HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:54:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>|> 
>|> I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
>|> anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
>|> "be let off the hook".  Any man who has sex is as responsible for the
>|> child conceived as the woman, and neither should be allowed to kill/abandon
>|> that child simply because s/he is inconvenient to their plans for the 
>|> future.  Children are not sacrifices to the gods of expediency, despite
>|> the fact that at least 3.2 million people every year think they are.
>|> 

>Since you are arguing that the parents of a fetus/child be required by
>the state to care for that child regardless of the expedience. Then,
>should the state provide for such services as adoption, social services,
>etc (after all these services allow for parents to abdicate some or all
>of their resposibility to the child)?

The child should not be killed, in utero or ex utero.  Period. 
Adoption doesn't result in the child's death, therefore it's perfectly
acceptable.  If the mother carries the child to term, SHE certainly hasn't
abdicated responsibility.  Has the father?  Depends on where he's at.
If he isn't helping to take care of his lover and their unborn child,
then, yes, he's abdicated his responsibility.  

>--Bruce
>bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
>Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
>---------------------------------------------------

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:25:19 GMT

In article <7dm1xq+@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> I'm not defending killing and leaving persons
>>>> to die; that's the job of the pro-choicers. 

>>>     I am pro-choice.
>>>     <1992Oct31.185907.14514@ncsu.edu>

>> It was a joke, son.  

> that's what all the newbies say when they're shown to
> have contradicted themselves.

You mean, you didn't notice the smileys in the Keywords
line of that post?  I guess you were the only one who 
took it seriously.  Try looking a little more observant
next time.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Pro-life arguments automated
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:19:42 GMT

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> 34% !!
>> happyfetus
>> Thank you mommy for not stopping my beating heart before I was born!

[...]

> 100% !!
> He now thanks his mommy for not stomping on him all those years he was
> crawling around the floor?

Actually, I thank mommy for having stain-resistant carpeting.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- press CTL ALT DEL to continue)
Subject: "I posted something hateful..." (formerly: I murdered my child.)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:32:32 GMT

What: <1992Oct28.180049.7339@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Who:  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)

>I am shocked!! An outright confession of child murder!!  On this net!!!

You say that like she did something illegal.  You say that like she did
something wrong.  She did neither.  But it's nice to see your pro-life
compassion sneaking through.
--
-=* Jay T Stein *=-       GEnie: J.STEIN18             Pro-woman, Pro-family,
    "JT in DC"         Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu      Pro-child, PRO-CHOICE.
From: vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Choice, what a beautiful life...(was Re: Webster lost in MO
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:23:06 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I posted Election night, using that Subject Line, and it never showed
up at my site. Is it possible for someone besides me to cancel an
article of mine????

rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>Since no one else has posted about this...

I did, but it disappeared :-(

>William Webster (of Webster decision fame) lost in the race for
>Missouri Governor.  Mark down another big loss for the anti-choice
>side.

>	Mel Carnahan (D)	59% (pro-choice)
>	William Webster (R)	41% (pro-life)

Good for Missouri! Oh, and Michael "Death Camp Fetus Ads" Bailey lost
to Lee Hamilton in Indiana, by a *lot*!

Hooray for the people of America....Missouri, Indiana, Arizona, Maryland
and Oregon especially!  Oh, and...Illinois! :-)

Vickie (from Chicago "home of Carol Moseley Braun" Illinois)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: an anti-choice post
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:34:29 GMT

In article <6fm1w7+@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>i believe the middle-of-the-roaders who would bleed
>away women's rights, little by little, are a greater
>threat to the pro-choice concept than any of the
>crazies who have posted, and who do post, to this
>newsgroup.
But women don't have the right to third trimester abortions NOW.
Roe v. Wade is quite clear on this issue. 

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:33:42 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.720712856@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual:

>Alan L. Keyes, the Republican Party candidate for the U.S. Senate
>seat from Maryland that is up for election, is pro-life.  To make
>matters worse for him as far as media coverage is concerned, he
>is running against an incumbent who is a woman and is radically
>pro-choice.  
>The state of Maryland also has the most radically pro-choice laws
>on aboriton, outstripping Roe v. Wade and even FOCA, the so-called
>Freedom of Choice Act.

I wonder how Petie squares his characterization of Barbara Mikulski as
radical and Maryland law as radical with the election outcomes on Nov.
3?  If the country is as anti-abortion as Petie makes out, is Maryland
an anomaly?

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh? (LONG)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Nov 92 13:46:21 GMT

In <1992Oct29.215052.18101@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <1992Oct25.213248.13784@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>I believe that FFL does want to give all women rights equal to those
>>enjoyed by others.  They want to give pregnant women the same rights
>>and privileges which men and non-pregnant women enjoy. 

> You mean, like the right to choose whether or not someone or something
>else occupies one of one's body cavities?

No, because men never had that right to a meaningful degree.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
			--pro-abortion [not just pro-choice] slogan
"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament."
			--Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: posting path....
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:10:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.000653.24836@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>>Article 67640 (141 more):
>>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!concert!rock!taco!jjprice
>>>From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
>>>(SAME) Subject: Re: Right to Choose
>>>Message-ID: <1992Nov6.195649.11104@ncsu.edu>
>>>Originator: jjprice@c00081-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
>>>Lines: 79
>>>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
>>>Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
>>>Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
>>>References: <1992Oct31.192919.15054@ncsu.edu> <82917@ut-emx.uucp>  <83128@ut-emx.uucp>
>>>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:56:49 GMT
>>>
>>>
>
>Can anyone explain to me why, if this is suppose to be
>coming out of 'ncsu.edu' that there is NO reference to that
>domain in the 'Path:' line above?
>
>has ncsu.edu sorta fallen off the planet?

Lots of posts from ncsu.edu are like that, drieux. I've been noticing it
for quite some time. Cancels, especially, seem to come direct from "taco",
judging from the Path: line, but the Sender: is still news@ncsu.

So, even if something fishy is going on, it's been going on for a while...

								- Kevin
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:59:49 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) wrote:
>In article <1db5u1INN6d7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>|Doesn't it sound unspeakably cruel to bring pressure to bear on an unwilling
>|woman - maybe your own daughter someday - in an attempt to force her to give
> 
>If you are pleading on the half of incest or rape victims, that is
>one matter.  However, the MAJORITY do not fall into this and they 
>DO NOT fall into this supposed UNWILLING catagory.  They may and 
                       ^^^^^^^^  
What exactly was the point of adding this word?  Is it your opinion that rape 
and incest victims are not actually unwilling?  That deeep down inside women 
really want to be impregnated by a rapist?

[stuff about how sex is bad deleted]

>Richard Pitts

					.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 20:10:44 GMT

In <1992Nov2.190639.2686@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>Adrienne Regard writes:
>> 
>> Now, ask yourself:  Would you be in college today if your parents had two
>> MORE younger children at home right now?

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this argument much the same as
>"If you were aborted you wouldn't be here to read this"?  Or is that
>the point that I'm missing?

You've made a good point, Brian.  The relevance of sentience, by the
way, is that at some point there was a "you" who got aborted, and is
therefore not able to read this.  

Of course, that was not *you*, Brian, but it was someone else whom I
might be able to address as "you" today, if she hadn't been aborted.

I have in mind one specific "she", but there were millions of others in
the decade when she died, and an approximately equal number of "he"s.

>> implant.  I think it's far more tragic that existing people today suffer
>> privation than it is that some fetuses don't get carried to term.

>I think I agree with this.

I totally disagree.  I did not expect my "Another failure to communicate
on an ultimate question" post to take root in Adrienne's mind, or even in
Brian's,  but I'll keep coming back to the theme I brought up there in the 
coming months and, I hope, years.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:10:28 GMT


In article <1992Nov4.214059.15172@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
>And, while a non-viable child will die if the child is simply
>removed from the womnb, it does not follow that a person should
>have the right to kill them.  The right to kill does not logically
>follow from the right to refuse bodily support.  I don't have 
>the right to kill a dying person.
 
DOD has admitted that methods that would be used to deliver a
non viable fetus live would be more expensive, take longer and
be more painful.  Yet he still feels that it is worth it for 
some bizarre reason.  When I asked him for his reasons why he
was so willing to make women suffer, he either missed it or 
decided not to answer.  So I guess I'll give it a shot asking 
him the question again:
 
dk>You are wrong.  Safety to the woman is the issue.  You have still
dk>not explained why you are so willing to force women to go through
dk>a more expensive, longer laster, and more painful procedure just
dk>so they can deliver a live fetus, that we know will die.  What is
dk>your motivation here DOD?

 
>Doug Holtsinger
 
Dan King
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 18:15:10 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: FORCING THE LABEL ISSUE

In article <1992Nov3.082258.4476@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>In article <92305.090244ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article <1992Oct23.054405.17199@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy declares:
>>
>>>I hereby retract all statements I may have ever made on Usenet in support
>>>of any legislative restrictions on abortion.
>>
>>Does this include retracting your statement that you
>>would support legal provisions that could be used to
>>extort a woman to have an abortion by denying her
>>access to financial support?
>
>I believe that people should pay their voluntarily-incurred debts, Ms.
>Birmingham. In what way do you think this implies "support for legislative
>restrictions on abortion"?

It wasn't meant to imply anything about legislative
restrictions on abortion.  I wanted to see whether
you still supported laws that would force a woman
to abort.  Thank you for confirming that you still do.




Linda
--
All women must be free not only to prevent or end unwanted
pregnancy but also to have children when and how we choose.
  The New Our Bodies, Ourselves
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 23:23:15 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <13886@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>In that particular case Mr Nyikos has bragged about how competent a debater
>he is, and Mr Margolis replied back that Mr Nyikos had shown no skill in
>debate at all:
>
>>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>>> science and philosophy.
>>
>> You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
>> to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
>
>Mr Nyikos' reply to the accusation that he had shown no competence, was to list
>his credentials.  That is not a valid defense to his claim that he "can run
>circles around most people when it comes to science and philosophy," nor is it
>a valid rebuttal to the claims that he has "shown no sign of it" (especially
>in context of his use of fallacies).  Now, in his place I would have challenged
>Mr Margolis for an example and thereby dealt with those accusations if that
>were possible, ...

In fact, I did give an example later on; for some reason Peter wasn't able
to deal with it.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:48:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.034943.13954@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.173924.20461@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.024629.20691@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.040523.13980@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>>>>Keith Cochran candidly admitted:
>>>>
>>>>>"...let me
>>>>> tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>>>>
>>>>> 1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>>>>
>>>>What when she's in a coma?  There was a case a few years back when a
>>>>pro-life group went to court to stop a man from having his comatose
>>>>wife given a very late abortion (he had some reason to believe it
>>>>would bring her out of the coma; she did recover a couple of months
>>>>later)....  In that case the judge threw it out of court ruling lack
>>>>of standing.  Would you have let him do it?
>>>
>>>I don't know.  One of the reasons why I refuse to advocate any sort of
>>>legislation wrt abortion is that I know I don't know.
>>
>>You advocate a "legal restriction" on abortion, Cochran. Mind explaining
>>to me what you think the difference is between that and "legisation", in
>>this context?
>
>Let me put it into small words, Kibbles:
>
>I don't think women should have abortions.
>
>I refuse to write, or allow to be written, any laws which would restict
>a woman's right to obtain an abortion.
>
>Got it?

You failed to answer my question. Here it is again, rephrased in the hope that
you may be able to answer it: if you're unwilling to allow laws to be written 
that restrict abortion, why then do you support a "legal restriction" on 
abortion?

Things would be a lot simpler if you just withdrew your support for that
"legal restriction", Cochran. At best, it was just a lame attempt to impress 
Mr. Lanier with how "centrist" you are, but it's becoming painfully obvious
to me, at least, that you have no intention of following this "legal
restriction" through to its final conclusion -- restrictive abortion
legislation. You can't stop the march of reason, Cochran, and reason dictates
that "legal restrictions", which don't already exist, require new legislation, 
if they are to have any meaning or substance.

What's stopping you from withdrawing your irreponsible statement, except your 
ego and/or your inability to admit a simple mistake?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: darcyspeak revisited
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:16:57 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
->>I don't personally know any pro-choice advocate who thinks there should
->>be legal restrictions on abortions.  

->Do you think such a view could be at least compatible with pro-choice?

how can the position of someone who wants anti-choice 
legislation be compatible with pro-choice?

->Have you met Ms. Bartley?

that proves my point, doesn't it?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 05:30:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.022749.22635@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.192608.20755@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.191213.14422@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>> [Cochran's restriction, criticized]
>>>>
>>>>Secondly, Cathi Cook has recently expressed a disdain for "feelgood" 
>>>>legislation, which if I recall, she defined as legislation which addresses
>>>>problems not actually known to exist at the time of enactment. 
>>>
>>>I _knew_ I had her exact definition quoted somewhere! Here it is, belatedly:
>>
>>[Re-post deleted]
>>
>>>What the hell is the point of passing Cochran's restriction?
>>
>>Kevin, please provide the evidence where I called for the passage of
>>"Cochran's restriction"...
>
>Since you called it a >>LEGAL<< restriction, I just assumed you wanted it
>embodied in law. Was I mistaken?

Yes.  Maybe you should stop assuming things?

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:22:07 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->You might
->be interested to know that the Western ethic against infanticide
->gained its roots from early Judeo-Christian thought.  

  "First of all, the phrase "Judeo-Christian" 
  *anything* is offensive to Jews, who consider 
  the two religions opposed at their most basic
  points, no matter what their origins may have 
  been [...]"
     rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
     <1992May17.053331.8741@midway.uchicago.edu>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion