HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:51:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <1992Nov21.114912.5747@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>I just read in our local paper that a local celebrity, noted for his picketing
>of the local Planned Parenthood offices and his strong championing of
>fundamentalist causes is being investigated by a grand jury for sexually
>molesting three children........
>
>Hmmmm....  That's why he's anti-abortion!  More available kids!

If you have more information, please post it.  I'm sure Peter Nyikos would
consider this an indictment of fundamentalists and anti-abortion protesters.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:20:50 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes, in part,

>>>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>>>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
>>A (minor) nit...Lutherans are catholic.  And so are Eastern & Greek
>>Orthodox and Anglicans.
>>
>        Your nit needs to be picked a bit more...
>        Evangelical Lutherans are QUITE protestant...
>        Tho, I do agree the Missouri Synod-varieties are Catholics without a >  >        pope.
>..

I'm curious about your statement.  We send our daughter to a
Misouri Synod Lutheran school and have attended services
at the church there, though we are not members.  In what sense 
do you mean it?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:34:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.203906.103034@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <Bxy8KK.KwF@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>How would you have the people of this net interpret this line?  I have
>>>used your postings so far as an example to Will of people who feel that
>>>if they don't get what they want with issueA, then they WILL remove from
>>>women the right to abort.  Is that or is that not a correct interpretation
>>>of your position?
>>
>>A correct interpretation of my position is that if women aren't interested
>>in equality in the reproductive and child-support process, then perhaps men
>>have it in their best interest to gain equality by removing choices from
>>women.
>
>He doesn't want a child.  She doesn't want a child.  If the birth control
>fails, they can get an abortion.  If you take away this choice, you're
>screwing *both* of them.  That's in *nobody's* best interest.

But if your vote tips the balance, then by taking away (or threatening to)
a power held currently by women, you encourage those women (and men)
who otherwise aren't interested to support your position.

In the long run, you support *everybody's* best interest, if you succeed.


>Sounds like a pretty stupid position to me.

I wouldn't call it admirable (I would call it childish) 
but it sounds like standard politics.  To call it "stupid" 
out of hand sounds a little shortsighted.  It may be stupid,
pragmatically speaking, if it gets regarded as childish -- but
this sort of technique works (and fails) all the time.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: To everyone: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:36:00 GMT

In article <Nov.20.16.34.26.1992.28700@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
>      Not one of you told me when life begins.  I don't see your proof...You 
> told me the legalities of when life begins, but that's just a piece of paper.
> How do you explain when a woman is having an abortion that results in the 
> live birth of that baby?  I am not being offensive now... I would just like
> to know.  

Define what you mean when you say "life."  Egg and sperm are alive.
That life does not end when they unite to forma blastocyst, it
simply changes form.  I can tell you when life ends, but you'll
have to define your terms before I can offer a definition of when
life begins.  That is why you were offered legal definitions.
They at least are defined.

>      And I'd like to clear up the "choice" controversy.  If you have read
> anything about birth control, which I'm sure you all have since you seem to
> be so musch more informed than I,  then you know that the only form of birth
> control that is 100% effective is abstinence.  Therefore, when a woman OR A MAN
> decides to have sex, they are at risk for a pregnancy. (Not to mention STD'S)
> Am I punishing women for having sex?  Hell, No!  Everything has consequences.  
> When you were a teenager you snuck out late at night, but you knew that if you
> were caught that you'd be grounded for  a week, (or whatever).  And you were 
> prepared to face those consequences for just the sheer pleasure of sneaking
> out.  But women and men think that they can have sex when ever they want and 
> not have to face the consequences of their actions!  I am not punishing them 
> for their acts, but I am holding them responsible.  

I note that you claim not to be talking about pregnancy as punishment,
but the example you reach for is a punishment (getting grounded for
a week is a punishment - punishments and consequences are not
mutually exclusive).  Orgasm is a consequence of sex.  I have never
known it to be a punishment.  I find your example to indicate that
you do see consequences and punishment as equivalent.

As for responsibility, I hold abortion to be a responsible decision.
I don't think you're talking about responsibility.  I think you're
talking about obligation.  Assuming that, why is a woman obligated,
in your view, to take a pregnancy to term if she willingly engaged
in sexual intercourse?

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Keywords: campus joke, little bit, lying, false accusations, empty threats
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:12:56 GMT

Phoney, you falsly accused adrienne regard of forgery.

you attributed someone else's words to susan garvin.

both of these statements have been demonstrated to be
true.
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Look what the NetMail brought this morning...
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:18:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Nov16.041759.7013@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmayson@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Mayson) writes:
...
>Oh boy, now that I'm back on t.a. after a nine month (how appropriate)
>absence, maybe I can get threatening e-mails from Steve too!!!

Welcome back, John.

Nothing has changed, except we have several new people, with the same old
arguments.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:09:28 GMT

In article <1ej1ruINNi0i@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>>hell with the reason you mention, above.

>>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.

>Ah, by which you mean to reinterpret your statement that you wouldn't use 
>your vote to take away a woman's right to choose, based upon the simple and
>inarguable fact that a pregnancy takes place within her body, and has zip to
>do with his?

After a paragraph like that, it's no wonder you constantly misrepresent 
what I have or haven't said.  Just what *is* your subordinate clause hanging
from?  What "statement" are you talking about?  Where did I "come out of
the closet" on some issue?  What is there to reinterpret?  Who mentioned 
anything about my vote, besides you?  Who discussed why I might vote 
one way or the other on this issue, besides you?

waiting for the answer to just one of these questions (perhaps you
can manage the first one),

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49281 alt.flame:15061 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:588 misc.legal:20323
From: kev@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Kevin Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
Subject: Ripe for a flame
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:05:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Cursor Software Limited, London, England

In article <nyikos.722293093@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) spews:
> In <1eb4nkINNhir@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Judge Regard) decrees:
> 
> I am no legal expert, but I read from time to time that the only time
> certain laws are enforced is when some major bound of civilized behavior,
> not written into the law itself, is broken.  For example, in the early
> 1960's, anywhere from 200,000 to 2,000,000 illegal abortions were done
> per year.  Yet very few abortionists were prosecuted, and perhaps the
> reason is that (again, perhaps) most law enforcement agencies would only
> prosecute if the abortionist had "butchered" his patient(s).  
> 
Yawn....

But isn't it also true that your parents had you aborted after six
weeks but you escaped after climbing out of the abortion bucket
and stealing a doctor's white coat?

Maybe that explains why you are such a booring bastard who dodges the
real issues like "why didn't they show Between the Lines last Friday
on BBC1?"

-- 
   _/   _/  _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
  _/_/_/   _/_/      _/    _/    _/    _/_/  _/     K e v i n  W a l s h
 _/ _/    _/          _/ _/     _/    _/  _/_/      kev@dsbc.icl.co.uk
_/   _/  _/_/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/    _/
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:28:36 GMT

In <Nov.19.11.14.25.1992.12839@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:

>I just galnced through this group for the first time, and I sense a lot of
>hostility...You can all beat me down however you want, but it is nothing
>compared to the silent holocaust going on every day in this country.

> For all those out there who have had an abortion or are considering it:  YOU 
>MADE THAT CHOICE BEFORE YOU GOT PREGNANT!  Ok, excluding that small percentage
>of rape victims who get pregnant.  But for the majority, don't tell me about 
>your freedoms of choice.  You made that choice the moment you had sexual 
>intercourse.  What CHOICES did that baby have?  And how can you tell me when
>life begins?  Can you prove to me that life doen't begin until birth?  Can you
>define life? 

I'd like to try to take a stab at this, but you've left out a lot of
specifics, and made it very hard to figure out exactly what you
believe. I'm going to try to guess, though.
. In your first paragraph, you compare abortion to the Holocaust.
I assume that you're saying that killing a fetus is exactly the same
as killing an adult. Then, in your second paragraph, you seem to 
assert that rape victims should be allowed to have abortions.

As far as I can tell, then, a fair summary of your beliefs is the
following: "There is no difference between killing a fetus and
killing an adult. Therefore, any woman who obtains an abortion
is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and should be punished
accordingly. However, if a given person's father is a rapist, then
he/she may be legally executed at any time, as long as his/her
mother gives permission". Am I right in assuming that you think
this should be the law of the land? If not, I hope that you'll
correct me.

The thing is, it's very easy to just charge in and announce that
abortion is wrong. It's very easy, and it accomplishes nothing.
I'll grant that there are too many abortions. The question is,
what do you intend to do about it?

Here, I'll tell you exactly what I'm looking for:
   1) How should we decide which laws to pass? In other words,
what is the difference between a "good" law and a "bad" law?
   2) What should the law on abortion be? Which abortions
should be legal, and which abortions should be illegal? What
penalties should be associated with illegal abortions?
   3) Based on your answers to the previous two questions, explain
how your proposed law is "better" than the current law.

[I'm not the most concise author in the world, so I'll leave the
rest of your article for someone else to dissect.]

>                                        -Keira
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 23:33:23 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.191532.116052@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
|In <_hr1slc@rpi.edu|keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
|>i've seen no evidence to convince me that many of cj's
|>allegations are anything more than the petty whines of
|>a frustrated shrew.
|Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)

Why, thank you, Larry.  I must say, though, that there's
something to be said for shrews.  Some insecure men, after all,
like to dismiss strong women as "shrews".  So it's really rather
a compliment to see them cower & throw stones at what they fear.

I *am* rather frustrated at the moment, though-- Lance has been
away at a conference for three days.  >sob<  But he comes back
tonight, so I don't expect this sad state to last.

---
c j silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Emma felt [...] that to be the favourite and intimate of a man who had
so many intimates and confidantes, was not the very first distinction
in the scale of vanity."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:35:48 GMT
Summary: Kowtowing again Bill?

In article <1992Nov17.204453.28015@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Nov13.235839.1955@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu 
>    (Sarah A McCabe) writes: >
> 
> >I am not about to hold my breath waiting for Sweety Petey to respond 
> >or even acknowledge it though.  I suspect he considers it beneath his 
> >dignity to recognize the thoughts and writings of us lesser mortals 
> >known as women.

Now Sarah, don't be like that.  "Doctor" PetieHoney has contempt
for everyone.  Now be a good girl and go bake some cookies.

> >Of course maybe I should count myself fortunate that 
> >I am obviously still on Petey Luv's Good Girl List (those of us brain-
> >less, but misguided) and not with Adrienne on his Bad Girl List (those 
> >who are evil, conniving, infidels).  Hmm, isn't there a theory about 
> >men who see women in such a Madonna/Whore dichotomy?  Ooops!  Better 
> >stop now before Bill takes me to task for psychoanalyzing without a 
> >net.license.

Calling Dr Bill!  Calling Dr Bill!

> Hmm.  Psychoanalyzing?  Is that what you're doing, Sarah?  Not 

Right on cue.

> to worry; I'm not supposed to question the posts of net.women 
> anymore, lest I appear to "condescend" to them.  
> 
> It must be somewhat reassuring when, in the absence of a sound 
> argument, one can simply hide behind allegations of "Misogyny!".  
> But then again, I suppose crying "Wolf!" is politically expedient, 
> at least in the short term.
> 

Bill, you sound like you're pouting.  Don't pout.  It isn't manly.
Irene alway says "good night" and never says "breakfast is ready
dear" to men who pout.  Go grab yourself a brewski and look at the
picture in The Sporting News (because real men don't read) and
chill.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:47:39 GMT

In <1992Nov14.212753.23349@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>In article <nyikos.721695784@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <16898CCA0.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:

>>>And it is a well known fact that women who have given birth to a child go
>>>often through long phases of depression. And lose interest in sex.
>>>   Benedikt
>>
>>I wonder how much of this post-partum depression is due to the artificial
>>and forced separation of mothers from their newborn children immediately
>>upon birth, or shortly thereafter.
>>
>Not all mothers go through that.  Some woman have their children at home and
>are not separated from their newborn children.  Actually the loss of interest
>in sex is probably a hormonal effect of childbirth.  The body isn't ready
>to reproduce again, so it tries to eliminate the chance.

>Lets see a study.  This study is a comparison of the emotional trauma of
>woman who have an abortion, and woman who have an unwanted child and
>possibly give it up for adoption.  Lets have several categorys.  1.  Woman
>who have an abortion.  2. Woman who have unwanted children that they can
>afford to care for.  3. Woman who have unwanted children that they can't
>care for.  4.  Women who have children and give them up for adoption because
>they can't care for them.  Note that I am leaving out the huge category
>of women who have an abortion because the fetus is discovered to have
>some major handicap, like chromosomal damage (frequently resulting in
>mental retardation) vs. those who have those children. 

I wonder how "huge" this category is.  I think it is much smaller than
all except 4., unless one takes "can't" literally in 3.  [Can't by whose
standards, Mark?]

> If you are
>going to oppose abortion, then lets see an improved adoption system,

It's already got a severe shortage of babies.  It could use improving,
sure, but unless more babies are saved from abortion, improving it
is not going to have much effect.

>and some way of letting the women care for the child.  Or do you
>believe that a woman should just shut up and bear the children? 

Of course not.

>not phsiologically.  Physiologically, I believe it is around 1 month after
>birth that the infant finishes certain changes.  I know, you will want
>to flame me for this, but look at the internal physiology and there are
>major and fundamental differences between a fetus and an infant.  The
>heart structure is one example.  But we could argue this to the end of
>time.  (Now that would be interesting, NOT!)

I take the issue of infanticide seriously.  I wish more talk.abortion
regulars would.  For one thing, your "huge" category could be much more
easily identified and mistakes either way (to kill or not to kill) would be
minimized.

Peter Ny.
From: cddukes@c00507-119rd.eos.ncsu.edu (PakRat's Anonymous)
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:23:45 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

Just a reminder folks.

Democracy is the rule by the majority with respect to the minority where
neccesary.

IE you have a group of 20 people that want to grab something to eat.
15 of the people want to eat barbequed pork at &barbeque_place.  There
is the minor problem that you have a Hindu and an Orthodox Jew in the
group and a couple of vegetarians for various reasons.  You DON'T force
the 5 remaining folks to eat at barbecue at the &barbecue place.
You make appropriate considerations.  IE drop by a Kosher deli with
salad bar for the veggies and the Jew, then drop by &barbecue_place.

Despite the fact that the fact that the US is a democratic republic
(We decide who will screw us over) the intent is to pick representitives
that put your best interests forward, but at the same time won't stomp
on too many toes.

Please note that you can put EITHER viewpoint into the role of the
antagonist in the following, and the antagonists will generally
end up looking stupid.

IE abortion may be completely against your beliefs.  But will you be
like the folks that think the idea of a meatless meal is horrible, and
ban someone from their only food?  Or will you be unable to eat pork,
and trying your damndest to keep the pork eaters from eating what 
they desire?  Or will you go for a compromise where you don't do what
you don't want, but you also don't keep someone from doing something
they desire to do.

Homosexual marriage... Will you go and taunt the veggies by stealing
their plates, but eating from yours...  Or will you go and start spilling
the plates of the pork eaters?  I personally think both attitiudes are
rather foolish.

Religion in schools...  Will you start trying to force food from your
plate on those that don't desire it?  Will you throw the food into the
face of the offender if it is forced upon you?

Various protections and such in the workforce...  Well the upshot of
this is (IF implemented properly) do you want to get kicked out of 
the barbecue place with no explanation as to why, do you want to get
kicked out of the barbecue place because you were wearing plaid,
or would you rather be kicked out because you have been in a major
food fight with 5 people that bought food elsewhere, and have this
fact documented.  I think I'll take what is behind door number three.

Even with religious beliefs it is possible to be practical.  And take
a hint I heard from another faith...  Don't argue with outsiders about
semantics, live your own way, and argue amongst your own kind.

Chris "the PakRat" Dukes______________________________cddukes@eos.ncsu.edu
Gooey Dough Crepe Axe GDC-23A, the newest weapon in
handheld tactical sustenance warfare.
PGP key available upon request
Newsgroups: talk.abortion