HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:25:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.183830.16567@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <1992Aug27.122014.9891@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
# decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
# 
# > What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
# > of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
# > pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
# > fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
# > a very short step to compelling abortion.  
# 
# You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
# abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
# in mandating abortion.

Negative.  If the State can prohibit abortion on such trivial grounds
as a `compelling state interest' to protect the life of human zygotes
and embryos, the State can mandate abortion on the less trivial
grounds of a compelling state interest in zero population growth.
It's a matter of how `compelling' the State's interest is, see?

#                         In addition, your statement presumes
# that abortion is a legitimate exercise of a person's right to
# conduct their own personal affairs.  That presumption is  
# questionable on its face, since an abortion kills a human  
# being.  

Every presumption that an act is a legitimate exercise of individual
rights is questionable.  The presumption that advocating violent action
to overthrow the government is a legitimate exercise of a person's
right to freedom of speech is questionable on its face -- and like the
abortion issue, there is disagreement concerning this presumption as
well.

Your argument here is null.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Here's a thought...
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:24:24 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Sep3.031004.2591@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

> A thought just occured to me.  One that would make the pro-lifers "put their
> money where their mouth is" in some respects.
>
> If you're a pro-lifer, find some woman who is under 2 months pregnant, and
> is planning on aborting, and offer her the following deal:
>
> For the next nine months, you two will be chained together at the neck.  If
> she needs to get up and go to the restroom 10 times a night, so will you.
> [...]
> What do all you pro-lifer's think?

You forgot about the part where the woman consents to sexual 
intercourse with her partner.  Do we assume that the woman 
and the pro-lifer would be chained together while she's having 
intercourse?  Would the pro-lifer be required to have a simultaneous
orgasm with the woman?  Should the pro-lifer be required to 
join in their love-making?  Does the pro-lifer sleep in the  
wet spot?  



Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:21:46 GMT

In article <czbna2q.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
>> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>>>                  Think, people!  Take a hard look at these loving
>>> parents that you call baby killers.  Do they really look like the
>>> kind of people that like to murder children?
>>
>>
>>  Why of course not, Mark.  And as long as they have apologists like you to
>>salve their conscience about those destroyed potential lives, and to convince
>>them "that it really isn't a person --yet" they won't have to think about it
>>like that, either.
>
>I've seen the term "potential" life used several times and I'm still not
>sure what it is supposed to mean.  Could you please explain what a potential 
>life is and its relevence?

It means that Ovum and Sperm are LIVING HUMAN ENTITIES AND WE MUST STOP
THE SLAUGHTER OF THESE "WARMCUTEFUZZYSOONTOBEUNBORNCHILDREN".

We must BAN MENSTRUATION!

We must BAN MASTURBATION!

We must BAN SEX!

EVERY SPERM MUST BE MATED WITH AN EGG!  ANYTHING LESS IS THE DESTRUCTION OF
HUMANS!

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 11:52:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep4.000858.12970@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.001708.22093@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills
> >> Stevens
> >
> >>You state your beliefs.  I, obviously, disagree.  Just make sure you realize
> >>that you ARE stating beliefs, not facts.
> >
> >It is not a "belief" that "SHE must bear the pain, sickness, serious health
> >risks, and possibility of death UNILATERALLY."  It is a fact.
>
> Yup.  And men must bear the pain, sickness, serious health risks and death
> inherent in fighting a war.  Something that women are not required (in
> fact, allowed) to do.

And I say that the way to make that equal is by allowing women in combat.
You're saying the equivalent of, since it's not fair, every time a man is
killed in combat, take a woman and shoot her.

It might be more fair, but it's not *right*.

> >Why do you have such a profound problem with allowing people to make up
> >their own minds about the one decision that coiuld affect THEIR lives,
> >NOT YOURS, so profoundly?
>
> But the decision to abort my child WOULD affect my life enourmously!
>
> I have a profound problem with being excluded from taking part in making
> a decision of such importance to me.

You can take part, but you don't get the deciding vote, since it's not your
body that's affected.

> >>Neat.  But dead wrong, as you totally missed the point that I do not support
> >>the idea of interfering in a process that I am not involved with.  I simply
> >>think that if the child is mine, I should have a say in what happens to it.
> >
> >I don't think there is a SINGLE soul onn this newsgroup that would claim
> >that if the child is yours, you should not "have a say in what happens to
> >it."
>
> Wrong.  Dead wrong.  Almost everybody who responds to me wants to deny me
> ANY control of the process.  I'm supposed to sit idly by and let the
> woman do anything she wants to my child.

You can have a say, but we deny you control over the woman's body.

> In other words, in an absolute monarchy, you may have the right to advise
> the monarch, but if you have no power to force her to change her decisions,
> then you have no power to control the situation.

And that's what it comes down to.  You want the power to force the woman
to do what you want; you want to be able to control her.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 28 Aug 1992 09:20:23 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <t+dnzy=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>However, if abortion is merely a "medical operation" similar to heart surgery
>or removing a tumor, then why do women who have gone through abortions
>feel very miserable?      ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Some women.  Some women think abortin is just hunky dorry. (Hunky dory?)
I believe the studies show that *most* women who have had an abortion 
were pleased rather than displeased.     

>you cannot argue with nature.  The unborn is what nature makes of it, not
>the mother.

I'd argue with your interepretation of nature.  The mother makes the unborn
into the born (or not, as she chooses).  Without the presence of the mother
there *is* no unborn.  "Nature" doesn't do anything without the mother.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: some times you just have to ask....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:54:04 GMT

sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
]
] I am _not_ catholic and I married my wife because she does _not_ mimic my every word
] (along with other reasons).


Let us Guess -

You're a victim of HeteroSexuality?????


ciao
drieux


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:17:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <BttGE0.L16.2@cs.cmu.edu# 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
###mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
#
#### Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
#### attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or 
#### older.
#
### No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to 
### employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
### for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
### Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).  
#
## Kathi's statement is correct.
#
#No, it is not correct.  

Yes, it is.  You have provided no proof that it is not true.

## As more than one person has pointed out, Colautti
## v. Franklin struck down the law because it was vague, not because
## the prohibition was unconstitutional.
#
#Where are we disagreeing? 

We disagree over the correctness of Kathi's statement.

#As I said above, the Court "struck down" legislation to require
#a physician to employ the abortion technique which would provide 
#the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive.  Therefore
#Ms. Mill's statement is not correct.  

Here's Kathi's statement again, since you seem to have forgotten
what she said.

#### Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
#### attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or 
#### older.

This statement is true.

Can you prove that a state cannot enact such legislation?  Do you have
a decision which says that such provisions are unconstitutional or
in conflict with Roe?

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: THE CHRISTIAN VIEW
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:00:12 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep3.115534.7809@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes:

> So Wake Up and Decide Who's side are YOU ON.
> 
> God or MAN.
> 
> is that 'sempr fi' gambit in there for your
> fidelity to Devil Worshipers or WHAT!
> drieux

  Actually, I worship only the God of Superior Firepower.  He's only a devil if
the other side has it.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:18:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

More complete error by Hallchaney.

In article <1992Sep2.005607.21559@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> The rich trade away the rights of the poor whenever more cops and more
> security measures are taken to prevent theft. 

The poor are more often the victims of crime than the rich.
More police means more protection for the poor as well
as the rich.

As for "don't you whatever just hate this?"

Don't you pro-life folks just hate having Chaney trying to
speak for the pro-life advocates?

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34485 alt.flame:12495
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: twit ii
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:03:48 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

emulating his master, kebbie,
franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

->    Shit, this is nothing my flame-friends (ha!). You
-> should see the mess I'm taking in talk.bizarre. They
-> hate my guts! *sigh* I dreamily look forward to
-> having my own group formed, and long towards the day
-> with sweet thoughts of flame within my own forum.

->    alt.fan.steve-franklin

next the silly twit will be campaigning for votes to
the council of net.idiots.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 19:24:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep1.171633.11940@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.213647.22693@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug31.160659.13328@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
> >> In article <1992Aug26.001935.2945@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com wr
> >> >stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> >>
> >> What we have here, is the belief that the child that is the result of
> >> a rape CONTINUES the violation of the woman's (limited) right to bodily
> >> autonomy, and that that right supersedes the child's right to live.
> >
> >Didn't you say above:
> >> WHAT RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY?
>
> Taking statements out of context makes you look like you didn't understand
> what I wrote, so excuse me if I talk down to you. . .

You're excused, but try not to let it happen again.

> >So now we see you saying that there *is* a right to bodily autonomy where
> >it's convenient for your argument, but not where it's not?
>
> Once again, forgive me for talking down to you, but if you read what I
> wrote, I used the term (limited).  Perhaps you don't understand the
> term.

Actually, I do understand what "limited" means; I just don't understand
why it's limited to those cases of which *you* approve.

> >True, but an unwanted pregnancy *does* violate her bodily autonomy.
>
> Here is where we have different beliefs.  It does, but she AGREED
> to give up a portion of her right to bodily autonomy when she consented
> to sex.  When she consented to sex, she indicated her willingness to take
> the risk of a pregnancy.

And when she used the Pill, a condom, and two different spermicides, she
indicated her unwillingness to conceive.

> >Why do I smell a hypocrite?
>
> Uhhhh. . . because you haven't bathed recently?

:-)

Forgive me for talking down to you, but I was pointing out that it
seemed hypocritical for you to say that you didn't like insults, and
yet you referred to pro-choicers as "pro-aborts".  Since you didn't
do so in this post, perhaps my pointing this out made you change, and
you're *not* a hypocrite.  We shall see...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:20:18 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug25.191644.5381@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>
>  Which world do YOU live in?  You cannot have it both ways; either most of our
>young people know whats going on or they don't.  Quit hopping around.

Oh, come on, Jimmy.  How many young men say, age 16 do you know who know as
much about pregnancy as young women, say age 16?

Do you *really* think there ISN'T an information differential by sex, on the
subject of pregnancy?

>  So selective reading of information is indeed okay.  Not the whole story,
>not even an accurate story, just whatever they feel like.  Defending this
>sort of intellectual dishonesty in unbecoming of you.

Let me also ask this, while I'm asking questions.  How many pro-lifers are
pushing for 'full disclosure' about carrying to term?  They want their inter-
pretation of abortion clarified, whether at the wishes of the private 
citizen involved, or not, but do they insist on a reasonably balanced 
disclosure of pregnancy also?  No.  

Why is that?

>> I don't think it is important that THEY make a decision based upon YOUR 
>> criteria, damned straight.  Or the original poster's, either, whose name
>> I've lost in deletions.
>  MY criteria are not the issue here, this time.  Full and complete information
>is.

What's "full"?  What's "complete"?  And is it balanced with 'full and complete
information' about the risks of pregnancy, too?  


Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.161007.1377@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = (Eric Marsh) writes:
### = Doug Holtsinger:
#
### Your post was a shameful, transparent attempt to slander Mr. Guerrero.
#
##Holtsinger looks more like Rasmussen every day. Is there any support out
##there for a Holtsinger boycott?
#
#I'm convinced DJR is part of the Holtsinger phenomenom.
#
#A boycott would be fine with me.  The last one sure drove DJR into a rage, so
#count me in :)!

I'm with Steve - it would be worth starting a boycott just to
see DOD's reaction.  He seems to be stuck in a rut, and he's
not nearly as amusing as he used to be.  Maybe he needs his
off-net milieu (social isolation) to get going again.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:09:08 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep01.061848.15197@watson.ibm.com> Larry writes:

> In  <1992Sep1.014646.25115@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> > ---
> > From: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
> >
> > [....]
> >
> >      Obviously Mo has missed the point of talk.abortion.  I don't read
> > the newsgroup myself, but I read alt.flame, which seems to be an alias
> > for talk.abortion anyway.  As far as I can tell, talk.abortion has absolutely
> > nothing to do with changing anyone's feelings or even having rational
> > discussions.  It is for ranting and raving.
> 
> A reasonable assumption from someone who doesn't read t.a and so only sees
> what's crossposted to alt.flame.  Was there a point to this?
> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

  Beats me, Larry. But it does seem to be a pretty valid characterization most
of the time, doesn't it?

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.015445.3398@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <BtKAyw.1yx.2@cs.cmu.edu# 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
### I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge 
### the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did, 
### they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without 
### looking a little hypocritical. 
#
## I've been away - did DOD denounce Pat Buchanan's racist and homophobic
## speech in Houston, or is he trying to ignore it?  Did he comment
## on Bush's praise of the cops who attacked the ACT UP protesters?
#
#You miss the point Ms. Garvin.  When you vigorously denounce the 
#extremists on the pro-life side and try to ignore the extremists 
#on the pro-choice side such as Mr. Loomis, it makes you look a 
#little hypocritical.  

No, you miss the point, Holtsinger.  Did you denounce Buchanan's
speech or didn't you?

#I'm glad you can finally acknowledge the 
#existence of extremists on the pro-choice side, even though I had 
#to give you a little prodding.  

Don't be so quick to take the credit, DOD.  I responded to
Steve Novak.  Do you think that you're Steve Novak now?

I don't call Loomis "an extremist on the pro-choice side,"
because of his feelings about euthanasia or infanticide,
by the way.  "Pro-choice" generally refers to the opinion
that the abortion decision should be left up to the pregnant
woman.  It has nothing to do with euthanasia or infanticide.

I referred to Steve as an extremist because he is not willing
to compromise away a woman's right to choose.  I share his
feelings.  (I'm also an extremist on other issues - why do
you think that being an extremist is bad?)

#I hope to see you continue to acknowledge the extremists on the 
#pro-choice side.  Now, here's your chance to do just that:
#
#     "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
#that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
#we want to be precise)..."
#  -- Gloria Feldt,
#     chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement.  Why
does Judaism bother you so?

Susan