HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Hey, Steve Novak (Was: Re: Kids suck...Get an Abortion!)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:44:14 GMT

> = (Susan Garvin) writes:

>It seems like an excellent time for you to ask DODie for proof
>that "Cheeseball" or whatever his name is considers himself
>pro-choice.  Then, maybe Jay Stein could take the Reverend
>on a walk down memory lane regarding his complaints about 
>generalizing about pro-forcers.  

DUDie is one of the very few on t.a. whose calls for proof can be
ignored, except for eliciting gales of derisive laughter.  The Pathetic
Pud quotes other t.a. posters out of context at *least* 4 times a week!
How can anyone take such a clown seriously?  The Tautology Tango he's 
danced on his credibility has shredded it beyond repair, leaving poor
Dougie a pathetic buffoon doomed to float aimlessly around net groups 
invoking abuse from all who get to know him.

Only Rasmussen, Forgach and Chaney can equal his strange predilection
for dishonesty and hostility.

>I guess too many people are ignoring DODie in other groups, and
>he's decided to come home to t.a. to get his MDR of abuse.
>(Gee, and I thought his defense of DJR would get him lots of
>attention.)

It's like the 419th abuse of power by George Bush, or the 89th iteration
of Doug "Empty" Holster telling us what a liar you are.  

Who cares anymore?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52552 can.politics:10978
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:05:52 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Dec21.030848.7926@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 
nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>>> who is qualified to decide
>>> when the health reasons are sufficient to justify an abortion?  

>> I believe that most physicians are qualified to determine whether
>> an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Why do
>> you believe otherwise? 

> First - there are health risks other than death (the point has been
> made before - I guess you missed it).

Physical health complications occur in a small minority of
pregnancies.  I fail to understand how these cases justify 
unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.

> But yes, I'm quite willing to leave the decision to abort between the
> woman and her physician.  

So you believe that physicians are qualified to determine
whether an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life?  

> Are you?

I'm not a physician, so I'm not qualified to determine whether
an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life. 

> Or do you disagree the woman should have any say in the matter?  If so,
> consider the opposite (and not uncommon) situation - the physician
> believes the pregnancy to be too risky, but the woman chooses to
> accept the risk and continue with the pregnancy.  Now, tell me the
> woman doesn't have a say in the matter . . .

How does this situation justify unrestricted abortion-on-demand? 

>>> Are you really prepared to judge for yourself how much a woman 
>>> should face?  

>> No, because I'm not qualified to be a physician.

> But you've already set limits - only to save the life of the mother, 
> and other health consequences be damned.  

No, the physician sets limits.  I'm just a bystander.

> So you do consider yourself
> qualified to dictate how much health risk someone else should be
> prepared to face, don't you?

No, I don't consider myself qualified to determine how much
health risk someone should face, since I'm not a physician.

Neither am I qualified to be a judge, yet I don't believe 
that individuals should be free to commit criminal acts
because of my lack of qualifications.


>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself


Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52066 alt.abortion.inequity:5928 soc.men:21219
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: A test for would-be parents
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:46:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
#Frankly, if somebody died and 
#made me king, you couldn't become a parent until you'd passed a test of my
#divising, but nobody has made me king yet. 

In article <1fk2o8INN3um@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>OK, I bite.  Would would you put in a test for would-be parents?

Adrienne probably has some variation on the question:
"Do you support the king's divine morals standards and will
you pass them to your kids?"

>(yes, folks, I'm inviting another free-for-all!)

I don't want any government, especially if it will run by someone like
Michal or Adrienne, to decide who should be allowed to have kids.

My dream society will actually look like the one of Carole:

%A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was a pretty damn 
%libertarian society: cold, cruel, Dickensian by our present standards.
%People were responsible for taking care of themselves and their
%children.  There was no guaranteed governmental safety net.  If you
%fell upon bad times you asked for help from friends, relatives, or
%private charities.  The problem here was that all these sources of aid
%pretty much had an agenda, a set of rules they insisted you follow in
%order to be a recipient of their (usually grudging) charity.  If you
%lost your job you might be able to move in with your parents, but you
%suddenly got stuck with a curfew and no loud rock music and your
%girlfriend couldn't spend the night and . . . well, you know how
%parents are.  If you got pregnant and couldn't support the baby
%yourself and the man wouldn't help and your parents wouldn't take you 
%in you could go to the Catholic home for unwed mothers.  You'd be taken 
%care of, your baby would be adopted into a good home, but boy did *they* 
%have an agenda.  Listening to the nuns go on about your sinful past wasn't 
%half of it.  Everybody tried *real* hard not to fall upon bad times, 
%and kept their insurance premiums paid up; because, while nobody much
%actually starved, the alternatives sometimes didn't look all that much
%better.

(It will probably be a nightmare for all the feminists like Michal,
but it is not a bug, it is a feature.)

>							--  Michal

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu

"When I do it to you it's sexism,
when you do it to me it's feminism."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:14:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

THIS MAN CANNOT SUPPORT HIS OWN STATEMENTS.
No elaboration required.

Lost Boy
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52465 soc.men:21468 alt.dads-rights:3020
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 19 Dec 92 15:56:39 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <BzIoB7.4Dr@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> In article <1goin9INN1b3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>But, hey, if you asked me for clarification, I'd give it to you.
> 
> And then you proceed to give it to us:
> 
>>That's horseshit, Will.  Because, you see, I don't ignore women, like some
>>of the people who engage in this topic.  Whereas men have responsibility
>>for children (i.e., feeding, clothing, and educating, either in person or
>>by paying a proxy) so do women, likewise, bear the responsibility to feed
>>clothe and educate their children, up to the point where they relinquish
>>their children to the social services set up explicitly for the purpose
>>of continuing the feeding, clothing, and educating of children whose parents
>>cannot or willnot continue to do.
> 
> For you see, those "social service" agencies will come and take a child from
> a >women< who does not or will not care for it.  However, should a >man<
> walk away from a child he should be thrown in jail for the same offense and 
> have his wages garnished for the next 20 years.
> 

Well, maybe in YOUR state, but in Ohio, the court has a very nice little
calculation sheet, where the salaries of BOTH parents are assessed and the 
child support is determined.  If interested, check out alt.dad's-rights,
I posted the calculation form there recently.


>>But that's ALSO kinda sorta because I recognise a child to be a child 
>>AFTER it has been born, ya know.
> 
> Yet once that social service agency comes around, its the states' problem
> isn't it?  But only if you're a woman in the majority of cases today.  Men 
> need not apply; just give the kid to mom and give dad the bill.

As for my foster son, his father was asked to take custody, he refused.
So, there are exceptions to your rule.

Sue

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 21:09:47 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:

>Yes, I do.  Are you going to tell me that all rape victims have abortions?  If 
>not, are you saying that the ones who don't always hate the child?  I submit 
>that is is possible for someone to love such a child.

It is possible, but quite uncommon.  I worked for a local rape crisis center 
for over a year, counseling rape and incest survivors.  None were happy about 
the possibility of pregnancy.  Many requested information about abortion long 
before any test could predict if they were pregnant or not.  During that time 
I did not meet a single rape victim that had the child and loved it.  Have you 
met anyone like that?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:20:03 GMT

In article <1g821iINN17f@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>You seem to consider a fetus a born child, as long as the mother
>>intends to continue the pregnancy.  (Worse, if she changes her
>>mind, then the fetus becomes unborn again.)  
>>Otherwise, how do you justify your claim that a man should support 
>>one of those "hungry children" he took precautions not to have
>>(and stated clearly should not be born)?
>
>Once it is born it has certain rights.  One of these is the right
>right to life, another is the right to be supported by it's parents, 
>or to otherwise have it's care provided for
>(eg, the parents can give it up for adoption.)

Why do you assume "by its parents"?  The unspoken basis for this
is that the parents caused the child to exist, hence they are liable.
In the case of a man who uses contraception and explicitly states
he does not want a child, the only person who creates such a liability
is the mother, since you say that no such liability exists before birth:

>It does not have these rights prior to birth.

Your goal, however, is a societal purpose: ensure that all helpless human
beings are supported.  Thus, either society (or you) should foot the 
bill, or those responsible for creating the specific liability should.

Apparently, you don't want society (and you, yourself) to pay for
a liability someone else created.  Why would you want a sperm donor
to pay?

>Is that sufficiently clear?

I hope so.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 13:13:03 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>
>>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> 
>>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.
>
>I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
>instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.

I don't think so, Loren.  The original posting said:

From zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!noc.near.net!black.clarku.edu!vax.clarku.edu!hsims Fri Dec 11 08:45:33 PST 1992

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:

>>At any given time, Loren, I'll bet money I could get 51% of a given 
>>population to vote that you should be strapped to a chair for 3 weeks (by
>>offering them a portion of the money bet).  
> 
>How much money will you bet?  Whatever it is, I'll take that bet.  
>Good luck getting enough money to pull it off.  

-----end inclusion----

Backing out already?  I said "given population" and you said "I'll take
that bet."

I only picked the known posters of talk.abortion because it *is* the
discussion group we are conversing in.  MUCH more fair than just those
people in my home.  Or a group of your friends.

We are going to see if you will put a measly $100 where your mouth is.

A piddling $100, not even one day's work.

To see if *you* will live up to the principles that you would
IMPOSE
       through FORCE OF LAW 
                            upon women.

To see if you *are* a hypocrite.

You are welcome to do all the lobbying you like in talk.abortion.

Be my guest.



Sign me up, Adrienne!


Other highlights of your hypocracy:

meNow, tell me this:
meDo you think a majority should be able to vote away someone else's civil
merights?
> 
>To answer your question, yes, I believe in the democratic system.  I may not 
>be happy about it, but I am not going to assume that I know better than the 
>majority.

>This started by talking about the united states government, and the way 
>democracy works. 

Which already puts you in the dark, Loren, because the United States Govern-
ment is not a democracy, it is a republic.  You don't even have the ground
assumption correct.


>I was considering the population of the United States.

Nor, apparently can you read.  I said "given population", not "population of
the United States", nor "register voters of the United States".  You took
the bet anyhow.


Weasel words, Loren?

Shape-shifting again?

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52249 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10350
From: katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: might as well post while the CAD system is down....
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:20:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> In article <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >>In article <1992Dec3.051704.24085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.
> >>
> >>One was bad enough..
> >
> >Yeah, we know.  But you came back, anyway.
> >
> >--PLH (oh, well, can't have everything...)
> >
> As a matter of fact, I am Keith's brother. What's the matter with
> Chaney? He can't handle life in general or what?
> Maybe Keith and I should get the rest of the family on here...
> 
> Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
> into the nearest cesspool?
                   ^^^^^^^^
> 
> --
>                   Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
> These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
> your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
> Ghost of Elvis. So there.

Aaaahhhh....Sacramento *is* a cesspool!

Katy

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: For Reverend Holtsinger - a repost
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:29:32 GMT

In article <518@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

[that Dean explains some of Doug Holtsinger aka DOD, aka The Holy
Father, aka Reverend, aka other things]

}I can explain this, since I am the one who started calling
}the Reverend "Reverend."  The Reverend Doug Holtsinger
}claims to have no religious affiliation, but has made such
}a habit of lying that I decided, in light of his strong
}reaction to the less religious, that he is lying about his
}religion too, and is probably an ordained minister. 

I've complained about this before.  Doug is obviously Roman 
Catholic, and is probably a priest, or the pope, or he may
even think he's a tree (but a RC tree)...
 
}I admit that the notion of Reverend Doug Holtsinger as an
}ordained minister is probably insulting to any church with which
}he is affiliated, referring to the Reverend as "Reverend"
}hardly qualifies as anti-religious bigotry, and is one
}more example of what a stupid posting the Reverend can put
}together when he puts what passes for his mind to it.
}
}Dean Kaflowitz
}
}"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
}spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
}so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
} 
}/end included article/
}
}Susan
}
}


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:35:11 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec16.155634.17053@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
   <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>LM> In <1992Dec1.214636.21571@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
>LM> <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>LM> WS>And *he* was playing the Devil's Advocate, which you *misinterpreted*
>LM> WS>as an active threat.
>
>LM> No, I'm pretty sure that Karl *is* threatening to take rights away from
>LM> women if he doesn't get his way; perhaps you missed all the posts where he
>LM> said so explicitly.
>
>Actually, in a recent message, he stated that the right to terminate pregnancy
>is only in court judgements, but should be put into law, especially with
>respect to the first semester.
                      ^^^^^^^^
Yeah, and women should get off for midterms.  :-)

I've already explained why I think that legislating just the first trimester
is a lousy idea.  But the fact remains that he *has* threatened as I said
above.  That he's willing to throw women a bone if he gets his way doesn't
invalidate my statement.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Questions for Stephen Matheson.
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:14:15 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec18.095745.20133@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes to Lost
Boy: 

Deletia 

>with frustration at an overstated argument.  "Evidence" for "personhood"?!
>We're talking about philosophies here, aren't we?

Deletia

>welcome or appropriate, but the discussion is relevant, and personhood
>is the only way out of the trap.

(1) If all we are talking about with personhood is philosophies, then
how can they be a way out of the trap?

(2) What is your reaction to the following `way out of the trap:' A 5
year old child, who is definitely a person by all criteria I have ever
seen anyone advocate on t.a, is not allowed to use its parent's body
to support its life.  Any parent may refuse to donate a kidney, blood,
or tissue to their own child, even if they are the only person's on
the planet that can save the child.  Why should a /z/e/f/, which is
clearly not a legal person, be given rights that are not given to
children?

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu>
	<1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:13:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

   In article <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
   >>In article <1992Dec3.051704.24085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
   >>
   >>
   >>Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.
   >>
   >>One was bad enough..
   >
   >Yeah, we know.  But you came back, anyway.
   >
   >--PLH (oh, well, can't have everything...)
   >
   As a matter of fact, I am Keith's brother. What's the matter with
   Chaney? He can't handle life in general or what?

Chaney is an immature, uninformed, immature, homophobic, immature,
unreasonable, immature, woman-hating, immature, racist
conservative-wannabe (IMHO).  He idolizes Rush Limbaugh (sp?)

   Maybe Keith and I should get the rest of the family on here...

Do they like playing with immature, uninformed, homophobic,
unreasonable, , woman-hating, racist conservative-wannabes that
idolizes Rush Limbaugh too?

   Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
   into the nearest cesspool?

1.  I've seen Keith do it.

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I think I've always been sensitive."
Phyllis Schlafly, on the plight of homosexuals with AIDS
San Francisco Examiner (9/28/92) 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:47:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.192635.17623@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec10.042126.25500@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec07.205106.86391@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>>Now if you say that by "generalization" you were referring to Susan's statement
>>>that "a delay ... might well result in the woman's death", then I withdraw the
>>>comment about *you* generalizing from the specific case, but I hope you'll
>>>forgive me if I consider you a fool if you're actually questioning that the
>>>possibility exists.
>>
>>A possibility is not a particuarly solid foundation for a generalization,
>>Larry. That was my point.
>
>I think her use of the word "might" does indicate that she's aware that
>it's only a possibility.

If she recognized that it was "only" a possibility, then why did she 
generalize from it so hastily?

								- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIE
---------------

"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
 himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
				    Susie Garvin
				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion