HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:15:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.171529.5616@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>So, there was no prior consent to sex?  The man was raped?  The law looks
>upon consenual sex as being the consent to being a parent.

>There's always a chance of error in the contrecetives
>and they must take this risk into consideration.

This sounds remarkably like a justification for outlawing abortion.

Why should the unchosen penalty for contraceptive failure apply
only to the man?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:49:14 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <7224@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>I have been so totally confused with this thread...

>My question is how much abstinence costs with respect to other methods
>of birth control? You don't need a doctor's prescription, you don't need
>to spend money, or you don't need to learn how to put things in or on to
>prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence is the only means I know where
>people that practice abstinence don't get an unplanned pregnancy.

	Why don't you return to the Stone Age? And live like the
Native Americans used to? It was as low-tech as you could possibly
want.

	And there is a _very_ simple method of birth control, one that
requires only a knife. One cut, and it's done, and you don't ever have
to worry about causing pregnancy, ever again. In pets, it is called
"neutering", and it is recommended in the Bible (Matthew 5:20-21,
19:12).
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:29:48 GMT


In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
  
>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
 
No there is not.  At least not legislative. 
Will you drop this agenda now?
 
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:54:37 GMT

In <1992Nov07.074234.103493@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
   (Larry Margolis) writes: >
In <1992Nov2.195802.1194@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <roig6q0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com
   (C.J.  Silverio) writes: >>>

>>>How does marijuana use create "social/personal difficulties"?
>
>>The same way that any drug which impairs awareness and
>>functionality.
>
>In other words, it doesn't, in normal social/recreational use?

Oh?  Response time is unaffected?  Cognition is unimpaired?  Mood
is unchanged?  

>>Do some "weekend pot smokers" have families that are hurt
>>by their drug use?
>
>Some?  Probably.  Any significant number?  Probably not.

Well, we know for sure that a lot of weekend beer drinkers
have families that are hurt by their drug use, so I wouldn't 
be surprise if the relative percentages were similar.

[...]

>And why do you assume the parents are stoned all weekend?  

I don't.  Nor did I mean to imply that.

>Perhaps 
>they wait until the kids are asleep before breaking out the joint.  
>Or the martini shaker.  Or the whips and chains.

Only problem is, what if little Bobby wakes up with a raging
fever and Mommy and Daddy are blissfully catatonic?  They might
as well not be home.

>>Children and/or spouses aren't hurt by recreational substance
>>use?
>
>Generally speaking, no.

I've seen many who were/are.

>>I think I've already answered this once.  Alcohol is too firmly
>>entrenched in our culture.  "Calling" for its prohibition is,
>>imo, quite futile.  But there is no double standard here.  I
>>am well aware that alcohol is potentially far more dangerous
>>than any number of illegal drugs.  Since, however, it is highly
>>unlikely to be subject to prohibition again, I think it makes
>>sense not to offer a panacea of legal substances - the problems
>>caused by alcohol are quite sufficient for any one culture.
>
>But perhaps if the safer drugs were more readily available, we 
>wouldn't have quite as many problems as we do when only the more 
>dangerous drugs are available.

Good argument.  It sounds logical, but I think it's hard to predict
the consequences.  Know of any history to support your contention?

>>>I see the social/interpersonal fallout created by such problems
>>>(specifically, drug abuse) on a regular basis.  You apparently
>>>do not.  Perhaps someday you will have an opportunity to re-
>>>evaluate your position.
>
>>>What social/interpersonal fallout?
>
>>Do you think it's non-existent?
>
>I've seen it from drug *abuse*, but the topic was recreational *use*.

I've seen it from both types of users; it simply becomes more 
pronounced among those who use more frequently (and/or in greater
quantities).

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49160 soc.men:19789 alt.dads-rights:2688
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:29:05 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <By4FI2.2vr@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Nov21.234238.28627@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.185550.25534@fys.ruu.nl>
>>johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
>>
>>> Ulrich, Laurel.
>>>     A midwife's tale : the life of Martha Ballard, based on her diary,
>>>   1785-1812 / Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.  1st ed.  New York : Knopf : Distributed
>>>   by Random House, 1990.
>>
>>>The book is based on a very detailed diary kept by Martha Ballard. The
>>>author describes how M. Ballard used to ask the mothers of illegitimate
>>>children who the father was during childbirth, as that way she was more
>>>assured of getting an honest answer!
> 
>> ... And that sometimes/a lot of the time
>>the mother took advantage of this by naming someone who was
>>financially able to support her and her child.
>>
>>Of course, that's a very low brand of evidence....  But it does have a
>>certain plausibility to it, doesn't it?
> 
> And a certain timeliness, too.  ;-)
> 
> Don

Well, as someone who has given birth to two children, I can see the logic
behind the questioning during labor.  It's not a time when you have the
strength or ability to easily come up with a lie.  I was able to answer
questions in one word sentencesand had a very low tolerance for being
'fussed with' by anyone.  I do remember that a ham-handed intern came in
and examined me during my first labor.  He was extremely rough and I 
threatened to kick him in the balls if he touched me again.  All manners
and courtesy go out the window when you are giving birth!

Sue

> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:53:11 GMT


In <1992Nov07.073010.101799@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
   (Larry Margolis) writes: >
In <1992Nov2.195513.1120@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Oct31.183332.4838@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >>>

>>>You seem to fail to understand that the reason that cocaine is
>>>expensive is because it is illegal. If one were able to get
>>>cocaine at low prices, this sort of thing would not happen. You'd
>>>just have people taking lots of cocaine. That doesn't concern me,
>>>really.
>
>>It wouldn't have mattered if it were *free*, Eric.  This guy has
>>two daughters who watch as he systematically destroys his life,
>>his marriage, and his relationship with them.  He cannot keep
>>a job, so he stays home and "watches" his two-year old while
>>nearly catatonic.  The divorce is pending, btw.
>
>Then his problem is addiction, not drug use.  

Not according to him.  He thinks his problem is stress.

>I know people who've done the
>same thing due to addiction to motorcycles, computers, ...

Me too.  The difference in those situations is that the
individual *can* be available to those around him/her if
warranted.  

>>Scientific investigation, as I'm sure you'll agree, has a few
>>redeeming qualities for the improvement of our civilization.  I
>>simply can't think of any for recreational drug use.
>
>Why does it have to have "redeeming qualities for the improvement 
>of our civilization"?  *Most* recreational activities don't.

Um, I wasn't the one who decided to compare drug use to science.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?? ? ? ??  ?
From: lynn@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:42:34 -0600
Organization: Mankato State University

If anyone out there could help me, I would greatly appreciate it.  I have
an informal study to perform in my Stats class.  I have to ask a very
basic question which I only need a 1 word answer.

Your names will not be kept.  I am only concerned with numbers here.

Any answers can be sent to:

lynn@vax1.mankato.msus.edu



Question:  Do you consider yourself:

A:  Pro-Choice
B:  Pro-Life


Thank you all in advance for participating in this little assignment.

Let me remind you that your usernames will not be used for anything in this
assignment.  I only the # of people in each category.

Thank you.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Garvin refuted
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:07:24 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <nyikos.722267650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> [.. Jeff Greenfield's post ..]

>> BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
>> attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
>> things she has written.

>Of course she does endorse Jeff Greenfield's bogus arguments.

Trying to control women again, Dougie?

Or are you just trying to harass Susan off the net?

>Doug Holtsinger

                     -rocker
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 19 Nov 1992 16:06:32 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov19.171412.19686@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <1eds3tINNl6d@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov17.215527.23123@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

,>,People should be responsible for their sexual activity, as they are
,>,for their other activity.  That responsibility includes the
,>,responsibility to foster and support rather than destroy the life that
,>,results from sexual activity.  

>>Why?

,The life is a forseeable (even if not probable) consequence of the
,activity, life is valuable, and destroying life is bad.

Why?

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:29:39 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov23.161206.2485@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <92325.222521ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
> >
> >My, my, I wonder if it is insecurity when some women
> >dismiss strong women as doing the "dirty work" of some
> >man or as motivated by hero worship.
> 
> Depends on whether the claims are true or not, surely.

I'm surprised, Darcy.

I've never known you to be terribly concerned about the truth of falsity of
claims.  At least not of the ones _you_ make.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48687 soc.men:19616 soc.women:19974 alt.politics.clinton:17500 alt.politics.bush:13958
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:54:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov12.213408.3653@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
>> provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
>> on-demand?  I've provided sources from the Alan Guttmacher
>> Institute, an ACLU attorney who argued in PP v. Casey,
>> a respected Georgetown University law professor, and
>> an article written in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties
>> Law Review.  Not one person has refuted any of these sources.

> There were about a half-dozen refutations of your sources last summer, Doug.
> J. Greenfield in particular showed how the meaning of the texts you quoted
> changed completely when restored to their contexts.

I remember Jeff Greenfield as being the only person who attempted to
address my sources.   None of my sources had been taken out of context.
Jeff Greenfield made that accusation because he knew he had lost the
argument, and he was getting desperate.  He couldn't debate me without
slinging dirt. 

> [--RvW excerpt deleted--]

>> Are you telling me that Kathyrn Kolbert, attorney for the ACLU
>> in PP v. Casey, is a liar?

> No, I am telling you that you are a liar.

I'm simply quoting Kathyrn Kolbert, attorney for the ACLU.  You're calling
her a liar. 

>> Is the Alan Guttmacher Institute a pack of liars?

> No, I am telling you that you are a liar.

I'm simply quoting the Alan Guttmacher Institute.  You're calling them
a pack of liars. 

>> Remember, these people support abortion rights, and they say that women
>> can obtain abortions during the third trimester for very broadly defined
>> ``health'' reasons.

> Indeed.  It's been pointed out before that less than 100 abortions are
> performed in the U.S. after the 24th week.  The source of that tidbit of
> information is the Alan Guttmacher Institute. 

There are several thousand abortions performed annually after the 21st week 
of pregnancy (viability starts at around the 22nd to 23rd week).  

> Are they a pack of liars, Doug?

Not if that's the number of reported abortions which they received. 

>Chris Lyman  


Doug Holtsinger
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:07:02 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <lefty-161192125641@lefty.apple.com> 
lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:

>>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>>> abortions?

>> I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 

> I've seen no definition of "good cause", nor any statement of who would be
> making the determination of whether a particular "cause" is "good", or how
> that determination might be made.
> 
> Until I see a better set of definitions here, I would support no
> restrictions on a woman's right to decide to end her own pregnancy.

OK, let's use an example.  Many late second-trimester abortions
are performed because the child is mentally retarded or physically
handicapped.  The purpose of the abortion is to kill the child,
not to "terminate the pregnancy".  Would you oppose restrictions
which would prevent a handicapped child from being purposely killed 
during an abortion?

>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: DODie and censorship
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 22:43:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.064433.28812@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <By3BwE.AzH.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>> It wasn't "my" moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, Keeganoid.
>>>>> I only proposed a moderated newsgroup 
>
>>>> how many readers, other than ms. bartley of course,
>>>> supported your proposal to censor talk.abortion, DODie?
>
>>> I don't recall anyone (not even DOD) proposing that t.a. be censored.
>>> Are you lying again?
>
>> Moderated newsgroups are, by definition, censored.
>
>That's not what the Keeganoid accused me of -- he claimed that
>I wanted to censor this newsgroup, which is clearly a lie.
>I merely proposed a moderated newsgroup which would co-exist
>with talk.abortion. 

You proposed a great many things, Reverend.  I trust my memory a
great deal more than I trust your word, for obvious reasons.  (My
memory sometimes fails, but you always lie.)  You backpedaled
a great deal during that thread.

I do recall that the only people whom you would accept as 
moderators were people who share your belief that there is
no right to abortion.  I wonder why you thought that many
other people would want to participate in a newsgroup with
censors from only one side of the issue.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:51:26 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: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov12.051234.10135@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov05.052628.136644@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <Bx3JFo.948@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:
>>>Hmmmm, so what you're saying is
>>>Conception           Pregnancy           Birth
>>>----------           ---------           -----
>>>Man-------|                             |-------
>>>Woman-------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>If a man helped make the baby, why does he suddenly have no say over it at
>>>all, and then suddenly get back responisibility after 9 months?
>>
>>Well, as the name implies, child-support refers to support for the child,
>>so it clearly can't begin before the child is born.
>
>This statement is incorrect. In Michigan, at least:
>
>       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).

Did you miss the word "born"?  Since it's discussing a child *born* out of
wedlock, clearly the court can't tell the father to pay any pregnancy-related
expenses until *after* the child is born, which is what I said.

>Keep your day job, Larry. A lawyer, you ain't.

Gee, and you are?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:26:04 GMT

In <Nov.19.11.14.25.1992.12839@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:

>I just galnced through this group for the first time, and I sense a lot of
>hostility...You can all beat me down however you want, but it is nothing
>compared to the silent holocaust going on every day in this country.

 holocaust? a comparison with the holocaust would
 imply genocide. taken literally, abortion is exactly
 the opposite. (well, not _exactly_)

 america gives the minority less of a chance for an abortion
 due to a lack of funding. the unborns being destroyed
 are only those that are carried by those with the means
 to do so. (aristocraticide, if what were actually 
 happening were murder.)

> For all those out there who have had an abortion or are considering it:  YOU 
>MADE THAT CHOICE BEFORE YOU GOT PREGNANT!  Ok, excluding that small percentage
>of rape victims who get pregnant.  But for the majority, don't tell me about 
>your freedoms of choice.  You made that choice the moment you had sexual 
>intercourse.  

 ok. some have sex knowing abortion is available and
 thinking they will use it if they get pregnant.
 yet they do get pregnant and end up having the baby.
 now how was that choice made before hand?
 how does it differ from anything else a woman 
 or man thinks they will do before hand?

 i do not think the woman is pre-destined to 
 have an abortion. thus it is a choice made
 when she chooses to have an abortion.
 i doubt anyone wants to get pregnant merely
 to have an excuse for an abortion.

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

 can you define birth?

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

 of course the man should be involved in the 
 decision. sperm control?
 i think you are the one advocating control
 over other people's decisions and bodies.

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

 ah, that is touching. i am happy for you.
 please send us more of your thoughts.

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

 well...i still think you're wrong.
 but i like to think that we all make
 a difference.

>                                        -Keira

 mark.

 "a planet where apes evolved from man?!?!"
	-mst3k
Newsgroups: talk.abortion