HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:53:28 GMT

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <q-vymmg@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>>> What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
>>>> of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
>>>> pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
>>>> fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
>>>> a very short step to compelling abortion.  

>>> You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
>>> abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
>>> in mandating abortion.  

[Dougie deletes the part where I carefully explain WHY the interests
are not different]

>> Whenever you agree that the state has a "compelling interest" in
>> ANYTHING, you have ALREADY given up some of your rights.  It would
>> behoove you to decide in advance whether it's worth the trade.

>In Roe, the Court ruled that the states have a compelling interest
>in protecting maternal health.  Does this compelling interest infringe
>on a woman's rights?  

Yes.

>>                           -rocker

>Doug Holtsinger

                         -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34763 alt.abortion.inequity:3458
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:23:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>>And when she used the Pill, a condom, and two different spermicides, she
>>indicated her unwillingness to conceive.

>And when I wear a parachute and a backup chute when I jump out of an
>airplane, I indicate my HOPE that I will survive.  But there are no
>guarantees, and only an immature idiot would think it unfair if gravity
>got 'im any way.

But if you happen to survive in spite of all this (and some do) you
have the right to be treated at a medical facility, to put you back
together again. Nothing unfair about gravity. See the point of this
furthering of your parallel argument? Just substitute cases and see
how it reads.

>If you aren't willing to suffer the consequences, don't do it.

But then you should not be allowed to receive medical help after being
injured in something that obviously had that inherent risk, yet this
is not forbidden or even under question. So why should a woman, who
has taken all the precautions possible not have an "injury" "treated"?
(In other words, if she so chooses, have an abortion to prevent the
furthering of her injuries.) Or would you make the parachutist whose
chutes failed to open walk/stumble/crawl/grope to the nearest bed, worsening
all his injuries and/or dying of further complications begun by the
initial injuries?

I like these parallel arguments. Even if I have seen them once or twice
before. :)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Sex, Sacrifice and the U.S.A. (Was: Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 14:29:42 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


ec>In article <5013@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
cj>cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

cj>2. A married couple has two children already.  He's just been
cj>   laid off.  She discovers that she's pregnant, even though
cj>   they've been using birth control.  They depend on her
cj>   paycheck, and are barely getting by now.

ec>Then why are they still having sex if there are things in their lives
ec>that obviously have a higher priority?

I was going to first respond and ask you why the hell you thought
they're sex life was any of your damn business.  But then I got to
thinking about your question and thought maybe you really didn't 
understand this couples motivation.  Therefore I figured I'll try
to answer your question from my own personal experience.
 
They would continue to have sex because sex is fun.

Hopefully some day in the future you will have the opportunity to
find this kind if information out on your own.

ec>I also leave the choice to the woman and her partner. However, she can't
ec>just assess her situation once she finds out she's pregnant. If the
ec>bright young 14-year-old in scenario 1 is looking really really forward
ec>to attending college and starting a wonderful career, I would think that
ec>this girl should consider what she must do to fulfill her dreams. If
ec>having a baby while she's a teenager is not part of those dreams, she
ec>should make sure that that does not happen. 

And the only 100% reliable way to ensure this is with the option of abortion.
Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
reliable.

ec>(It's possible that she
ec>could have the baby, have her family and her boyfriend's family help in
ec>taking care of him/her as she goes to college, too; but I'll admit that
ec>is another option that she can decide.) 
 
Man your too kind.  

ec>A classmate of mine recently had a baby (I assume unplanned) and she is
ec>still taking some of the most difficult classes here. She is still among
ec>the top 5 people in my major in my graduating class. She admits it's not
ec>easy, but she and her husband (pregnancy came before marriage) are
ec>prioritizing their lives.

What your classmate is doing is special.  However, by using the force of
law to make sure every women in the same situation does the exact same 
thing, will remove what makes your friend special.  It will no longer be
her making sacrifices for her child, but will then be the U.S. Government
forcing her to make sacrifices.  Your friend will no longer be the special
person she is for doing what she did, but will only be another woman 
enslaved by the U.S. Government because she is a woman.

ec>Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:16:10 GMT

dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

>>> I missed out on what Mr. Nyikos said, but from this message alone, I
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> cannotcome to the same conclusion that Mr. Nyikos is either a liar
>>> or a misogynist.
[text deleted]

>> How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
>> didn't read his article?

[--deletions by DJD--]

>> You'll have to drop in more often, Dick.  You're amusing.

> Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr. Nyiko's point of view and
> perhaps your folks did not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand his point
> of view conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and ask Mr. Nyiko himself.

Why 'we?'  I read Nyikos' post, Susan read Nyikos' post.  Why don't you have
Nyikos email his post to you so you can catch up?

> If you cannot do this, then who really cares what amuses you?  Let's get
> on with representing the other side correctly and get away from the stupid,
> childish mockery that so thoroughly permeates the flame wars we so often
> see on the net.  People have points of view that should be represented right,
> or else we are not dealing with the issues at hand.

Neither Susan or any other pro-choicer should be held responsible when pro-
lifers cannot support their opinions with facts, or knowingly misrepresent
the facts.

[--the rest deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:55:32 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Aug25.191936.5646@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Aug25.174938.36880@watson.ibm.com> Larry writes:
>
>> In  <1992Aug25.125323.13224@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> >
>> >   As Grand Poobah of the He-Man Woman-Hater's Society, I have in fact, been
>> > granted just those powers under our Constitutional Charter.  In the interests
>> > of peace, I have entered into this agreement with well-known bomb-throwing
>> > reactionary, Mark "IRA" Kaufman, to subjugate all women to our will, return
>> > them to the kitchens and washrooms where they belong,
>> 
>> I will fight these efforts with everything in my power, you sexist, fascist,
>> misogynistic scum-sucking pig.
>
>  DIE YOU LIBCONSERACOMMIEPUBLICAN WEENIE!!!
>
>> > and create a harem of sex-slaves to service our every depraved whim.
>> 
>> Umm, but if you win, we're still pals, right?  :-)
>
>  Well, I suppose if you've got a Mastercard, something might be arranged...
>
>:-)
> 
	Hi.  This is God (don't be fooled by my net.address; I'm God so I can
pretend to be anything I want).  I just thought you should both know you're
both scheduled to be terminated by lightning bolts on or before "X-day"
(July 5th, 1998).
	Make whatever preparations seem appropriate.  Or send me all your
money. Now.
>> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
>
>semper fi,
>
>Jammer Jim Miller 
>Texas A&M University '89 and '91
God
Or not.
Or kill me.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:32:59 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <5013@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
inexplicably writes:
> 
> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> 
> %2. A married couple has two children already.  He's just been
> %   laid off.  She discovers that she's pregnant, even though
> %   they've been using birth control.  They depend on her
> %   paycheck, and are barely getting by now.
> 
> Then why are they still having sex if there are things in their lives
> that obviously have a higher priority?

Please don't ask questions like this until you've had sex.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:30:17 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes to chaneyhall
-> Get some help.  I don't know if your hatred of women
-> is due to the fact that your biological mother gave
-> you up for adoption, or due to the abuse you
-> received from your adoptive parents, or because
-> normal women typically reject the advances of
-> immature boys.  I do know that you have emotional
-> problems that can't be solved on the net.

hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it was
prejudicial to suggest that someone seek psychiatric
help when i suggested that DODie do so.

i wonder if he'll think the same here.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:37:47 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.223814.346@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
>Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
>Date: 26 Aug 92 22:38:14 GMT

>Suxie reveals her utter lack of imagination:

>>My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>>"non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>>now is it.

>No wonder you have to play with yourself (I mean your mucus) i the bathroom.

>-- 
>"Republicans understand the importance of the bondage between parent and
>child." - Dan Quayle at a GOP rally in Sept. '88 in Springfield, Illinois

>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)

Theory--: Talking about sex IS sex. (I love it when I enter into my 
irresponsible moments!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.125614.20519@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>First of all, how do you "know" this?
>
>And again, I am interested in learning how you "know" this
>happens in other countries.  Also, is it widespread or are
>we discussing a few, isolated instances?  See, there are
>dishonest plastic surgeons, and there are people who have
>plastic surgery for reasons I would not personally approve,
>but just as your question implies a motive for banning
>abortion based on a poor motivation for having one, it
>likewise suggests a ban on plastic surgery for the same
>reason.  You follow?
>
>Dean Kaflowitz

Well, as far as me "knowing" about this practice, I have read articles
saying about the same things as stated by two followup articles on my
original post.

As far as a motivation for banning abortion, I agree that there are better
ones. Rather, I was adressing the aspect of some groups protesting gender
tests, as a followup article described happening in India. You see, it
seems to me inconsistent to describe abortion as a woman's right and then
complain when it is used to weed out females. I think it's silly for
feminists to say that a woman has complete control over her reproduction
but shouldn't use it to insure she bears only boys (quite an unfeminist
and evil principle). So I wanted to see if anyone out there thought that
way and was able to justify it in a way I so far have not anticipated.

Joel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Doug Holtsinger is not correct
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:38:32 GMT

In <1992Aug25.200802.21254@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>Abortion prior to quickening was completely legal and
>accepted in this country up until the 1870s,

This is false.   See Joseph Dellapenna, "Abortion and the Law: Blackmun's
Distortion of the Historical Record," in: _Abortion and the Constitution_,
Georgetown University Press, 1987.

The title of Dellapenna's paper says it all:

As early as 1851, the Maine Supreme Court noted of a statute: "There is a 
removal of the unsubstantial distinction, that it is no offence to procure
an abortion, before the mother becomes sensible of the motion of 
the child, notwithstanding it is then capable of inheriting an estate;
and immediately afterwards it is a great misdemeanor."
[Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 57 (1851)]

> when the American Medical
>Association led a fierce campaign to make abortion illegal except when
>authorized and performed by a licensed physician.

AND done to save the life of the mother.  In those days, (and, I would argue
today too) only a licensed physician is in a position to judge whether an
abortion really is necessary to save the life of the mother.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:34:17 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.715380785@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
>quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?
>A being, by the way, which would become one of us unless some drastic
>force intervenes.

And, as the old joke has it,
Who's "we", white man?

You would feel quite free to stake a WOMAN's life on it, but funny thing,
your OWN life doesn't fit into the equation.  Pretty cheap rhetoric, Peter.


Adrienne Regard
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: abortifacients
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:41:21 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug24.233115.8091@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.191439.21890@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>>>> = vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>>  = tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>>
>>>This is a false statement.  IUD abortions do not stop beating hearts.
>>>Time to go shopping for a new .sig.
>>
>>I won't listen.  I won't listen.  Stop confusing us with facts.  We want 
>>easy answers, not accuracy.  Next I suppose you'll want to point out that 
>>a fetus might not have a brain, or can't write a diary.  Really, we're 
>>not interested.

>99% of all abortions kill fetuses whose hearts are already beating.

 This statement is not correct.

>It looks like Brian Kauffman and Ren & Stimpy's love child are the losers
>in this matchup. 

 Nor is this one.

                                                               MP
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What are the pros and cons of abortion, *practically speaking*?
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:34:13 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

> The pro-life stance gives civil rights and the right to life to the largest
> set of human beings currently discriminated against - unborn children. 

> At least, before Roe vs. Wade, they were legal persons.
> We intend to restore that status.

This statement is not correct.

Fetuses have _never_ had the same standing as born persons in any social,
legal or religious sense.  Sheeesh.


-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More Bigots! (was Re: Mark Russell...)
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:40:48 GMT
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>>
>>--Teddi
>>"First you get down on your knees
>> Fiddle with your rosaries
>> Bow your head with great respect, and
>> Genuflect!  Genuflect!  Genuflect!"
>>--Tom Lehrer "Vatican Rag"
>
> The last time someone said something this ugly about Jews, it was
>called Anti Semitism. 
>
> But if it's said about Catholics, it's called the American way. 

Steve, might I recommend that you listen to "That Was the Year That Was", by
the aforementioned Tom Lehrer.  It contains some background information
and pretext for the song, and you might discover, were you to listen closely
enough, that the song is a satire, not an attack.

Further, if you can't laugh at yourself--and the song IS funny, no
question--then you aren't likely to be taken seriously by anyone else.
(I also recommend "New Math", from the same album, as an example of
both Lehrer and I not taking ourselves so seriously...I'm studying to
be a high school math teacher, and that song is one of the funniest
things I've heard in quite a while.)

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:36:58 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>> NNyikos

>>> How many abortion clinics have you seen the inside of?  

>> How many abortion clinics have YOU seen the inside of?

> None, and that's part of my point: very few people are allowed to see
> what goes on.  I asked whether Judge Kelly of Wichita, who was so 
> zealous in guarding Tiller's right to carry on business as usual,
> ever got to see the inside of Tiller's clinic.  I asked whether any
> of the federal marshals who so zealously carried out Kelly's orders,
> ever saw an abortion being performed in Tiller's clinic.  I'm still
> waiting for the answers.

Few, if any, of those federal marshals have seen what goes on during
coronary bypass surgery.  Maybe they should, because...

<satirical mode on>

considering how much of their diet consists of donuts and coffee, they
are prime candidates for bypass surgery.

I'm not about to speculate on the diet of Judge Kelly.

<satirical mode off>

I know there are at least three regular contributors to t.a who have
had abortions.  If what goes on inside of an abortion clinic is so scary,
don't you think they'd be warning us away?

In other words, Peter, what is your point?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion-adult/child sex link.
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:20:50 GMT

In article <nyikos.714858926@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <BtJxEw.D6z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu  
writes:
> >Michael Loomis writes:
> >> There followed an article about a gynocologist who was interested in
> >> kiddie porn followed by these statements
> 
> Look at the original article before accepting Loomis's completely 
> misleading description of it.

I did. And like I said, why don't we acknowledge that there are
hypocrites on both sides of this issue, and leave it?
 
> >Here's my proposed response to the statutory rape problem. You can't
> >have an abortion until you can get pregnant (duh!),
> 
> Alas, this is incorrect.  I can give you the name of at least one
> woman who "had an abortion" when not pregnant, and reports of lots more.

Some people may tell you, "please, go ahead, post her name and some  
documentation," but I won't, because perhaps she has had her privacy  
violated enough. My whole point of the post was an attempt to resolve 
the possible problem of statutory rape laws vs. privacy rights for 
minors by putting a physical rather than an arbitrary chronological
basis for them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....