HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:18:30 GMT

In <1defqoINN4ue@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <BxAr7L.201@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1dbgs0INN5gh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

Lots of attributions deleted here, folks!  Not by me, though!

>>>>>>So you are saying there have been no cases where a judge has told a man 
>>>>>>to pay childbirth expenses, when the man is not married to the woman?
>>>>>Scuse me, please, but Don I think I indicated before that I was neither
>>>>>blind nor stupid.  Of course there have been a few occasions where a judge
>>>>>told a man he had to pay expenses.  Is that the GENERAL CASE?  No.  Were
>>>>>those orders limited to SPECIFIC situations?  Yes.

>>>>I'm trying to learn from your debating style.

Let me give you a pointer after this little exchange:

>>Your claim +seems+ to be:

>Ah, paraphrasing again.  Is that really a *good* appoach to investigating an
>issue, or merely for setting up a straw man to knock down?

Red flag up.  Last time I saw this from Adrienne, it was against Martin
Guerrero, and some pretty wild accusations from Adrienne followed a few
exchanges later.  In between, she built up to it with claims that 
Martin was speculating about her state of mind.

>>. Some judges think the law says they can order an unmarried man 
>>  to pay pregnancy/childbirth expenses;
>>. the law is otherwise;
>>. so other judges would disagree or overturn these "few occasions."
>>. Therefore unmarried men are not liable for any costs other than 
>>  child support.

>My claim *is* that, as a general rule, the states that make up the United
>States GENERALLY follow a philosophy outlined in (I can never remember the
>real name but it's something like) the Family Services Act, which is a 
>federal guideline that covers such thing as child support obligations.
>While *some* states depart from this, MOST of the states support MOST of
>the stipulations in the Act.  
  
Fortunately, in this post, all it seemed to lead up to was her
parenthetical statement in the above paragraph.  But you have been 
put on notice about straw men and paraphrasals, so keep alert!

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: one way darcy misrepresents things
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:42:26 GMT

for weeks, darcy has been preening about how 
he has not responded to one of my posts in 
some time. this is true. i don't remember 
when he last posted a reply to one of my 
posts.

what's interesting is the number of times he 
brings up my name in his replies to others. 
unlike kebbie, i'm not so anal retentive as 
to dig up all of his posts and count, but i'd 
estimate that he mentions me in at least half 
of his posts.

that makes his preening seem hypocritical, 
doesn't it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:28:39 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>of the two posts, my original or your reply, which
->>contained abortion-related material, ray?

->Neither, you clueless twit. 

tsk. tsk. that's not true ray. i think you should take
another look at my post. here:

--------------original post--------------------
here's an anti-choice stance if i ever saw one:

   "My preferences as to when to restrict abortions
   don't allow women who prefer to wait until the third
   trimester to get abortions, no.  This doesn't
   particularly upset me.  I want restrictions to start
   at the *earliest* 22 weeks (more likely 24), and by
   that time she should have known she was pregnant
   long enough to have had an abortion if she wanted
   one."
      <1992May25.204212.8159@midway.uchicago.edu>

i laughed when i looked up this old post. she posted it
with her Pro-Choice .sig!

apparently, the justification for this stance is 
that it won't impact many (women). i imagine the 
same argument could be used for enslaving any minority.

and, if legislating against abortion isn't enough, 
take a peek at this punitive and vindictive
statement to punish the women who have the abortions
e.e. wants to ban.

   "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of at least a
   month, probably somewhat more, (six months to a year if
   we had unlimited space in non-hellhole prisons, but we
   don't), with hefty community service tacked on to that."
      <1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>

she posted this one with her .sig too.

that's e.e.

---------end original post-------------------------

->You post was just a pitiful attempt to tar
->someone with the anti-choice label.

where does it do that, ray? it looks to me like it
refers to positions, not labels.

->If you can't have a life, at least pick on someone else who doesn't
->have a life.

i just left this line included to demonstrate how a few
silly gits call abortion-related discussions flaming.

do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
abortions, ray?
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Beware of pointless debates with DODIE:
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:16:56 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov8.182912.11120@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes a thread on the
opinions of some pro-choicers on the personhood status of infants.
What this article convincingly demonstrates is that one should not
engage in pointless debates with DODIE; sooner or later, out of
frustration, you will say something that he will take out context to
make some twisted point.  For the record, DODIE, let me make it
perfectly clear what my position on this irrelevant issue is: Infants
are persons.  The law is quite clear on who qualifies as a person: any
born human being.  The issue is also irrelevant: A woman should no
more be forced to used her body to support a /z/e/f/ (not a person)
then she is forced to use it to support her 5 year old child (a
person).  Personhood is irrelevant to abortion because the set of
legal persons does not intersect with the set of entities that can be
aborted.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: darcy's hypocrisy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:15:41 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to linda
birmingham:
->A thin parody. I don't believe anyone has suggested that people should 
->UNCONDITIONALLY be called whatever they wished to be called. 

this statement is not correct.

but it doesn't make any difference one way or another.

darcy - you have defended ms. bartley's "right" to be
called what she wished to be called while concurrently
refusing that right to ms. birmingham.

as many people have written:

"Ah, Kevie, you're such a fucking hypocrite."
rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama)
<574@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>

"Mr. Darcy you have elevated hypocrisy to an
art form."
	Linda Birmingham
	<92126.142810ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>

"you are such a fucking hyApocrite."
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
<8!fr85-@rpi.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: an anti-choice post
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.003429.9833@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>> i believe the middle-of-the-roaders who would bleed
>> away women's rights, little by little, are a greater
>> threat to the pro-choice concept than any of the

> But women don't have the right to third trimester abortions NOW.
> Roe v. Wade is quite clear on this issue. 

No, women do have the right to third trimester abortions now. 
Roe v. Wade does not allow the states to prohibit post-viability
abortions which are necessary to preserve the woman's ``health'', 
where the term health is given a very broad definition, including
emotional and psychological health. 

>-Ekr


Doug Holtsinger
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:20:57 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a 
>violation of the right to live which God has bestowed
>upon this nascent life.  To raise the question whether
>we are concerned already with a human being or not is
>merely to confuse the issue.  The simple fact is that
>God certainly intended to create a human being and that
>this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of 
>his life.  And that is nothing but murder."

If the existence of a fetus shows that "God certainly intended to
create a human being," why are there so many spontaneous miscarriages?
Does a miscarriage show that God changed His mind?  Bonhoeffer should
have been more careful about his reasoning.


Keith
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and SAT
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:46:33 GMT
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


In article <nyikos.720736852@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
 
>I had no idea who it was that made the direct request for my scores.
>Had I not received a direct request, I would not have posted such
>things which mean so little to my present-day self.  [I could use
>them to become a Mensa member, but Mensa always seemed irrelevant
>to the big world to me.  Maybe I should take another look at them.] 
 
Jeez, am I ever impressed.  Mensa, really Petey.  I'd run down and
join right away.  
 
Is Mensa like a really big deal in the Carolinas?  Seems we had 
another pro-life SAT poster get asked to join Mensa.  Any word on 
the Reverends standing with Mensa?
 
>Peter Nyikos

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.023814.11265@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.020030.4492@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[Snip.  Snip.  Oh hell, where's the chainsaw???]
>
>>
>>Can you read Cochran's mind, Larry? How do you know that what you and I
>>may agree is "unnecessary" is not seen as "necessary" by Cochran, or vice
>>versa? How do you know that he doesn't WANT to force women to sign "abortion 
>>request forms" before they are permitted an abortion? How do you know that 
>>he doesn't WANT to strictly forbid abortions on comatose women? Don't ASSUME 
>>that Cochran wants no new laws, Larry. That MIGHT be a very mistaken 
>>assumption. By his own admission, he used to be much more pro-life than he
>>is currently.
>
>BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  (Oh, geez.  After the election and #2 passing, I've
>needed a laugh like this).
>
>Well, gee, Darcy maybe it's because Larry takes the time to *ask*, instead
>of just posting away with psychotic-nightmare-on-elm-street babble?

Larry has asked, and you have answered? Productively? *THAT*, I'd like to
see. All _I_ see from you is pointless evasion and doubletalk. Care to repost 
this alleged conversation for my edification?

>(For the record.  Darcy's comment about "he used to be much more pro-life
>than he is currently" is wrong.  

Date: Sun, 31 May 92 03:50:15 GMT

"(Watch:  Kevin is now going to franticcally scurry along until her can find a
 10+ month old article from me where I said that I would support some
 legislative stuff wrt abortion.  And last year, I did.  But due to some non-
 abortion related stuff in my personal life, and the attitudes of some of the
 pro-lifers on t.a, I've moved my stance)."

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:51:58 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>of the two posts, my original or your reply, which
>contained abortion-related material, ray?

Neither, you clueless twit.  You post was just a pitiful attempt to tar
someone with the anti-choice label.  It didn't discuss any issues, it
didn't attempt to refute any points.  It didn't even manage to
establish an anti-choice view (clue: "restriction" is not synonymous
with "prohibition").

If you can't have a life, at least pick on someone else who doesn't
have a life.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert Scott Parker)
Subject: Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE 5-WEEK LIMIT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:41:18 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Oct30.130948.10139@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>>In article <nyikos.720223561@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>}Almost from the day I joined this newsgroup, I have stated that I would
>>}allow unrestricted abortion up to the end of the 5th week.  

>>}            ... so I would love
>>}to see abortions after the 5th week outlawed because a safer 
>>}alternative is available.

>I was pressed for time and did not have time to elaborate.  I should,
>however, have inserted MOST before "abortions".  Mea culpa.

Does it occur to you that a woman doesn't always realize that she *really is*
pregnant within 5 weeks?  At *best* she might start to *suspect* at 2 weeks.
And that's if she's never missed one before when she wasn't pregnant.  It is
quite common for a woman to be a week or more late or to miss a cycle completely
due to stress or a change in her environment.  (That idea that women who are
"around" each other tend to synchronize...if she changes who she's "around" it
can disrupt things.)  When she's a week late--if she's paranoid--she might
finally get around to getting a home pregnancy test, or better yet scheduling
a doctor appointment--which she'll have to do anyway after getting a positive
result (assuming the test is accurate; they aren't 100% perfect you know).
It's already getting rather close to that 5 week limit of yours.  I guess you
don't care to give her enough time to make a decision about it, talk to family
and friends, or anything.

Suppose the test came out negative so she didn't think she *really was*
pregnant.  Or suppose that she's skipped before and not *really* been pregnant.
She won't have any further suspicions until at least the 6th week, at which
point you would already cut her off.

>Peter Nyikos

-Rob

PS, have you sent your position in response to the "Abortion position poll for
talk.abortion readers"?   Be counted!  8-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:50:09 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <1992Nov8.011709.25856@netcom.com> 
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>> But just about every law is based upon morality -- murder laws
>>> are based upon on the notion that it's wrong to kill innocent
>>> people.  Abortion laws would extend that concept to all innocent 
>>> human beings.  
>
>> Unless, of course, murder laws are based on self-interest.  In which
>> case your notion that murder laws should apply to embryos is wrong.
>
>But if murder laws are based on self-interest, then those people
>who have no self-interest, such as newborn infants, may be killed. 

But if murder laws are based on morals, then those people who have no
morals, such as atheists, may be killed.

I think that laws protect the interests of society.  Laws against
killing people are clearly in the interest of everyone.  Laws
prohibiting theft and assault are also clearly in the interest of
everyone, as are laws protecting individual liberty.  A fetus, when
carried unwillingly, is committed both theft and assualt on the 
mother.  Preventing her from removing the fetus is denying her
liberties enjoyed by all other people.  In a society that values equal
rights very highly, having one group so disadvantaged is gravely
problematic.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Saving money instead of saving lives
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:23:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.212906.14546@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.052403.19487@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> One doctor was accused of refusing to resucitate an elderly man
>>> who had suffered a serious heart attack.  This elderly man
>>> was alert and awake, but I was thinking, suppose that this
>>> man had been unconscious.  If he had died from the heart attack, 
>>> he wouldn't have known that a doctor had ordered that he not be 
>>> rescuitated.  He wouldn't have known that he had died, or that 
>>> he had suffered.  
>
>> The elderly man's family and friends would suffer from the man's death.
>
>Would we feel differently if the elderly man didn't have any familiy
>or friends?

Incrementally, yes.

>> The elderly man quite possibly still has a lot to contribute to society.
>
>Would we feel differently if he couldn't contribute anything to
>society? 

Incrementally, yes.

>> The doctor has taken a solemn oath to help the sick. 
>
>And doctors take a hippocratic oath not to harm the living.  

Indeed. Which is another reason why we would be outraged. Watch out for
that ambiguous term "the living", though -- there's nothing in the 
Hippocratic oath, which defines z/e/f's as "the living". It was written well
over two millenia before human reproduction was really understood.

>> The doctor almost certainly has more than enough income to live 
>> comfortably even if he saves the elderly man -- so the only motivation 
>> would seem to be unbridled avarice and/or materialism, which is despicable 
>> in and of itself.
>
>Would we feel differently if this doctor didn't have enough
>income to live comfortably? 

We might understand his motivations a little better, but still probably
not excuse his actions.

								- Kevin
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why genetics can't be used to determine personhood
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:24:01 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov6.013604.13955@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> A common pro-life argument here is "it's wrong to kill people, and a
> human is obviously a person from conception, because it has human DNA."

It's wrong to kill developing human beings because they will 
eventually come to possess a meaningful existence such as yours 
and mine.  It's not wrong to kill entities with human DNA which 
are not human beings, because they will never come to possess a 
meaningful existence.
 
> This stance has been shown to be flaky (because otherwise you'd have
> to consider identical twins to be the same person), 

No, you simply got the stance wrong. 

> In the news recently has been a baby girl who's had five organs
> replaced: the three I can remember are her liver and intestines.
> Assuming the five new organs are all from the same donor, she now has
> two distinct DNA mappings within her.
>
> Does this mean she's two persons?  Or does this mean that part of her
> is "person" and part of her isn't?

No, she's one person, with a single existence.

> Since it's obvious that two people can have the same genes (identical
> twins) and one person can have two sets of genes (an organ recipient),
> can the claim "distinct human genes = person" still hold water with
> anyone?

It's not just the distinctness of human genes which makes it
wrong to kill human beings.  

>Brian Kendig


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Saving money instead of saving lives
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:45:16 GMT

Last night, I didn't stay awake long enough to watch the CBS 
"Street Stories."  I had a dream about a tree trying to 
commit suicide with a chainsaw because it was on someone's
property.  On closer inspection I saw that it was our own
Doug Holtsinger on his own property, trying to demonstrate his
rather "peculiar" view of The Way Things Work.

Unfortunately, while our Reverend Pious Father may claim otherwise,
the article contained nada, zilch, zip about abortion, it didn't
even mention the word.  So I deleted it.  Feel free to do so
with this article too, but it does mention abortion at least.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!