HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 21:48:18 GMT

In <1992Sep3.151256.24753@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>>>> NNyikos

>>>>>> How many abortion clinics have you seen the inside of?  

>>>>> How many abortion clinics have YOU seen the inside of?

>>>> None, and that's part of my point: very few people are allowed to see
>>>> what goes on.  I asked whether Judge Kelly of Wichita, who was so 
>>>> zealous in guarding Tiller's right to carry on business as usual,
>>>> ever got to see the inside of Tiller's clinic.  I asked whether any
>>>> of the federal marshals who so zealously carried out Kelly's orders,
>>>> ever saw an abortion being performed in Tiller's clinic.  I'm still
>>>> waiting for the answers.

> you're missing the point
>that Judge Kelly upheld Dr. Tiller's right to continue his legal activities
>and that the federal marshals are sworn to uphold the law, interpreted in
>this case by Judge Kelly.

The point, in itself, means little.  Dred Scott
was the law for a while, Jim Crow was the law for a while.  

My point went in quite a different direction.  Judge Kelly
drafted a proposal that would limit pro-lifers to what kind of picketing
they could do and still be acceptable to him, and proposed that a neutral
party report on "what really goes on in Tiller's clinic," to be 
accompanied by Operation Rescue types doing "community service", like
homophobes being made to attend sensitivity training sessions.  This was
totally unacceptable to Tiller's lawyers.  So far as I know, they would
never let anyone mentioned by Judge Kelly, who so zealously arranged for
arrests and convictions, to see the inside of the clinic.  And maybe
not even Kelly himself.  Nor any of the marshals.

Of course, you can all go on believing Tiller had nothing embarrassing
to hide.  But his activities, while perhaps legal under Kansas law, 
were still of a sort that most ordinary people find repugnant.  Perhaps
some pro-choicers here would too, if they saw them, but they never get
the chance.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.)
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.
Keywords: Nyikos proves his misogyny
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 06:32:16 GMT


I'll nominate this for most insulting abortion analogy
of the month.  (And I'll give it ten points for idiocy.)

Susan


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35722 alt.abortion.inequity:3648
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: negligent homicide and God
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:34:00 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep8.192814.827@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
>Subject: negligent homicide and God
>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:28:14 GMT

>orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>] 
>] It really is impossible to describe murder as the killing of a newly
>] conceived human being.  Yes, you are killing a human being (which has
>] many moral ramifications and should be limited) but the essence of 
>] what we know as a human being or "person" are not present yet.  If we
>] wanted to bring God into it one might say that one's soul is not 
>] present until brain activity starts.  That, at least, is what I believe.
>] I cannot and will not try to prove the existence of a soul.        

>1. to assert the proposition of 'murder' one needs to
>have an alive 'Born Person' that can be murdered. 
>Note if you will that one can NOT  'murder the dead' ....

>2. to make your notion work, you merely need to say that
>one can murder the NotYetBorn_BornPersonWhoIsAliveFromConception -
>which, as has been shown, also includes those PersonInThePetriDish.

>3. This then also Requires that we deal with 'miscarriages'
>in terms of dealing with Negligent Homicide. There are so many
>fun filled facts coming to the forefront about what the 
>Gestator's Behavior may well do to the gestatee.... And hence
>that really it is the Fault of Women when they have miscarriages.
>Which, since we can show fault, means that there is a 'wrongful 
>death' that has occurred.

>It is Important that we remind folks that they NEED to be
>held responsible for their Actions.....

>4. And IF we were to introduce 'God' into the discussion,
>then we would NOT get confused, as we would KNOW that it
>is not until BIRTH that we have an entity worth discussing
>moral implications about....


>] Obviously the best option is to prevent the conception from ever occurring.
>] That is what I support first.

>Here we agree....

>the Problem with this, like so many other
>fundamental problems of life, is what to
>do after best intentions have failed....

>ciao
>drieux


>-- 
>If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
>To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
>Put them back in the Refrigerator.
>This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.

It is a fallacy--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Oh what a relief it is...
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:41:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

Looking for articles to kill...


/chaneysa@/h:j
80180   Junked
80215   Junked
80217   Junked
80222   Junked
80223   Junked
80226   Junked
80227   Junked
80228   Junked
80229   Junked
80230   Junked
80232   Junked
80233   Junked
80234   Junked
80237   Junked
80322   Junked
80326   Junked
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mr. Red Button Scenario
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:18:46 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep14.204213.26778@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> # gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> # |> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> # |> >	Gordon, you're a person (I hope).  Suppose I push a button which causes
|> # |> >you to be in my body.  Can I abort you?  Yes or no?
|> # |> 
|> # |> Sure.
|> #
|> # Oh, this is a jewel.  This might be .sig material.  Let me get this
|> # straight: if I do something which causes you to appear in my body I
|> # can kill you at will and you would have no legal recourse?  All this
|> # despite the fact that you neither requested nor granted permission for
|> # your body to be put inside mine?
|> 
|> What is it with you and this fascination with equating reproduction
|> with pushing a button, anyway?
|> 
|> What on earth every made you think this analogy made any sense
|> whatsoever?

	Ah, your usual hot air passed off as argumentation again.
	Do I have a right to kill you, Woodyatt?  If not, why not?

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Should Victims of Hard Drug Abuse Be allowed to Post?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:03:06 GMT

I take great offence at this.  It has not been shown, nor is there 
any evidence that abusers of hard drugs are in any way impaired to 
be moderators...

In article <1992Sep9.105507.3574@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com 
(drieux, just drieux) writes:

}ps: now watch some pinhead whine about how I might
}be maligning hard drug abusers as not being the same
}sort of competent persons as all the rest of us.....

didn't want to let you down...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The 91% Regret Rate
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:51:08 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  <1992Sep11.235958.28946@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
> > ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
> >
> >> I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
> >> women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.
> >
> > I would like to echo Chuck Lavazzi and express my earnest desire to
> > see the source for your statistic.  I would also like to see your
> > definition of 'Post Abortive Stress Syndrome' including symptoms.
>
> The source is the Alan Guttmacher institute, although they refrain from
> calling it "Post Abortive Stress Syndrome".   The Alan Guttmacher survey
> found that of all women who have had abortions, a FULL 91% would have NOT
> aborted, if someone had presented them with help for an alternative.
> (Which, honestly, does translate into some measure of regret.)

Saying you would have acted differently had the circumstances been
different does *not* translate into regret, and regret is not
"Post Abortive Stress Syndrome".

> > But a first-trimester abortion is more than an order of magnitude
> > safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.
>
> Not for the baby.

What baby?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 20:16:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes ...
>For example, the waiting period.  What's wrong with making people wait a
>day for an abortion?  Nobody has any problem with it for guns.  A day's
>wait would save many people's lives in the case of voluntary
>manslaughter, a similar case of something done in a heat of passion, or
>any kind of emotional rage.  Forcing a person to wait at least tries to
>insure that they think about their decision.

Picture this scenario.  Woman, pregnant 3 months.  Going shopping but
finished early.  Passes by some protesters outside of the local PP.
Turns to her friend and says "would you pull in here for a sec'?  I
think I'll get an abortion since we got finished shopping so quickly."

OK, so it's ridiculous.  Women never get done shopping early.  (It's a JOKE!)

More seriously, the notion that women get abortions on a whim is just as 
absurd.  It is hard to see how a waiting period is intended as anything
but penance for the dirty deed they're about to do.

>The same goes for abortion alternatives information.  Providing
>information is something that is easy to do.  Give women pamphlets to
>read during their one-day wait.  They don't have to read them if they
>don't want to, and then they at least have the opportunity of making an
>intelligent choice.

Information is good.  Doesn't take a day to assimilate the information,
though.  An hour would be plenty of time.  15 minutes for most women
would be enough.

A day to read a couple pamphlets?  Get real.

>How about the parental consent law.  Parents should be allowed to know
>what their child is doing.  If the child goes ahead and has an abortion
>with a judge's consent, the parents can punish that child for their
>decision if they wish.  This is such a simple concept it is hard to
>believe anyone should be opposed to it.

Try wandering the streets of LA.  Notice the teenagers hanging out there?
Guess how many were thrown out of their homes because their parents found
out they had sex, or got pregnant, or had an abortion.  Short life, that.
Drugs, prostitution, and death about sums it up.

>Americans don't want abortions banned outright, they don't want
>pregnancies to be free of responsibility, and they don't want to pay for
>other people's abortions.

Seems to me some Americans want to be free of the consequences of
anti-abortion legislation.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 01:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


ca>In article <stricher-040992180150@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
writes:
sn>In article <1992Sep4.161921.10851@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes (Steve Novak) wrote:

sn> "Kindness and sympathy"?  For WHAT?  Some guy that wants to control
sn> women, and has expressed the possibility of VIOLENCE (in fact, *death*)
sn> against a woman who doesn't report to him as he wants?

ca>You can't change someone's mind if you harden their heart first. Then
ca>they will resist you, and you end up with someone with closed ears
ca>as well as a closed mind. It gets you nothing but a self-fullfiling
ca>prophecy. 

Even I'm not enough of a bleeding heart to feel kindness and sympathy to
Will.  Will said if his SO did not show him the respect he deserved he
would kill her.  I feel sympathy toward the poor unfortunate woman who
would be his SO.  My sympathy for Will is non-existent.  Steve did not 
harden Will's heart.  It's already hard.  Its more important that we
make sure women are warned that creeps such as Will are out there than
showing sympathy for Will's problems.
 
ca>I don't think Steeves wants to control women, he just would like a
ca>little consideration about something that could have a major repercussion
ca>in his life.

But if they don't give him what he considers the proper consideration, 
he will kill them.  I fail to see why you don't feel that is an attempt
to control.  The threat of death seems like an attempt to control to me.

ca>I can understand his attitude. If it happened to me, would I kill her?
ca>No. I may be tempted to - after all, here before me stands one who in
ca>a premeditated act murdered my child. What would you do to someone who
ca>murdered *your* child?

I have no idea.  Will said he would kill his SO, if she did not show him
the proper respect.  He did not claim he would kill her over the abortion,
but rather because she took a longer time than he found acceptable to tell
him.  I think killing his SO in both cases are wrong, but your comparison
is weak.

ca>Of course, you don't see it as a child, and you dismiss out-of-hand
ca>those who think otherwise. But I wouldn't kill her. I wouldn't even
ca>hit her. I'd surely turn my back on her. No woman is worth *any* jail
ca>time.

And I have no problem with you turning your back on her.  

ca>But please continue treating men like beasts and animals.

ca>Just don't be surprised when they act the way you treat them.

Thats a hell of a stretch, trying to blame Steve for Will's behavior.
If you are missing Will's entire post, I think I can find it to repost
it.  The man should be treated like scum.   Because Will should
be treated like scum, does not mean all men should be treated the same.

ca>K'Char

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:12:13 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# Are you saying that it is impossible for a male to be part of the 
# feminist movement?
# 
# Anticipating a Yes answer, let me add: are men barred from 
# membership in NOW?

They've called me three times this month to ask me if I want to join.

(Only once did they catch me at home.)

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 17:38:37 GMT

In <Bu4304.6FK.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715043800@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
># [Dan King wrote] 
>##Were the pro-lifers picketing the house because he was involved in 
>##child pornography (an illegal act), or were they picketing the house
>##because he performed abortions (A legal act).
># 
># Don't assume the abortions were legal.  Here in Columbia almost every
># abortionist has done 2nd trimester abortions in his clinic, and some
># even admit it openly, even though South Carolina law says all 2nd 
># trimester abortions must be done either in a hospital or a licensed
># clinic, and not one of the clinics in South Carolina is licensed.

>I just noticed this.  Is this law enjoined, Nyikos?  Have you
>checked?

Thanks for mentioning this possibility.  I'll bring it up when next
I talk to my source for the "admit openly" bit.

>I saw an idiot on the televised Lambs trial in Fargo who claimed
>that he didn't know that a similar law there was enjoined, and
>that he thought he was therefore entitled to break into the clinic
>to prevent further violations of the law.  Needless to say, the
>judge didn't buy it.

Nor would I, even if the law hadn't been enjoined.  Taking the
law into one's hands to this extent is hardly ever justified.

Peter Ny.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36472 alt.abortion.inequity:3714
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:18:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Where!?  Quick, hand me that shotgun. . .

In article <1992Sep4.022536.6740@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.173838.8528@advtech.uswest.com>
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.024720.23681@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>It gives my lover equal control over my reproductive system if I am
>pregnant with our "child".  That specific enough?
>
>I object to this not so much because it gives a man control over my
>body (I don't like that, but that doesn't automatically mean I think
>it's logically or morally worng).

And I don't like the idea that a woman has control over my body either,
but in some cases I do believe it is logical, and fair.

>I object to this because by giving
>control proportionaly solely to what you perceive as our share in the
>"child", you are impicitly refusing to acknowledge that the effects
>pregnancy has on my body give my any rights whatsoever.

Not really.  I freely admit the effects of pregnancy on a woman.  But
you are looking ONLY at pregnancy.  Once you factor in the eighteen
years worth (at a minimum) of child rearing, that first 9 months turns
out to be a much smaller percentage of the total effort.

Does my attempt to get equal rights ignore some of the biological realities
of the difference between men and women?  Yup, it sure does.  But that
is the kind of thing that has been done since the begining of the
feminist movement.  If it is inappropriate to grant equal rights in those
cases where men and women are biologically different, then we really
ought to go back to the begining and rethink this whole equal rights
business.

>>And if you had read any of my other posts, you would realize that I
>>support exceptions in regards to rape, incest and to save the mothers
>>life.
>
>Not any of your other posts.  Some of your other posts.

Granted.  Thanks for the correction.

>What about ccases where the mother's health but not life is in danger?

Sticky, very sticky.  This is a case that has no other analogy that I
am aware of.  Off the top of my head, I would think that it would depend
on the facts of the individual case.

> E. Elizabeth Bartley

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: I love the smell of napalm in the morning...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletion?  Dream on...
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:09:22 GMT

Stealing one of my .sigs, eh, Keith?     ;-)

That's all right, I got at least one of mine from you.

But the line is "I love the smell of napalm in the morning.  It smells
like ... napalm."  - Grant Morrison             :-)

Unless you had the bad taste to use another line about napalm instead.
:-) :-) :-)

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35992 alt.flame:12719
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: only xxx more shopping days.......
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:09:27 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.


        - Propeller Beanies -

Bright multi-colored poplin, with a working
propeller sitting atop an animal figure.
Guaranteed enjoyment. Made in USA.

Sizes: M (child's head to adult size 7); L
(adults to size 7 3/8); XL (adults over 7 3/8)

Choose style ....... $11.95/any one
Brimmed Beanie ........ Item #H-070
No Brim Beanie ........ Item #H-071

(800) 545-0933
[reprinted without permission from Kaufman's
Army & Navy 1992 catalog]

===end reprint=======

if you don't know who this is for,
don't ask.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36001 alt.discrimination:4294
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Summary: There it is, in the nutshell.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 01:06:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <r5tn-6j.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>In article <BuBuHz.8w4@rice.edu> 
>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>> Watch and see how
>>> Chaney is the only one who keeps bringing it up 
>>
>>I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.
>
>In the past year or so, I've seen the official virus lie, insult everybody
>who disagreed with him, and goad people with his childish taunts in 98%
>of what he posts.  What I have _not_ seen him do is apologize for anything
>or admit he has ever made a mistake.
>
>I would like to see several apologies from borgyboy; I don't expect to
>get any.  While Patrick's comment was inappropriate and probably regretted,
>propeller boy's reponse has not been deserving of an apology.

...and right there is why I won't bother myself further with considering an
apology to him.  As I said, he had his chance -- and in true Steve Chaney
fashion, he threw it away...


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion