HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 08:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.173956.24228@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.163431.18194@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}Before viability, I would oppose all attempts to restrict abortion, purely
>}on Constitutional grounds. After viability, I would allow the legality of
>}"normal" abortions to be decided by popular mandate. So, you see, although
>}I don't happen to support any abortion restrictions, viability is still a
>}crucial dividing line for me.
>
>Uh, this crucial, important dividing line.  When is it?  

It is statistically determined, for the most part.

>How can it
>be detected?  Can doctors detect it?  Can hospitals?  Can you detect
>it at home?  

I understand that there ARE some tests which can help whether a given fetus
is viable or not, but I couldn't tell you what they are or what they involve. 
I doubt that they could be performed "at home", though. You're the one with
all of the medical contacts, aren't you, Galen? Why don't you ask them
instead of me? You're more likely to get a definitive answer that way.

>At whose definition of "viability" would you begin to
>allow abortion restrictions, not support, just allow?

What definitions exist? If you'll present me with some definitions of
"viability", I'll tell you which one(s) I would accept.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:26:24 GMT

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
->Isn't it funny how this pro-forcer, at first glance,
->thought Kevin was one of his own?

well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks
like a duck ...........

kebbie has been making anti-choice arguments ever
since he first appeared in this newsgroup, although he
is cunning enough to attach disclaimers to some of
them.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 05:56:01 GMT

In article <C05C1C.GpI@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>>   mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>   >In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>
>>   >>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>>   >>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>>   >>
>>   >If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>>   >I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>>   >certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>>   >You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>>   >difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>>   >*another persons* body.
>
>>   Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
>>   body.
>
>>No kidding.  Of course, you fail to consider that it's not a baby that's
>>being talked about in this case, but I digress.
>
>Baby, adult, no difference.  Murder is murder.
>
Nobody is disagreeing with you, I'm sure we all agree. But this has
absolutely nothing at all to do with abortion.

>>   Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance
>
>>If you truly were, I'd think you'd start a little closer to home...
>
>Cute... back it up.
>
We have no need to, you're doing fine on your own.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 05:02:53 GMT

---
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|1. Why do so many pro-lifers say of a pregnant woman seeking abortion, "She
|shoulda kept her legs crossed?"
|
|ANSWER:  I have never heard of a pro-lifer say anything even remotely 
|resembling this, not even on talk.abortion.  On the other hand, I regularly
|see pro-choicers lampooning pro-lifers by depicting them as saying this.
[...]

You don't read the actual articles posted to talk.abortion by
your cohorts, do you?  I suggest that you read the articles in 
your news spool from "vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu" for starters.
You *do* know how to use your newsreader to search for articles
by a particular author, don't you?

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch,
a prolifer, in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
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, 1 Jan 93 05:04:05 GMT

In article <nyikos.725749252@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec28.204506.33939@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
>>>this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
>>>Adrienne waiting.
>
>>Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
>>some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
>>he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.
>
>>>I hope your newsserver is stable...
>
>>Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...
>
>Or I only read a small fraction of posts, even those following up to
>me.  Y'see, my account does not include `trn' or `rn', only what
>Humphrey calls "(eech) nn".  
>
And of course, now that you've seen it, you'll promptly provide the
requested evidence?
What? You aren't going to?
I guess you just can't, can you?
That's ok, we all belive it's the fault of your newsreader. Of course
we do, you betcha.

>Go ahead and accuse me of whining, see if I care.
>
Why would we bother to accuse you of something so painfully obvious? I
think most t.a readers are intelligent enough to recognise your
bleeting for what it is. With, of course, the probable exception of
your toadie DODie.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:06:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.000557.20083@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec29.223707.23551@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>I do not argue "in favor of" abortion restrictions, Mark. That would imply
>>that I preferred their existence over their non-existence. I do not.
>
>Well, how would you phrase it?  Would it be fair to say that you're arguing
>on the behalf of abortion restrictions?  (Or on the behalf of those who
>support restrictions, if you prefer.)

Neither. The relation "on behalf of" denotes a faithful carrying-out of 
another's affairs. I do not argue "on behalf of" those who support 
restrictions -- my position is distinct from theirs.

Perhaps a useful description can be obtained by introducing the notion of
"concensus". Someone who was absolutely "pro-concensus" on the abortion 
issue would let the populace decide on each and every abortion restriction by 
vote (presumably, on a state-by-state basis). I wouldn't go that far, but my 
view tends a little that way for SOME post-viability issues. Would "limited 
pro-concensus" be sufficiently descriptive, you think?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 22:55:47 GMT

<1992Dec22.194559.23077@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
><Bznxxy.752@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1992Dec21.193557.11096@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>><BzMAvL.D2t@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>><1992Dec19.105022.6279@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Because if abortion is totally outlawed, then you can BET the number of
>>>>>men required to pay support will increase dramaticly.

>>>>3.  Accurate paternity tests make things different from pre-Roe
>>>>days, and the effects aren't predictable on the face of the matter:
>>>>perhaps more fathers would be identified, or perhaps more potential
>>>>victims would be able to prove they weren't the father.
>>>
>>>This is addressing wrongful identication, which seems to have nothing
>>>to do with the number of men required to pay child support.  (The wrong
>>>man won't be, but the right one will; the net stays the same.)

>>In order to maintain the same level, according to your mathematical
>>reasoning, the "right one" must then be named, found and identified.
>>This is neither automatic nor simple.
>
>True, but it's a process of elimination.  If the woman *wants* child
>support, then she will, in most cases, be able to get to the father
>eventually.

Again, it's not so mathematical.

If she's on welfare or if she stands a 50% chance of losing custody,
there may be no great motivation (eg., she makes a mistake, the govt
is "satisfied" in its efforts to track a father to bill).  Not all women 
demand and record the names of their lovers, to protect their child support 
rights in case of accidental pregnancy...  And the process may be a 
little more difficult than saying, "Round up the usual suspects."

>  While women might not be able to name the father in a
>few cases, I think this number would be dwarfed by the number of men
>required to pay child support in your case 1, where there would *be* no
>child if abortion had remained legal.

Again, the point of (1) and (2) is to say that the number of births
may well be reduced.

If abortions were illegal AND men got custody and child support 50%
of the time, I would bet that the number of unwanted pregnancies
would go down.

Again, I'm discussing a hypothetical case, not proposing anything.
(Listening, Adrienne and the Brahms Gang?)

>  (Also, I don't see how this case 3
>has anything to do with whether or not abortion is legal.)

The point of case (3) was to avoid the immediate conclusion
that we could simply look to pre-Roe statistics to decide what
the effects of banning abortion would be, on unwanted pregnancy rates
(let alone, CS suits).

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:11:36 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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 <fyz2dwn@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes about
>phoney:
>
>->Seems to me that if he *wanted* to apologize then he could ask someone
>->whose news server *wasn't* sick to post the apology for him.  Or even
>->(gasp!) email the apology to the person to whom he's apologizing.
>
>i disagree with the email alternative. nyikos posted
>his lie about adrienne in a public forum. that's the
>same forum to which he should distribute his apology.

Absolutely - but emailing a copy to Adrienne would be a gesture of good
faith while he's claiming to be unable to post the apology.  (Assuming,
of course, that he actually intends to do so.)  Emailing a copy to
someone unrelated to his calumny seems rather pointless.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Nyikos using Steeves as an excuse to be foolish.
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:48:10 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.725143125@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 

>>I saw the original post in which Will stated that he felt like killing
>>the woman he had impregnated for not respecting his opinion regarding
>>whether she should be an incubator for his fetus.
>You not only have changed the charge from the way you originally 
>worded it, you show evidence of having very poor reading comprehension,
>or memory, or both.

What change is it that you think is so meaningful?  While this may not
be word for word what I posted, the meaning is the same.

>And I'm not saying this because of the ridiculous "incubator" talk,
>which marks you as a person with strong pro-abortion leanings (see
>my post on new definitions for the FAQ, specifically the entry
>"pro-abortion").  No, even if you had worded your charge in a less
>nonstandard way, I still would have said what I did. 

The terminology is used by those of us who favor abortion rights for
women as a metaphor.  When women are denied abortion rights, they are
allowed no more volition with respect to continuing a pregnancy than
an incubator has a choice not to support any fetus placed in it.  What
strikes you as ridiculous about this?

>One year after the deed was done?  Even Dean Kaflowitz gave no hint
>of extrasensory powers of this magnitude.  Time travel!  Ability
>to alter the past!  Why, even fanatical Christians are reluctant
>to attribute to "all-powerful" God the ability to change the past!

I really didn't think that forming beliefs about Will's intentions
require extrasensory powers.  As I said, I did not interpret the post
as reporting that WIll honestly considered ending her life; I don't
think interpretation of motives from the posted word.  Many of us on
planet Earth have beliefs about the intentions of others quite
frequently without attributing them to extrasensory powers.

>I even added some arguments above (I hope you can read them better
>than you did Will's post) in case you have second thoughts about
>what you have just said.

I cannot believe that you honestly think you have ever posted anything
that would lead anyone to have first, let alone second, thoughts.  I
have no idea why you are bent on denying women autonomy over their own
bodies by giving special rights to /z/e/f/s, but you certainly are
making an ass of yourself advocating that position.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: darcy's net.informants revisited
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:06:41 GMT

in what, even for him, is an astonishing display of
hypocrisy,

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Yeah, right, Susie. "I was only following orders". Where has that been
->heard before? Ever been to Nuremburg? Just out of curiosity, do you use
->a gas oven, or an electric?

 'These quotes demonstrate only that I considered your
 (pl.)  rule-breaking public meta-discussion in
 talk.abortion worthy of mention to those who make the
 rules, enforce the rules, run the systems, discipline
 users, etc. I made no private requests for disciplinary
 action. In fact, I made no PUBLIC request for specific
 disciplinary action, either. I presented the possibility
 in the most general way possible. If bringing a clear
 rules violation to the attention of those who created the
 rules, IN THE NEWSGROUP DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, is
 being a net.cop, then I wish more people would be
 net.cops, in that sense and that sense alone. I'd be more
 inclined to call such people "net.informants" or
 "net.reporters", however, since they aren't really trying
 to enforce anything themselves - they're just passing
 along information.'
     kevin darcy writing to susan garvin ---
     Message-ID: <1991Dec27.163135.11530@rotag.mi.org>

no wonder so many people have written:

	kevin, you're a fucking hypocrite.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Okay, who sent the anonymous e-mail?
Summary: or, whatever happened to Simon Booth
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:38:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


[There's a discussion in alt.rush-limbaugh about people being
"kicked out" of unmoderated newsgroups.]

In article <1992Dec24.231507.26670@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:
#   A while back I ran into something like this on talk.abortion.  I admit
#that I initially went overboard in the content of my postings, but I got
#flamed worse after I tried to tone down my articles.  I even got flamed
#after acknoweldging the need for compromise and attempting to find
#common ground.  There were even a couple of users who expressed an
#arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude against college students and newcomers
#to the net, repeatedly questioning the right of 'some people' to have net
#access due to their opinions.  They flamed so much that you couldn't even
#tell what side they were one since they were making personal attacks
#almost exclusively.  Most of my articles had responses telling me how
#stupid I was or thatI should leave the net until I 'learn proper procedures',
#similar to what happened to Chaney and others, no matter how logical or
#polite my postings
#
#   No one kicked me out either, I left voluntarily as well.  I had gotten
#tired of the pointless flaming and the occasional nasty e-mail, sent
#anonymously of course.
#
#Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:39:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.163431.18194@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Before viability, I would oppose all attempts to restrict abortion, purely
}on Constitutional grounds. After viability, I would allow the legality of
}"normal" abortions to be decided by popular mandate. So, you see, although
}I don't happen to support any abortion restrictions, viability is still a
}crucial dividing line for me.

Uh, this crucial, important dividing line.  When is it?  How can it
be detected?  Can doctors detect it?  Can hospitals?  Can you detect
it at home?  At whose definition of "viability" would you begin to
allow abortion restrictions, not support, just allow?

Ya know, when Kevin _really_ starts drinking, I have to slam the
toilet lid on his head.  Hayuck, hayuck.


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Hmm
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:52:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


In article <1992Dec29.182146.8006@advtech.uswest.com>,
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = Steve Novak:
##Unless you're firebombing your own property, and not claiming insurance,
##firebombing is legal.                
#                ^^^^^
#
#Oops.  That should read, "illegal", not "legal".




In article <1992Dec29.223912.19035@watson.ibm.com>,
margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
#In <1992Dec28.183805.33934@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

##But if abortion were legal, I would bet that the net effect would be
#                      ^^^^^
##that the number of unwanted *births* would *increase*.
#
#Oops - that should be *illegal*.  Sorry...

I think there's a conspiracy involved here somewhere.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 00:47:40 GMT

 (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
: 
: >I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that the only member
: >or official of NARAL who claims that the estimates of deaths due
: >to illegal abortion were grossly exaggerated is Bernard Nathanson.
: >This admitted liar is now a leader in the anti-abortion movement.
: >His claims about NARAL's actions have not been confirmed by any
: >of the other members.  (Nathanson likes to pass himself off as the
: >driving force behind NARAL.  If one looks at the early history of
: >the organization, or reads the words of the other founders, this
: >claim is contradicted.)
: 
: >I read some books on abortion that were published in the 50's and
: >60's.  I'll get the numbers again next week, but the estimates
: >of abortion related deaths in those books were in line with the
: >estimates that Nathanson so desperately wants to debunk.  
: >Further, anyone who asks a doctor who worked in an emergency
: >room in an urban area before Roe can hear first hand accounts
: >of how common these deaths were, and how unlikely the claim
: >that 90% of all abortions were done in doctor's offices is.
: >The fact that many hospitals had entire wards for treating 
: >abortion complications is further evidence that this claim
: >is constructed out of wishful thinking at best.
:
: >Susan
:
: Sources please.
:
: Regarding Nathanson... of COURSE no other NARAL members are going to
: support his statements.  Would you actually think they would?
:
: Let us not forget that even sources don't mean much.  Statistics can
: be manufactured to support almost anything.

Ergo, if you disagree with the speaker, then any statistics s/he finds are
lies.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: talk.abortion