HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 15:04:50 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: darcy's hypocrisy (was Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!)
 <1992Apr8.035359.12315@rotag.mi.org>

In article <1992Apr8.035359.12315@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.141345.27358@crd.ge.com> James G Keegan Jr writes:

>>-> Time for some quick distancing, I assume? Whadda hypocrite.
>>
>>[darcy goes on to flame susan for posting unsolicited,
>>threatening email from welch and criticizing dennis hall for
>>posting email from suzanne, the content of which was similar to
>>that which suzanne has been posting for years.]

>Well, according to the "conventional wisdom" (ha!) of the pro-choice
>stormtrooper contingent, Welch public declarations revealed him as a
>misogynist and a rapist anyway, right, so how was his email to Susan any
>more out of character than Suzanne's email to Dennis Hall???

Kevin Welch denied repeatedly any accusation that he was
anything but a gentleman and a moral and responsible one
at that, unless of course the woman was pregnant and entering
a clinic, then he "just harassed :)".

Ms. Forgach has always been upfront about where she stands
on the issues, what appeared in the posted email was no
different than anything she, herself, ever posted.

Further Darcy, it should have been obvious to someone who
has been around the net as long as you, that the Hall post
was a forgery and an obvious attack on Ms. Garvin.  Beside
yourself, I wonder who else would have wanted to attack
Ms. Garvin in such a way.

Oh don't get your knickers in a twist and think I'm accusing
you of posting forgeries.  I know that you would not stoop
to such cowardly behaviour, for no other reason than you'd
hate to not use your name.

Nevertheless, whoever perpetuated this fraud not only
attacked Ms. Garvin, but victimized Ms. Forgach.  I'm
surprised that you condemn anyone for confronting the
mysterious Mr. Hall.

>Get your story straight.

Maybe you should put aside your vendetta and follow the plot
line a little more carefully.  Maybe then you wouldn't look
like such a fool.




Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"We must face the dynasty of the dames at once, deprive them
of our pocketbooks" P. Wylie, Generation of Vipers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:07:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>YOu guys are realy immature you know that? When the tough gets going,
>the pro-choice get offensive. How many Christian jokes have been brought
>into an otherwise serious forum for discussing abortion?
>   I won't even bother to credit the trash I read about the pope, but I
>will answer your stupid point. You see, the Catholic church emphasizes
>celibacy for the priests/hierarchy because they already HAVE a family.
>On average it's about 4000 per diocesan sector. So, they have NO TIME for
>another family, namely their own. A priest is so exceptionally busy trying
>to undo some of the damage and crap that society has bred, that he would
>have NO TIME to responsibly care for a child of his own. Like I said earlier,


bull. There are some professors here at Caltech who make the workload of
the pope seem skimpy. The one I have in mind has a very nice family of
his own...



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Has anyone seen this ad?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 20:14:04 GMT

<92088.154629JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> said:
><1992Mar27.161907.6158@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, amy young
><alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> says:
[excellent observations deleted or brevity - it's not what I am responding to]

>So I guess my point is that the underlying problem here (minority
>children not being adopted) can be solved in better ways than abortion
>(if the preservation of life is a priority).  Encouraging greater
>positive interaction between minority and majority groups as well
>as working hard to eliminate racism would be a better way.

A good idea.  As soon as it gets implimented we can revisit the idea of
making abortion illegal.  Let us know when you've succeeded in eliminating
racism to any great degree.  [Note: no offense intended, I just don't see
these changes happening soon and I don't want to see abortion made illegal
unless there are some concrete programs and changes in place to replace 
the need.]


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:17:16 GMT

> = dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 
>
>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 
>
>
>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 
>
>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 
>
>
>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.
>
>Follows from premise A and B.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but this argument is fatally flawed:

(1) Since you fail to specify, "human-life" means anything that is "human"
    and "alive".  So premise (A) uses the unstated assumption that *any* 
    "human-life" has the ABILITY to "determine its own set of morals".  
    Since a plasma is human life, and clearly cannot determine anything, 
    its ABSURD to state that it "should have the right to determine its 
    own set of morals" 
    Suggestion: replace "human life" with "people/persons", which may be 
    somewhat poorly defined, but is probably the best you can do.

(2) Since you fail to specify, "fetus" means anything from fertilized-egg 
    to mintues-before-birth-fetus.  Premise (B) & (C) both use the unstated 
    assumption that *any* "fetus" has the ABILITY to "determine its own set 
    of morals".  Since a fertilized-egg clearly cannot determine anything, 
    its ABSURD to state that it "should have the right to determine its own 
    set of morals".  In fact, I'm doubt a (real) baby could even determine 
    its own set of morals.

On the plus side, your argument was unusually easy to follow, a pleasant
suprise.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:23:58 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>sleep around and/or are sluts. You're in college. Look around you.
>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.

A:  Why are only the women sluts?

B:  Why are you so judgmental about the people around you?

C:  What the hell does this have to do with abortion?
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:18:56 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>Agreed?  The two of your brains combined couldn't come close to the
>research I've done on Jewish history and the holocaust in particular.

Highly intelligent insult....

>>(Remember to respect your elders, the have seen more than you can imagine)

>I respect ALL people until they prove themselves unworthy.  Congrats Ron.

Congrats? Why? Respect (or lack there of) from someone who you don't
respect to begin with matters not a whit to me.

I do, however, respect people like Joy Haftel, who holds an opinion
differing significantly from mine. You, however, have just ranted since
you began posting. I expected more maturity from someone who claims
to be 29. Then again, a past friend, who's 28, has the maturity level
of a 13 year old, so I guess I shouldn't be suprised that people like
you exist.

Ron
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15268 alt.abortion.inequity:794
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:44:09 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  <1992Apr13.234221.17114@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.072108.10596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Apr11.160950.8203@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writ
> >> In article <1992Apr06.151018.19614@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adri
> >> >
> >> >The man *is* uninvolved in the physical aspects of pregnancy, Kevin, his
> >> >best wishes and sympathy create no rights stream.
> >>
> >> You seem to conveniently forget that conception is ALSO a physical aspect of
> >> pregnancy.
> >
> >My dictionary says "pregnant" means "having a fetus or fetuses growing in
> >the uterus", so conception is a precursor to, not an aspect of, pregnancy.
>
> Well, since you have it out (the dictionary, that is) why don't you look up
> "physical" and "aspect" as well, Larry? Conception is a physical event, and,
> in its capacity as a strict prerequisite for pregnancy, certainly qualifies
> as an "aspect" of pregnancy, does it not?

   aspect (n)
   DEFINITIONS:
   1a  the position of planets or stars with
       respect to one another held by
       astrologers to influence human affairs
   1b  a position facing a particular direction
       : EXPOSURE the manner of presentation of
       a plane to a fluid through which it is
       moving or to a current
   2a  a particular status or phase in which
       something appears or may be regarded
       <studied every ^ of the question>
   2b  MIEN, AIR
   3   (archaic) an act of looking : GAZE
   4a  the nature of the action of a verb as to
       its beginning, duration, completion, or
       repetition and without reference to its
       position in time
   4b  a set of inflected verb forms that
       indicate aspect
   aspectual (aj)
   (c) G. & C. Merriam

I assume we're talking 2a, which is the only definition which would seem
to apply.  A prerequisite of something is not a phase of something.

> Besides, arguing that conception has nothing to do with pregnancy makes you
> vulnerable to the Kellmeyer Trap of "the man doesn't create a child, so he's
> not responsible for child-support".

I didn't say it has *nothing* to do with it; only an idiot (like
Kellmeyer) would argue that.  There's an element of time involved.

For example, registering for a class is a prerequisite for taking a
class, but it's not an *aspect* of the class.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:08:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hyperon

In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON"T MAKE A WAR OF THIS. We should be working
>TOGETHER to help the victims. YOu see the women as a victim, we see
>the fetus as a victim. CAN WE NOT WORK TOGETHER so that everyone is happy?

When you people show a willingness to compremise, then perhaps some pro-choicers
might be willing to do the same.

>I don't think you guys give a shit... All I see are the pro-lifers here
>begging to work TOGETHER, and you guys are so busy trying to hack away
>at our faith and pride, that you don't spend any time thinking about
>a solution.

Funny, I very rarely see any pro-lifers asking pro-choicers to work with 
them. I only see pro-lifers demanding absolutely that their beliefs be
made into law.

>  Your solution is "maybe if we get them to shut the hell up, then the
>problem will go away..." Think again my friend.
>   Incedentally, I probably picked on this post more than I should have
>but I'm so sick and tired of the jokes, insults, bites, jabs, and of 
>course, the nazi comments. Society could easily be split on the concept
>of abortion, and I am calling for peace. WE are calling for peace...
>It is up to the pro-choice now to decide. You will not pound us into
>submission. There are too many strong individuals in this movement 
>for us to be silenced. The ball's in your court now...

I hear you say the words, by I don't see any indication that this is more
than just rhetoric. As long as pro-lifers take a hard line, I for one, will
have to take just as hard a line in opposition.

>   steve (MICHIGAN LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!! ugh)

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:47:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.042341.4797@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.165827.27855@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr11.154047.7856@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <k85tvzl@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>
>>>>... I have seen many pro-"life" males on this
>>>>    group smugly assert that they believe in the sanctity of ALL
>>>>    life.  In that case, why should they balk at the opportunity
>>>>    to help a stranger?  It couldn't be that they feel that donating
>>>>    a kidney is INCONVENIENT?  How horrible, not to physically
>>>>    support someone else because of one's own CONVENIENCE!
>>>
>>>Gee, the pro-choice Peanut Gallery keeps ripping up Kellmeyer for telling
>>>them what they think. Aren't you doing EXACTLY the same thing here wrt
>>>"pro-life logic", Cathi?
>>>
>>>Double delicious, double-standard...
>>
>>Kevin, what kind of drugs are you on?  Rocker's post has absolutly *NO*
>>similarities to Steven's lies.  
>
>Kellmeyer sez:
>	All "pro-aborts" _obviously_ support weakening of child-support laws
>
>Cathi sez:
>	All "pro-lifers" _obviously_ support being visibly tagged and being
>	required to put their vital organs up for raffle
>
>(Paraphrases, of course)
>
>Nah, I don't see any parallel there, Keith...

Gee, Kevin why are you *paraphrasing* those posts?  Maybe because Steve and
Rocker never actually *said* those things?

Steve keeps saying that "The Follwing People" support both abortion and
weakening of the child-support laws.  He then goes on to name some people,
and most of those people tell him he's wrong.

Rocker never said anything remotly like what you're claiming she did.

Stop lying, Kevin.  If either of those people actually said anything like
what you're claiming, the articles either (1)never reached my site, or
(2)I missed them for some reason.  In either event, I'd like for you to prove
me wrong.

Please re-post the articles where Steve and Rocker claimed those things you
are "paraphrasing".
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:46:49 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu (Loren Finkelstein) writes:

> It is my belief that most people know that a fetus is alive, and human, from
> the moment of conception.  The question of when something turns into a human 
> is ridiculous.  Either someone is a human, or not.  Fetus's grow into babys 
> who then grow into adults.  They aren't some hideous monster that suddenly 
> changes into a human any more than a baby is some animal that suddenly turns 
> into an adult.  A fetus is just a human that has a lot of growing to do.

In 1979, Bernhard Nathanson, a noted anti-abortionist, wrote a book called
"Aborting America."  Although the subject of the book is his conversion to
the pro-life cause, he makes a compelling case for the dubiousness of calling
a fetus a human being.

"What are we to call the entity that lies at the heart of the debate?" he
asked.  He rejected "unborn baby" and "unborn child," saying that "the anti-
abortionists would load the verbal dice on us" by using these terms.  "We are
not talking about the type of life that we find in a six year old," Nathanson
wrote then.  "It certainly is biological life, but life of a different order."

If the life of a fetus is "life of a different order," certainly it is
reasonable to assume that it can be treated differently from other forms
of life.

> I think that the reason some people (Pro-Choicers) deny that a fetus is a
> living human being  is because if they accepted that a fetus is human, then
> that would make abortion murder.  They need to convince themselves that a
> fetus isn't human, so it is o.k. to kill it.

Nathanson also wrote, "We are not talking about intentional and unjustified
slaying of a human being."  The word "murder," he said, "should be dropped
from the abortion issue, along with "killing" and "homocide."

I suspect that the "Abortion is Murder" argument is really not taken seriously
by anyone, including many members of the pro-life movement.  If Nathanson has
the honesty to excise the word "murder" from his pro-life argument, perhaps you
should, too, Loren.

> Abortion is an easy answer to a lot of problems.  People who get pregnant
> (or who get someone pregnant) and don't want to deal with the responsability
> think that the best way to solve their problem is to get rid of it.  If that's
> murder, then they are stuck, so  they call it "termination of pregnancy" and
> all problems are solved.

You have a lot to learn, Loren.  Abortion is _not_ an easy answer.  For the most
part, a lot of soul searching is involved in such a decision.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:56:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.224124.28096@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr7.225824.11667@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>> How do you know it could never happen? Do you have a crystal ball?
>
>Two of them, actually; I tinkle when I walk.  :-)
>
>> Maybe it doesn't bother you that you ran away from this reasoning. It bothers
>> me. It bothers me a LOT, Larry, and I don't have any pat answers. But at
>> least, unlike you, I'm at least willing to explore the question...
>
>You presented it as a (hypothetical) fait accompli, and asked "what's wrong
>with this?"  I say it's obvious what's wrong, and it would never happen.

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.

You have offered absolutely nothing in this whole thread except mindless
hand-waving, Larry. Very disappointing. Are your pro-choice convictions
only skin-deep, perhaps?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Response to "Bible and Abortion"
Keywords: contraceptive, abortion
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:02:25 CDT

In article <1992Apr6.004458.29336@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
>In article <SFRAZIER.92Apr2170709@cs.ulowell.edu> sfrazier@cs.ulowell.edu (Scott Frazier) writes:
>>	FYI, in what was formerly the U.S.S.R., the typical woman has had
>>between 8 and 10 abortions in her lifetime.  In this instance, abortion
>>is in fact used as the primary form of contraception.  Personally, I
>>believe that the abortion issue will not be settled until a safe,
>>affordable, reversible, and 100% effective female contraceptive is
>>available.  Obviously, this sample does not accurately represent women
>>world-wide, but it is an interesting tidbit.
>>Scott W. Frazier                                sfrazier@cs.ulowell.edu
>
>Scott, please excuse me for intruding, but I must submit that a safe,
>affordable, reversible, and >99% effective female contraceptive IS
>available now, and it is just not being used.  Oral contraceptives
>meet close to your criteria.  Certainly even if there was a 1% failure
>rate, the number of abortions would be significantly reduced by their
>use.  Failure to take responsibility for actions (both male and
>female) is the main underlying cause of unwanted pregnancy.  Please do
>not say "Nothing can be done until......" and dismiss responsibilty
>for one's actions as meaningless.  In my opinion, if EVERYONE took the
>responsibility to prevent conception EVERY time it was not desired, we
>would have very few abortions.  So let's keep the issue clear.
>
Hi Len.

Another question. Do you feel that there is a reasonable limit to the
number of years oral contraceptives should be employed in a healthy
woman? Are there contraindications for use by very young girls?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion