HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:13:21 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1099@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
[story about harrassment by "Operation Rescue" thugs, with police cooperation]
..
#_My rights were violated._  My constitutional right to free passage in
#public property was neglected.  I will not let myself forget what
#people are really capable of.  I hope to God that this does not
#happen to you or to someone close to you.  I pray that if it does,
#this bill will be strong enough to have the police act swiftly to
#ensure not only the safety but the privacy of the individual."
#
#                             -Ms. Sylvia Doe

In <1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
[media isn't nice to "Operation Rescue"]

That's not a refutation of what Susan posted...

   "I haven't seen any refutation of his claims thus far."
            Doug Holtsinger, in <1992Dec23.005514.6333@ncsu.edu>
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53211 talk.religion.misc:24664 alt.atheism:24384
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:17:20 GMT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland

From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? Here in Finland, when you join
the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
you are 18, of course.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:14:38 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Dec28215350@lludd.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.181720.27176@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi' (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>
>  >From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
>  >completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? Here in Finland, when you join
>  >the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
>  >have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
>  >you are 18, of course.
>
>  But surely in Finland as in other Nordic countries you are free to leave
>the Church at any time and thus escape the tax?

Yes (only after you are 15, though, unless your parents remove you). But most
people won't bother, and because most people belong to the church since they
were born, most people kindly pay the taxes.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:11:57 GMT

In my reply I wrote that in some cultures "law" may not be the same
as we know it.  It might even take the form of peer pressure.  Gregg,
however, chose to ignore that part and take issue with my summation
(in which I typed very slowly and tried to avoid using big words
just for Gregg) of just one of the differences between slavery
and abortion.

In article <1992Dec30.153925.15366@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}Galen Hekhuis suggests the following difference between slavery and
}abortion.
}
}    Without law there is no slavery.
}    Without law there is abortion.
}
}I am not inclined to agree with the former statement.  All that is
}needed for slavery is for one person to assert enough influence over
}another to place them in a position of servitude or bondage, divested
}of freedom and personal rights.  This influence can be derived from
}the force of law, but it may come from other sources.  I can conceive
}of a person with a gun making a slave of someone without a gun, even
}in the absence of laws enforcing slavery.

You know what Gregg?  I agree with you.  In some instances, you 
don't even need a gun.  You can read a.s.b for details.  Of course,
we can boil this down to something a former partner of mine used to say:
"Nothing is certain except death and taxes, and you don't even have
to pay taxes..."

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 02:30:20 GMT

In article <72831@cup.portal.com> Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:
>I find it funny, and as a potential father in the future, sad that several
>pro choice people jumped on Edward Simond's back when he said that a woman
>got HERSELF pregnant, yet turn around and vehemently state that it is the
>woman's natural right to have an abortion.  C J even went so far as to
>claim nobody was involved but the mother and her doctor.  The prevailing
>attitude seems to be that the father DOES have responsibility for the
>pregnancy, DOES have responsibility for supporting the child, but DOESN'T
>have any say in the matter of whether that pregnancy is continued or not.
>
Actually, if you *ask* I think you'll find that most of us *do* think
should have a say in the matter. But the final decisioni wrt abortion
is the womans. It's *her* body, not his. If medical science can find a
way to transplant the fetus into you instead of her,with the same
saftey as an abortion, then I'll support your right to carry the fetus
yourself.

>Although I agree wholeheartedly with Edward Simmonds, I am above asking him
>to put his money where his mouth is.  I am surprised that none of the pro
>choice people noticed he claimed 'references available upon request' to
>back up his statements and despite having asked two other people for their
>sources, completely ignored someone ('s request for him to provide those
>references.  


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52585 alt.abortion.inequity:6088 soc.men:21596
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:48:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BzMH6E.JxD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>I have made the "archive" publically available for your benefit, 
>and you still can't support your outrageous statements.


Uh, Don, how far back?  Back to the beginning when I began asking for
clarification of what you meant by your arguments in the first place?
No.

I noticed that your 'archive' began with my claim about you, rather
than beginning with the things you had said before.  Now, that's perfectly
alright, because (1)  I don't have it, either and (2) if I were you, I
wouldn't post it.  I don't ask you to prove my point.  At ease.

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52637 alt.society.civil-liberty:7014
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Anarchist Anti-Defamation League
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:20:37 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec21.173915.4573@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
># ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
># >Ah, another tax whiner.  Well bad news kiddo, you DO have a choice.
># >You're getting services; the government demands that you pay for those
># >services.  Seems fair to me.  If you don't like it you have two choices.
># >
># >1) Vote for different services.
># >2) Move out of the country.
># 
># How ironic. Now the LEFT are saying "AMERICA--LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT"
>#
># Oust the bastards who feel that they are autonomous individuals who 
># have the right to be free from initiatory force, eh?
># 
># It's not so much the left don't want the government to use force against
># people, just not them, eh?
>
>You wanna keep the pseudoanarchosyndicalist claptrap out of
>talk.abortion so you don't arouse the ire of honest-to-God
>non-right-wing civil-libertarians?

THE PREVIOUS POSTER WAS A RIGHT WING SELF-PROCLAIMED LIBERTARIAN AND 
NOT AN ANARCHOSYNDICALIST.

This message brought to you by the Anarchist Anti-Defamation League.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:10:47 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 
>
>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?
>
>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.
>
>This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

Doug, I know you've heard this before, but: try not to be so stupid.

Both of us know damn well that a lot of people would be gravely harmed
by the arbitrary killing of infants.  Any possible gain of allowing
such is far outweighed by the definite and significant costs.  However,
in the case of abortion (and especially early abortions), the gains of
allowing abortions (probably) outweighs the costs.

As for the infanticide bullshit: knock it off.  You know it's
dishonest and it clearly is nothing more than petty name calling.  By
continuing to repeat the same old slanders you're only damaging
yourself and your cause.

Grow up.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 04:44:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.025500.26863@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.022535.23109@news.stolaf.edu> 
>cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson) writes:
>
>> IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!
>
>And if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.
>
Good idea DODie. Does this mean you're going to stop trying to make
women the biological slaves of fetuses?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Just a few exits down I-40, I-85, I-65 and I-10 from State :-)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:23:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   Patrick "poor old DODie must *really* need something to do tonight"
   Humphrey writes:

 >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 >>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
 >>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 

 >>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?

 >>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.

 >> This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

 > They do?  Funny -- my wife and I don't, and we're pro-choice.  I guess
 > that means we don't exist by your "logic" 

   No, it means that your beliefs are inconsistent.  But you knew that.

Hey, Rev -- did you ever stop to think that maybe no one cares what you
think of my beliefs?  (Least of all, me and Dale Ann.)  Have you started
pacing and clicking about Daniels Hall yet?  That'd be the next clinical
sign, from past experience...


--
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. 
  (This .sig is costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars -- but
                  what the hell.  It's good for the GNP.)
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:51:10 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Dec24.171908.15324@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
|I got word last night through a close friend in a position to receive
|such news that Operation Rescue is planning to seige a hundred or so
|cities in the middle of January.

|He also said that (and this is the part I have trouble believing -- I
|can chalk it up to paranoia if its wrong) they plan to branch out to
|more overt anti-gay activity.  I couldn't get him to be more specific,
|but he's promised to get me a copy of the press release.

There might be a connection with the Oregon homophobia
incident.  The people behind the failed anti-gay initiative
there are offering to take their bigotry on the road in other
states.  If they did "so well" in liberal Oregon, they say, they
can do better in other states.  Their constituency probably has
a considerable overlap with OR's.

Lance maintains that the Christian fundie anti-abortion movement
is not about abortion at all.  He thinks it's about polarizing
people, about mobilizing a political army, about taking
political control of this country.  You've got a gang of
fundamentalist Christians already organized, who have proved
their willingness to break laws for god.  Now put 'em to work on
other aspects of the rabid right Christian agenda!  (Anti-gay
laws?  Anti-contraception laws?  Who knows?)

|Does anyone here on the net know anything about O.R.'s schedule for
|January?  Is this just an annual revival meeting thing, or are they
|planning on coming out to play?

If you hear anything, please tell us.  I haven't been to any
clinic defenses recently, and I'd like to get re-involved if
there's a need.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too."
				-- Voltaire, in his "Essay on Tolerance"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:38:48 GMT

In article <BzuF2A.AIL@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.081855.14741@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18.165413.8758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>Kebbin is just mad because we live in the Real World (tm) and not in
>>>some Darcian fantasy in which it is more dangerous to terminate a
>>>pregnancy then to carry the fetus to term. 
>>
>>Learn the difference between a hypothetical question and a fantasy, ignoramus.
>
>Talk about your basic irony -- you're telling someone else to learn the
>difference?  Might I suggest you start with yourself, before you presume to
>tell anyone else what the difference is?
>
>>>Considering his tendancy to
>>>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
>>>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.
>>
>>Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.
>
>Sure, kebbin.  I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too.

The inability to see the other side of an argument is a sign of superficiality.
The uncriticized, unanalyzed viewpoint is almost certain to be a worthless
viewpoint. As for Karl Marx, he probably COULD argue convincingly for the
aristocratic point of view in a debate, because although he ultimately didn't 
agree with it, he understood it and appreciated it up to the point of his 
disagreement.

Now, are there any more contentless harangues you'd like to make on this
point?

>>>I'm still waiting for your real life example to validate your question
>>>Kebbin...
>>
>>Can you guarantee me that there is no possible or foreseeable combination of 
>>medical factors which could make termination of pregnancy more dangerous
>>than carrying to term? Are you willing to put whatever medical credentials
>>you possess on the line over this question? I _do_ have some contacts at
>>the UofM Medical Center (largest medical complex in the world, perhaps 
>>you've heard of it?), which is a couple of miles down the road from me.
>>I _can_ check this out, if necessary, and if you've been propagating bogus
>>medical information on the Net... well... 
>
> [lots of pee-pee waving about largeness of medical centers]

Okay, Humpty, have it your way. The SECOND largest medical complex in the 
world...

Besides, it's not just the size of your medical complex, it's how you use it :-)

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 06:19:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.033806.10827@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[Deletions, merciful deletions]

>Galen, I can easily pay a medical drone to tell me whether a given fetus
>is "viable" or not, according to the accepted and universal medical 
>definitions.

I know I've said this before, but I guess I'll have to say it again.
Kevin, there is no "accepted and universal medical definition[s]" of
viability. We have guidlines. We can say, with a resonable amount of
surety, that some fetuses are viable, and some are not. In between
these two points is a rather large grey area in which the fetus
*might* be viable, if it gets lucky, and if it happens to be delivered
in a major metropolitan hospital with ready access to the latest
technology. We can say that the lower limit on viability is about 20
weeks, *if* you're willing to settle for an infant that may survive,
but is permanently and severely handicapped, and may well require
permanent intitutionalization. We can say that after about 26 weeks,
there is a resonable chance of a relatively normal child being
discharged, with 6-8 months of hospitalization first. And a few
relatively minor lifelong handicaps, quite likely.
Please don't try to rationalize this Kevin, just admit that you are
mistaken.

>That's "two", not "too", I assume, and you're wrong -- I've accidentally
Tsk Tsk Kevin, don't spelling flames come under what you describe as
"pointless ad hominen attacks"

[Rest of article deleted for brevity]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 04:48:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.212341.496@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 
>
>>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?
>
>> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.
>
>This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.
>
Lookie folks! DODie has learned a new song to parrot!
At least it's a switch from his tiresome and so-oft disproven claim
that RvW is "unrestricted abortion on demand".
Any bets he's got this as a macro too?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: a silly question
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:20:19 GMT

In article <6bz277k@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?

> the only people i know of, [Mr. Holtsinger], who'd even speculate
> about something like that are the cowards who earned
> their net reputation(s) and, like cowards, need someone
> or something to blame for their failures.

I guess that's a "no" answer. :-)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:23:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.034909.21257@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.002219.29734@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.043412.8538@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <=-22d2b@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>->[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
>>>>
>>>>->Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
>>>>->going to post that much junk about it.
>>>>->You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. Just
>>>>->try to avoid the psych boys when you're doing so.
>>>>
>>>>i don't really believe kebbie thinks of himself as a
>>>>group. he simply needed to convince people that he was
>>>>a group once in order to slither away from admitting he
>>>>fucked up yet again. in the global scheme of
>>>>kebbie-dialogue, this was just more of the same.
>>>>
>>>I don't really think he considers himself a group either, but isn't it
>>>fun to watch him squirm?
>>
>>Are you here for rational debate, Mr. Cochran, or for "squirming"?
>>
>Like virtually everybody, Kevin, I am here for a bit of both. I'll
>deabte with those who debate, flame those who are rampant twits, and
>watch the squirming of those who squirm when cornered.

Do you have an objective definition of "rampant twits"? Or is that just
something you conveniently pull out of your hat when you lose a rational 
argument on the merits, and wish to mask your ignominious defeat behind
mindless flames?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion