HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 20:09:50 GMT

In <1992Sep1.020959.10514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.164330.21197@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@armstrong.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>My idea of blatant stupidity is this attitude of "I've got mine (right 
>>>to life), and to hell with anyone who got conceived less than 9 months ago."
>>
>>Well my idea of blatent stupidity is this attitude of "I've got mine
>>(right to control my own body), and to hell with anyone with an extra
>>X chromosome." 

I don't have absolute right to control my own body.  I don't have the
right, for example, to drive it away from an accident I've been involved
in without stopping to render assistance.  To take a more traditional
example, I don't have the right to inject heroin into it.

On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
to controlling it.   

As Portia said in The Merchant of Venice, Shylock
had the right to his pound of flesh, but not to one drop of blood.

>> But since I am sure you are going to come back with 
>>some response saying that is not the issue here at all, I am willing
>>to make a deal with you Peter.  If I ever get pregnant, I won't get 
>>an abortion, but for the ensuing 9 months you agree to have a person
>>of my choice use your body as he or she see's fit.  Up to and including
>>occupying certain portions of your body for extended durations, pumping
>>random chemicals into your blood stream and/or forcing you to undergo
>>minor surgery which may or may not have any lasting effects.  

>I'll volunteer to be the "doer" to Peter's body.  If you'd like some of my
>qualifications, see if you can find a post titled "You Asked For It!", where
>I describe some of the slight correlations between fisting and giving birth.

If you are trying to gross me out, you'll have to try a lot harder than
this.  In fact, I don't think it can be done on talk.abortion without
calling the wrath of network censors on your head and bringing on pressure
to turn talk.abortion into a moderated newsgroup, which is something none
of us wants.  [There has been some talk of creating a moderated abortion 
newsgroup, but that does not entail doing away with this one.]

Of course, I can't stop you from e-mailing me...

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.210306.25991@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep3.163720.28497@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> 
> Restrictions on abortion cannot be put in place because many of them 
> would be unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court has greatly restricted
> the power of the states to regulate abortion.

Doesn't matter...the supreme court can always reverse itself.

> > The only way to test to see if an overwhelming majority supports
> > restrictions on abortion is when only the "criminal elements" in society
> > oppose those restrictions.  This is definatly not the case.  
> 
> I think a poll is a better way of determining if an overwhelming majority
> of people support restrictions on abortion.

Polls only reflect peoples opinions at a specific instance in time.  What I
am talking about is something much more long term then a poll could even
have the hope of measuring.  What I am talking about are peoples
fundemental opinions and beliefs about something and the fact that these
must be incommon with everyone, but the criminals, for something to be
illegal and succeed.

> > People, who are not criminals, will still get
> > abortions and some of those people will die as a result of unsafe
> > practices.  Are you ready to kill?  I am not.
> 
> I wouldn't want to see anyone die needlessly, whether they are born
> or whether they're still in the womb.

Ok.  So, in your opinion, should abortion be made illegal or not?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 13:57:46 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Sep3.201102.1213@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> >> South Carolina requires abortionists to report to police all
> >> alleged incest cases brought to them.  Anyone want to guess
> >> how often this law is enforced?
>
> Funny thing.  Minnesota has a law requiring _doctors_ to report
> all suspected cases of child abuse, sexual and otherwise.  Are
> you sure that the SC laws applies _only_ to abortionists, not to
> _all_ medical professionals?

That reminds me - what state was the clinic in that Peter claimed
knew about the incest but didn't report it?  Does that state have
similar laws?  And if so, were charges brought against the doctors?
If no charges were brought, wouldn't that tend to prove that there's
no evidence, and the anti-abortion newsletter was engaged in baseless
speculation, just as I suggested?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:19:56 GMT

In article <q-vymmg@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>> What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
>>> of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
>>> pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
>>> fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
>>> a very short step to compelling abortion.  

>> You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
>> abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
>> in mandating abortion.  

> Whenever you agree that the state has a "compelling interest" in
> ANYTHING, you have ALREADY given up some of your rights.  It would
> behoove you to decide in advance whether it's worth the trade.

In Roe, the Court ruled that the states have a compelling interest
in protecting maternal health.  Does this compelling interest infringe
on a woman's rights?  
 
>                           -rocker


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34963 alt.abortion.inequity:3504
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:42:52 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <vzlnjl-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>In article <_3kn9!-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>When should legal personhood begin?  And if it's before birth, does the
>>>z/e/f have more rights to the mother's body than does the mother?
>>
>>If it's before birth, does the z/e/f have more, equal or less rights to
>>IT'S own body than does the mother?
>
>How's about the _same_ rights?
>
>Currently no person may use the body of another person without that
>person's consent.  

I disagree with your premise, one counterexample (IMO) being child support.
This reduces to whether one feels forced labor is a use of the subject's body.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Keywords: National Abortion Federation = Pro-abortion??  
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:08:27 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I didn't expect you to rely on what appears to be a pro-abortion 
>organization for your claims.  

Ummmmm, you're demanding "unbiased" (according to _your_ criteria)
sources now?

Why don't we see these same demands when Nyikos quotes clearly
ANTI-abortion organizations?

>BTW, I put "pro-abortion organization" into every sentence of
>my reply. That way, you can't delete part of my response and
>ignore "pro-abortion organization". Unless you delete part
>of a sentence (pro-abortion organization).  

Why on earth would we care?

>Doug Holtsinger

                     -rocker
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: novak is right (was Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson")
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:07:10 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

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
-> > = james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >> = (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
-> [re: Suzanne Forgach...]
-> 
-> >-> She's always said that she wants to punish the
-> >-> abortionist, not the woman involved.
-> 
-> >i suppose that's not as bad as some anti-choicers
-> >who want to punish the women.
-> 
-> I don't agree.  This is more Forgach/pro-"life" bullshit.
-> 
-> Why, if you're anti-abortion, should the woman get
-> off the hook?

good point. some of the anti-choice folks don't admit
to wanting to punish the woman. the one i was referring
to does.

-> If you're a pro-life fanatic, you should believe
-> that the woman has entered into a conspiracy to
-> commit murder.  If not, then why is the doctor
-> getting arrested?

i don't know. ask suzanne why she wants to punish the
doctor rather than the woman. ask ms. bartley why she
wants to punish the woman.

-> I'll tell you why: the last remaining shred of
-> credibility of "pro-life" would disappear like girls
-> meeting Chaney if the one MAKING the decision, the
-> woman, would be imprisoned.

aha. i take it you abhor ms. bartley's position as much
as i do

-> In other words, this is Pro-Life Hypocrisy at its
-> worst.

well, we don't want to start another label war, do we.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Sep 92 00:54:59 GMT

In <1992Sep2.071341.3020@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

>I agree with rocker.  This case has nothing to do with Nyikos'
>own misogyny.

>As an aside, this Charles Wysong that Nyikos keeps thanking
>is, if I'm not mistaken, head of a charming little group
>called the American Rights Coalition.  This group passes
>out little cards outside clinics that list "abortion
>complications" and ask that women call if they have any
>of the listed symptoms. 

It would be nice if pro-choicers did the same, and directed the
women to appropriate medical help and support groups.  But it
seems that "pro-choice" only applies to before the fact, and not
after the fact.  

>The group also
>produces a flier called "The Abortion Injury Report," which
>supposedly reports on such complications,

"Supposedly"?  I'll post some more from it, and let readers judge 
for themselves.

>When the ARC mailed letters to clinic employees asking that
>they report any health code violations to the ARC (oddly
>enough, they did not suggest contacting any legitimate
>authorities),

Isolated incidents don't concern these authorities, I'm sorry
to say.  I'll have lots to say about this in the future.
You have to collect a mountain of evidence to get them to act.

> a friend of mine called them.  They
>asked her if she had any problems following her abortion.
>(They didn't ask why she was calling.  She said, "Hello,
>my name is Anne."  They responded by asking about her
>abortion.) 

Gee, I'll have to have my wife give the number a call.  They never
ask me whether my girlfriend or wife had an abortion.

> She told them that she had an abortion,

Lucky guess? or did she use the word abortion, and the context was
misunderstood?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:52:36 GMT

In <1992Aug24.054408.26192@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Aug20.174421.13904@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writ
>>
>> This is pure *ipse dixit* [favorite expression of Justice Blackmun] on
>> your part.  Are you saying none of the thumbsuckings and other acts of
>> the fetus are willed?  Your saying so don't make it so.

>Have you never heard of the suckling reflex?

Of course I have, but my point is, the claim that NONE of the acts of
the fetus is willed is completely unwarranted.  Even we adults do a lot
of things reflexively, but that does not make all our actions reflexive.

>> Contrast that with the "pro-choice" abortionists, who knew the incest
>> was going on but did nothing to stop it.

>Is there any proof that they knew that incest was occurring?  Have they
>been charged with anything?

You want court-of-law proof, I doubt if you could get it, hence the
answer to the second question is no.  Most probably the incest victim
herself told them it was going on, but with no one else on her side
present, what can you do?

>> Misogyny, especially such blatant kind, is abhorrent to me.

>Then why aren't you pro-choice?  :-)

Do you automatically lump all pro-lifers into the misogynist category?

>> I have already gone on record in talk.abortion as not wishing to impose
>> a law prohibiting abortion prior to the 6th week [not month, but it
>> still allows plenty of time after a skipped period] after fertilization.
>> The only reason I might possibly reconsider this is if the consequences
>> for the WOMAN are unacceptable.

>This sounds reasonable - as long as you mean unacceptable *to the woman*.
>Or do you think that every woman wanting an abortion has to come before
>Peter Nyikos to determine if the consequences in her case are acceptable
>to You?

Read what I wrote again.  The only reason I might consider prohibiting
abortion prior to the sixth week is if the consequences for the woman
of allowing it are unacceptable.  If they are unacceptable to the woman,
then of course I will defend her right not to be aborted against her 
will.  [actually this last sentence is redundant, but never mind...]

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I don't think you're going to get any answers from the pro-choicers  
>on this newsgroup.  Michael Loomis has occasionally expressed the
>view that infanticide is not wrong, and I've never seen a pro-choicer
>disagree with that view. 

Liar!

I am pro-choice.

I disagree with the view that infanticide is not wrong.

And I've seen other pro-choicers agree that infanticide is wrong.

Well, maybe you aren't really a liar and you have software that prevents you
from seeing these posts.  I doubt it, though.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Faith, n:
	That quality which enables us to believe what we know to be untrue.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:03:17 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.714852140@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Aug24.203014.15935@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>In <5737@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>>>Forcing a woman to take these risks against her will is degrading mothers to
>>>the status of slaves.  How can you require another human being to undergo
>>>agony and bleeding to satisfy your own mores?

>>>--Teddi

>>Oh, silly Teddi! You fail to understand Peter's logic. Obviuosly,
>>they're not human beings--they're just women!

>Who authorized you to speak for me? 

     God spoke to me in the form of a giant fetus. 
            
                                                               MP
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34067 alt.abortion.inequity:3331
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 28 Aug 1992 19:18:29 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: On The discussion about moderating t.a

In article <1992Aug27.095509.3521@wetware.com> drieux, just drieux says:
>
>ps: the really fun part will be to ponder, how long
>DearOldDoug would be able to keep trying to slip
>his posts past some 'moderator.'

and will the unmoderated t.a be blessed with
him whining about his posts not be accepting,
just as he prematurely whined about soc.feminism
restricting his right to free speech.



Linda
--
All I know is that it's a matter of choice
I need to hear myself
I need to own my voice
Livin' in democracy
   The Parachute Club,  Freedom Song
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: In the Bookstores...
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:21:23 GMT

No, I'm not back to reading t.a.  I just wanted to pass this info
on to you folks.  Sorry if I'm repeating somebody.  Respond via email.

I was in a bookstore yesterday and saw some books on sale that may
be of interest to t.a. readers.  One was a paperback book containing
the text of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.  It
also includes a glossary explaining legal terms from the decisions
(due process, Equal Protection Clause, etc.) and a list of post-Roe
abortion decisions with a few sentences each describing their
effect.  It probably won't add much more to the newsgroup's knowledge
base, but it might be useful to fill in the holes in our RvW
excerpts file.

Also there was a hardcover book titled _Whose Life ?_.  I can't
recall the author's full name.  I think the first name was Charlotte.  
Anyway, its cover claimed it to be a balanced look at the abortion 
issue with emphasis on the history of abortion.  A paragraph from the 
introduction quoted on the jacket expressed the view that the issue is 
not one of bright angels vs. dark devils.  It is not clear cut, and in 
order to understand this we must know not only the abstract arguments 
about abortion, but the stories and history of abortion.  I'm bringing 
this book up primarily to ask if anyone has read it and can give a 
capsule review.  The book jacket sounds promising, but I don't want
to spend hardcover prices to sit down to a polemic.

Thanks, folks, and remember, answer via email. 

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:09:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

> In article <1992Sep1.221022.15269@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
> Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
> 
> > Legislated morality doesn't work.  
> 
> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
> rape, and theft?

I was waiting for someone to catch that insignificant inconsistancy.

But, to respond...

No.  I should have added that legislated morality does not work except when
the overwhelming majority of society agrees that an immoral act should be
made illegal.  They have done so in the cases of homicide, rape and theft.
They have not done so in the case of abortion.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Date: 23 Aug 92 19:50:13 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.713885513@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>A final note.  In Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_, humans are raised
>in artificial wombs, contraception is mandatory, and pregnancy is 
>punished by banishment.  In such a world, it is my statement that is
>realistic, and Adrienne Regard's that is surrealistic.

     Bullshit. In Aldous Huxley's _BNW_, fetuses are developed in
artificial wombs (bottles), contraception is not mandatory (70% of the
female population is sterile, the other 30% practices c ontraception
because of a societal horror of viviparous reproduction, and pregnancy,
far from being punished by banishment, is always unwanted and therefore
terminated at the abortion centre which is floodlit twice a week and
described in glowing terms.

>Huxley's novel is set 6 centuries in the future.  At the rate we have
>been going this century, we'll get there ahead of schedule, if the
>pro-choice myrmydons keep having their way.

     Huxley later admitted that the world of his novel could be on us
within a single century. While few people would enjoy the prospect of
his cultureless pop-culture world, the reproductive aspects of it have
proved among the most popular (along with soma, of course), and several
prominent (although I must admit, tending toward the radical) feminists
like Shulamith Firestone have argued that such a reproductive system
would be essentially liberating (as it appears to be in _BNW_). Not sure
if Firestone is a Myrmidon though (legendary Greek warrior person of
ancient Thessaly).



                                                       MP
.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: raising $ for pro-choice groups...
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 05:18:29 GMT

do clinics still have fund raisers that raise money dependent on the
number of pro-lifers that show up for protests?

maybe we can start our own adoption program for pro-lifers...
say, every time DOD posts we donate $.10 to PP, or for each
new fanatic that comes along (this is the start of a new
school year so the time is ripe) a dollar goes to battered
women's clinic - for some reason pro-life fanatics make me
think of the abuse of women...  

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer

-- 

The cat is very fond of using the keyboard when I'm typing...
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:30:07 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug28.070639.10555@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>,
cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood, or maybe "Rob") wrote:
> 
> A message from the guilty party (Rob): "I shall return, after learning
> more about the News network."  

So, we can expect to see you around the middle of the next century, then?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35088 alt.abortion.inequity:3536