HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
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: Tue, 10 Nov 92 03:49:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.173924.20461@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.024629.20691@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.040523.13980@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>>>Keith Cochran candidly admitted:
>>>
>>>>"...let me
>>>> tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>>>
>>>> 1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>>>
>>>What when she's in a coma?  There was a case a few years back when a
>>>pro-life group went to court to stop a man from having his comatose
>>>wife given a very late abortion (he had some reason to believe it
>>>would bring her out of the coma; she did recover a couple of months
>>>later)....  In that case the judge threw it out of court ruling lack
>>>of standing.  Would you have let him do it?
>>
>>I don't know.  One of the reasons why I refuse to advocate any sort of
>>legislation wrt abortion is that I know I don't know.
>
>You advocate a "legal restriction" on abortion, Cochran. Mind explaining
>to me what you think the difference is between that and "legisation", in
>this context?

Let me put it into small words, Kibbles:

I don't think women should have abortions.

I refuse to write, or allow to be written, any laws which would restict
a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

Got it?

--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:05:47 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov5.142000.29610@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Kudos to Frank's post.  *applause*  That was a good summary of the
>pro-choice position.

Shucks. And I'm new at this too :-)

>I'll admit that recently I had _no_ idea where you were coming from --
>if you were playing devil's advocate or not, and if so, from which
>side.  

Hmm.  This is disturbing - a few people have picked me up wrong since I
started posting again.  I think it's bad that someone who opines that a z/e/f
is a 'person' is automatically assumed by some to be pro-force.  It may say
more about the foundations of other people's views than it says about mine.

Of course - I have been posting on the 'pro-life' side until quite recently.
I changed my mind as a result of reading here - it was the first time in my
life I had ever been exposed to reasoned pro-choice debate (don't laugh, it
happens in t.a. sometimes) and I'm very glad for that.  Maybe you saw my
earlier posts, and that's what confused you?

>But if I understand what you're saying, you simply feel that
>personhood has no bearing on abortion rights, and more and more these
>days I tend to agree with you (but for possibly different reasons; I
>feel that it a fetus is a person then it _should_ not have the right
>to use a woman against her will, and if it's not then it _can_not have
>that right).

I agree with you completely.  I am also trying to impress on you that your
view that a z/e/f is _not_ a person is nowhere near as objective as you (seem
to) think it is.  Nobody's view of personhood is.  But you seem to be prone
to thinking that your view _is_ objective, and you very often appeal to
science to back it up, as if that would make it objective.

I am also a very long way from home, and having a little fun on the net in
the last weeks before I have to return to Ireland, to resume paying off a
sickeningly inflated mortgage,  to vote in a sickeningly misogynistic
referendum on abortion, and we have a general election to look forward to now
also.  Oh, and Christmas :-)

>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun

All the best 
Frank

-- 
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: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: The eternal pessimist
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:32:55 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
# Rather than concentrating, as we have, on the legal status of abortion,
# it seems to me that we should take a step back and look at matters
# pragmatically. If the number of abortion providers continues to
# decline, it will be difficult for women to obtain abortions whether
# or not abortion is legal.
#   Thus, it seems sensible to me that a better focus for our legislative
# and political efforts would be to concentrate on ensuring that RU-486
# be commonly available. This will have several effects:
# 1) Making abortion easier to provide, to some extent combatting the
# slide in provider number.
# 2) Hopefully making it harder to discern where abortions are and
# are not occurring, making it harder to target physicians.
# 3) Widespread public availability of RU-486 will be a difficult
# thing to reverse, seeing as it does have other uses. Thus, even if
# abortion is banned in 1996, it will be much easier to obtain them.
# Consider the difficulty we have in preventing drug use.
# 
# Comments?

RU-486 isn't a good idea after the 8th week of pregnancy.  I think
it's unwise to stop concentrating on the legal status of abortion and
focus entirely on RU-486, though I agree RU-486 isn't receiving enough
attention at the moment.

Furthermore, I fear that when widespread availability of RU-486 is
achieved, there will be an ugly mechanism operating in a lot of
people's minds:  ``you could have used RU-486 -- now it's too late.''


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: helpful Hints For Doodie
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:45:31 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] In article <1qh1+km@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] >>In article <ra_134b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] >>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >>>> This analogy fails because no person is intentionally killed during 
] >>>> a medical procedure, other than abortion.
] 
] >>> This statement is not correct.
] 
] >> Oh sorry, I should have said, ``In my opinion, this analogy fails..''.
] 
] > But then you'd have looked pretty silly, not giving a reason WHY
] > the analogy fails.
] 
] But I did give a reason why the analogy fails, you just
] don't agree with it.

'casue I said so'

has not been a well accepted 'reason' for a long time now.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:13:49 GMT

> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [...] pro-choice really means pro-abortion, because prochoicers
>aren't interested in supporting women who choose to remain pregnant.  

What kind of pseudo-logic is this?  You state a conclusion that doesn't
follow from your unsubstantiated assertion.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:45:23 GMT

In article <BxEyo4.Fn9@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
}	Some time in the past couple of weeks, Brian McBean
}(MCBEANB@BrandonU.CA) posted an article "summarizing" a discussion
}I have had with him over email for the last couple of months, and
}asked for your opinions as to whether my reasoning was based on religion.
}
}	First of all, let me point out that his posting of a discussion
}that took place in private email without my consent (without even my
}knowledge until after the fact) is in clear violation of nettiquette.

Before you get your kidneys in a downpour and your bowels in an uproar
let me point out that posting a summary of email is hardly a "clear 
violation of nettiquette."  You may be a bit unhappy about it, but
it is hardly a violation, much less clearly so.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: misogyny
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:21:53 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1dm48jINNk6p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
(Adrienne Regard) writes: 
>In article <nyikos.720821307@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 
>
>Why, hello, Peter.  I've noticed through the past 14 articles now, that your
>poster appears to be online again.                                     

Amazing how the failures of his poster is so self-serving, isn't it?

>I do notice, however, that so far 14 articles have scrolled past my screen,
>including a response to something I posted a few weeks ago, but still no 
>mention of *YOUR* *MISTAKE* and your accusation of forgery wrt another post.
>Why is that, Peter?

He also misattributed an insult to me and then took that as license to
use it to characterize my position and accuse me of starting the
name-calling.

That's Petie.  Deletia about the rights of rapists:

>>BTW I would not say killing a rapist is violating the rapists rights.  The
>>rapist abrogated those rights in the act of rape. 
>
>Well, *there's* another interesting, non-viable interpretation of the law!
>A rapist has abrogated his right to live by the act of rape, huh?

The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be.

>Peter, when are you going to begin making sense?  Once you get the
>attributions figured out?

Baseless speculation, Adrienne, based on his track record there is no
reason to presume that he will ever get the attributions figured out.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Patrick's halfway down the cliffside dropping @ 200mph !
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:15:47 GMT

In <Bx5BuG.7v8@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <27049@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>In article <168906A64.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patri
>>>ck L. Humphrey) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct30.051915.29072@csus.edu>
>>
>>>>>Remember how you said I fantasize about pro-choicers initiating e-mail
>>>>>with me?
>>
>>>>You still are, with the account you put forth below.
>>
>>>FACT, Patrick:
>>>You just e-mailed me.
>>>Bob DeGuc e-mailed me.
>>>EE Bartley e-mailed me.
>>>Rocker e-mailed me.
>>>Chris Lyman e-mailed me.
>>>Ronald Bense e-mailed me.
>>>Dean Kaflowitz e-mailed me.
>>
>>Well, you left out Gordon Storga, so I guess that means you really do
>>know the difference between those who call themselves pro-choice and
>>those who call themselves pro-abortion. Maybe we won't see a repeat
>>of that assinine sequence.

The spelling is "asinine", and why do you characterize the sequence that
way?  Just because he refused to play the game by your rules and called
someone pro-abortion who did not like to be lableled that way?
And why the use of the word "sequence"?  At first I thought you were
referring to the sequence of short one-line sentences above.

>>>I don't e-mail them first. They e-mailed me first, and fortunately
>>>(regarding most, not all of the above), they aren't anymore.
>>
>>Um, the only thing I e-mailed you were copies of your repetitive post.
>>There were no messages attached. That means you didn't receive e-mail
>>from me, I just forwarded you a copy of *your* writing. E-mail from
>>me would mean that I actually wrote something. As I said before, I do
>>believe you initiated it as there was no reason for me to converse with
>>you anywhere else but publicly.

I don't know about that.  Is this really the standard way "E-mail" is
used?  Or are you making up the rules as you go along?

>>>No, Patrick: YOU said I have FANTASIES about being e-mailed by
>>>pro-choicers. FACT, buddy.
>>
>>I still say that you initiated mine, and as for the others, they have
>>been speaking for themselves, and they are included below. Maybe we're
>>all in your killfile now. :)

Ah, so you sending him one of his own posts was not initiating anything?
These rules are interesting, you'll have to teach me how to play this
game some time. :-)

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47924 alt.abortion.inequity:5099 soc.men:19300
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:51:18 GMT

In article <1draroINN4q7@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>You aren't really interested in the
>outcome of male-choice, you merely want to restrict women.

You are right in *exactly* one sense:

I want to restrict women from restricting men unfairly.


(This is a natural conclusion of wanting to keep all persons from 
restricting others unfairly.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Do AntiAbortionists Play At GOD!
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:01:12 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Nov8.173050.26387@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> ] clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes ...
> ] >Again, I make the point.  will a FETUS become a cow or a horse? 
> ] 
> ] Again, I make the point.  will an EGG become a cow or a horse?  
> 
> Who KNOWS the Future?
> 
> Why not simply accept the Christian Doctrines
> that the UnBorn are Not the Born.

The unborn are not born yet.  I never said they were.  However, they would be
if you abortionists would let them.  Notice I said 'you abortionists'.  I know
you will say "we don't have to be for abortion if we are not against it." 
Well, if you are not for abortion, why do you let it happen?

> 
> That Black is Not White....

Besides, are you a christian?  I know you are not.  If you were you would
realize that true christianity has no doctrine.  We just go by what we see that
God tells us.  There is a difference between Religious people and Christians.

...Ken!
> 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: WHY abortion? started afresh
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:02:46 GMT

9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
>
>What is it, other than the pregnancy itself, that scares women
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>into abortion?

Why do you use the word 'scare'?  I've never heard of a woman being
'scared' into having an abortion, although I suspect it would happen
in the rare case.  More often, though, a woman _decides_ on having an
abortion after a great deal of thought.

>One reason I suggested was shame.
>Were there no shame, would the number of abortions decrease?

What shame?  Shame in having a baby?  I didn't know there _was_ such a
thing in today's society; even an unmarried woman having a baby is
widely considered to be unremarkable these days.

Assuming for the moment that there was such a thing as "post-natal
shame", then I don't think eliminating it would reduce the number of
abortions significantly; most abortions take place because a woman
doesn't want to be _pregnant_.  She could always have given the baby
up for adoption after it was born instead of suffering 'shame'.

>Another I was thinking of (what I wanted someone else to say) was
>the prospect of having to give up a career etc since the mother
>is usually the one who has most of the home duties to attend to.
>
>I ask that if bio-parents were not forced to raise the children,
>then would the number of abortions decrease?

What planet are you living on?  ;-)

Parents are not forced to raise their children!  Parents can very
easily put their children up for adoption.  (At least while the child
is still a baby; I don't know the details about giving up an older
child.)

>However, it is usually
>part of religion that the bio-parents have to raise them and
>so would not be reasonable whilst lunacy still kept 4billion
>people enthralled.

I've never heard of religion advocating this.  I know that
Christianity frowns on abortion, but if it also frowned on adoption,
then I think fewer women would take it seriously.

>Allowing and not-worrying are two totally separate things. Only
>some kind of mental case does not want the number of abortions
>reduced but it still remains her choice.

Agreed.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46663 alt.flame:14450
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Keeganblather says it all (was Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:31:16 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Nov4.154916.5821@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>> I've already demonstrated that 5/8 of Keeganblather, as defined by Darcy,
>>> is Darcyblather.  
>
>> Already demonstrated, eh? I must have missed this "demonstration". Care to
>> repeat it?
>
>Sure, Kebbin.  You quoted 8 non-blank lines from my article about two weeks
>ago and characterized it as "Keeganblather."  Of those lines you quoted,
>one was written by me, two contained article reference numbers, and five
>contained text authored by you.  Hence, the main ingredient in "Keeganblather"
>turns out to be Darcyblather.

No, stale Darcy QUOTES are often the main ingredient (or, as Kellmeyer would
probably put it - "raw material") of Keeganblather. But they don't actually 
get blatherized (TM) until Keegan gets his filthy mitts on them.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 01:50:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.010810.28264@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>since GHWB took it on the chin
>
>Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>impeachment in a year or two.  :-)
>
>
>> and your state referendum on abortion was voted down by almost 2 to 1.
>
>Didja ever notice, Chris, that I have never once posted that I supported
>that referendum?  Ya know why?   It allowed for the killing of the children
>of rape and incest.   _ALOT_ of pro-lifers actually voted against that
>referendum, for precisely that reason.   Since Arizona law _already_ outlaws
>all abortions except to save the life of the mother, what incentive would
>any pro-lifer have had to vote for it?   The day that Roe v Wade falls,
>one or the other of those laws would be reinstated.   So why the hell should
>we have settled for the lesser one?
>
>
>Suzanne Forgach

Geesh, nice save Suzanne ;-) BO, BO P doop 

Caryn

--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:10:30 GMT

In <1992Nov3.075755.5002@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <nyikos.719532786@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>2. The overwhelming majority of gender-selection abortions are directed
>>against females.

I was posting this with a "world" distribution, so I meant worldwide.

>Please cite your sources for this; it was my understanding that this
>is true world-wide (and that indeed aborting females in sex selection
>abortions is common in countries such as India and China) but that the
>(relatively rare) sex selection abortions in the U.S. are distributed
>in a nearly fifty-fifty ratio.

I think not.  There are many Asiatic immigrants in the USA who do
overwhelmingly select for male offspring, and I do not know of any
trends in the opposite direction.  But I don't want to place any bets
on the ratio in the USA.

Your turn: why was it your understanding that this is nearly 50-50 in 
the USA?

Peter Nyikos