HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: TJ Doran's gratitude.
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:50:48 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <BzF17n.Bzw@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran) writes: 

>Career?!? Plans?!? (Health I can understand...). As a person who almost never
>made it to the post-natal part, I'm glad my mother decided to put off her
>career, plans, etc. in favour of my *life*.
>
>So is she.

(1) How many times did you attempt to make it to the post-natal part
that you almost never made it?  (2) I'm glad you and your mother are
glad.  Can you explain how this is relevant to other woman and their
right to decide whether they are glad?

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 21:26:34 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>> 
>>Just for public information.  The above line is a lie.  Try to get your facts 
>>straight.  My online friends used to call me Captain Fink.  One of my 
>>fraternity nicknames used to be Clueless (Which I chose for myself).  It was 
>>an inside joke with a specific reference.   And, while my friends may say I am 
>>many things (including Clueless at times) that doesn't make me a hypocrite.  
> 
>Nope, what makes you a hypocrite is that fact that you would force women to 
>use their bodies against their will to keep fetuses alive, when you are not 
>willing to do the same.  

Again, I say that being pregnant is not the same as being fisted for 9 months.

If insist on using this scenario, then my refusal to agree is equivalent 
to refraining from sex with you because you don't want me to wear a condom. 

>Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily
>resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.

The only person I have to prove anything to is myself.  I know what I believe, 
and who I am.  

Tell me.  Do you honestly believe that all pro-life men are hypocrites?  It 
must be easy for you to believe that, because you know that they will never 
get pregnant, therefore they will never truly ba able to prove themselves in 
your eyes.  Is it so difficult for you to accept that a man who is pro-life 
might also be pro-life it he were a woman?  

The only really close scenario, for a man, to being pregnant, is If you got 
someone pregnant, would you be willing to support the child, for at least 9 
months before considering adoption.  While this is not an exactly same 
situation (There is no such thing), this is relatively close.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: dr. bill and misogyny
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:50:31 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <#0g27pp@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

->>>>I don't care to follow-up ridiculously long articles just
->>>>so you can relive your flamewar with Keegan, Overpeck.
->>
->>>Do you expect him to come to your defense? 
->>
->> why would you ask this question of a woman, dr. bill?
->> i've never seen you ask a male if they were expecting a
->> female to defend them.

->I asked that question of Susan to see if you'd come to her
->defense

at least you admit your misogyny, overpeck. i hope, for
your patient's sake, that you are able to vent your
frustrations and anger at women through your net
game-playing rather than abuse them with it under the
guise of counseling.

->It makes one 
->wonder if your (inevitably) protective behavior isn't indica-
->tive of the very misogyny that you try to lay at my doorstep.  

are you trying to build a record of ignorance to excuse
your misogyny, dr. bill?

->Perhaps this is a good example of the projection which you so 
->incessantly misapply.

or perhaps it's just another example of your
professional inadequacy.

->Interesting how that works, isn't it?

isn't it now?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:12:58 CST

In article <1992Dec18.162323.21575@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, we *all* have the right to choose what happens to our
>>>bodies.  The thing that we don't seem to be willing to accept is *when*
>>>that choice occurs.  The choice occurs *before* you have sex, not during
>>>and certainly not after.
>>
>>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>>*have* made your choice.  And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
>>--
>>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
>
>Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your comment, but I'm not sure it 
>would be considered a responsible decision to abort a child just because
>birth control failed.  The fact is, if I'm engaging in sex, there is 
>*always* the possibility of a pregnancy.  That's the way our bodies were
>designed.  Just because I take every precaution possible doesn't mean
>that I shouldn't also take the responsibility for the possibility of 
>caring for a child that may come out of the act.  If I go bunji-jumping
>and take every safety precaution but the chord still breaks, is it my
>fault that I get splattered all over the ground?  I'd say yes, because in
>a sport like that, there's always the possibility of an accident.  All of
>our actions have consequences, and if we're not willing to deal with those
>consequences, we shouldn't put ourselves in situations where we'll have
>to deal with them.  So, I guess I would say the bottom line is, if you
>don't want the possibility of a child, then don't have sex.  If you do
>have sex, again in my opinion, you should be in a relationship where if
>a child does come along, it would be a good thing, overall.
>  
What about couples who already have all the children
they can reasonably support and nurture?  Should they stop
having sex?  How long do you think most marriages would
last in that situation?

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:39:19 GMT
 <1g87rfINNn3k@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com><11DEC92.04315613@vax.clarku.edu> 
 <1giep1INN20k@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com><14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> 
 <1992Dec16.161254.23783@nas.nasa.gov><16DEC92.21033727@vax.clarku.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <16DEC92.21033727@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

Dan King asks...
   >Do you by any chance remember what your SAT scores were?
   >Could you post them?

   I do remember them.  I also remember my GRE scores.  These things, however, 
   are completely irrelevant.  I did well enough to move onto higher education.  
Well, at least he is more intelligent than Nyikos (that is not saying much, 
however)

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a cure for AIDS in the marketplace
before Magic Johnson gets AIDS?"
             Vice President Dan Quayle, 11/13/91 (CNN)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52064 soc.men:21217 alt.dads-rights:2963 alt.abortion.inequity:5926
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:44:28 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1gbmk8INN74p@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex.
>I do, however, argue that he has to pay *if* a child is born, because 
>it was *born* and has a right to be supported!

Let's say that we have a situation where the father had notified the 
mother in week four of the pregnancy that he does not want the child,
but she decided to have it, and now she sues the father.

There are (at least) two options:
1) An unmarried mother and an angry father and a bitter fight 
   to force him to *pay*.

2) A forced adoption by a pre-screened couple.

Michal, like most feminists, just loves option 1) and she fights 
hard against option 2).

So I have just one questions for her (and every one who is against 
choice for men): what, in your opinion, is better for the *child*,
option 1) or option 2)?

Please try to give a clear answer.

>							--  Michal

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Don't let me catch you doing what I do!"   ---   Diane Holt
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:48:07 GMT

In article <16DEC92.21110645@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:

>>Guess what?  A simple majority of the people will be unevenly
>>distributed between the various states and districts, and is extremely
>>unlikely to succeed in electing two-thirds of the House and Senate and
>>a majority of three-quarters of the State legislatures.

>Or, a simple majority vote could be fairly evenly distributed between the 
>states.  In that case, the 51% majority would fill the House and Senate with 
>their own candidates, and the ammendment would pass.  

1) Extremely improbable.  Done any statistics?

2) Don't forget that three-quarters of the state legislatures also have to
   approve the amendment.

3) I know spelling flames are unstylish, but it's "amendment".

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How? 
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:55:08 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Dec19.080107.14639@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <bob1.724701599@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>OK. We will inscribe male choice in law. Now, just how do we go
>>about doing this?
>>
>>	Prior to all sexual encounters a legal form *must* be signed
>>	by both parties.
>>
>>	If the woman changes her mind and proceeds with the prgnancy
>>	she relieves the man of all responsibility.
>>
>>Hmm? Guess we will have to ensure that all singles bars have copies of
>>these legal forms along with the bowl of condoms.
>
>I'm unaware that "condom bowls" are a statutory requirement now. Of course,
>if individual establishments WISH to offer their patrons these forms, I see
>no reason to forbid them from doing so...

Naw, there's a better solution.

Change the default to "no responsibility" for men -- as it is with women
today (they have two choices which relieve them of it). 

Now, if a woman WANTS to have a child with a man, THEN there should be a
legal form signed and filed.

That way there is an >affirmation< of support.  

I think the best way to do this is to require >both< parties to sign the
same form.  That way the man knows at the time its signed that the woman
won't abort the fetus, and the woman knows the man can't legally run off.

That is, there is mutual assent.  

I like it.  

>less resources there are available to support the average child. If you
>really cared about children, I'd expect you to support changes which maximize
>the chance that any given child is wanted and voluntarily supported by BOTH 
>of its natural parents.

Which I believe this change would do.  Only a foolish woman would have a
child which she could not afford if she could not bill the man for half the
cost -- and men would have no reason to "run off" on their kids, as they
wouldn't be responsible for them unless they wanted them in the first place.

I fully support holding people to their agreements in this area; the key is
consent.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 23:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.185257.29475@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>>Here are a few
>
>>"Thou shalt not kill"
>>"Thou shalt not steal"
>
>Loren, do you ever wonder how civilization got along prior to these 
>commandments from your god?  Was there like wholesale killing and
>stealing prior to then?  Isn't it possible you are being rather
>arrogant when you assume these are only religious tenets?
>
	It does seem to be typical of certain flavors of Xtian, though, to act
as though civilization began with the founding of their religion and is placed
in dire jeapordy by any reduction in its popularity.  This would appear to be 
one of those cases.  Chalk it up to cultural myopia.
[...]
The_Doge

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52414 alt.abortion.inequity:6019 soc.men:21416
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:23:45 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec18.173425.11297@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1goj3iINN1ek@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>I have freely admitted to this net, and to Don, that I do not have the
>>archive to repost what I claimed that Don said.  While this doesn't change
>>my *opinion* about what Don said, (and therefore I don't retract it), I
>>cannot prove it, and I've said so.  

>Let me see if I've got this straight -- it's okay to slander someone as
>long as you conveniently lack the archives to back up what you're claiming
>about them?!!?!?!

CLUE FAIRY TIME, you stupid idiot.

I have said that I do not have the archive,
and thus I cannot prove what I said.

I can *believe* what I choose to believe.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
X-To: KARL DENNINGER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:23:00 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes...
KD> In article <1f4hlnINN2fr@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
KD> ) writes:
KD> >karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes...

(KD> > = Michal Leah Peri)


KD> >Note:  I am suggesting these courses of action as supplementary to
KD> >condoms, for men who want to hedge their bets against becoming fathers.
KD> >                                                       --  Michal

KD> I want better than a hedge.  I want the right to choose.  This is too damn
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KD> important for men to roll dice.  Women don't have to.  Neither should men.


DAMN RIGHT THAT I WANT THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE!!

just imagine if the government WERE to outlaw abortion and started telling
women to "hedge their bets"...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Politically incorrect and proud of it.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:12:38 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: MURDER
Distribution: na

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 17-Dec-92 Re: MURDER by Patrick L
Humphrey@is.ri 
> (Not many people are pro-abortion, anyway -- I've only seen one in this
> newsgroup in the last three years.  I think your definition needs a major
> revision.)

    I cannot read but read a small sample of the post on this bboard and
I have only been reading for about six months.  Yet, I have seen a few
people willing to embrace the label pro-abortion.  Since talk.abortion
is not my life, I have not kept quotes from everyone, but I do remember
Diana(catwoman) explicitly calling herself pro-abortion.  I have also
explicitly stated that I am pro-abortion and that I think the existence
of abortion in society is a moral good.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:39:00 GMT

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
GS> <1992Nov22.214522.28928@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
GS> >regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
GS> >AR> <1992Nov5.022416.3257@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.g
GS> >AR> >From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
GS> >AR> >AR> Oh, come on.  What you are really saying is to hell with the thous
GS> >AR> >AR> of years of legal precident our western culture has relied upon.
GS> >AR> >
GS> >AR> >But, you don't seem to object to "saying to hell" with the thousands o
GS> >AR> >years of legal precdents which are to the perceived disadvantage of wo
GS> >AR> >
GS> >AR> >So why object to attempting to change legal precedents which are perce
GS> >AR> >be disadvantageous to men?
GS> >
GS> >AR> Ah, the big question.  The $64,000 question.
GS> >
GS> >AR> WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?
GS> >
GS> >AR> The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and
GS> >AR> not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for AL
GS> >AR> the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money f
GS> >AR> that.
GS> >
GS> >Since you oppose programmes that further strain the "average taxpayer," I
GS> >feel compelled to ask you if you also oppose public funding for abortion
GS> >clinics?

GS> I don't oppose public funding of abortions.  A recent study (seen in a
GS> spring issue of Mercury News) stated that every $1 spent on abortion saves
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GS> $14 in welfare.  So you can spend money to save money.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This makes the assumption that most women who undergo the procedure are in the
lower-income bracket.  I have read that this is not the case, ie., that the
women involved, are from all walks of life, and all income brackets.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Few people have the imagination for reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals,soc.culture.canada
From: todd@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:18:55 GMT


In article <wf=hAM_00iV2I7iZcS@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

>Not true.  The only Hindu demographic group that remains vegetarian is
>the Dravidian Brahmins.  The rest eat meat if they can afford it.  

Whatever, I'm sure that most of the world's vegetarians are so for
religious reasons, and that the Dravidian Brahmins would still
outnumber ethical vegetarians in the rest of the world.

>> "rights" should read "convenience".
>
>It is a matter of rights & how can a person who access to using e-mail
>complain about someone else having a convenience?  The labelling of an
>abortion a convience is one of the most basic displays of the misogyny
>that underlies the anti-abortion movement.

I am only against a convenience that takes another individual's life.
How you twist this into mysogyny, I would like to hear.  My mother,
my grandmother, my girlfriend, and my sister would like to hear too,
because they agree with me.

>Zygotes have no nerve cells and cannot feel suffering.  I think the same
>is true of embryos.  Fetuses probably do feel pain when they are killed
>by an abortion.  If fetus were permitted to develop into a human being,
>that human being will probably feel much more pain over the course of
>its life, so why is the pain of a fetus worth mentioning?

THis is some of the most ridiculous rationalizing I've heard in a while.
Why we don't just kill YOU now, since the pain would probably be less
than the total integrated pain you are going to feel over the rest of
your life.  This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read...


Todd Law
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:23:30 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1goin9INN1b3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>But, hey, if you asked me for clarification, I'd give it to you.

And then you proceed to give it to us:

>That's horseshit, Will.  Because, you see, I don't ignore women, like some
>of the people who engage in this topic.  Whereas men have responsibility
>for children (i.e., feeding, clothing, and educating, either in person or
>by paying a proxy) so do women, likewise, bear the responsibility to feed
>clothe and educate their children, up to the point where they relinquish
>their children to the social services set up explicitly for the purpose
>of continuing the feeding, clothing, and educating of children whose parents
>cannot or willnot continue to do.

For you see, those "social service" agencies will come and take a child from
a >women< who does not or will not care for it.  However, should a >man<
walk away from a child he should be thrown in jail for the same offense and 
have his wages garnished for the next 20 years.

>But that's ALSO kinda sorta because I recognise a child to be a child 
>AFTER it has been born, ya know.

Yet once that social service agency comes around, its the states' problem
isn't it?  But only if you're a woman in the majority of cases today.  Men 
need not apply; just give the kid to mom and give dad the bill.

>Adrienne Regard

==
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: talk.abortion