scanned the entire group for replies to me, and found
>nothing.  I scanned the entire group for postings from Steve,
>and found nothing addressed to me.  I found nothing from him
>at all this week.
>
>I guess he just couldn't take the heat of intellectual inquiry.
>Stating conclusions is one thing, reasoning through to them and
>justifying axioms is another (and apparently too difficult).
>
>A pity.

This has been a repeating pattern for Steve, though.
He'll probably come back in a couple of months with
a slightly different angle in defense of his anti-choice
stance, and leave again whenever the responses force
him to reach beyond the scope of his canned rebuttals.

And I never _did_ find out who gets to be the car.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:06:53 GMT

From article <1992Aug20.230347.12911@midway.uchicago.edu>, by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
>>> vastly by female workers), according to several sources, included
>>> pro-choice people.                                       ^^^^^^^^
>    ^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Since she's gotten directly involved in pro-life rallies and such,
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> since then, I'm not sure if there are any left in TNN anymore. 
> 
>>Let me make it clear, Steve.  Mary Cunningham is pro-life.  She contributes
> 
> He seems to understand that she's pro-life, Suzanne.  He said that her
> organization "included pro-choice people".

In fact, Elizabeth, they are pro-life, providing choices to women.
_Not_even_one_ of them thinks abortion is a valid choice.   I've heard
this woman interviewed on the radio, within the last month in fact, and
know whereof I speak.  Their modus operandi is to SHAME pro-"choice" campuses,
corporations, and organizations into actually PROVIDING CHOICE!

TNN uses the term pro-"choice" to the pro-life advantage.


> You said that there were no pro-choice people in any abortion
> alternative organization anywhere.  Steve provided you with a
> counter-example, and it only takes one counter-example to prove a
> universal statement (which yours was) false.

TNN workers are truly Pro-Choice.  I do not consider EVEN ONE pro-"choicer"
in this newsgroup pro-choice in the least, when all they advocate is the one
choice, abortion.  It's like, do you like castor oil, or castor oil?

What has happened Elizabeth, is that The Nurturing Network has reinstated
the true meaning of the word Pro-Choice.


Suzanne Forgach
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:12:24 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

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
-> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> }  But only if we choose to give up some of our
-> }freedoms in the fighting.  A spectacular irony,
-> }isn't it?  We cannot be free unless we first
-> }surrender some of our freedom.
-> 
-> It is ironic only if we accept your postulate that
-> freedom must fought for by giving up freedom.  I,
-> for one, do not believe that is the case.  

i don't believe it either, galen. mr. miller, who
regularly asks people for proof of their assertions,
will no doubt be offering some of his own to support
his assertion.

-> It is ironic that a great many people accept that,
-> however.

it certainly is.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: 21 Aug 1992 19:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Originator: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


In article <1992Aug21.172246.17571@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <14252@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> 
|> pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
|> 
|> > [.. re: Republican platform on abortion ..]
|> >
|> > I am not posting to inflame (plenty of that goes on in this newsgroup 
|> > without me :-), I'm trying to make sure of the exact position of the 
|> > Republican party.
|> 
|> I believe you are posting to inflame.  You answered your own question
|> a few days ago, and now you're asking it again.  

Nope, I asked the question in one posting--got only one answer, saying 
that it was true. I just couldn't believe it, so I posted again, asking 
for clarification. No answer at all. The third try, I put on an inflammatory 
subject heading, since it appears that's the only way to get an answer 
around here. 

|> The Republican platform on abortion is a minority-held position within 
|> the Republican party.  The executive branch of the federal government
|> has no authority to amend the Constitution.   

What use is a platform if it doesn't represent the party? The platform
is intended as a summary of the policies of the Republican party, and 
therefore of Republicans everywhere. How could the majority let the 
platform fail to represent them? Big mistake on their paert, obviously.
If they're willing to let the rabid minority control when they're 
hammering out their own platform, they're probably willing to let them 
have too much control in other matters, as well.

|> Let me ask you this question:  do you support the Democratic platform
|> of unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy,
|> and government funding of abortion?  

You well know that that is utterly beside the point that I was making.
And your intentional mistatements have been thoroughly discussed in this 
newsgroup already, so I hardly need to attack your inaccurate wording. 
But I may as well say that the Republican platform, as it now stands, 
is frightening enough that it forces any woman concerned about her own 
health and happiness--and any man who has any female friends--
to do whatever is possible to fight it. I did not consider myself a 
Democrat before, but now I feel I must.

Paula Burch
pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:45:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.221723.21091@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

You're wasting time when you could be doing your job as a mechanic. :)
 
===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Go read the Constitution
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:28:33 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs


 
eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
|dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
|><lx3mnfj.boserj@netcom.com> (Jeffrey Boser) writes: 
|>|Life is not guarnteed by any legal document
|>|we have.   Go read the constitution some time and look at the parts
|>|under 'privacy' and 'defence'.

|There's no generic right to privacy in the Constitution.  The
|Supreme Court looked at all the places where it provided *specific*
|rights of privacy (illegal search and seizure, no troops quartered
|in private houses in peacetime, etc.) and somehow decided that all
|of them together made up a generic right to privacy.  In other
|words, the Supreme Court made it all up.

Thank the founding fathers for the Ninth Amendment:

   9th Amendment
   The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
   be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This one is supposed to save us from the attitude displayed
above, which I find frightening to see in someone who's on
my side.  The men who wrote our Constitution didn't want to
enumerate rights, for fear of just that attitude.  Sometimes I
wish they'd refrained... but I can just picture the horrors of
tyranny we'd now be enjoying without the Bill of Rights.  Look
at the horrors we now enjoy *with* it.

Maybe it's time to start working for a "right to privacy"
amendment.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"All to well bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of 
the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must 
be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal 
laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- T. Jefferson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:39:16 GMT

serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

>	I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
>of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
>actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
>necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
>consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  Abortion is NOT
>a valid method of birth control.  If neither the man nor the woman has the
>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>have sex regardless of the cost?  

   So, in other words, my husband and I should have been celibate up until
now (the first 2 years of our marriage), and should remain celibate for the
next 4 or 5?  We have been taking turns finishing up college degrees, and
are unable, finacially, to support a child (heck, there are times we can
barely support *ourselves*).  Maybe it works for some people, but I really
don't think that 7 years of celibacy would be the best thing for a marriage.


Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu


>'nuff said
From: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Bush does not hold that abortion is murder?
Date: 17 Aug 92 10:51:10 GMT
Reply-To: mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Clearly Herbert believes that the fetus is a human being.
Therefore Herbert also believes that it is guilty, without trial,
of being an accessory to the rape.  The subtle logic of the
fundamentalist (please don't insult conservatives) position.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:46:56 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.214911.10266@Cadence.COM> 
>phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>> Yes, but the pro-choice position allows pro-life women not to have abortions.

>But apparently the pro-choice position (as espoused by the Democratic party)
>forces pro-life women to pay for someone else's abortion.  

And the pro-war position (as espoused by the Republican party)
forces pacifists to pay for someone else's war.

It's called "living in a republic", Holtsinger, and DID you have a 
point?

                          -rocker
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:18:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Aug15.183112.7445@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <FOX.92Aug15120641@graphics.nyu.edu> 
   fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

   > Since the fetus is not viable until the third trimester, if
   > the mother decides not to contribute to the well being of
   > the fetus that fetus will die.  Thus, at least until the
   > third trimester, abortion is not murder, even if a fetus
   > is a human being.

   In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either scraped
   out of the womb or vacuumed out, thus killing the fetus in the 
   process.  This nonsense about the woman not contributing to the
   "well being of the fetus" is a euphemism which helps people
   to avoid confronting the fact that abortion kills a human being. 

So you would be pro-choice if the technique was more humane?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Yelps from a blast.crater@apple.com (was Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level (was Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:40:45 GMT

In article <lefty-170892101250@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

[ More yelping from a blast crater left after that devastating attack by
Steve Franklin, deleted. ]

Lefty, you remind me of Saddam Hussein as he, like you, still claims
victory in a battle in which you clearly have been annihilated.  

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:00:33 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  <1992Aug11.182610.2104@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wats
> > In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
> >> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ And
> >>
> >> >Trying to draw a bright line at
> >> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
> >>
> >> Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
> >
> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
>
> Isn't rja making reference to the silly thought ...

(Silly thought deleted)

No, he's pointing out to someone claiming that "viability" and "birth"
are arbitrary lines that conception is just as arbitrary.

> PS So what if it's truth by blatant assertion?  It's still truth.

Asserting it as true doesn't make it true.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: In case you had any doubt that Chaney was a sexist.
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:54:44 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug17.171145.1130@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) writes nothing of much interest.  Given the
contentlessness of his verbal spew, it is unusual that I would read
his posts closely enough to notice any single remark.  However, the
acronym PMS caught my eye.  Anyway after much diatribe about Kaufman,
which I delete, ChaneyHall writes:

>2) Kaufman is Kate Michelman on a bad, BAD kick of PMS, caught a
>thousand miles away from her temper-control medicine. 

The comments speak for themselves.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:23:16 GMT

In article <l8lb54INNqbs@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>|In article <l8iuokINN2e1@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>|>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>|>|In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
>|>|could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 
>|>
>|>But please don't ask him about his hatching.
>|I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species? 
>
>Yet to be proven.

Proven. Now, it's up to us to prove if _you're_ of the human species.

If we go by the pro-choice stance of being "intellegent" or "with a
brain," that would exclude you in an instant.


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <23447@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating
> Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>>Hey, I'm toplerant of christian views that exist in my house now. WHat's
>>your point? That I'd tell them they're wrong? You bet I would. I'd also
>>explain why they're wrong, and being how they don't come from a severely
>>dysfunctional family like yours, they'd probably know how to listen
>>and reason, provided a dipshit like you doesn't come along and brainwash
>>them while they're young.

>Our family isn't dysfunctional. We, unlike you, have ways of dealing
>with dysfunctional and disobedient elements who have no sense of right

Yup, you throw them out of the house and pretend they no longer exist.
You can't accept anything that doesn't meld to your singular view of
how life should be. Wonderful! A bunch of abusive clones.

>or wrong. Such as telling one's parents off whenever they so pleased
>to do so.

I never stated that this was the case in my house (meaning my parents,
not my own, as I live by myself at the moment), although my parents
did accept back talk when it was correct, as they did not believe themselves
to be infallible assholes with all the answers to everything in the
world. They did not, however, brook disrespectfulness in any form, which
appear to be concepts that you are completely unfamiliar with. "telling
one's parents off whenever they so pleased" indicates a disrespectfulness
of one's parents, which is a different scenario, but my parents still
loved us, even if we did this, although something in the relationship
might change for a while until the behavior altered to soemthing acceptable
to both parties. In your family, what you've written of it, the *only*
acceptable behavior was complete subjugation to mom and dad, the infallible
duo. And you wonder why I state that it was dysfunctional. Any psychiatrists
out there that would love a shot at this one?

>Now, I know that's not a bad thing in your house, and your kids feel
>free to do that to you every day if they wish. After all, to teach
>them otherwise, means a dysfunctional family.

As usual, you *know* everything. <snicker>

>Sounds like you've been snorting this stuff too much.

You should switch off the formaldehyde, it beginning work on that last
cell.

Ron

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