HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Where, oh where is Peter Nyikos?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:46:43 GMT

In <1992Dec4.213909.3710@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>In article <1992Dec03.075243.100860@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec3.001503.13791@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>>>He's off arguing with the pervs in ASB. You won't be seeing him for awhile.

>>Petie Nyikos is tied up in alt.sex.bondage?  Who'd'a thunk it!  :-)

>Actually, he's moved to a private email list forum where he is sharing his
>spiritual enlightenment with the rest of us. BTW, he's his usual proactive
>self. IF anyone here wants to debate theology with him, I'll give you the
>list address - but you MUST NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, bring up abortion.
>The list admin was upset about that making its way onto his list.

I don't think he was upset about it being brought up, it was the way it was
brought up and, more relevantly, continued.  Do I have your permission to
quote our little correspondence on t.a., Nadja?

Peter Nyikos

PS You don't need to join the club to debate theology with me.  Look at
my second reply to Steve Adams.  Also look for a post, "Abortion and 
Religion, Part I: The Great Paradox" early next week, which picks up
where "Neuroscientist(s) versus the World-Enigma, Part 2" leaves off.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Deadly force to prevent or terminate rape (was: Re: The Gardener story (and relevance))
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:15:31 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <Bz5tx9.B0D@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn18.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <Byt64t.HG0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>
>>>As to the issue itself... I have heard of a jurisdiction where a rape victim
>>>does *not* have the right to use lethal force in defense.
>
>>Where is that?
>
>I think you deleted it.  I'm thinking of Canada,

>Other references indicate that the text was written for Canada.  I don't know
>if it is true anywhere in the US.

OK, sorry - I've been talking exclusively about the USA, as implied by:

>>in New York (or any other state that I know of).

(States are not provinces.  :-)

>>You're describing the reasoning behind the use of deadly physical force in
>>defense against other force.  I.e., it's legally justified to protect against
>>deadly physical force, but not against a simple assault.
>
>Isn't that pretty much what we were talking about?  leathal force to protect
>against non-deadly assault?

Sorry if I'm not being clear.  You can use deadly force against deadly force
(e.g., someone attacking you with a knife), but not against non-deadly force
(e.g., someone attacking you with a pillow).  This is probably because if
someone's hitting you with a pillow, you can't reasonably believe that your
life is being threatened.  This is different from the case of forcible rape,
forcible sodomy, kidnapping, robbery, and arson (and burglary, in some cases),
in which the use of deadly force is justified* even if your life is not in
danger.

* according to the laws of New York, and a number of other states which
  have previously been mentioned; as far as anyone in this newsgroup seems
  to know, it's true throughout the United States.  No implication regarding
  the laws of other countries should be inferred.  This is not legal advice.
  Consult your doctor or pharmacist before taking.  Your mileage may vary.
  (Did I miss anything?  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:43:21 GMT

In article <1gtd5sINNbgj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Well, if our *ONLY* concern is that the child is supported adequately, why not
>>just jetison -completely- that whole ikky nasty complicated notion of personal 
>>responsibility, and go to random picks? ... Then whenever an 
>>illegitimate child is born, we just pick a child support "donor" at random 
>>Just imagine of all the money we'd save on court 
>>cases, blood tests, tracking down "deadbeat dads" etc. And imagine how many
>>illegitimate children Donald Trump would end up supporting...
>
>>Sounds much more efficient than the current system. You got a problem with it?
>
>More efficient?  

Yes, more efficient. It would no longer be necessary to locate the biological
parent and prove paternity; once the random pick was made, everything would 
just be automatic. And, since the donor is guaranteed by the computerized
selection process to be someone with sufficient income to support the child, 
there would, in theory, be far fewer instances of donors falling behind on
their payments, attempting to evade the law, etc. etc. The cost savings on
enforcement would be dramatic.

>Would you stop at national borders?  Why?  

Stop trying to introduce irrelevancies and just answer the question, please.

Do you or do you not have a problem with the "child support lottery" proposal?
If so, please try to identify the problem as clearly as you can.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: MURDER
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:21:43 GMT


ABORTION IS MURDER
no elaboration required.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The Gardener story (and relevance)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:15:42 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec13.180306.11640@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.045644.122352@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>>>>> Nice to see you admit (for a change) that you were wrong.
>>>>> You have failed to address my statements above.
>>>> No need to.  What you originally said was not true; I pointed that out, and
>>>> you corrected yourself.
>>> No, my original statement was correct, and you were wrong as usual.
>
>>Your original statement was:
>>>
>>> A person may use lethal force in self-defense only when they
>>> believe that their life is _immediately_ threatened.
>
>You're quibbling over semantics.  My original statement wasn't
>worded exactly to your liking,

Not just "to my liking"; it was worded incorrectly.  As you've admitted
before, there is no need that the person believe that their life is in danger.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:19:26 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->UNRETRACTED LIE
->---------------

->"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
-> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
->				    Susie Garvin
->				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
->				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: DODie's fantasies
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.040641.17176@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes ...
>> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>Be careful, Larry.  DOD will probably post "Larry Margolis advocates
>>>public masturbation" tomorrow, in at least six newsgroups.  (None
>>>of which will be alt.sex.solo.)
>>
>>...but one of which will likely be misc.test, and the other candidates:
>>sci.skeptic, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.turkish, alt.tasteless,
>>and (of course) alt.holtsinger.lie.lie.lie...:-)
>
>And don't forget alt.holtsinger.truth.truth.truth.
>
>Oh wait, that newsgroup doesn't exist.
>
>How about that.
>
>:-)

He hasn't already attempted to issue a newgroup for it?

I'm shocked.

:-) :-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

            * Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit. *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:53:18 GMT

cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson) writes:

> In your article you consistantly use the phrase "pro-life"....i myself
> am pro-life but i am also pro-family and VERY pro-choice.....

Funny how context changes things.  If you say that you are pro-life AND
pro-choice, it overlays new meanings on both terms.

> i wonder what you folks out there who are pro-choice think of referring 
> to "pro-lifers" as anti-choice.....

I have seen many pro-lifers whine about being mislabelled when someone
uses the term "anti-choice."  Of course, many of these same pro-lifers
label pro-choicers as "pro-aborts" or "pro-death" without a second
thought.

Mostly, it becomes a tit-for-tat kind of thing.  It's not at all constructive,
and even gets a little silly, but that's life in the big city.  Disclaimer:
I confess to not being above using labels as figurative Bronx cheers.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /  my words; no one else's
"I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating too much
pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an intestinal disorder,
not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52543 talk.religion.misc:24321 alt.atheism:24075
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:55:00 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Dec21.022535.23109@news.stolaf.edu> 
cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson) writes:

> IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!

And if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.


> "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the opressor; it must be
> demanded by the opressed"
>                 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his book _Why We Can't Wait_

Nice quote.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52245 soc.men:21325 alt.dads-rights:2992
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 17 Dec 1992 11:40:31 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BzErHD.3xA@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
Re:
>>>>"4-6-8-10  Why are all your leaders men?"

>Why is that surprising?

>As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!

Brilliant logic, Karl.  Just sterling.

Yup, it makes perfect sense to me that men, who *don't* want to be
'stuck' with all the bills would go to bat to INSURE that children
they don't want are gestated to birth.  Yup.  Makes PERFECT sense.

After all, it couldn't be true, could it, that keeping abortion legal
means FEWER men are 'stuck' with the bills, could it?

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: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:12:00 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes...
KD> Just what is it with these feminists?  Do they really think we're so stupid
KD> as to not realize that the implementation of these laws has nothing to do
KD> with biology and everything to do with making men subservient to women's
KD> wishes in the reproductive freedom arena?

KD> Perhaps abortion is the wrong vehicle here.  Perhaps the correct vehicle is
KD> to prohibit adoption and force >BORN< children to be cared for by their
KD> natural parents.  After all, this is exactly what the case is for men
KD> today.


Ah, now THERE is an interesting Devil's Advocate...  It'll never pass, of
course, but it IS interesting...

---
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 * "Illiterate?  Write for FREE help!" - Galen Hekhuis
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51722 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9934
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:54:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

> Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.

Heh.  Name flames so soon?  What does this have to do with abortion?
Or Rash?

> One was bad enough..

The fact that there's one of you is a mixed blessing, believe me. :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman   /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /  my words; no one else's
"I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating too much
pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an intestinal disorder,
not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:13:42 GMT

In <TODD.92Dec16165321@ai05.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> todd@ai05.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:


>In article <1992Dec15.231223.4344@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>># "rights" should read "convenience".
>>
>>Good catch there, Mr. Law -- she almost got away with asserting the
>>radical notion that pregnant women have rights instead of simply
>>`convenience.'

>[serious part]
>Of course, pregnant women have rights, I really respect that, but
>so do the unborn.  Real justice would reflect a balance of both 
>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
>Adoption would be a pretty good balance, don't you think?

Well, in the first place, it is debatable whether the 'unborn' are
individuals, since they cannot subsist on their own, until the late
stages of pregnancy.

In the second place, if we allow the 'government' control over women's
reproductive systems, we are a)playing with fire since they are bad
enough with 'control' legislation without encouraging them, b) we are
fudging the Constitution (Yes, I saw all your objections, but please
remember that this group t.a is predominantly American posters), and
c) we are discriminating on the grounds of biology, i.e., sexism.

In the third place, it is quite simply none of my GD business what a
woman does with her own body, assuming she does not ingest a quart
of nitro-glycerine and throw herself upon me, but then I've never
had a problem with women throwing themselves upon me.

Now, will some of those women seek abortions for silly reasons? Quite
possibly, much as some people drink or smoke to excess, drive in a
discourteous manner, etc. However, as a sometimes teacher, I have yet
to observe that education by fiat works very well, if at all.

So Mr. Law (Oh Gawd, no wonder), while you claim to respect a woman's
rights, you first began by suggesting they were whims, and then by
demanding something of women that is highly unlikely to ever be
demanded of you. Wonder why you get flamed?

REB
Aging father who thought he had already educated and raised his fair
share of kids, then along comes net newbies.

>Todd Law

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Nagoya Institute of Technology,
>Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
>todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: kebbin and sex
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:23:23 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
[...]
->>Oh and btw, all of the above information comes from Kevin's bro-
->>ther Jeff with whom I had several quite interesting discussions
->>a year and a half ago.  Kevin's going to deny it all, of course,
->>but then, sooner or later Kevin denies everything, even the words
->>that he himself writes.

->Jeff himself already denied your fabrication of our family history,
->so I'm surprised you'd even cite him as a reference. 

i never saw jeff deny what trish posted about your
family history. where is this denial?

        "Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease
        with longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
		Jeff d'Arcy <jdarcy@encore.com> 
		<15249@encore.Encore.COM>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:34:00 GMT
Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Doug Holtsinger (dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu) wrote:
>Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>as a person.  

1. Your statement contains a qualification that is quite important.
   I'm sure you'll agree that not all pro-choicers support
   unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  Also, the term `child', while
   technically correct, carries connotations which you then abuse
   in the next statement.

>This position implies that newborn infants 
>are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>must condone infanticide.

2. There are significant differences between a late-term fetus and
   an infant.  The differences become less significant the later
   into the term, so you appear to be arguing an extreme case.

3. This set of statements leads to one possible point of view, and,
   for all I know, there may be some who take this viewpoint, but it
   seems to be arguing against the pro-choice viewpoint by taking
   an extreme view and extrapolating it to cover the entire view.

4. A pro-choice view can claim that the the fetus in the first tri-mester
   is not a person, while being uncomfortable with unrestricted
   abortion in the last tri-mester because of the significant 
   similarities between a late-term fetus and an infant.  The quoted
   posting did not cover this situation.

Mark Runyan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis' dishonest arguments about rape and self-defense
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:18:17 GMT

In article <1gaeg8INNiga@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.224212.2888@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) wrote:
>>>> No, the woman can kill the rapist if it's necessary to *prevent* him from
>>>> raping her, or to *stop* him from raping her.
>.Larry Margolis is correct that a woman can kill a rapist to
>.prevent or terminate a rape.  However, he's being extremely
>.dishonest by claiming that rape and pregnancy are analogous
>.situations.  The two situations are NOT analogous because
>.the justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense
>.derives from the victim's reasonable belief that their life 
>.is in _immediate_ danger, or that they face great bodily harm. 
>.Pregnancy is not normally a situation where either threat
>.applies, immediate or otherwise. 
>
>These statements are not correct.

The previous statement lacks substantiation.

								- Kevin
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Law vs. religion
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:47:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>: In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>>
>>Tough to show that this is both based on religion and being proper
>>legislation.  One might as easily argue that it's intent is to ensure
>>that all employees and businessmen will have at least one day off each
>>week.
>	It also means that one can't shop either. Bummer.
>
>	Why isn't it Wednesday or Friday that the shops have to be
>closed?

Probably for much the same sort of reasons that Christmas is occurs
around the winter solstice.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion