HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:17:45 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>> You're half-right; at this point, it's vital (no pun intended) to
>>> ask whether the z/e/f has the right to life. New thread, anyone?

>> Have already started that in this thread. I have stated that no such
>> right exists. Why don't you prove there is in one short post?

>> :)

> Glad to see you concede that the "it's my womb, I can kill ANYONE I find
> in there for ANY reason" argument is tommyrot.

Sorry to butt in, Mark, but Ron in no way conceded any pro-choice argument.
You did much the same with James Woodyatt's syllogisms; stating that James'
conclusions about the rape/incest exception were absurd, even though James
never mentioned rape or incest.

> A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
> individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right
> to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
> hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact 
> with the above definition only by expanding that definition of 
> humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
> for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential --
> and so do z/e/f's.

So you hold that that which could be, is.

Certain _radical_ feminists once held that since some men rape, all men are
potential rapists.  By your logic, _all_ men are rapists.

Similarly, since murder can be performed with heavy, blunt instruments,
all heavy, blunt instruments are potential murder weapons.  By your logic,
_all_ heavy, blunt instruments _are_ murder weapons.

> Fire away!

Ka-boom!

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:39:52 GMT

Right now I'm watching C-SPAN coverage of a protest against Homosexuals and
Gay Rights organized by Operation Rescue. 

OR ProLife? My ass it is!

If you ever needed proof that Operation Rescue is a fascist, anti-Choice group,
you've got it.

Do not tolerate injustice.

Lost Boy

**************************************************************
* "If you love Terry Randal so much why don't you **** him?" *
*			-Mike Smith		             *
**************************************************************	
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: A brief apology and retraction...
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:30:45 GMT


I've got to say this publically, in light of what I said before.  After
having a very rational, well though out series of email conversations with
Peter Nyikos, I have to say he can be rational and logical.

He has also covered quite a bit of the material that I accused him of
avoiding and which was partially the reason for me calling him a coward.

I want to apologize for that crack, and retract it, based on the private
email conversation I had with Peter.

This is not to say I'm going to stop challenging him, just hoping that he
can be as lucid and rational in his postings as he has been in email.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:32:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>|>In article <1993Jan4.190129.13383@bsu-ucs> 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>|>
>|>   How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?
>|>
>|>Not me -- I already *have* a life, thankyouverymuch...
>|>
>|>--PLH, I see enough of *those* yahoos while I'm defending clinics, anyway
>
>You are so noble Sir Patrick .. You defend clinics against those that wish
>to take a away women's choices...I commend you and here by Knight you Sir
>Pat. Ever thought that these "Yahoo's" are just defending life..Goosh so
>that means you are anti-life
  
Yeah, right. I saw Operation Rescue harass the Hell out of homosexuals
the other night.  I also saw the rescuers go after a woman who was
delivering the doctor's lunch. It occurs to me that these resuers are
defending their own agenda, and in the meantime causing severe property damage
and in many cases threatening the lives of others. Gee, how fucking noble
of you, Mr. Pro-Lifer sir.

>..You are not as noble as I thought..I here
>by demote you to a peasant of cannon foder quality you may charge the
>enemy line anytime you are ready just watch out for the archers and
>cannons..

Hey, I've got no problem with that. Enough of you Pro-Lifers out there
have threatened to kill me as it is, both through Email and on the streets
when I'm defending clinics.

>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.....

Spoken like a man with a true respect for life.

>-Jeffrey Price

Lost Boy

***************************************************************************
* "Pro-Life, Pro-War, Pro-Death Penalty Fascists from Hell for President" *
*				-Sign from a Milwaukee clinic defense     *
***************************************************************************



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
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.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:09:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.202657.2066@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>> 
>> You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
>> ultimate in dignity, 
>
>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".
>
As opposed to, say delivery? Lets see how well it compares...
Stripped and strapped on your back to a table.
So far pretty identical...
Do you know what has replaced "forceps" in modern hospitals Suzzie?
A metal suction tube shoved up your vagina.
Sounds like an identical situation to the one you're claiming is
somehow better...
Except that, if you deliver, you're also stuck raising the kid.
And a term delivery is *much* harder then an abortion at the stage in
which a suction abortion would be performed.

>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
>
>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.
>
Have you had a psychiatric evaluation lately Suzzie? It really might
be a good idea...

--
                  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: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Simplistic analogies and hot sex!!!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:25:51 GMT

In article <markp.726854038@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>In <1993Jan12.024642.23403@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>David Aaron Tepper) writes:
[deletia]
>>Nuh-uh. Sex=some or all of the following, depending on the mindset
>>of the participants: touching, cuddling, sexy underwear, moaning,
>>licking, body-butter,
>I've been using "=" as loosely as everyone else in t.a .
>Since there's no "includes as a subset" symbol on my keyboard, the
>statement will have to read
>Sex = possibility of pregnancy, among other things
>>million and one other things of which
>>"possibility of pregnancy" may or may not be part of the plans.
>If you step out a tenth-story window, being splattered on the pavement
>"may or may not be part of the plans" -- but it will happen.

It will unless there's a net to save you. Which, by your analogy, you
would outlaw.

>>But to humor you, I'll add the following tidbit:
>>Use of contraceptive = Actively expressed desire not to procreate.
>>Simple enough for ya?
>Purchase of a lottery ticket = actively expressed desire for megabucks
>Where's my check?

Definitely _not_ in the mail! But many contraceptives, used properly,
have such a low rate of failure that we can assume the woman doesn't
want to gamble on getting pregnant--she just doesn't want to get
pregnant. Tell me what lottery succeeds 99% of the time, and you may
have a workable analogy.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: James Keegan's morality
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:28:02 GMT

We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
lifers. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: It's...back.
	<1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com>
	<markp.726528552@spider.wri.com> <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu>
	<markp.726677398@spider.wri.com>
	<PATRICK.93Jan10095527@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<markp.726771195@joplin.wri.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:43:09 GMT

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:53:15 GMT, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) said:

>In <PATRICK.93Jan10095527@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>>On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:49:58 GMT, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) said:

>>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>>pointless or self-contradictory?

>>It's almost as pointless as those who *do* believe in absolute ethics trying
>>to impose them upon those who don't...

>By definition, absolute ethics apply to everyone. (You seem to
>think, "Don't impose your ethics on others" applies to everyone -- you
>coercive fascist, you!)

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, Mark -- you're taking shots in the
dark, and missing, as is to be expected.  It'd be nice if everyone else
*would* refrain from imposing their morality on others -- but why should it
happen?  Everyone has their own set, which may or may not coincide with
someone else's.  Me, I don't impose my morals on anyone -- until someone
tries to force theirs on me, at which point I'll defend myself and mine.
If you think I'm a crusader, you are sadly mistaken.

>>--PLH, never miss a straight line
>(or think in a straight line :-) )

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- at least I can think in something more than binary
terms...

--PLH, calling Dr. Daystrom...

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:53:01 GMT

From article by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>
> Well then, lets look at this case...
> From the one anencephalic baby, we could have harvested 1 heart, 2
> lungs, 2 kidneys, a liver suitable for ressection to provide
> transplants for as many as 3 others, bone marrow, and 2 corneas.
> Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
> heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. Bone marrow had
> not been matched yet. Neither had corneas, but they are relatively
> easy to match.
> 
> Since people who call themselves Pro-Life took steps to halt any organ
> donations until after brain death, this is the outcome:
> The recipients for the heart, both lungs, 1 kidney and 1 liver section
> are now dead. The other kidney, liver, and bone marrow recipients are
> still waiting and hoping. The corneas were eventually used.


Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.
Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS alone, and she
had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who that like to talk big
about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies, this case shows them
up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.


S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:23:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.151835.18395@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.024809.22609@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>>in a way that women aren't?   
>
>I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
>between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
>custodial parents.
>
>If you do know of one, please tell me.  

MCLA, $ 722.711 et seq.

Examples:

(722.711, Sec. 1(c)) (definitions) 

	When the word 'mother' is used in this act it shall refer to the 
	mother of a child so born out of wedlock
	^^^^^^

(722.712, Sec. 2(a)) (liability of parents)

	... The father is liable to pay such expenses in connection with her
                ^^^^^^
	pregnancy as the court in its discretion may deem proper. 

(722.713, Sec. 3) (father's agreement for support and education)

	An agreement or compromise made by the mother or child or by some
 					       ^^^^^^
	authorized person on their behalf with the father concerning the
						   ^^^^^^
	support and education of the child shall be binding upon the mother
 								     ^^^^^^
	and child only when the court having jurisdiction ...

As a matter of fact, Ted, I'm pretty sure there is NO mention of 
custodianship in the entire Act. Everything is expressed in terms of
"mother" and "father". Then again, I don't have the entire Act at my
fingertips; just the particularly odious sections :-(. It's also 
possible that maybe there's an update to the language in the "pocket
parts", too, but I'm pretty sure I checked that thoroughly.

>As such, there's no
>sex-discrimination claim, and indeed courts have consistently
>refused to consider equal protection arguments in this context
>valid.

You wouldn't happen to have cites for any of those refusals, would you?

								- Kevin

P.S. I just noticed that the language in $ 722.713, Sec. 3 restricts the
     binding power of agreements or compromises upon the "mother AND child".
     If a so-called "pre-sex" contract was written in such a way as to only 
     bind the mother, but NOT the child (which is what I've been arguing for 
     all along in the misc.legal thread), wouldn't it technically fall 
     outside the scope of the statute?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: The Lords of Page 530A of the Houston Key Map
	<1993Jan5.124438.25101@hemlock.cray.com>
	<1993Jan6.052343.14002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1993Jan13.015914.6717@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:53:48 GMT

On Wed, 13 Jan 93 01:59:14 GMT, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) said:

>In article <1993Jan6.052343.14002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.124438.25101@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan05.065315.27243@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>
>>>>Wimmin is sweet.  You ain't.  QED
>>>
>>>Hmmmmm.  First I'm bitter, now I'm sweet.
>>>
>>>muriel
>>>off to find a copy of _The Edible Woman_.
>>>
>>Sweet and sour Muriel...
>>Sounds liek an oriental dish. I wonder if I can get some at the local
>>Chinese take-out place? :)

>Wouldn't you rather "eat in"? :]

You're just saying that because you two are only a six-hour drive away from
her.  Feh.  :-)

--PLH, 18 hours away down I-40, US 287, and I-45.  Bah.

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:46:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.221548.28016@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

> Here it is!  I found it!  James Keegan wrote a post called "anti-
> choice morality" based (in part) on this atrocity.  He suggested
> that the failure of pro-life folks to condemn Suzanne's behavior
> was evidence for some sort of moral compromise.  Now I see why.
>
> Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
> I think an apology is in order.

Allow me to clue you in to a little game that the pro-choicers
like to play.  The game is called "enrage the opposition".  The 
idea is to hurl as many insults and hurtful remarks at Ms. Forgach
as possible so that she'll respond in kind.  When Ms. Forgach
does respond with small flames, she gets accused of being
"hateful", "sick", etc..  

Often times, the game is played in which a pro-choicer verbally abuses 
Ms. Forgach for no apparent reason other than her views on abortion.
Ms. Forgach then responds with a small flame, and the pro-choicers 
gang up on her and blow her small flame way out of proportion so as 
to portray her as being more wicked than the Wicked Witch of the West.
In this particular example, we have Patrick Humphrey as the antagonizer, 
who has insulted Ms. Forgach on numerous past occassions. 

I feel that Ms. Forgach has received such horrible treatment from
pro-choicers that they really don't have any moral standing to accuse
her of being "hateful".  They are the ones who are "hateful", IMO. 
I'm actually kind of surprised that Ms. Forgach has been as polite
as she has been towards these people.

>Steve Matheson 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:06:24 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1993Jan6.065030.25517@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <PATRICK.93Jan3195627@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan2.230352.9739@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >
> >   Note: this is how Humpty graciously "admits" a mistake.
> >
> >What can I say?  You set such a good example with your behavior towards
> >Susan and Don...
> 
> I can always tell when people are desperate -- they start dredging up
> ancient net.history...

"Ancient net.history" -- any embarrassing episode, whether recent or not,
of which Kevin wishes people would no longer continue to remind him.

> >This is hilarious.  If I think it's so important, why are YOU doing all the
> >whining, and begging me to stop?  You've only consumed about 10x the disk
> >space I have on this one thread, after all.
> 
> Disk space flames. You really ARE desperate, aren't you?

Brave words from a fellow who has spent the better part of the last two
years threatening to charge me "archive fees" for the disk space my
signature is consuming on his system.

Who's the desperate one, Kevin?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and e-mail
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:28:53 GMT


>Dean Kaflowitz as Propellor Pud Chaney:

>Duh, like I'm the big mean bad Borg thingie and like I'm so much
>smarter than everyone else and like I beat everyone up on the
>newsgroups because I'm just like so duh brilliant.  I just wish my
>parents would hurry up and die so I could get all their money.

I think that's why he used to defend his parents, even though he
admitted they treated his brother like they were psychoes.  It'd be fun
to get the other Chaney on the net and hear what he has to say.  

>I used to be an airplane, you know.

And now he's a rudderless toy wagon.  Amazing how he could actually *go
downhill* from where he started!


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:19:34 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

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> sm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson):
-> > Here it is!  I found it!  James Keegan wrote a post called "anti-
-> > choice morality" based (in part) on this atrocity.  He suggested
-> > that the failure of pro-life folks to condemn Suzanne's behavior
-> > was evidence for some sort of moral compromise.  Now I see why.
-> > 
-> > Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
-> > I think an apology is in order.
-> 
-> No way.   Read my statement again.  In no way did I in fact insult
-> anybody.   I said nothing derogatory about Patrick, or his step-daughter.
-> Unless just pointing out that she is his step-daughter is such an insult.
-> But if you and Keegan and Patrick find that it is, well, I'll find _that_
-> pretty funny.

   "Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been
    with your wife.   I hope it drives you crazy."
             forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
             <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu>

tisk, tisk.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy