HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:45:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve
>Novak) writes:

>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?

>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

Mark, those are your ethics/morals. They don't necessarily apply to
everyone else. (How's your supply of marshmallows holding up?)

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 04:53:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.070455.20287@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1384@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
>>her extremely credible.  
>
>Do you believe her informed claim that she is "pro-choice"?
>
Certainly. She states quite plainly that she is pro-choice early in
the pregnancy, and in favor of restrictions for late term abortions.
Given that she doesn't try to lie about or hide her views, I have no
problem viewing her as pro-choice.
I only develop a problem when the individual tries to hide or lies
about their views.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Meet Peter Nyikos, Coward (was Re: Netserver problem: newer is not necessarily better)
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:19:04 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <root.726168416@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>The sysadmin disabled the main netserver to install new software on
>>>New Year's eve.  Since then, it has received no new messages.  I hope
>>>that once he is contacted he can fix things up and then the new software
>>>will be ultimately of benefit, but...well, see the thread title.
>>>
>>>Peter Nyikos
>>
>>It never fails....anytime I destroy good ol' Doc Nyikos in a series of
>>posts, he all of a sudden can't read them....amazing coincidence...NOT!
>>
>You're not the only one Steve. I'm still waiting for him to reply to
>questions I asked him *several* times, well before the date of the
>alleged newsserver failure.
>
>Like you, I'm *sure* it's just a coincindence. At least, Joe Isuzu
>tells me it is, and he's more credible then PHoney.

It gets worse, now.  I just got some mail from a net.friend, who I've been
conversing with for some time.  Seems Herr Doktor sent him some mail
slandering and defaming me.  And it appears, to my knowledge, that Nyikos 
saw the discussion I was having with this person over the last few days, so
he's slipped up.

I wonder if he's ever heard of ethics?  

Jeez, what a coward "Dr." Nyikos is.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55358 talk.religion.misc:25948 alt.atheism:25771
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:35:51 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <root.726786680@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>There is a huge difference.  A born child is a unique, self-contained
>>individual, that can be supported by any capable adult, and has demonstrable
>>rights.  A fetus, prior to viability, is not self-contained, or supportable 
>>in any other fashion, and has no demonstrable rights under our laws.
> 
> So.  What does self-sufficiency have to do with the intrinsic value of 
> the individual.

What *is* the "intrinsic value of the individual"?  Could you define it
please?  Then we might be able to answer your question.

> Yet, you can kill the baby and it is perfectly legal.

I don't believe it is ever legal to kill a baby.  Are you lying, ignorant, or
trying to twist words?


mathew
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:48:47 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

In article <1993Jan3.222640.8528@fuug.fi>, an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:
|>Killing babies is wrong because they are human beings just like everyone
|>else. [....]

at this wacko had the good sense to be sufficiently
embarassed about their stance to feel it necessary to
post anonymously.



                     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:11:31 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>      As you can see, I am not stretching the definition.  Have you ever 
>heard the expression "with child" used for a pregnant woman (yes, it is
>somewhat archaic)?

Have you ever heard the phrase "going to be a mother" used for a
pregnant woman?  (It's fairly common usage)

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:44:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.225301.2016@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>>
>> Well then, lets look at this case...
>> From the one anencephalic baby, we could have harvested 1 heart, 2
>> lungs, 2 kidneys, a liver suitable for ressection to provide
>> transplants for as many as 3 others, bone marrow, and 2 corneas.
>> Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
>> heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. Bone marrow had
>> not been matched yet. Neither had corneas, but they are relatively
>> easy to match.
>> 
>> Since people who call themselves Pro-Life took steps to halt any organ
>> donations until after brain death, this is the outcome:
>> The recipients for the heart, both lungs, 1 kidney and 1 liver section
>> are now dead. The other kidney, liver, and bone marrow recipients are
>> still waiting and hoping. The corneas were eventually used.
>
>
>Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.
>Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS alone, and she
>had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who that like to talk big
>about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies, this case shows them
>up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.
>
Ya just don't get it Sizzie. This wasn't a *person*. It was a human
body with no brain in it.
But it's no suprise that you have no problem killing those BORN WANTED
CHILDREN by denying them organs from a human body with no brain. None
at all Suzzie. No skull either. Zero survial. Zero life. The *only*
positive thing those parents saw was the chance to let their
misfortune save the lives of some children. People like you took away
that chance, and killed those children.
I hope you're happy mucous brain.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:33:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.030056.16855@midway.uchicago.edu> 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>>>> in a way that women aren't?   

>>> I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
>>> between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
>>> custodial parents.

>> Neither child support laws nor anti-abortion laws are intended to
>> burden one sex more than another, but they both have that effect.

> Well, no court has ever considered the equal protection implications
> of abortion laws, so the point is mostly moot, 

So why did you raise the point in the first place? 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 18:41:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.235607.3604@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> 
>> In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
>> a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
>> 
>> #I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>> 
>> Nice trick, Heather.
>> 
>> Susan
>
>
>Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>
Geee, this is the first time I've ever been called a lesbian...
Go check your mucus Suzzie. I think it's backed up and is clogging
your brain.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:46:42 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

] Fame at last; to have a drieux response.  I can die happy. :-)
 
Given What you say below, may I recommend that you
make that choice real soon....

] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
] >]
] >] The "usual" definition of AA, as I have met it, is along the
] >] lines of:
] >]
] >]         If there has been systematic discrimination in filling
] >]         certain positions, on a basis that was not relevant to
] >]         suitability for those positions; and if this led to
] >]         underrepresentation of an underprivileged group; then
] >]         when there is a choice in filling future positions,
] >]         among those people of the necessary standard, there
] >]         should be a preference for those people of the
] >]         underrepresented group.
] 
] >Sorta sounds like the basic case of awarding both
] >child custody, as well as child support awards.
] 
] Doesn't bother me.  Now all you have to do is convince all
] those prejudiced judges.  But I thought the problem with
] child custody was that so few men wanted it...
 
Can we say that you may have missed a MAJOR CHUNK of what
is going on in the SubKulture of MalePersons.

My father was a bit surprised to find the whole Underground
movement of Single Parent Father's out there when he became
the Custodial Parent of his Sons. I doubt that little has
functionally changed in the intervening years.

And also, it was presumed that father would pay alimony,
and that mother would NOT pay child support.... and that
father would pick up the travel exspenses to get the kids
home to visit mother.... a minor Matter complicated by
his being stationed around the world on the Bastions of Freedom.

] >I believe that Chris has put forward a clear case that
] >far too many child Custody Cases have been Explicitly
] >a violation of the general tenants of AA.
] 
] Because so few men were willing to live within the necessary
] conditions?  [I don't know.]

No Because so Many JUDGES are still Sexist Pigs who presume
that a Child is best in the Custody of the Mother as the
Default Value. Likewise, as it turns out, if there is a 
court case on non_payment, it is presumed that the MalePerson
is NOT the plaintiff in the case.

ciao
drieux




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:06:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.040806.5057@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.012155.3218@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.010225.29075@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <PATRICK.93Jan3183146@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>>   In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>
>>>>   [Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]
>>>>
>>>>   DODie, what the hell is this crap?
>>>>   Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
>>>>   soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
>>>>   concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
>>>>   least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
>>>>   Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?
>>>>
>>>>I'd say he puts in quite a bit of practice at it -- for a good example, try
>>>>fingering his account at eceyv some time.  Really cute .plan, if you ask me.
>>>>(Not quite the artwork of Chaney's, but you can tell he exercised his single
>>>>neuron to the limits in producing it...:-)
>>>>
>>>Well, I'm sure he practices, but don't you think it takes a certain
>>>inborn (or more correctly, inbred) trait to be capable of such
>>>astounding feats of stupidity?
>>>
>>
>>Or, even more correctly, crossbred.
>>
>What do you think he is? Half monkey, half chiwuaua? (Or whatever that
>little rodent looking dog is called...)
>

I'll agree with the chiwuaua bit, but I wouldn't give doug too much 
credit by claiming him to be part primate. Seems to me that he should be
part sloth. Spends 22 hours a day unconsious, moves at 1/3 of a mile
per hour, and has the intelligence of a doorknob. Yup, that's doug.

Robert Johnston


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date:  6 Jan 93 18:41:56 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:

>>People (men and women) who do not want to have
>>children should abstain from sexual relations
>>(if they desire to curtail their children
>>for a time) or undergo sterilization (if they
>>decide they are finished forever).

>Imagine how heartwarming I find it that you have unilaterally decided
>that I should not be allowed to consummate my marriage, or that I should
>have to undergo major surgery, because I would find pregnancy to be a
>terrible burden at this time.

>Imagine how warmly my spouse would react when you mention that my spouse
>is not permitted to have sex, either.

By all means make whatever choices you and your spouse
feel most comfortable with.
However, the least the both of you can do is agree to
accept responsibility for your progeny.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:31:35 GMT

chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>> The woman is in NO SHAPE to return to her job.  Many of the jobs held
>> predominantly by women (service, clerical) take a _very_ dim view of
>> extended absences.  Since we don't live in Happy Bunny Land (thanks...
>> Chris?), the longer the surgical recovery time, the greater the chance
>> that a woman will LOSE HER JOB due to absence.

[--from a TV promo for HBO movies--]

Conversationalist:  Say, that was a really affecting and meaningful film.
(to Richard Dreyfuss look-alike)  Did you make that movie?

RDla movie maker: (petulantly) No.

I'm flattered that you thought I was the creator of Happy BunnyLand <TM>.
Sad to say, I'm not; although if you're wearing a short skirt, flashing
a great smile and have a bitchin' figure, I _could_ be... :-)

> Ahem. 

> "Happy BunnyLand <TM> is a registered trademark of the North American
> Applied Philosophy Association. Good Fairy action figures sold
> seperatly. All rights reserved, and have a _swell_ day."

> (The standard usage is "When the Good Fairies take us all to
> Happy BunnyLand <TM>, where no one will have to suffer or die
> ever again, then [whatever].")

Is the NAAPA as aggressive in protecting its copyrights as, say, Disney?

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:44:21 GMT

In article <root.726503770@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>Yes.  I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and
>to be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception in
>light of my Christian  belief.  What I *REFUSE* to do is impose that view
>on any other person.  Our system of government is NOT meant to be
>religious, and is meant to protect the *INDIVIDUAL* rights of each person,
>as defined under our Constitution.  Under our laws, a fetus is NOT a
>person.

Suppose you had been born under the Nazi government.  Replace "abortion"
with "exterminating the Jewish race" and replace "fetus" with Jew.  Or
pretend you were born in the U.S. 120 years ago and pretend this deals with
the Indians.  

>I have said over and over again that I would in each and every case counsel
>against abortion, except when the mother's life was in danger, or in cases
>of rape and incest.  Even in the last two, I would personally have a
>difficult time recomending abortion.

I can see why you have difficulty.  I really don't understand how someone
can hold that abortion is murder, and that it is wrong to commit murder,
and still hold that it is okay to murder unborn children who are the 
product of rape or incest.  Is it okay to exterminate grown adults who
are the product of rape or incest?  James Robinson's mother was raped and
had him.  I am sure that many would agree that the world is a better place
because of James Robison, especially the thousands of children and adults
in Angola and other nations whose lives he helped to save.  People who
are the product of rape have intrinsic value and can make contributions
to society, too.

Link Hudson.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Dictionary definitions
Date: 6 Jan 1993 08:12:52 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

People,
People,

there are some who are quick to whip out a dictionary definition as a 
proof statement.  Please don't.

Dictionaries serve a purpose in listing not only the correct definitions
of words, but also commonly used definitions of words (whether correct or
incorrect).

All a dictionary entry shows is that there is a body of folk who use a word
to mean certain things.  And thus the dictionary is only as good as it's
revision date....

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:37:15 GMT

In <1993Jan11.160227.28948@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <markp.726770340@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan11.015320.11854@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>>And until you also
>>>start living by the same standards you apparently wish upon women, I'm
>>>going to consider you opinions as nothing more than self-serving
>>>hypocrisy.
>>
>>If I got pregnant, I would feel an ethical obligation to carry the
>>child to term. (Since you can't read my mind, I'm the only person
>>able to evaluate the truth of this statement; so don't bother flaming.)
>>
>There is some arrogance inherent in the belief that
>even you are 'able to evaluate the truth of this
>statement'.

Well, yeah ... but not nearly as much arrogance as anyone else
evaluating the truth about my state of mind.

>muriel
>standard disclaimer

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:28:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...

Useless answer. A pro-lifer could just as easily say

"Is a fetus sentient?"
Certainly. Just give birth to them if you doubt it...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism