HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:12:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.223119.22140@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>
>>> [... the infamous list ...]
>>>
>
>>NO, STEVEN!!!!!
>
>>I've repeated about seven times now that I do not favor "weakening"
>>current child support law, I favor ALTERING it. This will in some
>>weird instances make it weaker, in a lot of instances make it stronger,
>>and be basically dedicated to clearing up some of the inconsistencies
>>present in an outdated law. Get it right.
>
>NO, NORA!!! YOU get it right.  Creating situations  in which the man
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>does not have to pay child support, and claiming that this makes
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it stronger because there are "fewer violations" is nonsensical.

Is this your long-awaited definition of "weakening child support laws", 
Kellmeyer? 

"Weakening child support laws" = "creating situations in which the man does
not have to pay child support"

????

If so, you should realize that situations ALREADY exist where the man does
not have to pay child support - anonymous sperm donorship. If you are in 
support of the status quo, you are therefore in support of "weakening child
support laws", and you should put yourself on your own stupid list.

Or, perhaps you have a better definition (?) If so, let's hear it!

>It's like permitting people to kill other people as long as they
>use a handgun (nothing else, just a handgun is legal) and then
>claiming that you've really reduced the number of murders in the 
>country.  

No, it's like permitting people to kill in self-defense. It reduces the total
number of homicides because would-be attackers are deterred by the prospect
of having deadly force used against them.

>The law is only "outdated" because abortion is legal and nobody thought 
>through the really nasty consequences that might have on society.

So change the laws GRADUALLY and METHODICALLY to match the reality of RvW. 
What's the big deal? Why are you raising the spectre of total repeal? Whom
do you think you're fooling, Steven? The only person who thinks that RvW
mandates the TOTAL REPEAL of all child-support laws is -you-. No-one else.
Just Steven Kellmeyer.

								- Kevin
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:27:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <18125@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>Steve probably thinks it is. But then, he probably doesn't know that
       ^^^^^^^^^^
>>in Kenya(I think) 60%-80% of the population has AIDS, and it is primarily
>>heterosexual. (Yes, Steve, you can look those figures up, they're fairly
>>accurrate, in the sense they were obtained from a sample of the population)

>   Hey Ron, what gives you the right to insinuate what I may or may
>not PROBABLY think? As it turns out of course, you are wRONg. I am
>well aware of the percentages responsible for the transmission of the
>AIDS virus. But, if I could label the cause of AIDS to one single
>group, I would blame it on the promiscuous. Not the gay, bi, or hetero
>community, but the irresponsible.

I just drew a conclusion based on your previous displays of ignorance.
How was I to know you actually had some real facts? After all, it was
only an insinuation, and one that would be easy for you to deny, which
of course you only did by hand-waving, since you probably don't know,
and just want to seem like you do. The country is actually Uganda, if
you had known your facts, I'm sure you would have jumped on that.

Do you know the reason why? Let's see your ignorance one more time.
Tell us all why it is so prevalent on the African continent.

As far as promiscuity goes, isn't that defined through the christian
belief? Other beliefs have completely different standard of sexual behavior.
And how do you explain that the brothels in Nevada (legal ones) have
zero incidence of AIDS? These are probably some of the most promiscuous
ladies in the country, yet for the fifty tested, not one positive result.

Condoms really appear to work, and Steve wants us all to do without.
That way, at least he sentence both partners to death when one gets
it through a blood transfusion.

Ron
\
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:39:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr4.225950.26567@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e eliza
>beth bartley) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr3.214523.25335@cs.dal.ca>
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>  Easy. there is a lack of commitment emphasized within our society.
>Sex is not seen as a bond of a relationship but often as a purely
>self-fulfilling ideal. Many people see nothing wrong with this,

Steve, welcome to the real world.

       commitment != sex
       sex != commitment

What is it going to take for you to see this? Some people out there
are committed to each other but don't have sex... have you considered
some older couples? Other couples are out there who have sex monogamously
but are not really committed (I was in a relationship like this myself, 
for a while) mainly because they haven't discovered whether they have
that depth of feeling for each other yet. Then there are others who
just have sex for the pure pleasure of having sex. Who are you to judge
what others do, for reasons you know nothing of?

>Why is it you feel you can afford
>the money to accomadate your power company, but not a child? granted
>a child isa hell of a lot more expensive than your electric bill,
>but isn't it worth it?

No. Not for some people, or not at that particular time. Read various
posts from the last week that deal with this subject.

>>You say this as if everyone having sex wanted children.  Hate to break
>>it to you, but that ain't so.
>   Oh, jeeez, I know that. That is my entire point. The emphasis wthin
>society is that sex is for pleasure, not reproduction. I am aware of that,
>and embarassed by it as well. Although the two should go hand in hand,
>it appears that the fetus, a sentient being or not, is the victim.

Embarassed??? Why? Leads me to wonder if you've ever had sex, or if
you are so inhibited by insecurity that you couldn't enjoy it. Have
you ever wondered why humans are the only species on earth that copulate
when they wish, instead of when nature dictates? Because it is pleasurable.

And how is the fetus a victim? Sex != fetus. Or at least most of the
time :).

Ron.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:50:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.235950.25975@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>gee Ron.....your generation has done a whole fuckin' lot to 
>make the world a better place. Now I have to deal with drugs,
>abortions, teenage pregnancies, etc.


Wait a minute.  Is anybody forcing Mathew's generation to use drugs,
have abortions, or fuck like bunnies?  If you are, I want it stopped
right now.  Nobody had better force poor Mathew to do anything he 
doesn't want to do.

There you go Mathew.  How you can take responsibility for yourself.


Good boy.

Adrienne Regard
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why 100 years?
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:02:10 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr14.214340.16062@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.050938.12490@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:


>By any chance are you a white male somewhere between middle and upper
>class?  
   Heh... Dan, you're amazing. YOu must be psychic. First of all, you KNOW
I'm male. Second of all, most males on Usenet are white and middle-upper
class, because of the distinctions of upper employment and education.
It's a sad but common fact. But, your intuitive sleuthing is exceptional.
    

>Steve, why don't you tell us what your ancestors were doing 100 years
>ago to make you so nostalgic for this by-gone time?
   Ummm. Well, maybe it is what they WEREN'T doing 100 years ago that makes
me nostalgic. 100 years ago, morals and law were strongly intertwined... 
Without people like Abraham Lincoln, Blacks would still be suppressed 
by the likes of you. But, we already got rid of that problem, so you
take on the fetus instead. What's the next group you'll pick on
dan if abortion was ever legalized? Oh, lemme guess... all tall,
pro-life, catholic males like myself?

   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:21:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.182121.13683
Distribution: usa
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Back in my high school days, I had a Jewish girlfriend (not Nora, alas
>> :-( ).

> And I thought I was going to get a chance to acquire another net.ex-
> boyfriend... ;-{

Maybe a little _personal_ historical revisionism wouldn't be such a bad 
thing...

Nora, your eyes used to shine so beautifully at those civil rights rallies...

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What do you REALLY mean?
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:34:09 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr4.183426.4309@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
>In <1992Apr4.173235.20063@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>><92094.125105MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>The pro-lifer's want to remove a valid option for a woman who finds herself
>>pregnant when she doesn't want to be.
>
>   Huh? That's what this entire discussion is about... pro-lifers don't think
>that abortion _IS_ a valid option friend... 

Could we have a definition of "valid" then, please?

>                                            No, we think it is a cop-out

Why?  What makes it a "cop out"?

>and an end to a means, not a means to an end. 

Cute, but what is the "means" in the first part?

>   We aren't removing a valid option for the woman, but pointing out
>that abortion is _NOT_ a valid option. 

No, you are making it abundantly clear that you don't *think* that
abortion is a valid option.  You haven't pointed out any thing to back up
this position (that hasn't been shot to pieces).  If it's not a valid
option for you, fine.  I don't think you have to worry about pregnancy
anyway.

>                                       That is where all of our emphasis
>lies, and if you misinterpret our actions, then perhaps you should
>spend a little more time becoming accustomed to that which you offend?

"to that which [we] offend"??  What does that mean?  Are you claiming that
we havent' examined the issue close enough?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:25:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr6.185821.7399@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>     I can't say I know enough abou;all entities of the Christian faith, so
> I cannot judge the statement of a "pro-choice Christian" but there is no
> such thing as a "pro choic catholic".

What you seem to be forgetting is that "pro-choice" really means pro-*choice*,
not "pro-abortion".  A person can be totally opposed to abortion, believe
it's a sin, etc., and still realize that it's immoral to attempt to force
their views on someone else.

>    Read the bible again, and you'll see that he does.

Bible says "Thou shalt not murder"; nowhere does it say "Thou shalt not
get an abortion".

>    Eloquently spoken, yet I am afraid I cannot agree, nor can the church.
> One of the Kennedy's tried to be a Christian who believes in divorce and
> remarriage...

Did he simply state that divorce is a valid choice for others, or did he
actually get a divorce?  The former is an analogy with a pro-choice
Catholic; the latter is an analogy with a Catholic who actually got
an abortion.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:43:36 CDT

In article <1992Apr15.225741.25161@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>>But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a 
>>woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like 
>>yourself are fighting against it.
>
>The problem is your nearsighted inability to see the REAL issue.  If the
>fetus is human, it's murder.  If the fetus isn't human, then it doesn't 
>matter at all.  It's the ONLY issue.
>
Thanks, Kevin, for telling us that the thoughts, fears, wishes,
risk, suffering, and physical autonomy of the _woman_ involved is 
not even an issue for you. 

That mentality is dangerously close to that of a rapist, as we
have pointed out many times before to other pointy-headed moralists
who wish to factor women out of the equation entirely.

It really makes me feel all SafeWarmandFuzzy, knowing that decisions 
affecting the lives of my daughters could be made by a Real Man who 
cares about women as much as you.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 17:42:35 GMT

In <1992Apr07.152123.15182@news.mentorg.com> richarde@baseball.mentorg.com (Richard Ellermeier) writes:

>The fact that some people that support legalized abortion also support 
>weakening current child support law is interesting.  However, I don't know what
>one has to do with the other.  What I think the real issue here is 

   Don't you see? Enhanced child support and financial aid will lessen
the need for abortions, because women won't be so stripped financially
by having children. Financial woes are a major cause or justification for
abortion, and with financial and child supplement, the need for abortion
goes down. Maybe these people on this ever so esteemed list feel that if
the need for abortion was lessened, they would have little purpose in life?
Dear God, no posting to talk.abortion, and no pro-lifers to make fun of?
  Incedentally, I hope I have not mis-interpreted the poster's intent.
Child support here is considered the financial aid of a mother/father/couple
to raise their child. Weakening it will discourage having children,
and raising it provides another incentive to have children.
   What a great list... Can I get on it? On second thought, I don't think
I'm worthy. Thanks anyways
steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:16:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hyperon

In article <1992Apr8.010315.17924@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   My logic is revolting... How utterly flattering. Thanks. In any case, your
>point that I refer to god as _He_ is defeated, since you lower to the
                                                          ~~~~
>opposite extreme with "she". 

So you are saying that "she" is lower than "he"? Your sexism disgusts me.
                                ~~~~~

>SteveFranklin

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15423 soc.men:8490 soc.women:9010
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:26:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.192600.6590
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <703350773@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.203829.19036@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu 
>(susan larsen) writes:
>
>>For the sake of argument, assume that Suzanne here is 
>>correct in her assumption that abortions will become 
>>illegal.  Let us leave the exceptions to be cases of 
>>rape, incest, and overt threat to maternal health.
>
>>How would the picture change?  How should it change?
>>Or would it?
>
>My idea is to have choice for men if and only if abortion
>is legal in the state where the future mother lives.
>
>The idea is that if it is *her* choice not to have an abortion 
>then she should be the one who pays for that choice (or gives
>the newborn up to adoption).
>
>Fair enough?

To answer your question, no, not quite fair enough.

In principle, your suggestion of allowing a man an 
opportunity to exempt himself from rights/responsibilities 
to future children would serve to protect men who 
make innocent mistakes from falling under the financial 
control of evil mothers to be.  There is certainly merit 
in this.

However, the plan would remove from men, generally, any 
need to use birth control, because mistakes could so 
readily be avoided by signing off.  For every evil, 
scheming woman, there is a reckless, feckless lothario 
that would have no qualms about impregnating numerous 
women and walking away, leaving progeny for the state 
to contend with.

So I would suggest amending your original suggestion by 
adding a "three strikes, you're out" clause.  A man would 
be required to file his support exemptions with the courthouse.
On the third request, the man would have to show medical 
proof that he has obtained a vasectomy, thereby obviating 
the need for any further support exemptions. No vasectomy, 
no third exemption will be granted.

I believe honest mistakes can be made once.  Maybe twice.  
The third occasion would say to me that this given man is 
irresponsible and incapable and/or unwilling to support any 
of his progeny.   Therefore, a physical commitment to 
birth control on the part of this given man should be required.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 2 of 2
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:55:38 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Apr07.194717.7075@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <31068@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>>So that was why the "pro-choice" arguments advocated by Adrienne etc are
>>faulty.
>
>Scuse, please, but Tommy, if you are going to invoke my name in a posting,
>as if I wrote or said something you are rebutting, don't you think it would
>be useful (in a 100 postingperday group) to actually QUOTE something I 
>said or wrote?

You said that you condoned abortion not because of the nature of the foetus
but because of the nature of the woman.

You said that the nature of the foetus was irrelevant to your arguments.

You said that a good reason for not having anti-abortion laws was because
in the sort of pluralistic society that the US is, individuals should be
free to choose for themselves - since who knows who would be next to get
legislated against.

But I don't keep your treasures Adrienne, so I don't have your exact words.

>I don't suppose you could actually deal with POSTINGS that were made?
>With STATEMENTS that persons offered to the net?  Do you suppose we all
>are automatically in synch with you here?  

Not in synch no.  But I thought that you knew what your position was.
Have you forgotten why you condone abortion?

Or have you changed your mind?

tk
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Susan, Muriel, Cathi, please read this...;-)
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:01:21 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr8.182426.10884@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Apr5.062252.704@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu said:

>>Well, you missed my volunteering to be another of your ex-girlfriends;
>>I don't know if you consider *that* important enough to respond to, but
>>(batting eyelashes) you DID ask me...
>
>It was important enough for me to immediately do so when I read your
>message.  How could I ever forget you?

Purr. It was wonderful while it lasted, Gordon, and I'm so glad we could
stay friends afterward...

>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
>               ^^^^^^^^
>and darn proud of it.

We're proud of you, too, Gordon. In fact, we get together sometimes
to have slumber parties and talk about you; don't we, girls?

	-Nora







-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.