HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: do unborn have rights????
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:54:02 GMT

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>   Can anything be called a 'right' if it violates someone else's
>rights?  Do you have the right to impose your definition of a fetus
>growing inside a woman, if your definition violates some woman's
>rights?  Besides, do you call an acorn an 'ungrown oak'?  Do you call
>a steel ingot an 'unmanufactured Buick'?  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!  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!

This, of course, means that no one here can object to the killing of 
Jews during WWII unless they adopt a Jew or send money to Israel.
No one can object to gay-bashing unless they financially support gays.
No one can object to rape unless they first give money to a rape crisis
center, or comfort a rape victim.  The list of new rules this logic 
creates is endless.  We have to keep our mouths shut unless we are
actively doing something to support the victims we see being abused.
We cannot simply object to the abuse.

Rodney King?  Well, I guess we'll have to keep our opinions to ourselves,
unless we joined the NAACP, or paid his traffic ticket, or medical bills.

Damn, the new Puritanism seems a lot more restrictive than the stuff
they claim to be fighting.  I guess that's progress.

SK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: spinoza@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:49:19 GMT

> 2.2: Also often over looked in the course of events was that many
> ukrainians considered the germans as liberators from the oppression of  
Stalin.
> { many still do! } It should like wise be noted that Gen. Vlasov 
> was able to form military units to FIGHT against Stalin on the
> side of History. {and we all know what happened to them, along with
> the Cossacks of the Don... when the war ended... not to mention 
> the fun filled happyhappyjoyjoy of the allied command decision to
> turn over russian nationals to the Soviet Union.} [ now that even
> the former NKVD are admitting to it, it should likewise be safe
> to point out the number of americans who died in the USSR after
> being liberated from POW camps by the Red Army. ]
> 
 Not to nitpick, drieux, but those Ukranians who tended to look at the  
Germans as liberators also tended to be fascists. Notice I did not say ALL  
were fascists, but many were. That there was a general to be found who'd  
fight as an ally of the Nazis isn't overly surprising, given the  
traditional view of many Ukranians, Lithuanians, Latvians,  
Estonians,Russians, Romanians, etc. towards groups such as Jews and  
Gypsies, and others who were Out of Favor with the Administration of the  
Thousand-Year Reich. Please explain why it is that Russian nationals ought  
not to have been repatriated/extradited to the Soviet Union? In the case  
of repatriation, unless it was against the will of the individual in  
question (ie, a Russian national who was not wanted for any crime, who  
wished to claim asylum), there seems nothing wrong with this practice. IN  
the case of extradition, sending collaborators/war criminals back to face  
trial seems a heckuva lot more honorable than what the US and the other  
allied powers actually did (recruited unrepentant Nazis for the space  
program, for example. or for use by intelligence services because of their  
"known anti-communism"). No one is claiming Papa Joe was a saint (for sure  
not me), and the deaths of Americans in the USSR are indeed a terrible  
thing. On the other hand, this does not excuse the "behavior" of folks  
like the Ukranians who fought for Hitler's fascism.



lev

"Schwerter zu Pflugscharen" Micha,4
"......but in the meantime, make damn sure you've got th ebiggest stick in  
the playground"              lev,1
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:06:12 GMT

baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:

>In article <122664@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:
>|> How true!  A girlfriend of mine is a single mom, and she gets no child
>|> support payments from the father who is a loser.  She used to tell me about
>|> wanting to get a lawyer to go after him, but she's just too busy to
>|> hassle with it.  Plus, the father is not living a "stable life" himself.
>|> It's a very tough situation.

>These situations are indeed difficult. Just for the sake of completness I
>will mention here that there are men in the custodial situation with just
>this problem. In my case I would have the extra expense of finding her
>since she disappeared when she lost custody.

If I might chime in here for a moment....

I recently read an article giving statistics on child support in New
York (state).  Mr. Hentrich's anecdotal story IS supported by the
statistics they quoted (although they did not give a source), which
stated that there was no significant difference in the percentages of
payments made late or not at all by male or female non-custodial parents.

>And tho there are numerically fewer of us, in terms of percentages custodial
>fathers get smaller and fewer support decrees than custodial mothers.

They did not address this issue but alas, I have no trouble believing 
this.  This society has a long way to go in gender equality.

>d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba

                  -rocker
                   who has difficulty believing that parenting ability
                   is a gender-related trait
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Death and life
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:27:47 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>> = Joy Haftel
>>  = Alison Rebecca Colman
> Suzanne Forgach
 
>>>I think it is better to be alive.
>> 
>> How do you know?
>
>Because the fact that we're ALL going to die someday is just that - A FACT.

Huh?

>Therefore, if you die or are killed _young_, you definitely DO LOSE
something -
>namely the rest of your natural life that would otherwise have been yours.

Rest of *what* life? If someone dies, don't you think there was no more
"rest of their life" meant for them?


*******************************************************************************
*

I asked Joy a question, and I am surprised no one (including Joy) has
really answered it. I asked her, "how do you know that life is better
than death?" I personally don't think that anybody *knows* the answer to
this question, but it makes for interesting discussion. 

Someone said that life is better because they could look at the rainbows
and smell flowers, etc. etc., but that isn't the kind of answer I am
looking for. I, of course, enjoy life just as much as the next guy, and
I am also definitely not implicitly advocating that everyone should go
jump off a ten-story building tomorrow to see what death is like.

I get the impression that most people see death as something rather
horrible, but I can't really see why. (I am talking about being dead, by
the way, not the *causes* of death.)

I read somewhere this passage in this book about Eastern religions (I
think the particular section was about Taoism) that I found interesting,
and relevant to my question, (I think). I can't remember it verbatum,
but the essence of it was something like:

A monk heard of the passing away of the wife of another monk. So, the
first monk decided to pay a visit to the second monk, to see if he
needed comfort in his time of mourning. When he got there, he was
surprised to see the second monk smiling and happy, sitting on his butt,
playing his drums, and singing. He said, "your wife has just died! Why
are you so happy?" and the second monk said, "why should I be unhappy?
She was old, and it was her time to die. She did what was completely
natural, it is just part of the cycle of life. Why should this be cause
for unhappiness?" 

And so on. I thought that passage was kind of cool. What do y'all think of it?

Alison
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:01:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr15.200154.18592
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr15.180234.12290@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:


#So why should I alienate a large portion of the readers. 

Who knows?

You're the one who chose to alienate people.

Lucky for us you had nothing of substance to add, huh?

Susan
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Eric's Rasmussen Boycott
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:58:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: advtech.1992Apr17.185845.29072
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = Larry Margolis writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:

>> Luckily, DJR's been gone AGAIN for a month or so.  Probably got his head
>> stuck in a paddle wheel again :).

>Don't you remember, Steve?  That was when he was going on about a quote
>referring to "Islam in it's most virulent form", and I mentioned the
>jihad, and he said it didn't really exist, and the next day his buddies
>from Islamic Jihad did a car-bomb number on an embassy, and Davey was
>so embarrassed that he dropped from sight?  He'll probably return as
>soon as we all forget about that incident, though.

I do remember, and naturally, we shouldn't let him forget.

I hope you or somebody has archived that gem posting of his so we can
net.whack_his_pee-pee with it when he comes back like yesterday's tacos
and beer :).

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
From: keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:44:29 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
-> >-> >-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the
-> >-> >-> possibility exists that the potential father, and/or
-> >-> >-> the state, might get an abortion veto-power, then
-> >-> >-> certainly the LESS RADICAL possibility of giving this
-> >-> >-> power to a neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as
-> >-> >-> a compromise position.
-> >-> >
-> >-> >this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak
-> >-> >like you kevin. now you seem to want so badly to lessen
-> >-> >women's control of their bodies that you want to give
-> >-> >that control to a "neutral adjudicator."
-> >-> 
-> >-> Keegan, do you understand the difference between
-> >-> 	"X is a possibility"
-> >-> 		and
-> >-> 	"I support X"
-> >
-> >why do you call for a "neutral adjudicator" to make decisions
-> >for what a woman can and can not do with her body and it's
-> >contents, kevin? don't you think that decision should be left
-> >to the woman?
-> 
-> I did not and do not "call for" [sic] this to happen. But, as
-> long as it is a POSSIBILITY (and I think it is), we as
-> pro-choicers should have answers ready as to why it's such a
-> bad idea.

before i comment further, i want to say that you calling yourself
a pro-choicer ("we as pro-choicers") is the single most damaging
statement i've seen written on the pro-choice philosophy. you,
kevin darcy, are, imo, the least pro-choice person i've seen post
to this newsgroup.

now, on to your "POSSIBILITY." kevin, stop being ridiculous. you
are not empowered to trade-off or barter away a woman's right to
her body, not even to your "neutral adjudicator, not to anyone.

-> Larry ran away from the hypothetical. 

margolis didn't run away from your posts kevin. he defeated you
in a particular discussion and, when you began to repeat and
repeat arguments you had already lost, margolis stopped playing.
you're not going to begin another vet.vendetta are you?

        'Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game
        is that the sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe
        him. "Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...'  
		-- lefty@apple.com
	        <9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>






--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>well Linda.....if you spent all the time you use debating whether a fetus
>is or isn't a child and tried to rectify these problems, the
>world would be a better place. Damn, I love the ME generation. NOT
								^^^
Another juvenile clueless....

Matthew, if we didn't work for ourselves first, we never would be in
a position to help others.

The ME generation
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: The Right to (Not) Exist
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:07:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.155502.12298@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug  
Holtsinger) writes:
> The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
> right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
> to freedom. 

Sorry, I disagree there. I believe that the right to WAIVE another right  
is supreme. Without the choice to not exercise a right, that right is  
merely a duty.

> Without existence, freedom is not possible. 

Without existence, freedom is not particularly relevant, either. If I  
don't exist, then I can be neither free nor enslaved. I simply am not.

> All humans should have an equal right to exist

Depending on your definition of "human," I may agree with that. Of
course, all "humans" then have an equal right to NOT exist. 

> The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others, 
> and the right to receive support from others, but it does not 
> necessarily include the right to expect support from others. 

Pardon me, but aren't rights best exercised if they are known? If I know  
that I have a right to receive support from others, then I'm _naturally_  
going to expect support from others; it's my right, right? :) Of course, I  
also have the right to _decline_ said support.
 
> The fetus either has rights, or it does not. If the fetus has any 
> rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
> equal to that of any other human being.

The fetus either has the right to not exist, or it does not. Trust me on  
this; when I was a fetus, if I had known of the situation outside (and if  
I magically had a sufficiently developed brain to understand the situation  
and my rights in the first place), I can honestly say that I would have  
chosen to not be born.

> Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
> support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
> of the fetus to exist.

Abortion is nothing more than an option for a woman to exercise her right  
to _not_ be pregnant. Of course, the fetus has a right to exist; let me be  
the first to grant you that. We just don't know whether the fetus would  
choose to exercise it, if it were able to make that choice. However, we  
can be aware of the pregnant woman's choices. So, barring any psychic  
links that would make the fetus' choices lucid, to deny the choice of the  
woman is a clear denial of her rights and a possible denial of the fetus'  
rights. The right to bear children becomes the duty to bear children who,  
for all WE know, may not even want to exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sanity of discussion
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:47:10 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  <1992Apr13.054652.7858@samba.oit.unc.edu>  Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>
> So many of the folks on my side insist on seeing the pro-lifers
> as a bunch of woman-hating, pro-control fascisti.

And a lot of them are.  And we see many of them posting here.  But a lot
of them are *not*.  And I understand that many truly believe that a
fetus is equivalent to a baby, and that abortion is like murder.  And I
respect their beliefs.  But I don't *share* their beliefs, and no matter how
fervent and sincere they are, I'm not going to let them force their beliefs
into law.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:24:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.124354.22380@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr14.030728.21623@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr14.022904.1885@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):
>
>>If he's so perceptive, he'd surely take note of a self-described devout
>>Catholic who spares no opportunity to tell us how loving her religion is,
>>while simultaneously condemning anyone who might disagree with her...then
>>again, maybe old Karol figures there's no use in trying to set you straight.
>>(Or, to put it in my native dialect -- if the Avenging Angel was to come
>>through here killing all the real Christians, he'd never cock his pistol at
>>*you*...)
>
>   Sheeez Pat, WHy would Sue go through all of that when I've already
>done it. I've tried to share all of the facets of my religion with you
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Translation:  I've treid to shove all my bigotted religious delusions down
your throat, and now I'm whining because you won't let me.

>people. We do not condemn you for denying the presence of God. Perhaps
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  And you know it, Steve.  Jesus is gonna let
you rot in hell if you keep up this lying...

>we pity you, but we do not condemn or patronize you. In any case,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  And you know it, Steve.  Jesus is gonna let
you rot in hell if you keep up this lying...

>we'd mind our own business with abortions too if there weren't so
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.  And yu know it, Steve.  Jesus is definitly
gonna let you rot in hell for saying this one.
>many innocent victims in the matter (unborn child).
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15585 soc.men:8538 soc.women:9061
From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Loser, Loser, who's the loser (was: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:31:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <122664@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa  
Corsetti) writes:
$ A girlfriend of mine is a single mom, and she gets no child
$ support payments from the father who is a loser.  She used to tell  
me about
$ wanting to get a lawyer to go after him, but she's just too busy to
$ hassle with it.  Plus, the father is not living a "stable life"  
himself.
$ It's a very tough situation.


Sounds like your girlfriend is the loser. After all she
1) decided to involve herself with a loser
2) hopped into bed (or was it the backseat of a car) with the loser
3) didn't take responsibility for birth control
4) got pregnant by the loser
5) and carried the loser's child to full term

Now she's paying for her poor judgement.

Don't ask me to feel sorry for her, when she's the one who's the  
loser.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 14:42:50 GMT


In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:

>In article <1992Apr15.054116.21897@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>
>No, dear boy. I said...."The Goths were generally Arian Christians."
>And you responded "not when they invaded back in the 400s AD."
>Why don't you just admit you were WRONG?
>
>>there were many centuries of 
>>successive invasions.
>This much is true.

my date was an approximation. I don't sit around an memorize dates.
Rome was sacked several times.

>> The first invaders(Vandals and Goths) were
>>heathen barbarians. The went through the HRE to Spain and Africa.
>>As the centuries went on, each wave of invaders became more civilized.
>Not more civilized, just Christian.
>In any case, Alaric--who entered Rome in 410--and his Gothic
>followers--were Arian.
>Look, Matthew. You were WRONG. 
>You'll like like less of a fool if you just admit it.

No shit you dumbass......I know Alaric was Arian, but some of the invaders
before and AFTER him weren't. You make generalizations....I make generalizations.

>>>>Take a better history class.
>>>It was obviously better than the one you took.
>>
>>Probably not......mine was in French
>Might explain why you failed to understand it.
>You barely seem to speak English.

Fuck off...my mother is French so I speak fluently. English too.
Sorry if I think faster than I type and hence make a few type errors.
That shows at what speed you mind moves Mr. Chem.

>Argumentum ad hominem, impressive....

wow....Latin, now there's a useful foreign language


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion