HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:47:38 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  <1992Apr11.155654.8031@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all.

Why the [sic] ?

> 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.

But there are people *right now* who are trying to take away women's
rights by banning abortion.  So that's what I'm fighting against.  As
long as your proposed hypothetical remains hypothetical, I don't care
about it.  If some idiot were to propose it as a solution, *then* I'd
fight them as well.

> You have offered absolutely nothing in this whole thread except mindless
> hand-waving, Larry. Very disappointing.

Sorry you're disappointed, Kevin, but I saw nothing of value in the
thread to discuss.

> Are your pro-choice convictions only skin-deep, perhaps?

No, but my priorities are to fight current threats, then to guard against
potential threats.  Hypothetical situations which I feel have no chance
to develop into a threat get low priority.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: brownstn@leland.Stanford.EDU (Lee Stewart Richardson)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 00:57:22 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:38:43 GMT


In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:

>>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.
>
>How?  Does the doctor do an abortion and then run out and kill a kid, or
>does the woman run over them in the parking lot on her way home.
>Certainly you couldn't be trying to tell us that you think a fetus is a
>child?  That doesn't fit any dictionary definition I've ever seen.
>


Hey dickhead!!!!

Why don't you tell that to the woman who just had a miscarriage.
I'm REAL sure she'll agree with you...

later

-- 
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
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:37:24 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.193308.7248@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>In <1992Apr14.014843.28309@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr13.191915.10157@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>know that the Inuit natives still have a Gestation period (not in 

>>   I feel sorry for you... YOu're about to be disproved. I am well
>>versed in the cyclical nature of pregnancy which is referred to as the
>>"gestation period" insinuating a repeating nature of the gestation of the
>>fetus. In other words, a predictable nature to the gestation cycle results
>>in a consistent gestation period. 
>     Incredible. I teach college English, but I've never seen a more
>garbled sentence which says less in my life. Try using short sentences,
>Steve--unless this little venture into doublespeak is an attempt to
>eclipse the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
   Hmmm, that is cool. Flash around your big shiny badge as a "professor
of English" to prove your points? Well, yeah i looked at my sentence, and
it does suck. But, it's disappointing that you couldn't wade through
it to figure out what I was saying...
   By the way... I think that your point about "never see[ing] a more garbled
sentence... " was one of the worst cases of sarcasm I have seen in MY life
as a Physics student. (whoah! Physics student!!!)

>With both "me" interpretation and the dictionary interpretation. And
>that wouldn't be me you're addressing as "friend," would it?
Awhhh, come on... aren't we close?

>>-- 
>>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oH
   What's the matter? You didn't have any complaints with the grammatical
nature of my .sig? How inconsistent of you? I think the punctuation
is a bit off to begin with...

>iHumpty Dumpty lives, and his name is Steve.
   jack-ass lives, and his name is PROFESSOR Price.
steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:56:20 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>   I am not doing the judging. God has already done that. God has
>given us the message, and left us to deal with it. Wel, I'm dealing
>with it. Perhaps I do fall into a judgemental state occassionally,
>but more often I just voice the beliefs of the Catholic church,
>and the message of God. They're pretty good people to have on your
>team... 8)

Sophistry.  YOU are doing the judging when YOU decide that abortion is a
sin and is wrong.  The Bible (which I presume is your reference text)
has nothing to say on the specific subjects of when life begins or
the appropriateness of abortion.  To claim that you are not judging
people is little more than self delusion.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 13:08:50 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!

Damn I hate when this happens,
In article <1992Apr8.122354.12540@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin writes:

>   The funny thing is, that there is a higher ratio of women in
>Canada that are pro-life than man. The women care more about the
>child then men do. This group insinuates that the men are the
>ones fighting the battle, but this is not the case.

Sources please.  The last Canadian Gallop poll on abortion showed
that over 60% of the Canadian population agreed with the right of
women to obtain abortions, over 80% agreed she had a right in
certain situations.  Considering women make up half of the
population it is debatable that more women than men are pro-life.

REAL Women, a major female prolife organization in Canada, has a
membership far lower than the membership registered in NAC.
Considering the Canadian apathy to become politically involved,
the number differences are seen to be significant to the point
that the Federal government agreed that funding REAL Women is not
required because they do not sufficiently reflect the attitudes
of Canadian women.

The leaders of two leading antiabortion organizations are men.
Reverend Campbell (I've forgotten the name of his group) was a
frequent demonstrator and spokesperson for the Right to Life
movement until he was arrested and jailed for violating a court
against protesting outside of a Toronto Morgentaler clinic
The leader of the Canadian Operation Rescue is a man.  The
politicians who have tabled prolife policies have all been
men.

Canadian women are no different than our American sisters.
So don't for one minute think that if the federal government
tries to repeat their past mistake of reintroducing abortion
legislation in this country that women will sit passively back
thinking the Senate will awaken from its somnolent state twice
in one century.



Linda
--
I never march in demonstrations
 I hold my breath for arbitration
     I am far too Canadian
Spirit of the West
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 01:34:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.161125.15204@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>-> >I've always felt that a man who gets a woman pregnant should
>-> >be responsible for alimony (for the child, AND the mother if
>-> >she was employed and is unable to work for any period of her
>-> >pregnancy...)
>-> >   Basically, whether you are married or not, sex should be a
>-> >legal AND moral responsibility for us all. If you are going
>-> >to have sex, it can't be a one sided ride. Men must be
>-> >responsible for the child, just as much as the woman. It
>-> >should not be right that a woman is FORCED to have an
>-> >abortion because the man is not there to support her
>-> >financially through the problem (or emotionally...)
>-> 
>-> In what sense is anyone being "FORCED" [sic] to abort, Steve?
>-> Certainly we're not talking about guns and chains and
>-> incarceration here, so in what way shape or form is she being
>-> "FORCED"???
>
>she is being "FORCED," kevin, through fear and economic pressure.

Economic pressure? Surely it's not "economic pressure" to require people 
to pay their debts, Keegan; that's just "financial responsibility". As
I see it, the absolute worst that can happen is she'll declare bankruptcy 
and/or go on welfare. Sure, that's not all sunshine and roses, but if the 
woman really WANTS to go it alone, such options exist.

And let us not forget that many women CAN afford to raise children by
themselves. Where's the "fear" there? The "economic pressure"? Yet the
current laws still don't absolve the man even under these circumstances.
So much for the "fear and economic pressure" rationale. Nice theory, but
it isn't applied in practice...

It is also my opinion that society has every moral right to financially 
DISCOURAGE indiscriminate baby-making. I see that as falling within its 
sphere of legitimate functions. At the same time, however, I would argue 
that society does NOT have the right to FORBID any woman from bearing any
child. The latter would violate her rights to privacy just as much as the 
pre-RvW abortion laws did, IMO.

							- Kevin

P.S. Does the above qualify me as "pro-abortion" supporter #2?
From: keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: kevin and the "Moral High Ground" (was Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:36:36 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
-> >What incoherent nonsense!  Have you anything to say
-> >about the issues, Brawley?  So far you only seem 
-> >interested in insulting as many people as possible.
-> 
-> He's probably just following the sterling example set by the
-> Pro-choice Peanut Gallery. Ever wonder why the Moral High
-> Ground is such *expensive* real estate, CJ?

you know all about the "Moral High Ground," don't you kevin?

        "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
        I make, or retract it."
			Kevin Darcy
			<1992Feb11.054339.25284@rotag.mi.org>

(this about susan garvin):

        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>

did kevin ever support his comment about susan garvin? no!

did kevin ever retract his statement about susan garvin? no!

this is kevin's "High Moral Ground."




--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: Has anyone seen this ad?
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:32:13 GMT

In <17366@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ronald Bense) writes: >
In talk.abortion, wdo@IEDV4.acd.com 
   ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes: >>
In <1992Mar16.233212.151352@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>>They are sickening, though.  I'm also sickened by networks
>>>who refuse to run advertisements for condoms or birth control
>>>pills but feel perfectly at ease running this stuff.
>>>
>>>This is confusing.

>>There is no reference to any legislative agenda in the ad.  None
>>is implied.  It endorses no coercive measures that restrict access
>>to abortion.  It does suggest that life can be a good choice, de-
>>spite the implicit difficulties.
>>
>>Maybe I don't understand your agenda.

>This is called brainwashing, Bill. You know, where the facts are limited
>and only those that the censoring entity wants to show are presented.
>Therefore, due to input from any other sides of an issue, only the one
>is regarded as correct, since it is the only one known.
>
>[musings wrt Gallileo and the Catholic Church deleted]

How about this.  Two serious looking men in business suits confront
a surprised housewife at the front door of her home.  The caption
suggests that these are police officers who've come to investigate 
the circumstances of the woman's recent miscarriage.  After all, if
the pro-lifers have their way, such a scenario may become a reality
in the near future.  Planned Parenthood sponsored this and numerous
other ugly, misrepresentative "advertisements" about a year ago as
an attack on the pro-life movement.  The ads ran in Time, Newsweek 
et al.  Those ads were not only biased, but malicious, as well.  My
understanding of the pro-choice political agenda is that it simply
rejects statutory restrictions wrt abortion, not attempts to persuade
people that other alternatives are also valid.

>Her 'agenda' I imagine is that she depises only one religiously backed
>viewpoint to be presented, without consideration for other alternatives.

Whoa.  First, I was referring to the pro-choice agenda, not Susan's
in particular.  Second, there is no implication that the viewpoint
of the DeMoss Foundation is religiously motivated.  I personally 
don't know; it may or may not be, but it's misleading to assume it.
Not everyone in the pro-life movement bases their position on some
theological tenet.  

>If you're one of those 'If they don't know about it, it won't happen'
>folks, look around you. People no longer go by a single religious set
>of morals, and engage in a wide range of activities, which no one group
>should even attempt to control.

I don't know what this means.  A great many people subscribe to the
teachings and traditions of mainstream Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Hinduism, Buddism, etc.  To the extent that these religions represent
a "single set of morals", I have to disagree with you.

>Got a little long, sorry. :-)

Hey, this is short compared to some of posts I've seen recently.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:32:09 GMT


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

>In article <1992Apr15.004239.5246@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>does the term "auto-mailer-from-hell" mean anything to you?
>>and yeah, I'm the site administrator. :)
>I seriously hope this isn't a threat, dear boy.
>Allow me to donate you a clue:
>If you were to set up an automailer to mail to anyone's system on this
>newsgroup--with the possible exception of DJR or SF, I can think
>of several things that most of the people out here could do--that
>would be little burden on their local systems--and would probably
>do the equivalent of ensuring that you can't productively access
>the internet ever again, site administrator or not.

notice the :)

and BTW, I can simply change the address which I would use.

-- 
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
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:09:31 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.232900.16644@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.184118.14440@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <18061@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>matter who started it. You should be more concerned with who spreads it,
>>and how we can stop it... Now have I suggested my contraceptive? Oh yes,

>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HIV/AIDS is *NOT* just a "gay
>disease".  Anybody can get it.

   Where the hell did I ever imply that HIV+/AIDS is a "gay disease"?!?!?! 
Little edgy aren't you? In any case, I didn't imply that the disease was
circulated mainly by the gay community, but with the promiscuous
community. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted it
 
>This message brought to you by somebody who's seen too many good people die
>already.
   Accept my condolonces please...

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:08:46 GMT
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL

>Message-ID: <1992Apr14.014223.377@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
>From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
>
>well.....what if I wanted to cut my wrist? Or mutilate my leg in
>a fist of rage after a serious break-up????

Go for it, dude!  Far be it from a pro-choicer to tell you what to do
with your own body!


Susy@ksc
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I like to think big.  If you're going to     |
 | EG & G Florida           |    be thinking anyway, you might as well        |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |    think big."                 Donald Trump     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:01:22 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <9204141712.AA26666@nettlerash.berkeley.edu> GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET writes:
>franklin at ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>-
>| I have a lot of respect for Suzanne's posts, not because she is pro-life
>| but because she is fair.
>-
>Yet another guy who falls for those blonde-haired-blue-eyed types ...
*sigh* you've found my weakness... Now, if she was 6' tall, then I'd 
really be hooked...
   steve (who's 6'6"  heh )
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Matthew Lewis Can Lose
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:02:51 GMT
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL


Matthew, Matthew, Matthew....will you *ever* learn?

You claimed, publicly, that you were going to make some serious posts.
And I believed you.  I want to give you the benefit of the doubt 
Matt Hew(?), but its hard to do that when you claim:

"So, please, think twice before you make so severe [a] generalization."

You then imply that EVERYONE is a hypocrite, and call Dean, I believe,
a liar for taking issue with *that* generalization.

And then, at one point, I thought you were ACTUALLY going to state an
opinion.  And viola! here it is:

"A perfect example of this today is gun control. We MUST limit
firearms, even though there should be no control, because some
people will always abuse them and the stability will suffer."

While I am forced to agree that this *is* an opinion, it, unfortunately,
has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You have verbally abused Ron and Dean for stating what I am going to
rephrase below, in a less sarcastic way. (And as you know, this will be
extremely difficult for me, but in the interest of peace with you, I
will do so...)

I think I can speak for both Ron and Dean here (and if I can't, I'm sure
they will notify me), but ALL WE WANT FROM YOU IS THAT YOU STATE AN
ACTUAL OPINION, ONE THAT HAS _SOMETHING_ TO DO WITH ABORTION, AND IF 
POSSIBLE, ACTUAL FACTS TO SUPPORT SAID OPINION.  This is a simple, serious
request Matt Hew(?), one I think you are up for.

I dare you Matthew....make our day!!!

Later.....Susy
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I need this like I need a butt implant."     |
 | EG & G Florida           |                                                 |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |                                        Opus     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+