HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Summary: Clueless foreigners -- gotta love 'em. 
Organization: That school that hasn't beat t.u. since '65 
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:32:39 GMT

In article <nyikos.722028220@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <BxAwDF.I83@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <83132@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>Patrick, I think you're being too hard on Jeff here, not that I'll say
>>>anything, as we pro-choicers never disagree...
>
>>We don't?  You go to that school that's beat us in football every year since
>>1965 -- and that's not good. :-)  (Watch Nyikos and Holtsinger leap on
>>*that* -- ooh, dissension in the ranks!) 
>
>No shame to lose to Texas.  I am a bit surprised at how far back the
>losing streak extends, since the first time I ever heard of Rice was in
>connection with its football team.
>
>Now THAT'S not good. :-)

Definitely not -- you're old enough to have heard of it quite a bit before I
did, and the way you put that seems to indicate you didn't hear of them
until after their football program had already gone to pot -- which means
some time after 1964.  I was made aware of their existence in 1965, at the
age of ten, when I got to see the campus as my parents drove by it on our
house-hunting visit to Houston two months before we moved here...

(You may hear a bit more about the Killer Owls this week -- they figure to
firebomb Navy, which would give them a winning football team for the first
time since 1963 -- and that's long enough for me. :-)

--PLH, we'll hold off on tearing anything down until we stomp UH in the Dome
next week, and then Houston will have a new parking lot...


--
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Darcy misses the point: Keeping it out of the legal system.
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:11:02 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov22.002829.17328@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes in response to my argument against abortion
regulation because it would have discrimnatory effect, violating the
principle of equal protection under the law.

>>                                       Women: Financial support. 
>>                                      / Enforced bodily support.
>>                        Consequences
>>Sex -->  pregnancy -->  of Forced Birth 
>>                        Policy       
>>                                       \
>>                                        Men: Financial support.

Darcy follows this with: 

>I find this a particularly non-fruitful line of argument. The most you
>can hope for, Stephen, is to convince Jim that men should chip in enough
>EXTRA support after the fact to compensate women fairly for the consequences 
>of their pregnancies. A few dozen $K, perhaps, spread out over 18+ years.
>
>Why should this necessarily have any effect on his pro-life stance?

(1) I have already achieved what you claim is the most I can hope for:
In his initial response Jim tentatively suggested that his abortion
program might justify some transfers of wealth over and above the
status quo from fathers as compensation to the women forced to carry
pregnancies.  Actually, I'm hoping for more than this; it is my intent
to present a rationale for not enacting these policies: See (2).

(2) My argument is not about how to compute just compensation for
women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.  Rather, I believe
that this is the type of decision that does not belong in the legal
system.  The government has no business placing draconian limitations
on the behavior of legal persons in order to protect /z/e/f/s.  This
is the point of illustrating how the consequences are discriminatory
and that they violate the principle of equal protection.  I also don't
think that using scarce state resources to price the psychological
trauma, loss of a loved one, lost career advancement, etc. that
accompany forced pregnancies is very sensible policy.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:06:51 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov21.003516.21632@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( ) writes:
>In article <dd11skh@rpi.edu>
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin,
>
>> i'd like to see some proof of this allegation, unless
>> it's just another lie, of course.
>
>Here's the e-mail that Larry Margolis sent to my system
>administrators, forwarded from one of the NCSU sysadmins.
>I omitted the sender's address from the e-mail.

You also omitted your name.  Any particular reason for that?

You were also posting from a different ID (dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu);
the first appearance of dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu was in the anonymous
"letter-bombing".  And that had names attached like "big tree", "Woody Allen",
or (as above) no name.

I just tried fingering, and your usual ID is still valid (in fact, you're
on it right now), while the dsh ID gave back:
  Login name: dsh                         In real life:
  Directory: /usr/users2/dsh              Shell: /bin/csh
  On since Nov 19 16:49:32 on ttyp2 from :0.0
  8 hours 12 minutes Idle Time
  No Plan.

So how was I supposed to know that dsh was the same lying weasel that
posts to talk.abortion as dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu?  You didn't
start using the dsh ID to post here until after people complained
about the anonymous posts to other groups.

>>From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu ( )

I don't see any threats, Dougie.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: spunky@camelot.bradley.edu (Anita Mannes)
Subject: Re: New Catholic Catechism: A first in 426 years
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:45:08 GMT

In <By0tF2.Mt2@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>Amazing! According to the latest Catholic Bull or is it Catholic bull, the
>Jews are not responsible (collectively) for the death of the carpenter's
>kid. 

>Tonight I shall have the best night's sleep I have had in two thousand years.


excuse me..........
i understand that it sounds strange and I too agree that is is quite
stupid to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus.......... 

but your comment I feel was uncalled for..................
like it said to millions of people in the world....... as well as 
the protestants as well..........Jesus is not just " the carpenter's
kid "  WE believe He is the Son of God and He is a very important
person to us.     I do not feel you have the right to mock out beliefs
because you do not hold those beliefs yourself.  

I may be wring but I was under the impression that this news group was
to  discuss issue........not make fun of ohters belifs ect.........

i would like to kow if you have any religouse beliefs......I am sure
many of us could find something we don't agree with.........


you have a problem........mail spunky@bradly.edu 


>Conan the Hebrew.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:56:20 GMT

In <1992Nov5.190215.2719@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.220133.16130@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <lfg9tgINNssc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
>> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>> 
>>>  [.. Re: Clinton's election as president ..]
>>> 
>>> I think that I can let go of this battle for now. It has been a long
>>> and a hard one, and I'm going to take a well earned vacation. For this
>>> reason, I'm going to take leave of this news group. 

Too bad.  Eric was going to debate me on philosophy and even gave me a
warning about what a dragon he was.  Maybe I scared him off when I closed
a response to an e-mail message of his by saying that in the computer game
now known as "Original Adventure," I vanquished the dragon the day after
I first encountered it, and that he (Eric) would undoubtedly hold off 
longer, but the truth would triumph in the end.  "Be forewarned," was
my closing comment, echoing him.  Looks like all this was a self-defeating
prophecy.  Where's the fun in vanquishing a dragon who won't fight?

>> That's typical of the pro-aborts -- they're only interested
>> in providing the choice to abort, nevermind about any other 
>> choices.  

>Doug:  Are you implying that the right to readily available contraception
>is threatened? 

Where does this talk of "threatened" come from?

> The right to adopt?  The right to carry pregnancies to
>term?  In short:  Huh??

Oh, they support the rights all right (with the possible exception of 
pro-abort Adrienne Regard), it's just that they can't be bothered with
making it easier for women to make those other two choices, and some
like Ms. Birmingham and Mr. Blackshaw [who may be pro-aborts themselves,
but I don't have enough evidence on them yet to make a formal charge]
do their best to emphasize the horrors of carrying to term. 

For that matter, they aren't all that supportive of women who choose
to abort.  I have yet to hear of any pro-choice groups helping women
financially in re the abortion decision, the way Birthright and other
pro-life crisis pregnancy centers do the women who choose to carry to term.
Also, I do not know of any post-abortion support groups except pro-life
ones such as WEBA, Project Rachel, and many local ones.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:36:47 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In <1992Nov20.183909.5104@panix.com> jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold) writes:

>In <1992Nov20.174546.2811@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>>What is at stake [in the question whether rape has an essential sexual
>>component]?

>The moral perception that somehow rape and sex are interchangeable.

Who has ever had that perception?

To say rape=sex+force is not to say rape and sex are interchangeable,
any more than to say robbery=taking money+force is to say that all
situations in which X gets money from Y are robberies.

Again, why is this issue so upsetting?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48762 soc.men:19641 soc.women:20007 alt.politics.homosexuality:7445
From: kc2@doc.ic.ac.uk (K Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: 20 Nov 1992 14:51:55 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak43.doc.ic.ac.uk
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...


In <1992Nov20.131057.980@lclark.edu>, Bil Snodgrass III

writes :

why don't men rape men more?  I mean
if it were truly an act of dominance of force then wouldn't men rape men?  It
just seems like rape would be just as horrible for a man (I am Gay so I am
not talking about man on man sex).  So why aren't these violent men, who
kill and assualt men, also raping them?



After a recent spate of particularly vicious and violent male rapes
in London (men being abducted from tube stations by 3 or 4 men and
taken somewhere, blindfolded then forcibly penetrated), some of the
less oppressive newspapers in this country carried comment from leading
criminal psychologists about how it is unlikely that the incidents had
been carried out by gay men.  In fact, homosexual rape was charcterised
as some ultimate form of queer-bashing. (Sorry, but I don't have the
exact reference for the newspaper in which I read of this.)


This seems also to fit, in some sick and perverse sense, with the
general line we seem to take about the mentality of the average
queer-basher (i.e. unexpressed, frustrated homosexual tendency).

Food for thought?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:44:53 GMT

In <1992Nov13.235839.1955@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu 
   (Sarah A McCabe) writes: >

>I am not about to hold my breath waiting for Sweety Petey to respond 
>or even acknowledge it though.  I suspect he considers it beneath his 
>dignity to recognize the thoughts and writings of us lesser mortals 
>known as women.  Of course maybe I should count myself fortunate that 
>I am obviously still on Petey Luv's Good Girl List (those of us brain-
>less, but misguided) and not with Adrienne on his Bad Girl List (those 
>who are evil, conniving, infidels).  Hmm, isn't there a theory about 
>men who see women in such a Madonna/Whore dichotomy?  Ooops!  Better 
>stop now before Bill takes me to task for psychoanalyzing without a 
>net.license.

Hmm.  Psychoanalyzing?  Is that what you're doing, Sarah?  Not 
to worry; I'm not supposed to question the posts of net.women 
anymore, lest I appear to "condescend" to them.  

It must be somewhat reassuring when, in the absence of a sound 
argument, one can simply hide behind allegations of "Misogyny!".  
But then again, I suppose crying "Wolf!" is politically expedient, 
at least in the short term.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:21:38 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <sj39g68@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>Why do you equate "good/bad" with "moral/immoral"?  I see no
>connection (other than that "moral" can sometimes be a subset of
>"good").

I see no distinction.  I would define "moral/immoral" conduct as
conduct that is "good/bad" or promotes "good/bad" things.

>To give an example of laws utterly unconnected with any concept
>of "morality":  the state might decide that traffic laws are
>"good" because they promote order & reduce accident rates,
>without making any "moral" judgments about driving through
>intersections without stopping.  This is one of Adrienne
>Regard's favorite examples, I think.

It's interesting that you should give that example right after the
Catholic church promulgated a catechism that says drunken driving is a
sin.  (Not that I view either of us as bound by what the Catholic
church does.)

I don't really understand the example.  Order is generally a good
thing and pain and suffering are bad, so the laws are passed.
Complying with the laws is normally the moral thing to do because
conduct that promotes disorder, pain and suffering is immoral conduct
and also because normally it is immoral simply to disregard legitimate
laws.  It's true that the word "moral" might not come up during
deliberations on the law, but that doesn't show that morality and what
the state is doing are irrelevant to each other.

Maybe you are thinking of the distinction between _mala prohibita_
(things that become bad only by being prohibited) and _mala in se_
(things that are bad without reference to any positive law prohibiting
them).  For example, neither driving on the right nor driving on the
left are _mala in se_.  But once England decides by law that people
should drive on the left it becomes immoral to drive on the right
because given the established rule of driving on the left would cause
unreasonable risks to people.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life a HELL!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:17:29 GMT

delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE) writes:

>   I have a gf with fundamentalist parents who treat Rush Limbaugh as though
> he has the answers to life's problems. Well, I am here to say that because
> of this, I will have to fight in order to marry her. Has it come to the point
> in this country where conservative ideas like the ones he presents are so
> much a part of the United States now, that two people in love can't even
> marry for fear of outright attack like this? I fear for our happiness.
> I don't want her to choose between keeping her family or keeping me.
> I hate liberals (I am moderate), but even moderates aren't safe from Rush
> Limbaugh!! Can someone PLEASE give me some ideas???
>-- 
>delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu

If you actually believe that Limbaugh is to blame for your hope-to-be
inlaws' attitudes, you might really consider holding off on any marriage
plans for a _very_ long time.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.221554.37953@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov13.171159.15074@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>>
>>Horseshit yourself, Adrienne:
>>
>>MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents
>                     ^^^^
>>
>>       Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock are liable
>                                           ^^^^^^^
>>       for the necessary support and education of the child. They are also
>>       liable for the child's funeral expenses. The father is liable to pay
>>       such expenses in connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its
>>       discretion may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).
>
>You proved Adrienne's point - *no* obligation until *after* the child is
>born.  The fact that he [maybe] has to pay expenses incurred *before* the
>child was born does not alter the fact that there is no legal obligation
>until *after* the child is born.

"Obligation" is actually a very vague term. Is a contingent liability a
"legal obligation"? For some purposes, yes. For other purposes, no.

Let's look at the context leading up to Adrienne's statement:

"The woman's unalterable obligation to support begins, 
 at the earliest, after the last legal moment to abort.  
 This is usually 6 or more months later than the moment 
 the man's rights are restricted."

Obviously, the relevant aspects of the kind of "legal obligation" being 
discussed are

	a) unalterability (by the obligee)

		and

	b) restriction of obligee's rights

Both of these features are present for charges incurred BEFORE the child is 
born. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to characterize Adrienne's statement
as "horseshit".

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Negotiations over Robbinsdale Clinic protests break down
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:40 GMT

Some of you may remember that antiabortion protesters at the Robbinsdale
Women's Clinic were under a temporary restraining order regarding the
numbers of protesters who could stand in front of the clinic and where
they could stand.  Representatives of both sides of the issue met this
weekend to hammer out a compromise.  If agreement could be reached, all
pending prosecution for contempt of court charges would be dropped.

One of the stipulations that representatives of the clinic insisted on was
that polygraph and voice-stress tests be administered to representatives
of Pro-Life Action Ministries and other pro-lifers regularly seen at clinic
protests.  This stipulation, plus the pro-lifers' unwillingness to limit
the number of protesters in front of the clinic, caused negotiations to
break down.

It should be mentioned that 7 of the 10 pro-lifers named in the stipulation
agreed to polygraph tests, and of the 3 who did not, one left town!

Anyway, because of the pro-lifers' unwillingness to negotiate, the temporary
restraining order will be made permanent and prosecution on contempt of
court charges will proceed.  Between this and last week's arson attempt,
it looks like things are going to warm up in Robbinsdale (no pun intended,
no smiley).

Btw, I hear that the food in Hennepin County Jail is _really_ lousy.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:56:41 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In <1992Nov19.081823.17677@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith) writes:

>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?

I'm somewhat lost here.  I thought rape=sex+force by definition.  How
else can it be distinguished from other forms of assault?

As far as defining "sex" goes, I'm not sure that it can be given a
very succinct definition.  Dictionary definitions include "the sum of
the structural, functional and behavioral peculiarities of living
beings that subserve reproduction by two interacting parents and
distinguish males and females" and "sexually motivated phenomena".  In
connection with defining rape, the latter definition seems the more
pertinent.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)