HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Male contraception
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:51:13 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
# peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
# >
# >What is so hard about donning a condom to protect yourself?
# 
# Perhaps here's the problem:  in the last couple of posts I've seen,
# only the women seem to believe that condoms are highly reliable.
# That's an interesting comment in itself.

I have used condoms exclusively for more than ten years.  I have
broken less than six, and all of them were broken before I learned the
SooperSecretMagick for preventing condom failure eight years ago.

Not once, to my knowledge, has this resulted in an unexpected
pregnancy.  I have little reason to disbelieve any of my previous
female sexual partners on this matter.

My strongly held belief is that, when properly used, condoms are more
reliable than anything else.  *I* can control how they're used.  *I*
know when they're not being used properly.  Believe me, I'm *not*
going to *FORGET* to use one.  Next best thing to a vasectomy in my
opinion.

I am continually amazed by the number of men who complain that they
have little or no control over contraception, yet can't bring
themselves to use a condom.  My favorite is the macho macho macho
maCHEEZEmo macho macho macho man who can't use condoms ``because they
don't fit'' -- mister, if your johnson is too big for a condom, it's
too big... period.  You need a surgeon, not a sex partner.

[ Followups to soc.men, where I won't see it. ]


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
From: doge@bigboy (The_Doge)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: My last post!
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:03:48 GMT
Organization: Temple University

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
: I have loved the chat about the truth, but I must now say goodbye.  I know
: because God is in control that someone will follow me with the same passion.  I
: have enjoyed some of the conversations.  As you have noted, I have not answered
: all of them.  God says not to answer a fool according to his folly lest he be
: wise in his own eyes.  Many of the replies I got only wanted to discredit me
: not discuss anything.  I humored a few, but I need to spend more time on other
: things now.  I pray for you all.
: 

	I quote from Bobbie Burns comes to mind after this ....

: P.S.  Tear at this letter if you will.  I will not be here to object.  My point
: has been made though, and it is time for me to move on.
: 
	And one from Harry Truman here.  Something about heat and kitchens.

: take care.
: 
	And another one bites the dust.
: ...Ken!
The_Doge
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Peter claims to have a clue
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:24:43 GMT
Distribution: na
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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Peter's claim is that he's known all along how the attributions worked,
and the fact that the arrows showed it was Don and not Adrienne who
wrote whatever it was should be sufficient; the fact that Adrienne's
name was immediately before the quoted text shouldn't matter.  I've
tried to explain that some people might not like seeing:
   >>>Donkey Hotie writes:
   >>>>Peter Nyikos writes:
   >>>> I really like blowing donkeys!
because many people *don't* count the arrows, and assume that the
quoted text was written by the person whose name immediately precedes it.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:50:06 GMT

In article <BxroFF.Cn4@world.std.com> 
rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>> CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
>> of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
>> Clinton directly.  

> One of the factors which precipitated this change of tactics by the OR
> folks, is that in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts the courts are laying
> on  2.5 year jail sentences for blocking clinics.   

Gosh, I feel so comfortable knowing that the state of Massachussetts
has seen fit to lock up non-violent protesters for several years in
already overcrowded prisons.  I wonder what kinds of thugs the state 
is planning to release in order to accommodate these protesters? 

>Conan the Librarian 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:57:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>do appear to be quite different):

Let's see, in the OT God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable wrath and
unimaginable love.  In the NT, God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable
wrath and unimaginable love.  Yep, they are different.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and SAT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:14:13 GMT

In <1992Nov9.000524.19332@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720736852@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>}In reality, I wanted to conceal my credentials on the net as long
>}as possible.  

>Why did you want to do that, Peter?  If they are so unimportant
>to you why would you desire to conceal them?  Why would you wish
>to make an effort one way or the other?

Like I said, I did not want people to think I was trying to pull rank
on them [Army usage, but I think you know what I mean.]

>[I said the following, I deleted the attribution line, but believe me,
>I said it]

>}>Second, it reveals that you believe that your scores and math 
>}>achievements somehow leak over into your performance in talk.abortion.
>}
>}I never said anything like this.  

>Uh, Peter, I never said that you said it, neither did I say you wrote
>it.  I said that it reveals (note, a revelation does not have to
>be spoken or written) something about your belief.  You may dispute
>that, but your denial that you ever said something has nothing (zip, zilch,
>nada) to do with it.

I also do not believe it.  Satisfied?

>[The rest of Peter's denial deleted, along with his concern for snowballs,
>along with his personal doubts about the existance of hell.]

>Peter, your continued attempts to portray yourself as the somewhat
>innocent victim of an "in-joke," as you put it, misses the mark 
>entirely.  You look like a fool.  Whether it is due to egotism,
>shallowness or dishonesty I don't know.

It is due to a shared in-joke, that anyone who posts SAT scores is like
some pompous braggart [I forget his name, it was revealed to me shortly
after I posted my SAT scores in response to a direct question] who posted
them once upon a time, and is a suitable target for ridicule, and worse:
As Kathi Mills said in reference to my posting the scores, "Let the
flames begin."

Peter Nyikos

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: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:29:58 GMT


eb>In article <1992Nov19.192808.662@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov18.175129.12959@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk>Apparently I do not know any better.  I would think that those of 
dk>you all wishing to restrict abortion rights to protect viable fetus
dk>would come up with legislation that would accomplish your goals.  
dk>I have not seen any of this that would protect the right of the 
dk>woman.  Therefore, I think it is safe for me to assume that it is
dk>not possible.  If you disagree, then post this magical legislation.

eb>Ray asked a question.  You made a statement.  The standards of proof
eb>are rather different. 
 
Your right.  Let me back up a second.  Ray asked the following question:
 
rf>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
rf>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
 
The abortion question is a case of conflicting rights.  The right of 
the fetus versus the right of the woman.  If you want to answer this
conflict with legislation, the legislation would have to give the 
right to one side at the expense of the other.  Ray asked if it was
possible to answer this conflict by ensuring both rights.  This is
not possible when they are conflicting rights like this.  I would 
say there are non-legislative ways to do this.  There are ways to 
lesson the conflict by encouraging one side or the other to give
up some of their rights for the other.  But legislation does not 
have the ability to do this. 

Of course I could be wrong about all this and perhaps there is some
sort of magical legislation that I am not aware of.  I'd be 
interested in hearing it.
 
eb>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Look what the NetMail brought this morning...
Summary: Well, *there* goes the neighborhood. 
Organization: Rice 34, Baylor 31 -- the Killer Owls are back! 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:41:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.041759.7013@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmayson@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Mayson) writes:
>In article <Bx9GG7.58o@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>In article <Bx5976.746@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>Well, folks, it looks like Steve "Dennis Hall" Chaney is about to do a
>>>3.5-forward gainer off the cliff.  I got *two* nice little threats from him
>>>this morning when I checked in at the InterMix Chamber BBS, so here is the
>>>complete collection of the three letters he's sent me over the weekend.
>>
>>Sorry to rain on your parade, Patrick, but I think I hold the record, here.
>>When I emailed Steve about my discovery last April, I received *five* 
>>nasty and threatening notes spaced about 5-20 minutes apart each (and from 
>>two different accounts!!)  :-0
>>
>>Good Luck, but don't expect much.  It doesn't seem to be a net.sin to 
>>be nasty, deceptive,  or stupid.
>
>Oh boy, now that I'm back on t.a. after a nine month (how appropriate)
>absence, maybe I can get threatening e-mails from Steve too!!!

Don't bet too heavily on that -- I think he's had his leash yanked hard by
the folks at CSUS.  The bugger even took his stupid ASCII barphic (allegedly
me as a Klansman) out of his .plan -- and I can't see him doing it
willingly.  

(As you can probably tell, I'm really broken up over his absence. :-)

--PLH, but I'll get over it somehow...

-- 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48104 alt.abortion.inequity:5128
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:10:12 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov14.183217.11235@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>values, but it seems as though you are only willing to throw out those
>"traditions" which are unfair to women.
>Needless to say, this does indeed appear somewhat unfair on your part.

Why?  It 'seems as though' to you, maybe.  But that doesn't necessarily
make it so, Will.  I'm willing to throw out traditions that are unfair to
people, as long as they appear (1) workable, (2) sensible and (3) better
than what we have now.  Fail on any of those three points, and I'm likely
to say something about it.

Those are three of my (probably longer list of) criteria, and Don's proposal
doesn't make it.

However, I did offer him some points to consider if he was *really* interested
in making a play to change the status quo.  Did he take these suggestions up?
No, he started arguing about what these suggestions 'seemed as though' to
him, without bothering to formulate any useful response that would actually
OVERCOME perceived problems with his proposal.

So, you gotta wonder how serious he is about his proposal.......

Is he out to make change, or is he out to thump women?

We now know the answer, don't we?

>AR>Looks like you are up for one heck of an ineffective campaign.  Good luck.

>Well!  Thanks righteously for your most EXCELLENT show of support! ...NOT!!!

I don't support his proposal as it stands because it seems to me to cause
more harm than good.  He hasn't seen fit to address those problems, so 
OF COURSE, I don't support his proposal.  Now what exactly would you have
me do?  Cheerlead Don's foolishness, or point out where I see problems?

Oh, yes, or (third opinion), ignore the silly git?

Adrienne Regard
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 23 Nov 1992 09:27:41 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov20.062849.52838@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In <1ebg8lINN3rh@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
#>[...]
#>>When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
#>>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
#>>you have to prove your case.)
#>
#>The second statement is incorrect.  And it is trivially easy to prove that
#>someone else's body is involved during some abortions,
#
#Clue time:  *Saying* it's trivially easy to prove is *not* proving it.
#
#Hint:  There's some*thing* else's body involved; what you're being asked to
#prove is that that the fetus is some*one*.  The vast majority of abortions
#are performed in the first trimester, when there's undoubtedly not a person
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                    (a)
#there.  In fact, neuroscientists place the minimum point for personhood at
 ^^^^^            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
                  (b)
#28 weeks (7 months).  There are about 100 abortions performed *per year*
#in this country after the 24th week, and those are only done for serious
#health reasons.

(a) There's no 'undoubtedly' about it.  Is it 'undoubtedly' true that God
does/does not exist?  Ditto souls?

(b) Neuroscientists are placing a minimum point for sentience (which they
assume is related to brain function), not personhood.  Even in this matter,
they are only guessing.  Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion whether
sentience (whatever that means.  Care to define it?) implies personhood, or
the reverse is true.

#To repeat what cj said:
#>>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
#>>you have to prove your case.)

How come you don't have to prove yours?  (Hint: it ain't possible, for either 
of us).

#--
#Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:11:30 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <By5EKx.CE1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer) writes:

>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes ...
>>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>If life is valuable in general, why do we raise cattle and then kill
>>>>them?  Why do we destroy the rainforests in Brazil?  Why do we step on
>>>>bugs that find their ways into our homes?
>>>
>>>I suppose all life has some value and should not be wantonly
>>>destroyed, but there can be justifications for destroying life.  Food,
>>>shelter and sanitation for human beings come to mind in connection
>>>with your particular examples.

>>If there can be justifications for destroying life, then why can't
>>there also be justifications for abortion?

>Because human life is stands apart from plant or animal life. 

 Why?

> Human life is
>sacred.  

 Why?

>The legitimate purposes by which other forms of life can be taken
>do not apply to human life. 

 Why not?

> Human life is in a category entirely by itself.

 Why?

>		-B Schnaufer

                                                              MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:08:13 GMT

In article <1e9108INNlmu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxsMAv.93I@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>I suppose then that you won't mind if all of us men who see it as terribly
>>unequal that women can choose AFTER sex whether or not to have a child,
>>while we cannot, make damn sure you LOSE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
>
>Ah, here's another one, Will.
>
>This fellow isn't out to equalize the situation between parents.  He's out
>to take away a woman's bodily autonomy because he can't get a legal 'out'
>to a biological reality.

Wrong, Adrienne. He's presenting the only two EQUITABLE choices -- either
NEITHER parent gets a choice, or they BOTH get a similar choice. He's asking 
you to choose one or the other. He is NOT telling you which one to choose.

>>Support reproductive rights for all, or none.  But don't be a hypocrite and
>>try to play the "I'm a woman and its my body" game and then turn around and
>>say that a man's choice ends when he pulls down his zipper.
>
>"reproductive rights for all" completely ignores the biological reality of
>gestation, which is the only justification for abortion.

The biological reality of gestation is a moot point when the woman freely
CHOOSES to carry the child to term, Adrienne. Stop trying to obfuscate the 
issue.

>>This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
>>everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
>>is stopped - permanently.
>
>Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!

Her VOLUNTARY financial contribution is a moot point, Adrienne. Is voluntary
pregnancy the same as forced pregnancy? Of course not. That's the whole crux
of the abortion issue. Is consensual sex the same as rape? No, consent makes
the crucial difference. Then why do you constantly make the mistake of 
equating the woman's VOLUNTARY financial contribution with the man's FORCED
financial contribution? DOES CONSENT MEAN NOTHING TO YOU?

								- Kevin
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 22:25:21 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning

In arctile <shj51no@zola.esd.sgi.com> CJ Silverio says:
>In article <1992Nov18.191532.116052@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
> writes:
>|In <_hr1slc@rpi.edu|keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>|>i've seen no evidence to convince me that many of cj's
>|>allegations are anything more than the petty whines of
>|>a frustrated shrew.
>|Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
>
>Why, thank you, Larry.  I must say, though, that there's
>something to be said for shrews.  Some insecure men, after all,
>like to dismiss strong women as "shrews".

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.



Linda
--
People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments
that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.
   Rebecca West
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:14:00 GMT

In article <1ej28kINNi66@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>So, what is a fellow to do?  A THINKING fellow uses birth control HIMSELF.
>
>It's not foolproof (maybe that's your problem (-:), true.  But it's a 
>damned sight better than nothing.


I'm sorry to hear this measures the depth of your insight.

When Ann Landers retires, you should apply for the job.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:23:31 GMT

In article <1eg0utINN6g0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.041148.5374@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>If DODie is an x-tian, he must believe that there is no such thing as an
>>"innocent unborn child," since, according to x-tians, all humans are born
>>with original sin which cannot be wiped away until one prostrates onself
>>to their chosen deity.
>Here's an interesting piece of religious bigotry.  
Really, Mr. O'Dwyer? Is anything she said not true? As far as I can tell
it's completely in line with the orthodox version of original sin.

>I note that the Christian religions seem to offer salvation as a remedy for
>original sin,
I would say that "prostrating oneself to their chosen deity" would be
a pretty fair description of the orthodox version of what is required
for salvation.

>and the penalty for original sin is not particularly severe.
Nonsense. It's damnation, like that for any sin.

>The Church of Reason, on the other hand, offers a new kind of original sin -
>a z/e/f is guilty of the crime of non-sentience, a crime for which it is
>guilty until proven innocent.
Not a crime, Mr. O'Dwyer. One would have to be sentient to commit a crime.
Fetuses are not.

>While I'm in the neighborhood, what is the motive for bastardising the name
>of Christianity in the above manner?
We had this discussion a while back, sir.
You may remember that the first letter (in Greek) if Christos is "Chi"
which looks almost exactly like an X. It used to be (and often still is)
common practice to substitute the letter X for the word Christ.
(compare the ichthos anagram which gives rise to the fish symbol. Compare
also X-mas.) It is also reasonably common practice to use Xian or
X-tian as substitute for Christian. For the reason of brevity in my
case.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion