HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.171241.7353@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Further arguments exist as to abortion rights as implicit in the Equal
>Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, or (less plausibly) in
>the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, though the Court has yet
>to adopt either of these approaches.

Could you elaborate at all on the reasoning behind these arguments, Ted,
particularly the EP argument? This is the first I've heard of Equal 
Protection being applied to the abortion issue. Does the "protection"
refer to disparate treatment between born and unborn children (e.g. giving
z/e/f's a right of "occupancy" not enjoyed by born children), or does it
revolve around the disparate treatment between men and women, or between
pregnant and non-pregnant women?

								- Kevin

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:51:31 GMT

eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
->ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
->>For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
->>sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,
->>and being willing to submit to the conditions imposed by someone else
->>as a condition for their doing so.

->In this case, submitting to the conditions imposed by someone else is
->necessary to safe the life of a fetus.

it's refreshing to see you give up your pretense of
supporting choice and openly argue in favor of anti-choice
restrictions.

->Pro-Choice            Anti-Roe                - E. Elizabeth Bartley

   "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>

   "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>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:04:24 GMT

In <rzs24pr@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>->Keep asking him, Will.  It'll be good for him to be on the receiving end
>->of questions asked ad infinitum, for a change.

>say phoney, have you posted your apology for falsly
>accusing adrienne of posting a forgery?

I've tried TWICE to post something that would set the ball rolling in
the direction of cleaning up this issue once and for all.  It included
apologies to (gasp!) you as well as to Susan and Adrienne and clueless
newbies, but my netserver LIED to me both times that it had been posted
and even listed the first attempt in my index (the second was made during
the week-and-a-half news blackout).  I'll see if I can dig it up today
and (groan!) make a third attempt at posting it.

While I have you on the line, let me join will (or, as I usually write
his name, Will) in asking you:

Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?

PJN
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:10:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.725140090@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1086@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##In article <1992Dec22.153207.4729@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
##( Steve Novak) writes to Petey Honey:  
##[text deleted]
###It's gonna be fun watching Sue Garvin embarrassing you again.  Welcome 
###back..."Professor".
#
#Susan Garvin, glad to be off the hook:

Have you been taking mindreading lessons from Reverend Holtsinger?

##Actually, I think that it's going to be Mark Cochran who gets to be
##the leader in embarassing PHoney for a while - Nyikos is posting a
##lot of medical misinformation in his latest incarnation.
##I'd also guess that Steve Adams, Eric Rescorla, and drieux will have
##their turns, too, since Nyikos has decided to branch out into
##theology.  

No comment, huh, PHoney?  Why do you spread misinformation?

##I'll add that there's plenty of material already available - these
##guys can have fun even if PHoney runs for cover, er, his rewsreader
##breaks down again.
#
#What's a rewsreader, Susan?

It's a typo, moron.  What were your SAT scores again?

#But seriously, folks, since Susan was never known to give a sucker
#an even break, why should she spare a clueless newbie who can't even
#reboot his newsreader all by himself?  

It's not the fact that you can't reboot your newsreader that
we're laughing at, PHoney, it's your claims that it conveniently
goes down each time that you want to hide.

#Contact my sysadmin, Susan:
#even he couldn't do it for a day, after passing the buck to a student
#who was all that remained of departmental help after our chief
#trouble-shooter left for a new job in Colorado.  She tried for several
#days, then tried for at least one more day to find him in the hope 
#that he would take the problem more seriously.

PHoney, you're laboring under the delusion that someone, anyone,
cares about the minutiae of your life.  If you were really
as smart as you think that you are, you would have figured out
a way to read news.  Most first year students can do it.  (Of course,
most first year students recognize attribution lines for what
they are the first time they read news, so maybe I'm expecting
too much of old Petey Honey.)  Either you're stupid, or you're
lying about not seeing articles.  I'd guess the first, except
that you've already been caught lying about the availability
of articles at your site.

#Watch Susan Garvin pass up what may well be the first *request*
#from a pro-lifer to contact his sysadmin.

I only contact sysadmins about forgeries and threats.  Unlike you
and your ilk, I have no desire to have anyone's privileges revoked.

Go back to lying about doctors, PHoney.  You're better at that.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52622 soc.men:21618 alt.dads-rights:3067
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:18:36 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <BzMAvL.D2t@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Dec19.105022.6279@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>But what on earth does support for anti-abortion have to do with either of
>>these?  Men who want reproductive rights should be supporting abortion on
>>demand.  If they don't then they are just fighting themselves, not women.
>>Because if abortion is totally outlawed, then you can BET the number of
>>men required to pay support will increase dramaticly.
> 
> I don't see your reasoning.
> 
> 1.  Perhaps the number of pregnancies would go down (or extranational
> abortions increase), if abortion were illegal.

What you mean *perhaps*?  If the number didn't go down I would be extremely
surprised.
First of all, you are missing the fact that lots of women vote.  Lots of
women support Pro-choice.  IF you want to get laws changed, then you'd
best better start getting some women on your side.  Seems that you have
no interest in that.  Seems you might get a clue that being incredibly
hostile doesn't get you anything except enemies who would be more inclined
to fight anything you came up with just because they don't like you.


> 
> 2.  Perhaps the consequences of feminism would give men equal custody
> (especially the younger generations) hence reducing the number of men 
> paying support (and the number of women willing to risk pregnancy).
> 

And if the Pro-lifers get their way, there would be millions more children
born every year, more needing to be supported, more on welfare, thus 
increasing our taxes, more abused and neglected children, thus making
it necessary to put more kids in foster care.  More men taken to court
to pay child support.  Your logic totally escapes me.


> 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.
> 
> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Idiocy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:14:15 GMT

Patrick "March your fat black ass down here" Humphrey (correction gratefully
acknowledged to Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.005024.12577@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
>(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

Gee Humpty, how did you manage to screw up the attributions?  
This is Susan Garvin complaining about libel and slander, not me:

>> I predict that you'll learn about some of these points of law > some
>> day, though.  Not everyone is as forgiving of libel and > slander as I
>> am.

Terrible editing, Humpty.  Are you using your toes to edit this article?
You might get one of those big kids to tell you how to use an editor
properly. 

>   Gee, you know there's a certain someone who had often complained about
>   libel and slander... I guess some people are more alike than we realize.
>   :-)

>I'll say 

Yup, it's hard to disagree that Garvin is acting like someone
we used to know :-) 

> one of those "someone"s came down here to visit me last May 27.

Humpty, who cares?  You've been obsessing over his visit for
months now.  Don't you think it's about time to stop mourning 
his departure and get on with your pathetic life?
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 2 Jan 93 14:42:59 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|>Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen: do you "know" that 
|>Kevin Darcy been arguing for restrictions on abortion? See .sig.
|>
|>								- Kevin
|>
|>UNRETRACTED LIE
|>---------------
|>
|>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
|> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
|>				    Susie Garvin
|>				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
|>				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
                                                         
>From talk.abortion Tue Oct  6 18:37:18 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Slavery analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 16:32:40 GMT

We have seen the following exchange.

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

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

    "Bad analogy.  Slaves are people and deserve human rights.  The
    fetus is not, IMNSHO, a person."

I disagree that the analogy is bad.  Though imperfect (as any analogy
must be), slavery is perhaps one of the best analogies I have seen.  I
will note some strong similarities.


    Fetus                                 Slave
    -----                                 -----
    Considered by some to be the          Considered by some to be the
    property of the woman.                property of the slave owner.

    Denied personhood by some.            Denied personhood by some.**

    Abortion abolitionists say            Slavery abolitionists say
    person.                               person.


(** Historical evidence bears this out.  I have seen drawings from the
slave era of slaves with the facial features exaggerated to yield a
beast-like appearance.  One drawing I recall in particular included
labels specifically comparing the head of a slave to the head of a
boar.)

To be sure, there are differences.  For instance, the fetus is inside
a woman's body; the slave's situation is not analogous.  But those of
us (myself included) who would leave the abortion choice to
individuals must ask ourselves whether we would also leave the choice
to keep slaves to the individual.  If our answer differs, we must be
able to clearly explain why.  Arguing "slaves are people" will not do,
for it is probable that not everyone agrees.  Certainly such a
concensus had not been reached at the time of the Emancipation
Proclamation.


                                       Gregg Skinner
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:04:56 GMT

In article <1103@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
>
>Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
>said that.  

Not when it's embedded in someone's name. Then it's obviously a nickname
which the poster is attempting to attach to the other referenced poster.
E.g. Susie "the floozy" Garvin.

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53038 soc.men:21830 alt.dads-rights:3112 alt.abortion.inequity:6193
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: On this Father's Rights Issue
Date: 25 Dec 92 04:03:29 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
> ]
> ] Pardon me, but it seems that this discussion has moved away from the
> ] issues of the rights of fathers to their children. Perhaps this may
> ] have a better forum elsewhere.
> 
> 
> just catch me up here bob, I may have missed it in the flow,
> but is your argument that a father has a 'right' over that
> which is not yet?

I have made it a point not to be in the conversation --my point was that
the issues which the thread have turned to deal in terms of various ideas
of pro/anti feminism, and I suggested that these issues might be better 
addressed in another area.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:09:36 GMT

In <1992Dec23.132558.25246@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <1992Dec23.013921.7465@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

I have added alt.flame to the newsgroups.

>> In article <1992Dec21.003426.21330@rotag.mi.org> 
>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> 
>> > Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
>> > alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
>> > be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
>> > alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?
>> 
>> But that would require consistency from Garvin.
>> 

Why am I NOT surprised to see Kaflowitz jump in to
deflect well-deserved flames [thank you, Chris Lyman, for teaching
me that phrase] away from Susan Garvin?

Does Susan Garvin ever return these big favors Kaflowitz does for her
and the rest of the talk.abortion inner circle of women?

>What this little discussion is about is the time Kevin Darcy
>accused the victim of child molestation of being a child
>molester, then he spent weeks trying to support his remarks,
>then finally apologized for it and claimed it was all a joke.
>Now The Reverend Douglas Holtsinger seems to find it
>inconsistent of Susan to be unforgiving of someone who
>called her SO a child molester.

Let's see...is Kaflowitz talking about one person (Darcy) or two
here?  I can't figure it out from what he is saying, and unlike
him, I am not clairvoyant. :-)

>I think the Reverend Doug is something of an idiot, and I
>feel secure in my expectations of consistency on that score.

Kaflowitz is also quite consistent in his behavior.  I think
I'll leave him alone for a while, for that reason.  Parting shots:

(1) Could someone inform me when Kaflowitz posts documentation in a 
post when he deflects flames from Garvin, Regard and the rest
of the inner circle which he seems desirous of gaining entry into?

(2) Dean, did you ever find out how much you have to kowtow to Garvin
and Regard to gain entry?  Or did they rebuff you with words like:
"What do men know about abortion, anyway?"

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:23:14 GMT
Reply-To: polant@cps.msu.edu (Bradley N Polant)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrimp.cps.msu.edu
Originator: polant@shrimp.cps.msu.edu

In article <1992Dec17.140026.265@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>(Steve Shapiro) writes:
>>
>>(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>>
>>>Where I come from, we engage in dialectical
>>>discourse without taking out our wallets.
>>
>>And where I come from we are willing to substantiate our assertions with
>>action.
>>It is a hollow effort to make assertions without the wherewithall to
>>substantiate them.
>>It is your perogative and I respect it. Just don't expect me to give any
>>credibility to your assertions knowing that you are not willing to substantiate
>>them.
>
>Actually, I didn't expect much from you at all ;-)
>
>Satya Prabhakar
>
>p.s. This is becoming irrelevant to the general populace and I shall
>     cease and desist from continuing this thread hereafter.
>
   I wholeheartedly agree with Satya here, it awfully vulgar and small minded to insist that
someone "bet you" that something will happen/or won't.  If I recall it ended for me when I
left fifth grade (as did the inyellectual growth of some people around here).
   But in spite of this, I take the bait.  I bet a miliion, billion,trillion,zilion,
ultra-trillion dollars, drawable on the first bank of tibet, that when all has said and
done, Rush will turn out to be a shameless huckster, a man of cruel and narrow temeprment, who
became the piper of white trash in the 90's.  He is now, and always has been, a pig.  Draw
your own conclusions from this about his marching legion of ditto heads.  (are you aware
ditto means (a absolutre copy?)).
I here by sign this
Brad Polant
P.S
Offer not valid in the george wallace home for the 1950's.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:43:29 CST

In article <1992Dec23.013411.7322@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.234506.23392@ncar.ucar.edu> 
>kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>
>> *You're* the one who casually asserted that (see above)
>> "there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant".
>> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>
>
>There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term 
>fetus.

Doug, you've just asserted that there is no '*moral*
weight' involved in posing a possible threat to a woman's 
life.  If you are in a charitable mood this holiday
season, perhaps you could share with us the true details
of what women have done to you, to cause these hateful
feelings.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: PHoney's expectations
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:18:01 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
-> Nyikos expects people to give fair accounts about the posts they are
-> following up to.  

did he develop these expectations before or after he
lied about adrienne regard having posted a forgery?
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:31:46 GMT
	<1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu>
	<1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: What Oilers?

In article <1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

   In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   [Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]

   DODie, what the hell is this crap?
   Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
   soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
   concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
   least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
   Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?

I'd say he puts in quite a bit of practice at it -- for a good example, try
fingering his account at eceyv some time.  Really cute .plan, if you ask me.
(Not quite the artwork of Chaney's, but you can tell he exercised his single
neuron to the limits in producing it...:-)

--PLH, maybe I should stick that "." back in mine -- he'd like that...


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:06:17 GMT

In article <1574@ozz.oasis.icl.co.uk> dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>> 
>> I think the best way to do this is to require >both< parties to sign the
>> same form.  That way the man knows at the time its signed that the woman
>> won't abort the fetus, and the woman knows the man can't legally run off.
>> 
>> That is, there is mutual assent.  
>> 
>> I like it.  
>
>The only problem is Karl is that, as has been pointed out here a
>number of times, it is a woman's right to change her mind and abort
>or not as she pleases. It is not a man's right to support or not as he
>pleases. 

Okay, so much for legal trivialities about how the law IS; now try to
come up with a coherent justification for why the law SHOULD BE that
way, Dave...

>I can't believe that if an agreement was signed (whereby the
>man would not be obligated to support a child he did not want) and the
>women decided to keep it and go to court for support, that the judge
>would rule in the man's favour. I'm also sure that her legal council
>would have a (probably successful) go at ruling the agreement
>unconstitutional. One way or another, they'll make you pay.

Unconstitutional? In what way? Seems to me that the Right to Contract
(which is guaranteed in the Constitution) is a far more compelling 
Constitutional argument in FAVOR of enforcing the contract, than the
state's Right to Declare a Contract Invalid for Any Arbitrary Irrational 
Reason It Chooses (which, as far as I know, doesn't exist anywhere). 
Please enlighten me.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity