HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 20 Nov 1992 21:58:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

>[followups to talk.abortion]

>Do you really think it's reasonable to ask all the married
>couples in the world to refrain from having sex if they don't
>want any more children?  Do you really think you will succeed in
>convincing people not to have sex?  Or could it be that you're
>recommending a course that is totally unworkable & unrealistic,
>and therefore ridiculous?

  This is classic liberal intellectual dishonesty. What fraction of
  women who get abortions are married?  Maybe 1%??  What bothers me
  is how liberals aren't one-bit concerned about the millions of
  unborn babies who are vacuumed-up, yet the thought of a woman
  having an unwanted pregnancy sends chills up their spines.  One
  of my best friends was born when his mother was in her mid-forties.
  I'm just glad some women think about more than what's immediately
  convenient for themselves.

>|Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  
>
>Think about it this way:  Abstinence is a remarkably bad method
>of birth control if people find it so unpleasant they refuse to
>use it.

  What about those people who find crack withdrawal symptoms "unpleasant"?
  Would you go ahead and give them crack and tell them to use it "safely"?
  Sorry, but sometimes "unpleasant" choices are the right ones.

>
>|It's obviously the only 100% certain method.  
>
>What happens when a woman is raped?  
>And haven't you forgotten about surgical sterilization?  

  Once again, intellectual dishonesty.  Less than 1% of abortions are
  performed in cases of rape OR incest.  And how many 13-year old girls
  are going te get sterilized?

>
>[...]
>|Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>
[Sarcastic irresponsible drivel left out]
>
>|Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>|will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>|result from sex, either.
>
>Um, what horrible diseases result from sex?  What horrible havoc
>will sex within a monogamous relationship wreak upon the
>unfortunate couple?  You seem confused.  Some diseases are
>*spread* by sex, but not *caused* by them.

  So what's the best way to prevent diseases *spread* by sex?  Oh-oh,
  am I implying that people should think with their brains and not their
  genitals?  But that's no fun!

>
>|Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
>|already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
>|of you?
>
>a) We've actually had sex.
>	or
>b) We've actually had adult relationships.
>Take your pick.

  c) We're just plain irresponsible.

>
>---
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"'Nonsense, errant nonsense, as ever was talked!' cried Knightley." 
>						-- Jane Austen

don@ocf.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:50:56 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes ...
>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>If life is valuable in general, why do we raise cattle and then kill
>>>them?  Why do we destroy the rainforests in Brazil?  Why do we step on
>>>bugs that find their ways into our homes?
>>
>>I suppose all life has some value and should not be wantonly
>>destroyed, but there can be justifications for destroying life.  Food,
>>shelter and sanitation for human beings come to mind in connection
>>with your particular examples.

>If there can be justifications for destroying life, then why can't
>there also be justifications for abortion?

Because human life is stands apart from plant or animal life.  Human life is
sacred.  The legitimate purposes by which other forms of life can be taken
do not apply to human life.  Human life is in a category entirely by itself.

		-B Schnaufer



>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48525 soc.men:19558 soc.women:19919 alt.politics.homosexuality:7395
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:18:23 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov18.010714.1505@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>
>What can you possibly mean by saying that rape has nothing to do with
>sex?  The contrary is true as a simple matter of definition.
 
Jim, it continues to be a simple matter of definition the other way.
How do you define sex?
 
--j
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 3
Keywords: forgery, tampering with evidence, lying, false accusations, empty
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:10:01 GMT

> = Peter "Professor Plum" Nyikos:

>In Take 2, I included a copy of a post by Susan Garvin in which there are
>some strange goings-on in certain attribution lines.  I made no changes
>in the text I saved.  I wonder whether Susan can make the same claim about
>herself.

GodDAMN.  Give it a rest, you blithering fool.  Nobody CARES.  (Well,
maybe DOD does.  He, also, likes pounding points into the earth's
core.)

[5 *billion* lines of crap mercifully deleted...]

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:11:05 GMT

> Ray Fischer
>> J.J. Price
>>|> Chris Lyman

>>|>You seem to express a willingness to PUNISH a married woman for having sex
>>|>with her husband.  Is that the case?  Yes?  No?

>>I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.

>Coward.  You want to set the rules but refuse to own up to the
>consequences.

Not to mention that the sorry asshole conveniently neglects to mention ANY
responsibility on the part of the MAN who "punished himself by getting his
wife pregnant."

No, that would mean Price himself might have to take some of this 
"punishment" he is advocating ...

We couldn't have that, now could we?
-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:00:05 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <17120@umd5.umd.edu>
>spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>> Doug has been around longer than I, maybe he knows some more examples of
>>> people posting on talk.abortion expressing support for legalized
>>> infanticide.

>> UNlikely. Then again, it seems to me that a lack of actual statements of
>> support for infanticide would stop DODie from alleging the same, so I'll
>> guess that you are right, and that DoDie will indeed produce said list.

>Here are some pro-choice posters commenting on the
>personhood status of newborn infants.  Please note
>that while most of these posters believe that newborn
>infants may not be "persons", they should nevertheless
>be protected under the law.  I don't really understand
>their reasoning.

What's you're problem, DODie? Can't handle the fact that while some
of us don't believe an infant qualifies as a person, they neverless
deserve protection? Would it confuse you equally as much if I told you
I'm also fully for the protection of rainforests, endangered species,
and prevention of cruelty to animals?  Just because something isn't
considered a person, doesn't mean that it can't qualify for protection.
(Or whether it is even human or not) Infants aren't imposing directly
on the body of another, *specific* person, and therefore, they can be
protected without a major compromise of values. A fetus, however (one
more time, since DoD seems still not to realize the difference) is dependent
on *one* particular human being, whether that person chooses to allow
this or not. Protecting this life is a compromise of values, since you
are subjecting the woman to a situation agianst her will. (assuming,
of course, that the woman in question does not want a baby) This would
be similar to removing a kidney or bone marrow, or some other redundant
bodily part for transplant to another person against the donor's will.

But I guess you'll fail to see the analogy again. After all, why would
you see it this time, when it's been mentioned so many times before,
to no avail?

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.

PS - How nice that you are keeping your list current, and are only using
my latest three statements that could be tied to this subject. :)
Newsgroups: alt.adoption,talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:09:59 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes to steve
novak:
->My experience with the "rest of humanity" suggests that they're not
->nearly as hateful as you seem to be.  Perhaps you should take your 
->own advice.

novak doesn't seem at all "hateful" to me bill. he
seems witty, fair minded, interesting, caring. then
again, i suppose these are all attributes you might
find "hateful."

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48431 alt.politics.bush:13948 alt.politics.elections:24085
From: phil@seidel.ucsb.edu (Philip Papadopoulos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:15:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion


>   If you want to oppose abortion, go ahead.  But when you try to
>force EVERYONE to obey your beliefs, you are being un-American in
>the extreme.  People won't put up with this shit any more.  It is
>becoming a different America.  You fundies have had your day.  It
>is over for you intolerant bastards.  Go crawl back to that swamp
>from which you came.  And don't come out until you can stop lying
>to everyone.

Since you have lowered the level of this conversation. I will
respond in kind:

"Fuck all you want. Get as many abortions as you want. I don't give flying
fuck about people who want abortions on demand - at any time - for any 
reason.  -- Just don't ask me (a person who doesn't screw anything
that moves, and a taxpayer) to pay for it"

I can understand completely elective abortions (unhappy with 
being pregnant, etc.) within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.  After that,
there better be a damn good reason for an abortion (i.e. amniocentisis reports
Down's syndrome, anencephaly, rape, incest,  etc.).  Women always claim that 
"it's my body. I'll do with it what I want." This is absurd.  Do you
not see drinking (to excess)or  using illegal drugs while pregnant as
child abuse.  There are no laws that make a crime to drink to excess while
the baby is in the womb.  But hey, the second the kid is born, he/she
has "rights".  Crazy isn't it.  At some point, somebody must make a 
decision as to when a childs life begins.  Conception and birth
are the extremes. I would say that life begins when the fetus can be sustained
(even by aritificial means) outside the womb.  Technology will keep
pushing that day closer and closer to conception.  i

The writer of the above may be a reasonable abortion rights activist.
The ones who get the press are the extremists. I can stand those people
even less than I can stand the right wing religionist point of view
that all abortion is wrong. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49201 alt.rush-limbaugh:10248
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:09:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:22:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Nov19.172142.3363@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov19.042445.3279@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> >> I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
> >> 
> >>    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
> >>    authority that grants you this right?
> >
> >RIghts are not granted.  Rights are recognized.
> 
> Oh?  The authors and signers of America's own Declaration of
> Indepence would disagree with you.  Even Thomas Jefferson,
> a probable non-Christian, author of the Declaration of
> Independence would even disagree with you.

You have, of course, some evidence to back up this fairly remarkable
assertion.  If not, you might want to go back and reread the Declaration. 
Get one of the older kids to help you sound out the bigger words.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:59:47 GMT

> = Ray Fischer) writes:
>> = (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...

>>which reminds me, you will be answering my questions,
>>won't you?

>Nope.  As your clearly only interested in pointless arguing, I see no
>need to respond further to any questions of yours.  If anyone else is
>interested, I'll be glad to continue the discussion.

I wouldn't mind hearing what restrictions you'd support, and what penalties
for doctors/patients you'd like to see enacted.

My *own* opinion is that third-term abortions should only be used in cases
of risk to the woman's health (including mental), or of an unhealthy fetus.
Being that I'm not a woman, and that I can't know every one of
life's circumstances, I do *not* support any legal restrictions on a
woman's right to abortion. 


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:43:20 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Nov15.024945.4805@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) said:
>>>>> Gordon Storga
>> Nyikos
>
>>>>>Again, since you state "by Storga's atheistic standards..." I assume that
>>>>>you believe I have some special Atheistic standards that deviate from the
>>>>>norm significantly.  Please explain what they are, or just confirm that
>>>>>you did not mean that I had any special standards.
>
>>As I said: nothing special, nothing to indicate that they aren't your
>>average garden-variety atheistic standards.
>
>This begs the question: what the hell are "atheistic standards" and how do
>they differ from religious standards?

You'd have to ask Peter.  He's the one who wrote the specific quote you are
responding to.  I never really gave much thought to a "Atheistic Standard",
as in "Chapter/Verse".  I didn't really think it necessary.


Gordon
-- 
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: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Son  of Just a Minor Technical Point  (Was: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?)
Date: 22 Nov 92 11:29:17 GMT

In article <17118@umd5.umd.edu> spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie  
Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
> eeek. I am placed in an uncomfortable position, much like that occupied  
by  
> andre the giant in the 'princess bride', who was forced to tell his boss  
> (the big baddie) that one of his words did not mean what he thought it  
> meant.
eeek again. That wasna andre, t'was Ynego "Hello, My Name is Ynego  
Montoya. You Kill My Father, Prepare To Die" Montoya, to the baddie played  
by Wallace Shawn. The word was "inconcievable", and the quote was  
(utilizing an extremely cheezy Spanish accent, I think it was)  " Zees  
word. I do not tink she means what you tink she means.."

 
"We pray for one last landing 
On the globe that gave us birth
Let us rest our eyes on fleecy skies and the cool green hills of Earth"
 		- Engineer Rhysling
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:44:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted

In article <1992Nov21.012713.18448@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1992Nov20.190344.9447@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
## In article <nyikos.722267650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
## nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
## 
## # [.. Jeff Greenfield's post ..]
## 
## # BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
## # attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
## # things she has written.
## 
## Of course she does endorse Jeff Greenfield's bogus arguments.
#
#I don't recall Susan writing that.  I guess the Reverend Doug
#is a psychic now, reading minds.  I think Susan is quite able to speak
#for herself, and if she wants to respond she will and if she doesn't
#she doesn't have to.

I didn't write that.  As usual, DODie is writing his fantasies
rather than facts.  I still wonder why he thought that I wouldn't
be around to answer for myself.

## But notice how she never addressed your rebuttal of his arguments,
## nor did anyone else.   
#
#I've been ignoring a lot of what you write lately Reverend,
#because the arguments you post have been refuted numerous times
#and shown to be misrepresentations of the original authors or
#just poor arguments.  There are a lot of things posted here that
#I don't respond to, like some character I just caught a whiff of
#who thinks women and doctors ahould be executed for obtaining
#or performing abortions (pro-life, eh?).  Just because a dog
#barks doesn't mean I have to answer.

Both the Reverend and his disciple PHoney seem to think that
we should all repeat our discussion of this matter just to
please them.  I, for one, am not at all interested in 
making them happy.  

Susan



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49310 talk.religion.misc:21936 alt.atheism:21955
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:40:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxsMAv.93I@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>I suppose then that you won't mind if all of us men who see it as terribly
>unequal that women can choose AFTER sex whether or not to have a child,
>while we cannot, make damn sure you LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Ah, here's another one, Will.

This fellow isn't out to equalize the situation between parents.  He's out
to take away a woman's bodily autonomy because he can't get a legal 'out'
to a biological reality.

Do you really think this argument is about male choice, Will?  Maybe in
alt.dads_rights, but not in talk.abortion.

>Support reproductive rights for all, or none.  But don't be a hypocrite and
>try to play the "I'm a woman and its my body" game and then turn around and
>say that a man's choice ends when he pulls down his zipper.

"reproductive rights for all" completely ignores the biological reality of
gestation, which is the only justification for abortion.

So, "ignore a woman's rights" == "reproductive rights for all"?  I don't 
think so.

>This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
>everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
>is stopped - permanently.

Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!

AGAIN.  

You people who constantly make the mistake of ignoring the woman's financial
contribution are going to be constantly IN ERROR by setting up a false
dichotomy,

and are going to get precisely NO WHERE in affecting change!!!!!!!

A woman's wallet AND a man's wallet play into the game.

A woman's body is the only body involved.

GET IT RIGHT!!!

>Women - you're on notice.  You want equality?  Fine.

Fine my ass.  You can't even see that her contribution not only equals the
man in the eyes of the law, but significantly exceeds it and it is on hte
basis of the PHYSICAL reality of pregnancy that she retains a rigth to
abort.  It has zip, nada nothing to do with money.

Yet another example of the INVISIBLE woman, only this time it's her money
that is rendered invisible.  We take here in this spurious argument to
equating her PHYSICAL SELF with a man's wallet. Sheeeesh.

Adrienne Regard
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:31:53 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.054541.14740@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes to to CJ (>>) about the cats he wants to torture to death:

>>Are you destroying someone else's property?
>
>No, I raise my own cats for the purpose.

Then, make sure you move to a community or state where they have not
enacted protections of animals on the basis that your right to torture
animals is not outweighed by the right of animals not to be tortured.
Or, move to a remote location and do as you please.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The Best of Enemies - John Dee
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:10:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.153702.719@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>> Dee was recently sentenced to a six-month jail term for violating the 12-
>>> person limit at the Robbinsdale clinic.  He will start serving his term on
>>> the day after Thanksgiving.

>> What is the meaning of a "12-person limit", and why does a person
>> deserve six months in jail for violating this limit?

> The abortion protests at the Robbinsdale clinic got rather rowdy this 
> summer.  In the interest of keeping the peace, a judge issued a temporary
> restraining order saying that no more than 12 people from each side could
> demonstrate in front of the clinic.  
>
> As for Mr. Dee, he has been arrested many times at abortion protests, and
> as a repeat offender, merited the extra time.

I still don't understand why a non-violent protester deserves
six months in jail.  Who cares how many times he violated
the restraining order?  That still doesn't warrant a six
month jail sentence.  
 
>Chris Lyman  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights