HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The `She did me wrong' theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:59:53 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

I have previously discussed the chastity belt theory of forced
pregnancy.  There is another variant: I call this the `She did me
wrong, so I'll punish them all' theory of forced pregnancy.  This is
in the Will Steeves tradition, but we also now have Jim McNicholas:

>F.Y.I. my ex-$#@$% makes NO financial contribution at all she refuses
>to get a job and stays in the house I bought, and married a guy who
>got her pregnant again so now he's on the hook for this and the future
>kids, and she just lives off the support money, good scam, support
>moms, kinda like welfare moms, only more vindictive!!!

First, he has a bad interpersonal experience, from which he draws an
inappropriate conclusion:

>Most support mothers don't have any of their own, they live off the
>very thing they hate the most, men!!!

Jim needs to get a clue.  His bad experience with women do not support
the conclusions he is drawing.  I suggest he look into two hypotheses:
(1) She's a bad apple.  (2) He's a bad apple.  Jim's control freak
response of advocating forced pregnancy suggests to me that he was the
problem.

Either way the solution is that Jim should work on his interpersonal
skills, to overcome the tendency to associate with bad apples or cease
being one.  This would be much more appropriate than advocating some
vindictive legislative agenda to stifle women.  This is what Will did:
He got some woman pregnant who refused to be his brood mare; he has
even reported that he felt like murdering her for not `respecting'
him.  Now he wants to pass legal restrictions on abortion.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:17:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.164946.1366@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>>> 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.

> Non-violent?  Yeah, right, Doug.

Blocking an abortion clinic entrance is a non-violent form
of protest.  It's really not much different from sitting in 
the front of the bus.  

>Chris Lyman


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life a HELL!
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:55:40 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Nov13.163815.15429@midway.uchicago.edu>
  <1992Nov15.064012.15038@wetware.com> <1992Nov20.005309.9356@ncsu.edu>

delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
>   I have a gf with fundamentalist parents who treat Rush Limbaugh as though
> he has the answers to life's problems. Well, I am here to say that because
> of this, I will have to fight in order to marry her. Has it come to the poi
> in this country where conservative ideas like the ones he presents are so
> much a part of the United States now, that two people in love can't even
> marry for fear of outright attack like this? I fear for our happiness.
> I don't want her to choose between keeping her family or keeping me.
> I hate liberals (I am moderate), but even moderates aren't safe from Rush
> Limbaugh!! Can someone PLEASE give me some ideas???
 
	The first idea that comes to mind is to abandon your hatred of
"liberals," or any other group who is similarly ostracized by the
Rush Limbaugh crowd.  Divisive behavior is what permitted Limbaugh to
ascend in the first place.  If this is not the answer you were looking
for, then you'll have a difficult time finding further ideas past this
"square one."
 
	BTW: You didn't detail in your message how long you've been seeing
your girlfriend, and how frequently.  Not trying to get nosey, , but I'm
sure others will agree that how close you are to your love defines how
the other events could be influential, etc...
 
Take care,
 
--Louis
L-Bueno@cup.portal.com
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:33:53 -0500 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: con't:The Silent Holocaust

>Keira Hauck

>     I call it a silent holocaust because that is what is it.  A holocaust
>is a mass killing of a group of people.  And the people who are being murdered
>cannot voice their pain.  

Some folks do not consider fetuses "people"  -- human, yes, but not people.

In addition, please refrain from comparing abortion to the Holocaust. It
is most highly offensive to some, including myself, and makes you look
extremely ignorant and calloused; some would even go so far as to call
you anti-Semitic.


Alison Colman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:09:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.003506.8807@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)writes:

}I don't consider myself to be "pro-choice" because I'm personally 
}undecided on the issue of legislation.  

Unfortunately, especially in areas regarding legislation, you usually
don't get to vote "undecided."  Perhaps that should be a choice.
Until then, however, you get to cast your vote for it or against 
it, or for someone who will for you.  Unless you don't vote, and
that's a whole different subject.

I would rather vote for a candidate who refused to make it an issue,
and who would refuse to consider it a fit subject for legislation.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:23:25 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.722024009@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov06.232315.67382@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In fact, I did give an example later on; for some reason Peter wasn't able
>>to deal with it.  :-)
>
>Note the smiley.  I leave it up to you to interpret what effect it
>has on the foregoing sentence.

I'd guess that most readers understood that it meant that my "for some reason"
was sardonic, and that the reason you were unable to deal with it was because
it would show you to be an idiot, like all the other times you've run away.

I'd further guess that, as usual, you're completely clueless and you totally
misinterpreted what was written.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:14:40 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <30408@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>The whole idea that there is an inconsistancy between OT and NT misses the
>mark. God is the same God in both books. His mercy, compassion, stedfast
>love, justice, hatred and anger towards sin are expressed in both testaments.
>In both testaments is the idea that God doesn't change. Start with the
>idea that the same Being is talked about in all the books of the Bible. If
>you start with the premise that there's a different God in the OT than the
>NT, you're going to have a diificult time ever meeting up with the One God
>of the Bible.

  Which is, of course, absolutely the wrong way to go about an
  investigation.  

  How about starting with no notion at all of the being presented in
  the Bible, and then seeing where the text leads you?  Fitting the
  facts to your preconceptions is a poor investigative technique.
  It is just as valid to assume that the god of the NT is not the
  same as the OT, and justifying your conclusions from the Bible.

  Oops, I'm sorry.  I *really* intended this discussion to be about
  Allah, who doesn't seem to have suffered from these late onset
  schizophrenic tendencies.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Fetal Sentience (was To Lost Boy re: thoughts of a fetus)
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:55:17 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In talk.abortion frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: 

>In article <1992Nov20.005040.8750@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>In article <Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
>># I think this is who I'm sending this to... It's in response to your "what 
>># really pisses you off about prolifers", or whomever.
>># 
>># Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>># the human fetus can actually dream!  
>># 
>># "Think" about it.
>>
>>Did you know that cattle dream?

>Cattle aren't human, of course.  There is that.

>Just what evidence of a foetus' sentience _would_ you accept?  

  Oh dear. This surely isn't the same Frank Dwyer who just posted: 

>I mean to say that _any_ assumption relating to the sentience or
otherwise of a foetus is asinine.

  Naah. Surely not.

                                                                    Mp
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:32:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.214033.12282@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>> = (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>>I've met Mr. Novak. He didn't strike me as hateful. Perhaps you should
>>pull the beam out of your own eye, Mr. Overpeck.
>Thanks, Eric.  Next time you visit I'll have Chimay Gold to drink,
>rather than Samuel Adams and Samuel Smith.  CJ says that, in addition to
>having the typical capacity for beer as young bucks should, you also
>can handle the "good stuff" without whining for a Bud Lite.
Damn straight.

Any chance on you coming out here sometime soon?
-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."
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 23 Nov 1992 14:36:59 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov21.200859.12846@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
#>  It's time to come clean and admit that states do indeed force morality
#>on people - the important point is that the morality a state uses must be
#>very general, and be as broadly acceptable to as many people as possible, and
#>be no more than the state needs to function.  That is, one seeks to diminish
#>the force, not the morality.
#
#States impose _rules_ on people, not morality.

There is a rule in physics which states that if something cannot be
distinguished from anything else then it doesn't exist.  

How to tell rules from morality?  

#Of course, every state wants its people to _beleive_ that it is
#imposing morality -- it makes it much easier to enforce some 
#arbitrary rule if you can persuade the enforcees that the rule 
#is really for their own good.

The rules are supposedly for society's benefit, and society is supposed to be
for people's benefit.  Exceptions are human rights, which primarily exist to
preserve a person's right to alter society (Freedom of Speech, for example).

#Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
-- 
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'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:59:05 GMT

schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes ...
>>>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.  Human life is
>sacred.  The legitimate purposes by which other forms of life can be taken
>do not apply to human life.  Human life is in a category entirely by itself.

Well, I suppose that's one way of arguing: just define away the
problem.

So then, there is _no_ justification for destroying human life?  No
capital punishment?  Now wars?  No self-defense?  

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:59:56 GMT

I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall 
continue to post to soc.singles. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:50:39 GMT


From article <1992Nov16.165422.7404@advtech.uswest.com>, by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> and your state referendum on abortion was voted down by almost 2 to 1.
> 
>>Didja ever notice, Chris, that I have never once posted that I supported
>>that referendum? 
> 
> You lie.  How can you embarrass yourself like this?  Are you denying you
> posted that this amendment would "do an end run around Roe v. Wade"?


Absolutely.  Check your archives.  I have NEVER used the term "do an end
run", or anything even remotely resembling it, in regard to any legislation
regarding abortion.    It was somebody else, dumbo.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Retroactive Abortion (Re: A Hopeful Sign)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:00:18 GMT

In article <BxroFF.Cn4@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>Heard on CNN this evening:
>
>>"About three dozen anti-abortion protestors tried to shut down a Boston
>>clinic yesterday, but they were met by over 500 abortion rights 
>>supporters..."
>
>>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.  If this were the military, wouldn't that be called
>>mutiny?  (resist temptation here, oh drieux...)
>
>>                 -rocker
>
>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.   Even the Christian
>Martyrs think twice before risking the jug for a couple of years.
>
>I have a modest proposal. Two and a half years jail time imposes a
>consider expenditure upon the folks of Massachussetts, and this in itself
>may tempt some activists to risk the jail term. What I have in mind is to
>use this new electronic bracelet to confine clinic burners to their homes.
>If they wander, then shoot'em.  This works out best for both sides. For
>the Christian Martyrs it is a way to be with De Lawd, and for the rest of
>us it is good riddance.

WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONG! It's RETROACTIVE ABORTION!!!!

>
>Conan the Librarian 
>-- Why didn't OR show up when God Aborted Soddom and Gommorah?.
>

Lost Boy

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:45:51 GMT

From article <7224@news.duke.edu>, by eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK):
> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> 
>>There are other more reliable methods of contraception.  Mutilating
>>your sex organs is guaranteed to be 100% reliable.  

Oh, you mean like vasectomies and tubal ligations?


>>Many of us do
>>not feel the cost is worth it and will continue to use abortion
>>when less reliable, but also less costly methods fail.

Well Dan, Mr. Vasectomy himself, what do you need with abortion?

(Except to gloat over the one you paid for, thereby depriving yourself 
 of a 3 year old friend...)


> Well we could have some amazing tenors to listen to in the opera....

Emil, realize that people literally _do_ mutilate their sex organs in
order to avoid pregnancy!   It's called sterilization!  And it's such a waste
when abstinence is 100% effective, and periodic abstinence, learned in a one
hour class, is safer and as effective as rearranging your hormones every day
via the pill.

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

Yay, Emil!  Truer words were never spoken.


Suzanne.
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:20:50 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Nov19.000433.5823@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
><1992Nov15.035941.20377@rotag.mi.org>, by kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy):
>> <1d85iaINNate@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) :
>>>I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
>>>more important than an animal.  
>> 
>> Does it demean YOU, Frank? Do you consider yourself a fertilized egg? If not
>> demeaning to you, then to whom? I see it potentially demeaning only to
>> fertilized eggs. It could hurt their "feelings", maybe.
>
>Kevin, every single one of us is a fertilized egg.  Some of us are just older
>than others.

Some of us need to pay attention in Biology 101.  I saved this in the
Forgach Archives.  It's pretty classic.  I wonder if Peter stopped
defending her because he realized how futile it is (with this as an
example).  Funny how she can state these things, but come Sunday a
cracker is no longer a cracker and wine is no longer wine.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life a HELL!
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Nov13.163815.15429@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Nov15.064012.15038@wetware.com> <1992Nov20.005309.9356@ncsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:58:58 GMT

>>>>> On 20 Nov 92 00:53:09 GMT, delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE) said:
	DERRELL> Originator: delarocq@c00059-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu

DERRELL>  I have a gf with fundamentalist parents who treat Rush
DERRELL>  Limbaugh as though he has the answers to life's problems.  Well,
DERRELL>  I am here to say that because of this, I will have to fight in
DERRELL>  order to marry her. Has it come to the point in this country
DERRELL>  where conservative ideas like the ones he presents are so much a
DERRELL>  part of the United States now, that two people in love can't
DERRELL>  even marry for fear of outright attack like this? I fear for our
DERRELL>  happiness.  I don't want her to choose between keeping her
DERRELL>  family or keeping me.  I hate liberals (I am moderate), but even
DERRELL>  moderates aren't safe from Rush Limbaugh!! Can someone PLEASE
DERRELL>  give me some ideas???

Have you considered eloping?

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Show me a man who rides side saddle, and I'll show you a gay ranchero.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory ... [torturing cats]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:11:40 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Keywords: forced childbirth

In <1ecpmpINN2vp@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:

>	I've been reading way too much about torturing cats; it looks
>	an awful lot like an appeal to emotion (a tactic usually reserved
>	for those who have no substantive arguments to offer). How about
>	changing it to torturing cockroaches?  Or, better yet, talking
>	about abortion?  

The example was advanced in response to a view many people seem to
hold that in principle it is wrong to keep someone from doing what he
wishes as long as he isn't violating the rights of some other person.
I think the example shows that view is wrong, and so it is relevant to
the discussion.  I would agree that there are many differences between
torturing cats and having an abortion.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion