HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:26:42 GMT


In article <1992Nov17.215527.23123@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
 
>People should be responsible for their sexual activity, as they are
>for their other activity.  That responsibility includes the
>responsibility to foster and support rather than destroy the life that
>results from sexual activity.  It is true that prohibition of abortion
>puts a special burden on women; however, since that burden results
>from the application of the same principle (responsibility for one's
>actions) to persons in different circumstances (persons who can and
>persons who can not become pregnant) I see no reason to view the
>special burden as unjust.  Nor have you suggested a reason.

>You seem to object to the view that one's obligations depend in part
>on one's circumstances.  I don't understand the objection. 
 
Let me see if I can summarize your position accurately:
 
- The act of coitus sex has the possibility of resulting in the 
  creation of a new life (fetus/un-born baby/whatever).
- Regardless of how rare the result of the new life may be or
  the precautions taken, the creation of new life remains
  a possibility from the act of coitus sex.
- Because the principles that participated in coitus sex were 
  aware of this possibility, they now have an obligation to
  this life.
- Abortion is a way of escaping this obligation and should not
  be allowed.

Would you agree that I have the jist of your argument? If
not could you correct me were I am wrong?
 
Assuming I have gotten your position correct, I have a 
question; Would you allow abortion in cases were the 
woman's life is in danger?

If I have your position correct, then I would assume you
would not allow such abortions.  The couple that participated
in coitus sex would not only be aware that the creation of
the fetus could result, but would also be aware that the
possibility of the woman losing her life could result.
Therefore, the woman should not be able to escape her 
obligation to the fetus just because this possibility 
(that she knew ahead of time was possible) does occur.
It would seem your position should hold that the woman 
should forfeit her life for the fetus's in order to 
fulfill her obligation.
 
>Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:49:46 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>> CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
>>> of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
>>> Clinton directly.  

>> One of the factors which precipitated this change of tactics by the OR
>> folks, is that in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts the courts are laying
>> on  2.5 year jail sentences for blocking clinics.   

> Gosh, I feel so comfortable knowing that the state of Massachussetts
> has seen fit to lock up non-violent protesters for several years in
> already overcrowded prisons.

Non-violent?  Yeah, right, Doug.

> I wonder what kinds of thugs the state is planning to release in order
> to accommodate these protesters? 

I dunno.  People who scalp tickets at Patriot football games?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Nyikos flamefest 
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:10:36 GMT

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

] It seems that I must come back to t.a after all, since Dr. Nyikos
] seems hell bent on putting labels on me with scant justification.
] Perhaps it was during the period when he claimed his newsreader
] was malfunctioning, and so he missed my response, or rather a
] further clarification to my initial response.
] 
] For a gentleman who is so fond of accusing others of reading
] comprehension, he seems to have some problem in that area
] himself.
] 
] Claim #1: He seems to think I am the number 1 pro-abort here in
] t.a. I believe that I have only ever stated here that I believe
] in a woman's right to choice - the choice she makes may be to
] secure an abortion or it may be to continue the pregnancy. Since
] no one (least of all myself) has elected me God, I do not have
] the right to impose my views on women, no more than I may make
] their decisions for them. Is this your definition of pro-
] abortion Dr. Nyikos?

I'll leave the comments on the rest of this article to other
folks - just add that I am glad my parents DID have a choice.

On this claim, however, I do have to comment.

Bob Blackshaw CANNOT be considered the Number 1 'Pro-Abort'
who posts to talk.abortion.  That honor goes to Gordon Storga.
I claim the honor of being Number 2.  Dan King gets Number 3.
I forget who is Number 4 - so even if Bob actually HELD a
"pro-abortion" position, he'd have to be the number FIVE
"pro-abort" on talk.abortion.

Diana
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48716 talk.religion.misc:21593
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:39:44 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>> I find it quite repugnant, Peter, that you would attempt to deflect well-
>>>> deserved flames away from Darcy.  He made several tasteless, tactless and
>>>> mean-spirited posts about a t.a participant's SO's experience as a victim
>>>> of child sex abuse.   

>>>> "...well-deserved flames..."

>>>         Blatant assertion.

>> In turn, a blatent assertion from someone who refuses to take responsibility
>> for his actions.

> And more blatant assertions in response. Is this progress, Lyman?

You still refuse to take responsibility for your actions, so no, this is
not progress, Darcy.

> The whole phrase, let us recall, is
> "He made several tasteless, tactless and mean-spirited about a t.a 
>  participant's SO's experience..."
> I only made >>ONE<< post about the t.a participant's SO's experience, Lyman.
> Only the first one. All the rest was meta-discussion about that post.

Since you don't deny making the response, "No thank you, you are not to my
taste," or words to that effect, that means there were more than >>ONE<<
"tasteless, tactless, and mean-spirited" post, now weren't there?

> Given that person's extreme overreaction to my mistake, I thought it was
> rather restrained. I could have said much worse. And I will note, AGAIN, that
> the particular exchange to which you refer, was conducted in alt.flame. The
> standards are different there.

"It's ok if I was tacky; I could have been worse."  My, isn't that heart-
warming?  Hey, everybody, let's give Darcy some kind of humanitarian award!

Free clue, Lord Fuckwit:  alt.flame is not about being tacky.

>> Here's a bone for you, Kebbin.  The wise old saying goes:
>> "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
>> Either you allowed a tiny, malicious animus loose on someone you openly
>> dislike, or you are the most monumentally stupid creature ever to move
>> about on two legs.  Which is it, Kebbin?

> I made a mistake.

You certainly did.

> I apologized.

While simultaneously refusing to take responsibility for your actions.
The sincerity of your apology is therefore open to doubt.

> What else do you want?

For you to grow up?  For you to quit pretending that it's everybody's
fault but yours?

> What is your agenda here, except to recycle old flame wars, and hurt
> even more lurking victims of child sexual abuse?

How does taking Peter Nyikos to task for attempting to deflect flames
away from you by re-posting a Michael Loomis article constitute recycling
old flame wars, or causing as yet undocumented emotional pain?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48399 talk.religion.misc:21377 alt.atheism:21510
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:37:48 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
> do appear to be quite different):
> 
> He mellowed.

Jesus came!
> 
> :)M^2
>
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: You're *Both* Guilty
Date: 23 Nov 92 07:26:28 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

Re: the Peter and Adrienne "Forgery? Did not. Did too." show. Time for some 
facts...

First, here is a reconstruction of the relevant portions of Adrienne's 
article <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> -- the attribution part, followed by 
an ellipsis, and then the relevant quoted text.

---

In article <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1bfgu1INNpie@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;
>he cannot escape child support obligations.

---

Why only a reconstruction? Because, despite a rather generous expire interval, 
the article was posted rather a long time ago, and no longer exists on my 
system. However, since I responded to that article, and I KNOW what I did and 
did not change in my response, in terms of attributions, leaders, etc., I am 
able to faithfully reconstruct Adrienne's article from mine, at least the 
relevant parts. If anyone has the original <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
article archived, please email it to me.

Okay, now for Peter's followup to that article:

---

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More of JIm's strange equivalencies.
Date: 23 Nov 1992 10:56:12 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov19.154427.15282@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <32846@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
[...]
>>Taking physically inept person out on a boat, apparently without a
>>life jacket == Making good faith effort to avoid pregnancy using birth
>>control
>
>>I don't accept any of these.
>
>Nor do I.  The point of the example, though, is to show that the
>pro-choice view cannot be established by categorical statements about
>abstract rights of autonomy.  Rather, you have to consider just what
>the z/e/f is, how great a burden pregnancy is, and whether it is
>appropriate to require the woman to bear that burden in accordance
>with our normal concepts of responsibility.

You also have to consider logical consistency, and fairness, if you wish to
consider yourself logically consistent and fair.  

Now, if one is going to require a pregnant woman to support another person's
biological functions, then it is logical and fair to require everyone else to
do the same - this means mandatory blood donation, and mandatory organ
donation for the dead (and for the living, if the risk they face in donation
is comparable to the risk women face in childbirth).

Furthermore, since the right to one's body is far more basic than the right
to property (a porsche is not of much value if you are too busy giving birth
all the time to drive it) , a logical and fair person will be compelled to
advocate the mandatory selling of all private assets, in order to buy food
and medicine to save the lives of the starving in the third world.

>Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:40:43 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
->>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->>}If it's not happening, then why does it hurt to legislate against it?
->>}Doesn't this sword cut _both_ ways?
->>
->>Sort of like, gee, if you're not hiding anything, why would you object
->>to a search?  

->"Sort of like", but not really, since I'm giving an example of _legislation_
->and you're trying to analogize to the complex and delicate balance of rights
->involved in law _enforcement_. Apples and oranges.

bullshit! when you talk about legislating against
abortion rights, you're talking about the same
thing as you are when you talk about illegal searches.
both are an abuse of rights.

i'm surprised you'd be arguing against those rights
kebbin. as a newly declared supported of choice, i
thought you just recently posted that you opposed
legislation to restrict abortion. i hope you're not
changing your mind again.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Running away with his tail between his legs.
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:19:15 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1eraabINN3jq@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp
(Frank O'Dwyer) writes: 
>#
>>In article <1992Nov22.120346.21577@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
>>makes this stunning announcement:
>>
>>>I am unsubscribing from talk.abortion.  Anyone who wants to continue a
>>>discussion with me can do so by email.
>[...]
>>>Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
>>
>>Unfortunately for us, Jim will be back.  His false promise of a speedy
>>and permanent departure will only hold if he loses access to the net.
>[...]
>
>I hope he does come back.  He is evidently intelligent, seems to me to be a
>reasonable person, albeit misguided, and I hazard a guess that he is also
>politically involved.  While you may disagree with his views, this does not
>excuse subjecting him to warrantless insults.  If this has driven the guy
>away from the debate, and into the friendly cocoon of some active pro-life
>orgnisation, that is nothing to be pleased about.  I know of at least one
>other person whom this has happened to, from email conversations.  Perhaps
>you might rethink your attitude.

Personally I find Jim neither reasonable nor evidently intelligent,
emphasis on the former.  This time he was not ranting and raving with
the same fervor as his previous appearance on Talk.abortion, but it
was close.  I don't know what it means to drive someone away from the
debate; I also don't find that characterizing someone's views for what
they are as warrantless insults.  If I had started calling Jim an
asshole or a dirtbag or a scumbag, then I might agree with what you
have said.  However, if someone is going to post pro-forced-pregnancy
views on this net, they had better be prepared to deal with some stiff
challenges to their views.  This will be particularly true when they
make baseless statements and refuse to deal with the logical
implications of what they say.  I saw your pro-life views here before
you changed your mind, yet I didnt `drive you from the debate.'  I
would suggest that I respond to differences in the way people
pronounce and advocate their views and treat them accordingly.  I
neither know nor care who told you I drove them from the debate here.
If some advocate of forced pregnancy policies wants to pronounce their
views, they had better be prepared to take some heat from me and
others.  After all, Jim not only killfiled me, he also withdrew from
the group.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:58:33 GMT

<Nov.19.11.14.25.1992.12839@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
>I just galnced through this group for the first time, and I sense a lot of
>hostility...You can all beat me down however you want, but it is nothing
>compared to the silent holocaust going on every day in this country.

That you just glanced through this group is apparent.

> For all those out there who have had an abortion or are considering it:  YOU 
>MADE THAT CHOICE BEFORE YOU GOT PREGNANT!  

That is incorrect.  My ex-wife and I never chose abortion before we
had sex.

>                                           Ok, excluding that small percentage
>of rape victims who get pregnant.  But for the majority, don't tell me about 
>your freedoms of choice.  

Does that mean we don't have to listen to you when freedoms *you* want are
takenm from you?

>                          You made that choice the moment you had sexual 
>intercourse.  

We made the choice to have sex.

>              What CHOICES did that baby have?  

What baby?  Are you accusing people of having sex with children?

>                                                And how can you tell me when
>life begins?  Can you prove to me that life doen't begin until birth?  Can you
>define life? 

Life has been an ongoing process on earth for millions of years, possibly
longer.  Near as I can tell, life from lifelessness hasn't happened here
for millenia (see textbooks re: amino acids).

>What about the man.  He's not always the one to push for the abortion.  Doesn't
>he have his choices also?  Or do you also want the right to control his sperm? 

Unless you have proof to the contrary, a man never gets pregnant.

>These are just few of my many thoughts...And I must note that I wouldn't be 
>able to voice these thoughts if my birthmother had opted to have an abortion
>instead of giving me up for adoption in Bogota, Columbia!

You also wouldn't be able to voice these thoughts if you didn't have the
freedom of choice to do so.  Oh that's right, you don't want us to
mention freedom of choice.

>Also, I am a woman, if that makes any difference to you.

It doesn't.  I treat oppressive misinformed people the same regardless of
gender.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.pets.cats,soc.singles,alt.romance.chat
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Now JUST HOLD ON A MOMENT THERE BUD!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:43:43 GMT

<1992Nov20.212632.646@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) :
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>] Thanks, Catwoman.  Purrrrr.
>] 
>] Gordon
...
>] [space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
>
>HISSING SOUND followed by the lowering of ears,
>arching of Back and other Displays.

Just don't spray or we'll take you down and get you fixed. ;-)

>Need I say ANYTHING MORE!

Could we stop you?!

>ps: You can Have My ProblemOlderWoman when You Pry her
>from my DEAD COLD HANDS!!!!

Hey, she may be your POW but she's *my* ex-girlfriend.

>pps: thank God I'm not one of those Archie Bunker types
>who is territorial about relationships and all....

Yes, thank Beneficial-Random-Order-of-Events that you're not that way.

>ObWarning: You wouldn't want us to get into a MarkingTerritoryContest
>now would you??????

Was that a *distance* contest??


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Date: 19 Nov 1992 12:22:53 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov15.041148.5374@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>> Ray Fischer
>>> DOD
>
>>>I agree, we should leave innocent female human beings alone,
>>>including the ones who haven't been born yet.  
>
>>Say Doug, why do you keep throwing in the word "innocent"? 
>
>If DODie is an x-tian, he must believe that there is no such thing as an
>"innocent unborn child," since, according to x-tians, all humans are born
>with original sin which cannot be wiped away until one prostrates onself
>to their chosen deity.

Here's an interesting piece of religious bigotry.  

I note that the Christian religions seem to offer salvation as a remedy for
original sin, and the penalty for original sin is not particularly severe.
The Church of Reason, on the other hand, offers a new kind of original sin -
a z/e/f is guilty of the crime of non-sentience, a crime for which it is
guilty until proven innocent.  And the techno-nihilists are not nearly so
forgiving...

While I'm in the neighborhood, what is the motive for bastardising the name
of Christianity in the above manner?

>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48774 alt.abortion.inequity:5199 soc.men:19649
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 07:56:46 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.


Ah, by which you mean to reinterpret your statement that you wouldn't use 
your vote to take away a woman's right to choose, based upon the simple and
inarguable fact that a pregnancy takes place within her body, and has zip to
do with his?

Oh, please, Don, set us all straight.  It would be so nice to really know
what you are after.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion