HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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, 12 Jan 93 12:27:07 GMT

In article <1icpagINN5ij@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.181125.17922@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>|> In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com 
>|> (John Townsend) writes:
>|> 
>|> }I, for one, have chosen life.
>|> 
>|> Congrats.  It can be a relatively unpopular thing to choose life 
>|> over war -- a lot of people seem to think they can "choose life"
>|> and rationalize away exceptions for war or whatever.
>
>Talk about myopia.  Read me again:
>
>I think it's important to recognize that neither Choice nor Life are sacrosanct.
>We constantly face limits on our choices.  I'd choose to be a billionaire, but
>no one seems to be indulging me that right.  Likewise, should we not build
>things like the Golden Gate Bridge or go to war, if there is a probability that
>human life may be lost in the process of conducting these endeavors?  Of course
>we should, if other conditions are met.  The question is which right should
>hold sway over the other when they conflict.  I, for one, have chosen life.
>
>|> ps  I don't think the Guttmacher survey on abortion had a slot for
>|>     "convienence"?  Was that your own "editorial" comment?
>
>Yep.  The actual slots were:  unwanted change in lifestyle, unwanted responsi-
>bility, can't afford it, relationship problems, not mature enough, and already
>have enough kids.  In other words, inconvenient.

John, I would suggest you drop this line of thought before you become the
next receiptiant of "the forking post".
--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54591 alt.abortion.inequity:6339
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Date: 8 Jan 1993 08:38:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
[tirade deleted]

Why thank you so much, Kevin.  After reading all that Freud I was still so
puzzled by what it is that women really want.  (It's hard to decipher such
astute masculine logic when one's puny brain suffers from estrogen-induced
hysteria.)  But now you've made it all so clear to me.  And just as soon
as I finish my PhD at Caltech I'll go back to being barefoot and pregnant
in the kitchen, which you've just informed me is every woman's true desire.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Greetings
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:21:51 GMT

I've blown my New Year's resolution less than 24 hours after regaining
net access; I might as well go into full rant mode:

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

> I do believe Chris is a religious man ...

--- full rant mode (with Wm. Shatner voice-over) ON ---

Hold on there, newbie-ous one!

If DearOldDoug accuses me of anti-religious bigotry, I must be doing
something anti-religious, right?  For instance, if I point out that 
many people at anti-abortion demonstrations hold up signs that say
"John 3:18" or shout things like "God loves unborn babies," I must
be a bigot.  Or if I quote a Catholic bishop (from memory at the 
moment) who said something like "Why don't we assert our authority
on the issue of war and arms control with the same vigor as we do
on the issue of abortion?", well, it's obvious that I'm out to
tear down the Roman Catholic Church, right?

Just because DearOldDoug supports a conspiracy concocted by the three
evil P's (Pat, Pat, and Phyllis) in league with the

ILoveWhatYouDoForMeWalkmanShintoists

and OpResKrew to deprive American children of basic knowledge of the
sciences and how their bodies work, doesn't mean I'm going to be a
GoodyTwoShoes and murmur "Hey, stop that or I'll call the Care Bears!"

You're going to have to stand up and be counted in the struggle to Save 
Our Republic, so bigots of every race and creed can worship in the
church of their choice!!!

--- full rant mode (with Wm. Shatner voice-over) OFF ---

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:07:45 GMT

In <1993Jan11.143106.2155@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>> Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>> fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

>>> Which is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy.  James Woodyatt
>>> built a pair of syllogisms regarding this not too long ago.  I think
>>> it's time to pull it out of mothballs:

>>> --- begin James Woodyatt's article ---
>>> A.  Assume: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
>>>     subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy, on the grounds that she
>>>     implicitly consented to the possibility of the grave matter of
>>>     pregnancy when she consented to sex, and abortion would
>>>     demonstrate her decision to have sex was careless.
>>> --- end James Woodyatt's article ---

>> Here's the weak link. Compare: It is iresponsible to use lethal force
>> to defend yourself against an attack made on a dark city street, on the
>> grounds that you implicitly consented to the possibiltiy of attack by
>> walking down a dark city street.

>> In fact:
>> A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
>>    walking down dark city streets; but
>> B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
>>    right to self-defense.

>Right on.  James' point is that if you begin with an absurd assumption
>(it is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and subsequently abort a
>resulting pregnancy ... ),your conclusions will be equally absurd, even if
>your reasoning is sound.

And James' conclusion -- that there's no basis in pro-life thought for
a "rape or incest" exception -- certainly WAS absurd.

>Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
>     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action on Custody
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:40:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.223214.399@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I think this is a sort of answer to my "what happens down
>at the courthouse" query in a related thread....
>
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>| >>>>1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
>| >>>>receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.
>
>A beginning, anyway.  What's "presumption"?  I'm familiar
>with legal terms like _prima_facie_ which relate to 
>presumption, but in this case I'm not sure how it would 
>work -- or whether it would solve the problem.  Does it
>mean that custody would be awarded to the father 
>regardless of the apparent welfare of the child, or
>what?  What if not enough fathers sought custody, would
>the courts be required to recruit -- draft -- them?

I was going to find Black's Law Dictionary last night
but I forgot -- so here's an unguaranteed definition:
a presumption essentially means that it is up to the
other person to show why the presumption shouldn't hold.
Some presumptions are called "rebuttable," and that's what
I intended.

In this case, the presumption in favor of the father would
mean that, unless the mother gave reasons that the presumption
should not hold, the presumption would take force.  The presumption
is irrelevant if there's no action -- hence, there's no issue of
"drafting" fathers (unless, perhaps, the mother *didn't* want 
custody, in which case there's no reason to draft her, either).
Any problems with the "apparent welfare of the child" would 
certainly argue against the presumption.  The presumption does 
not override other concerns unilaterally; it acts as a kind of default.

But I never went to law school, so let's take a look at Black's
before etching this into stone...

(It is, at least, an explanation of what I *meant*.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:04:55 GMT

In article <1384@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
>her extremely credible.  

Do you believe her informed claim that she is "pro-choice"?

							- Kevin
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gee, they must like me a lot!
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:14:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Airplane Boy Fan Club, what else?

In article <1993Jan7.001837.28808@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:


   Gee, it seems both Chris Lyman AND PatricKKK Humphrey are spending
   time talking about me. And then they send me their little love notes
   afterwards. 
   This, folks, is only a continuation starting from PatricKKK's
   re-initiation of email between the 2 of us. Remember, as he said, I
   only IMAGINE that pro-choicers are emailing me first. (Which proves
   how much of a liar he really is.) 

Okay, Mr. Wizard, riddle me this:  who sent you the mail first?  In that
mail, whose address was in the "cc:" field?  

No one's sending you anything afterwards -- you're getting it at the same
time as the other recipients, numbnuts.  Since you're whining about it
again, though, I guess this would be as good a time as any to ask a question
that was brought up back in November:  are you still going to "take care" of
me, once and for all?  Seems to me you got a little unscheduled vacation
from the net the last time you made that statement -- and I'm sure Dr.
Radimsky is still interested in seeing that you're using University
resources for University purposes...

(Being called a liar by you -- it is truly to laugh...)

[Mail between Chris and I, with Steve's stupid "cc: chaneysa@is.rice.edu",
deleted -- he obviously didn't learn anything from the last time]

--PLH, who sticks to one userid (and personality) at a time, thank you...
--
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 17:08:24 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. 

Uh.  So the circumstances of the conception itself create the 'right to life',
eh?   Seems pretty weird to me.  

I'll bet it you took a look, via sonogram, or laser camera, or even by 
viewing the unfortunate remains of two separate abortions, that you 
couldn't tell which was a fetus with a 'right to life' and which was
conceived WITHOUT the woman's choice and therefore...somehow....didn't
have a 'right to life'.

How you gonna tell?

>(The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)


why not?  Seems to me you can choose your economic or career security
over the right of someone else to have your kidneys for transplant.
What's the essential difference?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: What is Mark Cochran's profession?
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:36:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.002657.7070@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I'm curious to find out what Mark Cochran's profession is, 
>or his intended profession.  

Guess you'll just have to stew in your own juices then, won't you
DODie?

>He jumps to the defense of abortion doctors
>who have been convicted of felonies, 
Felonies totally unrelated to their medical practices DODie, butyou
knew that already.

>and he spews a lot of
>garbage about how wonderful the abortion profession is.  
Care to show where I've ever said that abortions in any form were
"wonderful"? You can't, because I haven't. I've said that abortion is
an option that should not be removed. I've also said several times
that I think the real solution is to remove the *need* for abortion.
But you knew that too.

>He
>doesn't seem to be aware of the field of medical ethics,
>given his past statements on organ transplantation.  
You mean when you attempted to prove a "strong ethical stance" wrt
transplants by quoting articles which said "this particular scenario
is more hassle then it's worth"?

>So,
>don't be afraid Cochran, tell us your desired profession.
>

I'll tell you the same thing I told PHoney. You prove a right to know,
and I'll post it. To prove the right to know, you'll need to post your
SAT and GRE scores, as well as a note from your mother.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:48:58 GMT

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>Perhaps this cloud has a silver lining.  Maybe now we'll realize that
>our arguments about the *legality* of abortion are a waste of time,
>and our attempts to change the law are a failure.  Then, perhaps,
>we can turn our attention to more important goals, including an
>emphasis on the *morality* of abortion, and on encouraging people
>to make the right choices both before and after pregnancy.

I agree with this.  Complete information about abortion and childbirth
should be available to anyone who wishes it, and it should be made easy
to obtain.  Nothing should be held back - relative complication rates,
pain involved, procedures.  I also support your right to publish books,
pamphlets, take out ads in national magazines, etc. that detail WHY
you believe abortion is wrong or immoral - so long as I am allowed the
same privilege.  (Though this seems unlikely in light of the politicization
of abortion - I can cite instances where pro-choice ads were refused
by the media.)

In addition, though I'm sure you agree with me on this, we MUST continue
research on contraceptives until we are able to produce a "perfect"
contraceptive (requires no action to use, does not interfere with
intercourse, has no failure rate, etc.), as well as doing a better job
in educating children about what _really_ makes babies.

I'd be happy with a world in which it took as much effort to
_conceive_ children as it currently does to _avoid_ conceiving
children.  (Not much, but enough to ensure that people only made
babies when they actually had the intent to do so)

>Steve Matheson   

                 -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: The same blithe, creepy arguments fester again...
Originator: jjprice@c00076-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:39:12 GMT


In article <5964@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>, tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan7.230813.4253@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>No ofense here...but you were doing so well...when is murder "right"
|>>unless it is to protect yourself from bodily harm.
|>Yup.  That's why abortion is legal.
|>
|>>(ie. A severe risk
|>>to the mothers life and well being...please note severe I am not talking
|>>about the normal wear and tear of a pregnacy I am talking life threatening
|>>or handicaping situation here.) 
|>Oh, right... listen, next time you're being raped by some big ole boy
|>ramming a nightstick up your butt, don't even *think* of killing that living,
|>sentient human being; after all, he *promised* he wouldn't kill you, and
|>it would be *immoral* for you to kill him for the "normal wear and tear" of
|>being raped... what's a little discomfort compared to a LIFE?
Getting pregnant is legal...raping is not...make any sense?Neither do you.

|>>So now that we can kill anyone that uses something of another persons w/o
|>>their permission we may kill them...I think I'll go out and kill all the
|>>welfare recipients because they are using my money because I don't want
|>>them to...
|>Thanks again for the insulting comparison of the pain and sweat of pregnancy
|>and birth to paying one's taxes.  How convenient that you'll never have to
|>pass the equivalent of a bowling ball through a slit in your scrotum.
and thanks for devaluing life by comparing a baby to a hunk of tissue you
can though out the window when you feel like it because you didn't want
to pay your taxes.

|>And I mean that in the best *possible* way.

|>----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
I only made thru 10years.

-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:24:53 GMT

In article <1ijeitINNr6g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>[tirade deleted]
>
>Why thank you so much, Kevin.  After reading all that Freud I was still so
>puzzled by what it is that women really want.  (It's hard to decipher such
>astute masculine logic when one's puny brain suffers from estrogen-induced
>hysteria.)  But now you've made it all so clear to me.  And just as soon
>as I finish my PhD at Caltech I'll go back to being barefoot and pregnant
>in the kitchen, which you've just informed me is every woman's true desire.

I'm surprised.  I have my PhD from Harvard already, and I *love*
being barefoot and rearing children, in and out of the kitchen.
It's much more fun than work.  But I guess since I can't be pregnant, 
I can't really understand why it wouldn't be your true desire...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54082 soc.men:22117 alt.dads-rights:3137
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 4 Jan 1993 10:52:14 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan4.011959.17538@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...

>>(2.) when you find your partner is pregnant, beg, plead, and hope
>>she will get an abortion.  Offer to pay for it.  This is the option the
>>goons of male-choice seem to think is a logical point of blackmail.
>
>I don't consider this as "blackmail".  And I resent being called a "goon".
>Do I call *you* a "goon"?

Hey,

You tell us.  WHY don't you consider it blackmail to barter away a woman's
right to her bodily autonomy?

We'll then be able to decide, afresh, whether you are a goon or not.

No, it's quite true, you don't call me a goon.  Perhaps because I haven't
made goon-ish statements.


>>due to the CHILD, not to the mother.  But, I suppose the myth of the nasty
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is a clever diversion, but unless there is some mechanism in place to
>ensure that EVERY DOLLAR is accounted for, and is legitimately spent on
>a child's NECESSITIES (and I don't count ponies as "necessities," either),
>then the transfer IS essentially to the *mother*.

Excuse me, but in what way is the underpinnings of the United States law
a "diversion"?

We don't require accounting of parental spending in any other situation,
bub.  It's considered PERSONAL, and not a matter for governmental intru-
sion.

Sometimes I think that these kinds of dumb arguments must be coming from
civil servants.  Who else would want to build more expensive buorocracies?
(Yeah, I know I didn't spell it right.)


>>I even know some MEN who are puzzled by your lack of understanding that
>>this kind of legal change would be a step AWAY from them gaining full
>>father's rights.
>Oh, please, it is NOT!

Oh?  It's "NOT"?  Why not?  How not?  Are you actually claiming that the
severability of such a relationship unilaterally by one parent wouldn't
be used as a precident in some case later, of some man who wanted out from
under the support costs of his 'wanted' children?  How do you know this?

>>There are plenty of men on this planet who would prefer
>>to strengthen their bonds to their children, not weaken them.

>I don't consider weakening bonds with UNWANTED children, to have ANYTHING
>to do with *wanted* children.  You have yet to show why you are not just
>comparing apples and oranges, Adrienne.


Well, Will, we all are now aware that *you* don't consider it such.  However,
some people *do* consider that the one may have ramifications upon the other.
That's probably because some of us know a fair number of parents....

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:17:31 GMT

Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:

>I find it funny, and as a potential father in the future, sad that several
>pro choice people jumped on Edward Simond's back when he said that a woman
>got HERSELF pregnant, yet turn around and vehemently state that it is the
>woman's natural right to have an abortion.  C J even went so far as to
>claim nobody was involved but the mother and her doctor.  The prevailing
>attitude seems to be that the father DOES have responsibility for the
>pregnancy, DOES have responsibility for supporting the child, but DOESN'T
>have any say in the matter of whether that pregnancy is continued or not.

Well, of course.  The father doesn't have anything to do with *continuing*
the pregnancy, but he has a pretty big part in *starting* it.  When you
think about it, is doesn't sound quite so inconsistent.

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion