HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:10:31 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>>>> So, when are you planning to bill me for your "archival services"?

>>> I'll let you know, off-line, *IF* and *WHEN* I plan to bill you.

>> Is this the same Kevin Darcy who keeps telling me to stop waffling?

> Acknowledging that the future is uncertain is not "waffling", Mr. Cochran.
> It's just pragmatic.

News Flash!  Kevin Darcy admits uncertainty!
Imminent demise of the net predicted!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Keegan excludes anyone from being prochoice if they support restrictions on abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:57:09 GMT

In article <LABACH.92Nov9085511@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.041109.18976@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>> In article <LABACH.92Nov6121215@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
>> labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes: 
>
> [a bunch of stuff that we generally agree on, deleted]
>
>> >...a statist dipstick
>> >like you who wants the law to force women to become birthing machines
>> >can only make claims about others being "fascist control freaks" in the
>> >most ironic of senses.
>> 
>> What about the pro-choicers who have criticized Keegie for exactly the
>> same behavior (albeit not quite with as much passion as Doug has here)? 
>> Does our criticism qualify us as "fascist control freaks" too?
>
>Hmm, I guess I don't read t.a often enough.  I thought you were an
>anti-choicer...  

*THIS* is the reason I keep the heat up, Mr. Labach. You see, for every
"regular" reader who sees Keegan's constant stream of lies and deliberate
mischaracterizations of his "target du jour"s opinions, who just wades 
through his posts thinking to himself or herself "Oh, Keegan's just being an 
asshole again", there are probably 2 or 3 NON-regular readers, such as 
yourself, who might read the same crap, and actually BELIEVE it. Case in 
point: I am not an anti-choicer. I support no abortion restrictions. Yet 
Keegan (and Susie Garvin, and a handful of others) continually insist that I 
*DO*, in fact, in some contrived and apparently inarticulable way, support 
at least one (unspecified) abortion restriction. Am I right in assuming that 
these falsehoods led, at least in part, to your conclusion that I was an 
anti-choicer? Now perhaps you see why I feel the need to constantly attack 
and refute their statements. I would rather risk bringing flames into this 
group, than for the truth to be sacrificed to a screechy, lying little brat 
like that.

>I classify those who want to force people to use their
>bodies in undesired ways as "fascist control freaks".  That would
>include murderers, muggers, rapists, generals, and anti-choicers.

I consider Keegan et al. to be "anti-choice" wrt the meta-issue of, within
a certain range of views on abortion, letting people call themselves whatever
they want. "Fascist control freak" is perhaps an unwarranted exaggeration,
but the "control" aspect of their behavior _is_ present, IMO...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Protecting newborn infants as non-persons
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:04:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.012415.769@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> If newborn infants are defined as non-persons, then a particular
>> infant may be killed when society's interests aren't served by 
>> protecting that infant. 

> Yes, I still don't get your point. 

It means that if society's interests aren't served by protecting
a particular infant, such as a crack baby, or a severely mentally
retarded infant, then that particular infant may be killed if
they are defined as non-persons.  

> This is in practice true for persons
> as well. See below.

No, it's not true.  Innocent persons are always protected from 
being killed, independent of society's interests.  

>>> This is, in practice, true for persons
>>> too. Consider the draft. 

>> The draft is not an example of society killing its own members.

> Gee, they seem to end up dead, don't they.

But it's not an example of our society (the United States of America)
killing its own members.  The members of some other society kill them.  

>>> If one places on infants a value just
>>> short of persons, I fail to see the practical difference.

>> Please define the phrase "a value just short of persons".

> Value V such that !(Ef):((f has value V')&&(!f is a person)&&(V'>V))

Define the values V and V'. 

>-Ekr


Doug Holtsinger
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Selfishness?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:34:17 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov5.190828.13614@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes:

>>Pro-choice women in this forum have stated for the
>>right price, there is a very good chance they would  continue
>>a pregnancy. 

>I'm new here...I can't believe this...there is actually a consensus
>among pro-choice women here that money would overrule their decision to
>have an abortion???  This is NOT the case among the women I know.

Heck, sure.  As you yourself pointed out, there are multiple reasons why
women seek abortion, and we need to look at the root cause.  For some women, 
the reason to seek abortion is that they cannot afford a child.  They can't
afford to have it, they can't afford to lose time at work, they can't
afford to raise it, they can't afford to educate it.  For this subset of
women, money might solve the 'problem' of the unwanted pregnancy.  Heck,
I'd *love* a third child, but I can't afford it.  (Of course, by now, I've
decided I wouldn't be willing to carry it either, but about 4 years ago,
you could have made me very happy and 'saved a life' by coughing up about
$150,000...)

But, to an extent you are right.  There is no consensus.  The financial 
ramifications of pregnancy and abortion are different for everyone, and
it isn't an agreement to do away with the OPTION, it's merely 'help' for
some to decide in favor of another child.  "overrule" seems an odd word to
use, too.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:16:52 GMT
Summary: Stupid blustering fool strikes again!

In article <nyikos.721598189@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1dcctgINN5kg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov5.204934.29875@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
> 
> Somebody deleted a lot of attributions before I came on the scene.  I
> wonder which is worse: deleting attributions or leaving them in after 
> having deleted everything in that particular article.

I think it's far worse to assume you know who said what when
you have no proof for it.  Far worse than that is to launch
an attack on one of your usual enemies (round up the usual
suspects) and attribute quotes to her when it was someone else
who said them.  Far worse in such a case when you admit to
not knowing who said what.

Stupid blustering fool?  I think Peter shouldn't have asked me
to support that statement.  He supports it much better than I.
 
> >>|>I have a better solution here to.  Why doesn't the clinic ask them 
> >>|>when they show up, "Have you made a thoughtful and well informed 
> >>|>decision?" 
> 
> >>If you had not deleted some of the text that I was refering to it would have
> >>made sense.I was talking about 2 underage females I knew that got abortions and
> >>were not properley counseled about abortion.
> 
> Maybe text wasn't all she deleted.  But Yes, Adrienne does delete an 
> awful lot of text.  Fairly recently she deleted the following text of
> mine:

That was Dan King who said what you are attributing to Adrienne.
Therefore, you are assuming that Jeffrey is referring to Adrienne
when he is referring to Dan.  Which makes these remarks of your's
about deletions and Adrienne purely gratuitous assaults.

Welcome to the club.

I, however, do have a legitimate motivation in posting this.  You
asked me to back my assertion that you are a stupid blustering fool.
This I have done in other postings and am doing here.  Are you
enjoying it?  I hope so.  I do it at your request, Peter.  I'm
just trying to make you happy.

> >PS, Dan, did you bid on this guy?
> 
> Still sarcastic?  Are you suggesting that since he is enslaving women,
> he should be a slave too?

No, Adrienne was referring to another thread, and notice that
she mentioned Dan?  That's the Dan whose quote you attribute to
Adrienne because you just have this thing for her and, having falsely
accused her of forgery, rather than apologize and admit your mistake,
you are now trying to bluster your embarrassed, stupid butt out
of it by attacking Adrienne every chance you get.  I would say
it makes you look more of a fool, but there are upper bounds
even on foolishness and you're so close to them as it is that
additional stupidities on your part only move you marginally
and almost undetectably closer to them.

Thank you Peter for once again supporting my statement about
you.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:28:29 GMT

In article <1e0k84INN46e@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> In article <1992Nov13.131652.23595@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >Which makes these remarks of your's
> >about deletions and Adrienne purely gratuitous assaults.
> 
> Sorry to contradict you, Dean, but if you will recall, I'm a "hypocritical
> ingrate" (oh, where is that pesky attribute.  Oh well, I'm sure some of
> you recall this one), so it isn't likely to be a gratuitious assault....

Was it the one where Dr Giggles Nyikos claimed that by insulting
you in some fashion or other he was being generous because it
enabled him to avoid calling you something else more awful?

He SAYS he's a doctor of something or other and an expert in
set theory, but then he says all of these stupid, illogical
things, and he can't follow the set of attributions
correctly, and he seems to think that the second to the
last person to post an article can delete material from the
next person's posting.
 
> >That's the Dan whose quote you attribute to
> >Adrienne because you just have this thing for her and, having falsely
> >accused her of forgery, rather than apologize and admit your mistake,
> >you are now trying to bluster your embarrassed, stupid butt out
> >of it by attacking Adrienne every chance you get.


Quick, Dr Giggles.  Who posted the above material?  Was it
me?  Was it Adrienne?  Was it Waldo?

I add that last because I think Dr Giggles needs some lengthy
training in Where's Waldo before he'll understand attributions.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47769 talk.politics.misc:59849 alt.politics.elections:23623
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Date: 12 Nov 1992 21:42:45 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: slavery, pro-life

|> 
|> >>	  The notion that slavery is wrong, that one human being
|> >>	cannot have property in the life of another, is today a 
|> >>	fundamental tenet of the moral creed from which we Americans
|> >>	derive our shared identity as a people.  It is therefore a
|> >>	basic tenet of our civic morality.  If we abandon it, we
|> >>	abandon ourselves.  If we assert our freedom in a way that
|> >>	violates it, we undermine the very doctrine that allows us
|> >>	to legitimate that assertion.  In short, we return to the 
|> >>	state of fundamental self-contradiction that made the 
|> >>	Civil War a tragic inevitability.
|> 
This from the same people that brought you 
	"Hillary Clinton is a bad person because she believes children
	should have legal rights."

So parents should have no control over a fetus, but they should have
ultimate control over a child.  Or even closer, society should not tell
you how to raise your children, but they should tell you how to treat
your fetus.

But then again "religious consistency" is an oxymoron.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,tlak.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why Do AntiAbortionists Play At GOD!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:30:50 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
] clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes ...
] >Again, I make the point.  will a FETUS become a cow or a horse? 
] 
] Again, I make the point.  will an EGG become a cow or a horse?  

Who KNOWS the Future?

Why not simply accept the Christian Doctrines
that the UnBorn are Not the Born.

That Black is Not White....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Keegan excludes anyone from being prochoice if they support restrictions on abortion
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:12:15 GMT
	<1992Nov5.181758.22530@ncsu.edu>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Nov5.181758.22530@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

> In article <csh1y=n@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James Keegan Jr.) writes:
> >dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> James Keegan has disqualified anyone 
> >> from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not oppose all restrictions
> >> on abortion. 
> 
> > this statement is not correct. 
> 
> "that is why i thought it important to point out
> 	that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
> 	legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
> 	third trimester."
> 		<1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

Of course, clueless one, "restrictions" on abortion are not the same as
"legislation" on limiting abortion.  You seem to be trying to read as
much as possible into a statement for the purposes of twisting it.

I don't personally know any pro-choice advocate who thinks there should
be legal restrictions on abortions.  Many, myself included, think there
ought to be only medical ones.  Any restrictions on abortion should
be a matter of medical concern rather than of law.

In any case, since Keegan is not forcing anyone to stop using the label
"pro-choice" even if he thinks that it is inaccurate, a statist dipstick
like you who wants the law to force women to become birthing machines
can only make claims about others being "fascist control freaks" in the
most ironic of senses.

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Give me a man or woman who has read a thousand books and you give me an
 interesting companion.  Give me a man or woman who has read perhaps
 three and you give me a dangerous enemy indeed."
 - Anne Rice, The Witching Hour
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:34:45 GMT

In article <92311.172926ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.154159.23583@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:
>>In article <92305.094124ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct26.154453.277@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:
>
>>>>I would tend to think so.
>
>>>While you gentlemen are defining insulting and inflammatory
>>>statements, could you tell me if it is insulting and
>>>inflammatory to label someone who opposes abortion legislation
>>>and believes that abortion is a matter to be left to a woman
>>>and her doctor as a radical extremist?
>
>>No
>
>This explains why you are in agreement with Darcy
>since he obviously doesn't think that is insulting
>or inflammatory either.  Although I admit that I
>find this a little inconsistent with your agreement
>that people should be called what they wish to be called.

A thin parody. I don't believe anyone has suggested that people should 
UNCONDITIONALLY be called whatever they wished to be called. If you were
to start calling yourself, say, Linda, The Wicked Witch of the North, that 
may be all very fine and good for _you_, but no-one else is obligated to 
start using that title for you. What has been argued, however, is that there 
is a RANGE of views within which a person should be permitted the "pro-
choice" label if they wish to use it. I believe Ms. Bartley falls within 
that range; apparently you and Keegan and a few others either a) refuse to
acknowledge that such a range exists at all (polarization), or b) refuse to 
acknowledge that Ms. Bartley falls within the range (which leaves open the
question -- where is this range, and do third-tri neutrals, such as Kevin
Darcy and Siren, fall within it?).

>>I think it's observationally extreme on the scale of beliefs
>>to believe that abortion should be legal throughout pregnancy.
>
>Do you think it's observationally extreme on the scale of beliefs
>to believe that women should be placed in jail for obtaining
>banned abortions?

Anyone who believes in criminal restrictions implicitly agrees to the
ultimate enforcement of those restrictions -- jail time. So what is this
all this "jail" rhetoric other than attempts to polarize & emotionalize?
Many pro-choice moderates support SOME sort of legal restriction, and, 
therefore, when one gets down to the nitty-gritty, the use of jail as the
last resort for non-compliers. Ms. Bartley is not particularly exceptional
among such Moderates, just because Keegan has purloined some juicy "jail" 
quotes from her. That's just more "spin" from the Good Doctor, dear.

>>Is there something wrong with being extreme?
>
>Never having been extreme, I wouldn't know.

Opposing *ALL* restrictive abortion legislation is most definitely "extreme",
Ms. Birmingham. What position could be _more_ extreme than that one? Look up
the definition of "extreme" in a dictionary, if you don't believe me.

								- Kevin
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DOD: woman killer
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:24:05 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <5838@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
#In article <1992Nov8.012725.26923@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
##While you [DOD] might prefer women to die from medical complications late in
##a pregnancy, most sane people would like to see doctors be able to
##save the lives of at least the women by performing a third trimester
##abortion.  For that reason alone, most of us think that the clause in
##RvW preventing the illegality of such abortions is a good thing.
#
#Perhaps His Dougness is licking his lips at the prospect of Das Future,
#brought to you by the lovely German folks who are pumping air and nutrients
#into a dead pregnant woman so the fetus can keep on keepin' on.  WOW!
#Now there's NO REASON for an abortion, even the threat of death!  And any
#woman who wouldn't gladly slit her own throat and be Frankensteinized for
#the sake of Der Fetus is an unnatural FREAK, Ja?

I meant to mention this before - the case that Teddi describes is
not something that can only happen other places.  Pennsylvania
has a living will law.  Anyone can write a living will in PA now,
and almost all competent adults can expect that their wishes will
be followed.  One subgroup of competent adults cannot, though.
Pregnant women are to be kept alive until the pregnancy reaches
full term, regardless of their wishes.

#O Brave New World, that has such people in it...

Indeed.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:02:27 GMT

>  = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Obviously* there will always be some areas of contention wrt to what 
>> constitutes a "person", but I think it's useful to narrow down the points 
>> of disagreement.  Is anyone interested in doing this?  Or are we only 
>> interested in wholesale acceptance/rejection of other people's ideas?
>> 
>> To that end, I challenge you to provide concise answers to the following:
>> 
>> Q1: Do you agree that the physical presence of a brain is necessary, 
>>     although perhaps not sufficient, for "personhood"?  <yes xor no>
>
>A very qualified "no" (see response to Brian Kendig's post).

But you did say: "[...] So I would say that no living thing exists 
that lacks a brain that I would call a person. [...]"  So appearently, wrt
"living things" & abortion, a brain in a prerequisite for "personhood".

>> Q2: (I'm trying to establish that we agree that "persons" actually exist)
>>     Do you agree that being a "normal, adult human" is sufficient, although 
>>     perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>  
>Yes.

>> Q3: Do you agree that being a "normal, human infant" is sufficient, although 
>>     perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>
>Yes.

- Brian
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: ATUI=LONG-WINDED BULLSHIT.
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:17:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   This is all very nice.  But what my wife or sister or daughter
or mother or cousin does with her own body is their own business.
As long as it involves someone else's body, all of the ovetstated
crap with which you have taken up too much bandwidth doesn't mean
anything to me or my loved ones.  There are more holes in all the
ATUI crap you posted than a horse trader's mule.  Did you believe
that if you made faux logic look academic, you could foist it off
as intelligent.
   It the Sears Towers were built on a foundation as shaky as the
one you built this ATUI crap on, the would be outhouses, which is
where your crap belongs.
   Nice try.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion