HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:42:08 GMT

<1992Nov19.174407.21580@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
><1992Nov18.220030.86964@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>|> >|> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
...
>|> >There are no laws against having sex, and there should not be any, there
>|> 
>|> (Actually, there are; I agree that there *shouldn't* be any laws against
>|> consensual sex.)
>|> 
>|> >SHOULD be laws prohibiting the ending of a life if precautions are not taken
>|> >while having sex.
>|> 
>|> And if precautions *are* taken, but they fail?  Would abortion then be
>|> OK according to you, or is this just a red herring?
>
>Like I said before, if you are reponsible enough to have sex, you have to deal 
>with the consequences.

If I'm responsible enough to be cutting bread in the kitchen and I slip
and slit my wrist should I just deal with the consequences by letting
myself bleed to death?  If I ask a street person into my home to serve
them dinner and they later decide to rob me or kill me, should I not be
allowed to defend myself and my home?  Should I not be allowed to CHANGE
the course of events to preserve my health, life, and lifestyle?

Tell you what?  If you ever get pregnant we'll all get together to
disallow you an abortion.  Ok?


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: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ray fischer: lover of free and open communication
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:47:49 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes to DODie:
>->How do we keep you from reponding to future articles?

>why don't you volunteer to moderate DODie's moderated
>talk abortion group. then, you can censor whomever you
>want.

It's easy. Just killfile him, or don't respond to his articles. Let
him blather away, and be content with the fact that it really gets his
goat that you failure to rise to his assinine points. It's worked for
me for months. :) Hope you can implement it as successfully, Ray. Jimmie
boy, if you respond to this, you are more illogical than Petie. Grovel
away.


Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Today's Quiz
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:47:25 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->#for both prizes ..............
->#
->#has no opinion on legislation             5-week cutoff
->#(unless he's lying)                       (unless he's lying)
->#
->#pay up.

->Not yet, Jim.

->Mark Kaufman pointed out that DODie uses a diminuitive form of his
->name while PHoney uses his full name, Galen pointed out that one
->can tell the truth and doesn't while the other can't, and Diana
->(catwoman) recently pointed out that one posts abortion-related
->articles to alt.romance.chat.

->I think that we've got a 4-way tie.  There will have to be a tie-
->breaker to determine the winner.  (I'm open to suggestions
->as to what that tie-breaker will be.)

well, you could award the prize to the oldest of the
group.

alternatively, you could ask dianna to disqualify
herself and then ask drieux to decide.

i prefer the first option.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:18:54 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>>The rate of condom failure is about 5%.  If you use them religiously for 10
>>years as birth control your risk of an accidental pregnancy is a coin toss.

Actually, it's a little better; it's 1-.95^10 = .4012631 (based on
your figures).

Adrienne Regard writes:
>Not using a condom means you risk of accidental pregnancy in year 1 is
>near a coin toss....

Not using a condom (or any other form of birth control) and given a
coital frequency of twice a week, the mean waiting time until conception
is five months.  

In other words, it's *quite* likely you'll get a pregnancy in one year.

rini
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:19:39 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <adams.721328207@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Oct31.130332.4612@verifone.com> 
>>>ron_s@verifone.com writes:
>>>
>>>> It is not the province or business of government to legislate
>>>> morality, 
>>>
>>>So I take it you're an anarchist.  Say goodbye to murder, rape,
>>>and robbery laws.   
>>>
>>Sorry, but you missed the issue, I think.  Murder, rape and robbery all
>>infringe upon my rights (life, bodily autonomy, property).  There are NOT
>>moral issues.  
>
>Are you saying there is nothing immoral about murdering, raping or robbing?

No.  I am saying that they do not have to be moral issues.  They are
ethical issues (determined by logic).  'Morals' are determined by beliefs
(based on religion, for example).  I prefer to be governed by logic.

Morals I impose on myself.  Ethics can be imposed by society to prevent me
from infringing on another persons rights.

>>They are situations where a right is removed by force.
>
>Rights are, however, just encapsulations or manifestations of prior moral 
>decisions. Without the moral goals of minimizing murder, rape and robbery, 
>respectively, rights to protection against those transgressions would never 
>have been established.
No.  They are philosophical encapsulations based on logic.  There is a
difference.  I can list any number of issues which are immoral yet should
not be illegal.  Prostitution is an example.  I beleive it to be immoral,
but why should I therefore restrict a consensual contract between adults?
There is no ethical problem if both people agree to the contract...at least
for them or for society.

>>Consensual actions between two adults ARE not the same.
>
>That, too, is a moral pronouncement. Many reasonable people would disagree 
>with your statement above, on grounds of ethics.

I don't see how.  Any consensual action between adults that does not infringe
on another person's rights is none of that other person's business.
Period.  

People act within their own moral framework.  Society should enforce laws
based on ethics...generally, western religion is far to illogical to properly 
represent all parties in a fair and just manner.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:22:05 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->#-#I think that your scheme would deny abortions to women who
->#-#aren't wealthy and/or well-connected.
->#
->#i agree. i think that class-discrimination could have
->#been inferred from ms bartley's posts last spring but i
->#don't think too many people were analyzing what her
->#position was when they were defending it.

->I recall pointing out the class discrimination that was inherent
->in her position on waiting periods last spring.  

that you did, as did linda birmingham. there may have
been a few others too. my comment was meant for those
who argued so strongly that e.e.'s position was a
pro-choice position when it was in fact just the
opposite; anti-choice.

i think most readers have caught on now, even the slow
ones. many of the old defenders have disappeared. even
fischer and bense are just attacking me personally
rather than comment on anything abortion-related.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:19:01 GMT

And again - 

Doug...you're REALLY not helping yourself.

Diana

thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:

] In <1992Nov22.204329.10301@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >I think I know why people have objected to my posting of a  
] >description of the fetal remains from an abortion, and it's
] >not because it's "inappropriate" for this newsgroup.  There
] >are ongoing political discussions in this newsgroup, and
] >nobody seems to care.  The people in this newsgroup don't  
] >want others to realize that abortion destroys a human life.
] >They could put me in a killfile, and they wouldn't have to 
] >read the description.  But it's the fact that other people
] >can read the description which upsets them.
] 
] No Dougie, it's the fact that you're sending the same bits over the
] wire dozens of times WHEN WE'VE ALL SEEN IT that bothers me, that
] coupled with the fact that there is indeed a better place to discuss
] this issue.  We talked politics during the election campaign when
] almost every other newsgroup was also unable to avoid discussion of
] politics.  If you were a regular soc.singles poster and wanted to
] discuss abortion, I might welcome your input (though I'd certainly
] argue).  But as it is, you're an invader.  Get the fuck out of here.
] 
] Rob T
] --
] Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
] "I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:54:07 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> While I'm thinking about it, I cast an "AYE" ballot to include the Perfesser
>> in the Net Council of Idiots.  Btw, wasn't La Forgach voted in last spring?

> Hey, let's make this a real, official vote.  Y'all email your
> votes to me at cbnewsj!decay and I'll post the results in two weeks.

Let's think about this, Dean.  Jim Keegan feels that the Perfesser is still
too new to be an honest-to-goodness net.idiot, and that he hasn't accrued
enough disrespect in other newsgroups.  I think he has a point.

At this stage of the game, the net is still very young.  We have all the
time in the world to annoint our net.gods and goddesses, as well as
net.idiots.  If we settle for electing the Perfesser as group.idiot
(preferably by acclamation), he'll still have a bigger title to shoot
for and won't be tempted to rest on his laurels.

> Remember, if you don't vote for the council of net.idiots, you
> deserve the representation you get.

Like our forefathers might have said, "No idiot-ation without
representation."

-- 
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
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:11:11 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

I have to break apart my continuation of the thread with Jim since my
posting system is gagging on very long articles.  Apologies in
advance: 

In article <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes to me:

>My claim was only that child support payments are a heavy obligation
>that can seriously affect the ability of the person burdened by the
>obligation to live his life as he wants to.  There are obvious
>differences between making such payments and being pregnant.  The
>obligations we are subject to, though, depend on the situations we
>find ourselves in, and since men can't find themselves in the
>situation of being pregnant they can't be subject to an obligation
>exactly equivalent to pregnancy.
>
>I don't think I stated or implied that the legitimacy of forbidding
>most abortions depends on how burdensome the obligation of child
>support is -- it seems an irrelevancy to me, and I only said something
>about it because you wanted me to name a burden on the father.

I asked to name an equivalent burden put on men: You responded with
child support, which you now admit is not equivalent.  The inability
to name an equivalent burden is exactly what I call the chastity belt
theory of illegal abortion.  You are unhappy with the rate of sexual
intercourse in our society and you want to solve this problem by
forcing women to carry all unwanted pregnancies to term.  This is
unfair to women.  Why should women bear all the burden for solving
what you perceive as too much sex?
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:48:39 GMT

In article <plv1dmm@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

[text deleted]

#-#I think that your scheme would deny abortions to women who
#-#aren't wealthy and/or well-connected.
#
#i agree. i think that class-discrimination could have
#been inferred from ms bartley's posts last spring but i
#don't think too many people were analyzing what her
#position was when they were defending it.

I recall pointing out the class discrimination that was inherent
in her position on waiting periods last spring.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Some Pro-life...conclusions?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:17:51 GMT

In article <3159@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> 
joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:

> Sometimes abortions fail and children get born.  This shows that
> abortion is wrong.

Would you mind telling me how you reached this conclusion?  I don't
think I've ever heard a pro-lifer say that abortion is wrong because
it sometimes fails to kill the child.

>Joe


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:22:42 GMT

From article <1992Nov16.030911.25233@watson.ibm.com>, by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
> 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.
> |> 
> Not from the Jewish perspective.
> 
> From the Jewish perspective, the "OT" God judged
> us for our actions, not our beliefs, and had
> mercy on the righteous of all nations.
> 
> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
of Christianity, see Catholicism.


> casts the unbelievers into an eternal fiery hell ---
> the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> I agree that these are quite different,
> but it doesn't look like mellowing to me.


It's really very simple folks:

In the OT, God teaches us right from wrong.

In the NT, He teaches us why what is right is right,
                     and why what is wrong is wrong.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:05:28 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>In <32628@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>>A person has a right to refuse
>>to have their bodies used for purposes to which they do not consent.

>Where does this principle come from?  

I suspect that it's fairly universal.

>Did anyone assert it before the
>modern debate over abortion began in the 1960s?  

This does seem rather a silly question.  I could give you quite a few
examples....

There were rape laws before the 1960s.

The Vietnam "police action" was not the first armed conflict to which
folk objected.  There was quite a large US anti-draft movement in both
WWI and WWII.

>Why should anyone accept it?

Now I'm confused, the answer seems quite basic here.  Ummm, life,
liberty, pursuit of happiness, all that?  Perhaps I am unable to form
a coherent supporting argument here because it seems so trivially
obvious to me.  (Doubtless, Amnesty International could do a better
job than I in explaining it.)  So, let's try approaching this from
a different direction.  Can you make an argument as to why anyone
should accept that a person DOES NOT have a right to refuse
to have their bodies used for purposes to which they do not consent?

>On the issue of whether it is in fact accepted as a fundamental legal
>principle in the United States, I believe that courts have upheld
>compulsory vaccination and compulsory taking of blood samples and the
>like for evidence in criminal cases.

I would be quite surprised to hear of compulsory vaccination being
upheld.  (Unless this is related to being drafted into military service,
which is a whole other violation.)  My impression is that vaccination
is required to attend public school, which is NOT required.  (At least,
I know of places in the US where it is not required.)  I would be
interested in hearing of compulsory blood samples, as it is my impression
that that was voluntary (generally, the suspect consents to prove _innocence_,
and I recall a capital case where it was repeatedly pointed out that the
convicted man claiming innocence had repeatedly refused to undergo DNA
testing).

>Jim Kalb

                    -rocker
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 17:38:08 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: con't:The Silent Holocaust

In article <Nov.20.16.43.25.1992.29037@andromeda.rutgers.edu>,
hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) says:

>The majority of abortions are a result of convienence!

I somehow doubt that making a decision to have-or not have,for that matter-an
abortion is a bit more than a matter of "convenience",but I'm not suprised
that you would start off a post with a blatant assertion like this.

> Rape and incest are
>horribly wrong.

Yes,they are. On this,we're totally in agreement. But....

> But it is still a human life growing inside the womb.

....which was put there by an act which was neither voluntary or indicative of
any emotional quality except hate and/or psychological illness. Corresponding-
ly,am I supposed to let some psycho wielding a machete cut my head off because
he's "a human life gone only slightly amok"? I may not have the legal right to
kill him save for self-defense,but if it comes to that,I'm all for preserving
_my_ life over his.

> Like
>I said before, there are no perfect solutions and this is not a perfect
>society.

Exactly. So why-as an apparent RTLer-do you then turn around and try to
hold people to your own perfectionist standards when you yourself admit that
"this is not a perfect society"?

> If it were, there would be no rapists and there would be no child
>molesters.  And I would not have to be voicing these opinions.

The two things are quite unconnected,thank you very much.

>     I call it a silent holocaust because that is what is it.

Correction: you call it that because that's what you _perceive_ it to be,
nothing more,nothing less. Your own personal ideological map is not the
territory,unfortunately,and I can't buy into the illusion that it is.

> A holocaust
>is a mass killing of a group of people.

Which reminds me....are you going to haul out the hoary RTL cliche that pro-
choicers are the moral equivalent of Nazis? I'm sure that the Jewish community
would love to debate the tactic...

> And the people who are being murdered
>cannot voice their pain.

So it's okay to take away the rights of rape and incest victims (as well as
those whose lives are threatened by childbirth,to those who wish to abort due
to the potential for giving birth to an child which could be unviable _after_
birth,etc.) merely because of your perfectionist standards of behavior,eh?

You really are attempting to paint this imperfect world with a broad brush,
aren't you?

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 00:39:06 GMT


In article <Bxvwop.M1x@access.digex.com>, roger@access.digex.com writes:
|cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes: 
|>In article <1992Nov14.151657.8820@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
|>|In <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com|cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
|>|>When nobody else is involved, nobody else has the right to
|>|>interfere.
|>|If my greatest joy in life is torturing cats to death, does anyone
|>|else have the right to interfere?
|>Are you destroying someone else's property?

|The local newspaper just had an item a few days ago concerning a man 
|who was convicted of beating his (underline his)  puppy to death.  Do you 
|think the state had a moral right to interfere with this man's puppy 
|beating, CJ?

The phrase "moral right" seems a non-sequitur to me.  (I would
say, in fact, that the state shouldn't ever use "moral rights"
as justication for laws.  The state has no business making any
statements about "morality".) The state might well decide that
animals are worth protecting for non-"moral" reasons.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It appeared to her that he did not excel in giving those clearer
insights, in making those things plain which he had before made
ambiguous."  -- Jane Austen
From: kolassa@genesee.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Please move your personal attacks elsewhere; was Re: Roe v. Wade ...
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:59:28 GMT
Reply-To: kolassa@genesee.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester Biostatistics.

I suggest that the personal attacks by <name deleted. on his abortion opponents
be kept out of soc.men, and in talk.abortion where they belong.  If I wanted
to read talk.abortion I'd subscribe to it.  Unfounded personal attacks ared all
the more repugnant when posted to groups where the general readers won't have
seen the background.
-- 
Thanks, John Kolassa, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh