HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:08:14 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# >> You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
# >> abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
# >> in mandating abortion.
# 
# > Negative.
# 
# Positive. 
# 
# > If the State can prohibit abortion on such trivial grounds
# > as a `compelling state interest' to protect the life of human zygotes
# > and embryos, the State can mandate abortion on the less trivial
# > grounds of a compelling state interest in zero population growth.
# 
# Again, you present a slippery-slope argument which can be used
# to argue against any state regulation in the area of abortion.
# For example, if the state can require a physician to perform the
# abortion using sterilized instruments in order to protect the 
# woman's health, then the state can also require that the woman 
# eat the right foods, exercise, etc., to protect her health. 

Slippery slope argument, my perfect posterior.  If I was going to make
a slippery-slope argument, I would have said that if the state can
prohibit abortion on such trivial grounds as a `compelling state
interest' to protect the life of human zygotes and embryos, then the
State can use the same `compelling interest' to dictate pregnant
women's diets, physical activities, even mental state all in the
interest of protecting her `unborn child.'

I did not.

# > It's a matter of how `compelling' the State's interest is, see?
# 
# No, it's a slippery-slope argument that attacks the concept of
# a ``compelling state interest'', rather than abortion laws. 

I attack the concept of the State having a `compelling state interest'
in preventing women from terminating pregnancy, but I don't attack the
concept of a compelling state interest.  If you need proof, I would
refer you to June Genis, or any other Libertarian Party type on this
net that I have likely gone head to head with in the past.

The assertion stands.  If the State can have a `compelling state
interest' to prohibit abortion, it can have the same `compelling state
interest' to mandate it, because each involves removing the same
essential freedom from the people.

You do not escape that by making silly suggestions that I am an
anarchist.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>, cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
# Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
# an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
# say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
# womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
# unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
# about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
# Plain and simple.

And from the OTHER side:

Abortions are not wrong!  There's a big difference between a fetus, a
baby, and an adult, these are all different steps in human
development.  People say that a fetus is a person, because it might
grow up to be an adult. Well, a sperm cell might fertilize an egg and
eventually become an adult.  You're talking about human life, no
matter what stage it's at, but it's not wrong to kill a fetus.  Plain
and simple.

-----

Thanks very much for your opinion, Cynthia.  You've brought much
needed clarity to a sticky debate.  But, while we're clearing things
up, Cynthia, do you think you might enlighten us with what exceptions,
if any, you might allow in your benevolence, or are you a complete
technofascist misogynist lunatic from beyond the ninth dimension who
would simply demand that no woman anywhere ever terminate a pregnancy?

Thanks ever so much.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:24:43 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug24.234134.8819@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Scott Roby, PatricKKK Harumphrey, Steve Novak, and a bunch of other liars
>on USENET, have a far weaker grasp of reality than I could, even if I drank
>a whole case of whiskey. 

Well, I know I haven't lied.

I also find it easier to believe in one liar as opposed to a bunch of 
liars if that is the choice being offerred...      :-)

As far as reality goes, I have just one word to say:  Borg.

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:51:53 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <17jhsvINNnf4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

> Think about this hard, too, Jim.  I'm talking to the net.  Even on the little
> lecture above, I'm talking to the whole of the net, whoever cares to read.
> I'm *not* talking to just you, Jim.  That's the difference between talk.
> abortion and e-mail.  Got it?
> Adrienne Regard

  Then it is pointless to debate with you, as you are debating with someone
else, and arguing about something else than the object.  Which lets you ignore
your direct opponent and any hard to handle attitudes they present and take
out the easy targets. Tsk.  You've learned the "politico debate style" well.
Argue the topic but not the question.  That is your 1st Amendment right, but
I think its pretty chicken.  Hell, you even debated the world when we WERE in
direct e-mail!

  I see your "point", but as you might say, I think it's bogus.  And now I 
guess I really am done with this thread ("...and there was much rejoicing")

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34076 alt.flame:12445 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:364
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:24:48 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

demonstrating once again why he is the target of so
many reading comprehension flames (which, in his case,
might actually be giving him the benefit of the doubt)

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
-> >In  <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger writes:
-> >> I was wondering if there would be any interest in
-> >> a moderated abortion newsgroup.  There are so
-> >> many personal attacks and insults thrown around
-> >> on talk.abortion that I thought it might be
-> >> appropriate to have a newsgroup dedicated to calm
-> >> and serious discussions of the issues.
-> >
-> >> What do people think of the idea?
-> >
-> >That it is not surprising that someone who desires
-> >to control what women do with their bodies would
-> >wish to control the content of people's posts.  I
-> >can't imagine any other reason for restricting
-> >freedom of expression.
-> 
-> And here we have a splendid microcosmic example of
-> why flames are so counter-productive.

you do make quite a fool of yourself, i agree.

-> Doug says "let's have a moderated newsgroup to
-> discuss abortion", and Linda, ever on the prowl for
-> more flame material, *ASSUMES* he means to change
-> the status of the existing group to moderated, and
-> she immediately accuses him of trying to "restrict
-> freedom of expression", along with gratuitous,
-> worn-out rhetoric about controlling women's bodies.

no. that is not what she assumes. why would you lie
about her like that?

-> Did Linda consider any other possibilities, e.g.
-> creating a SEPARATE group for the purpose? Of course
-> not.

wrong again. of course she did since that was a part of
the proposal she responded to. you would have known
that had you followed the thread before you did exactly
what you just falsly accused her of doing. didn't you
even read the proposal before you flamed ms. birmingham?

-> She's locked into FLAME_MODE=ON.  Her post attempted
-> to slam shut any and all windows of opportunity for
-> a useful, valuable discussion. Who needs to think
-> and reason when one can just belch combustibles?

since this statement had been shown to be false, i
wonder if you'll be issuing an apology to ms.
birmingham with a bit more character than you did in
your last fiasco with susan garvin.

-> I support the idea of a moderated group. 

of course you do. no one would ever question that.
as ms. birmingham said above:

        "That it is not surprising that someone who
        desires to control what women do with their
        bodies would wish to control the content of
        people's posts.  I can't imagine any other
        reason for restricting freedom of expression."




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: You be the Judge!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:05:48 GMT


Let's leave the desert isle scene a minute...journey closer to home...

There is a woman tried and convicted of murder, and awaiting execution.
Her appeals have all been exhausted, and she is due to die soon.
She is, however, pregnant, having been raped by her father who is
a prison guard.  The pregnancy itself is also life threatening, that is,
it may kill her before the gas chamber does.  She requests an abortion.
(oh yeah, she is exactly between the second and third trimester, as far
as we can tell)

Should she get it?  Who pays for it?

(You can't stay her execution, she's exhausted all the appeals.  
What do you decide is moral in this bizarre situation, and why?)

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:58:19 GMT

In <1992Sep1.022621.15823@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
addressing the chaneyhall thing,
  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes: ->

-> And he says his home life was not dysfunctional, yet 
-> look at what it produced.
-> 
-> He's one sick little boy.  His mommy and daddy
-> better get him some serious psychiatric treatment
-> before his visions of his inheritance get the better
-> of what passes for his patience.  I won't be
-> surprised if I see him on A Current Affair somewhere
-> down the road.

>hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it was
>prejudicial to suggest that someone seek psychiatric
>help when i suggested that DODie do so.

Not true.  I said that your implication was prejudicial, 
as your comments were obviously insincere (unless, of
course, you'd like to argue that Doug's remarks actually
constitute a specific clinical pattern of "denial" [hint:
you don't have nearly enough information to conclude that]).

>i wonder if he'll think the same here.

Why would I think any differently about Dean's comments?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:44:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.154136.1912@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <24592@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

  [Re:  rights to "do whatever with your body" discussion
   turned into a legalization of marijuana argument]
   
>Not even the DEMOCRATS would let you get on the podium with those
>statements. The public would see that and, with nearly 100% opposition

Hey, if nearly 100% opposed drugs, the drug dealers would be out of 
business.

>in America, neither you - who presented the argument - nor the
>Democrats foolish enough to call you their friend - would be elected
>to any office again, for pushing the legalization of marijuana. 

William F. Buckley (a Republican, the last time I checked) supports 
legalization (he smoked... inhaled... but didn't get high -- one step 
ahead of Clinton, I guess  :-)

My feeling is, if you want to outlaw recreational drugs, fine -- 
but PLEASE be consistent about it.  In other words, you also need 
to outlaw alcohol (it is a DRUG) -- to not do so is to be totally 
hypocritical.  Among excessive users of both substances, I've heard of 
far more people burned by alcohol than by marijuana.

If you don't want to outlaw alcohol, fine -- but then you have no logical 
basis for outlawing marijuana.

Incidentally, the discussion is now academic to me.  I haven't used either 
substance in over 7 years.

[walks off whistling, "I get no kick from champagne..."]


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:56:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug26.015209.22867@u.washington.edu> jnorris@u.washington.edu writes:
> I don't normally follow talk.abortion, but I was wondering about something
> and this seemed to be an appropriate place to ask it. How do pro-choice
> people out there feel about a woman aborting a female fetus because she
> wanted a boy instead? Does a woman's right to an abortion include the right
> to abort a female fetus because she would grow up to be a woman instead of
> a man? I don't know whether this happens in the U.S., but it happens in
> other countries.
> 
> Joel
> 

First of all, how do you "know" this?

I am aware that in some countries female children, i.e. born,
are abandoned sometimes, but when I consider the nature of such
things the notion that they are aborted in such countries does
not seem to fit.  That is, the countries where such things
occur tend to be less developed nations, and these things
tend to take place in the poorer, more rural communities of
such nations.  Since determining the sex of a fetus prior to
birth is a sophisticated medical process, I don't think it
likely that those who would abort because of sex, generally,
would have the means, financial or medical, to know the sex
of the fetus prior to birth anyway.

But to answer your question, which is quite hypothetical, I
would not approve of such a decision personally because I
do not see that there is any reason to love a child less
because of its sex, nor do I see any lower value for female
children as opposed to male children.  On the other hand, I
would not approve of legislation that prohibited an abortion
based on such a motive.  For one thing, it would be useless.
All someone would have to do would be to come up with an
"approved" reason to circumvent such legislation.

And again, I am interested in learning how you "know" this
happens in other countries.  Also, is it widespread or are
we discussing a few, isolated instances?  See, there are
dishonest plastic surgeons, and there are people who have
plastic surgery for reasons I would not personally approve,
but just as your question implies a motive for banning
abortion based on a poor motivation for having one, it
likewise suggests a ban on plastic surgery for the same
reason.  You follow?

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Summary: ...and she proved it!
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:06:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.031233.23455@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.233735.27613@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

[60 lines of Beth's dissection of Cynthia deleted]

>Not as clueless as you think.

...she says, as she quotes 60 lines just to add that one line to the
bottom...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

               They never understood me at the Home, either...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: been In Thearpy Long?????
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:54:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.103852.7379@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com 
(drieux, just drieux) writes:

}PPS: Yes, I have been twice certified Sane to stand trial...
}Any of the rest of you loonies got a CARD Verifying yours?????

I was certified as not only sane but sincereat least three times 
by a bunch of different people.  They didn't give me a card though,
just a discharge...I took it...

(just a data point from one loonie)

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Thanks for the fish...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:51:15 GMT


A lot of people ask about talk.abortion, "Why do you bother?"  I
guess most of us can give reasonable accounts of why we spend so much 
time on a seemingly hopeless cause.  Every now and then though you
get little snippets and glimpses into other folks thoughts.  That can
produce a reward that makes it all worthwhile, even if that isn't the
reason you are here.

I'd just like to point out that quite a surprising (to me, anyway)
number of Christians seem to be quite reasonable and worthwhile 
folks.  Quite pleasantly surprised.  

And so this doesn't turn into anything like a talk.abortion love fest,
I'd also like to take this time to slam the toilet seat on Chaney's 
head again (doesn't that boy ever learn?) and to call Doug Holtsinger
"slime."

ob. t.a  I've always felt that deep, down inside people were ok after
         all.  Discoveries like this reinforce that notion.  I believe
         that even without legislation people will act pretty well.  Even
         women that might seek an abortion.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 18:51:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com> 
>> The supreme court basically said
>> that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
>> herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
>> on any one?  
>
>I believe the people of this country should not be forced to  
>accept the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.  The people should 
>have the right to voice their opposition to abortion through the 
>state legislatures. 

And we should get rid of supreme court decisions that require equal
access to the vote, free access to counsel, and prohibit discrimination,
and return these decisions to the states again?

Like it or not, the supreme court has a purpose, and it's here to stay.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: deh0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DARCY ELIZABETH HOWE)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:27:24 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <94996@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.205422.12420@noao.edu>
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>From article <94392@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):
>
>>>Disdain of homosexuality is learned. Are you going to teach your daughter
>>>to frown upon two women or two men holding hands in public?
>
>>Like I said, I think y'all are just paranoid.   You see hatred even where
>>there isn't any.
>
>Hmmm...I suppose all that stuff you wrote about "homosexuality and
>misogyny being connected" and  how "gay relationships were naturally
>inferior to straight relationships in the eyes of God" and how "children
>should not be raised in same-sex households" is all a figment of
>my imagination...
>
>Brian
>
And my other thought is, "Why do people hate homosexuals so?  Do they really
think that homosexuality is "naturally" so much more attractive than
heterosexuality that all children will be seduced into it if they are not
taught to hate?"  But then I realize I'm angry again...



>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
>Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
>ones true self.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion