HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 03:13:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.012457.16643@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.200245.13638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.021358.18235@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>[Where's that chainsaw...]
>>
>>>Not really. They could opt to just run the risk of a lawsuit. The point here
>>>is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that 
>>>doesn't exist right now. Above, you even admit that persons OTHER than the 
>>>patient, can sign the consent forms, but Cochran made no such qualification
>>>when he announced his "legal restriction". Above, you seem to admit that 
>>>while the consent forms may "feel" [sic] like a statutory requirement, that 
>>>they may not in fact be a statutory requirement. Unless you have a rabbit to 
>>>pull out of your hat now, I think it's time to admit that no such "legal 
>>>restriction" exists.
>>
>>Wrong again, Kebbin.  I had six teeth pulled a couple of months ago.  They
>>wouldn't do the surgery until I had signed the form.  Obviously, if I was
>>under the age of consent, my legal guardians would have to sign.
>
>Was this a statutory requirement, or just something the insurance company
>(yours and/or your dentist's) required?

I don't have the foggiest idea, Kebbin.  I know that when I went in for the
surgery, they said, "We won't do anything until you read and sign this
disclaimer".  Now, I'm assuming that in the "RealWorld[tm]" I can't sue
a doctor for refusing to perform the operation...

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I could have missed the pain, but I'd have had to miss...
=the dance"-Garth Brooks
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?!
Date: 26 Dec 92 15:52:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Peter Nyikos (nyikos@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: In <1992Dec17.184619.2900@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
: 
: [I've added talk.religion.misc and alt.atheism]

And I have deleted them.

A request to all who are for whatever reason choosing to debate with
Peter Nyikos. Peter tends to add news groups in the middle of your
abortion debates. This is never appreciated; it is poor nettiquette;
it is bad manners.

It would be very much appreciated if more mature contributors out
there if you would delete such cross posting in your follow-ups.

I am also asking Peter to stop it, but I do not expect much
consideration, given past experience.

Thank you -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:37:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec29.200342.25299@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##He seems to ignore arguments about bodily autonomy.
#
#I am truly at a loss to understand why this would be said.  Did I not
#just acknowledge an argument about bodily autonomy?  I wrote:
#
#     In other words, we can outlaw slavery without infringing on the
#     rights of the slave owner, while outlawing abortion may subject
#     women to unwanted health problems.  I think (Hsims) makes an
#     argument that may head in the right direction, though one has to
#     weed through much superfluous material to find it.

I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it in the "superfluous material"
that you included.

Why do you only think that this is only headed in the right direction.
It destroys the analogy.

##Perhaps he equates women's bodies with plots of land...
#
#This rediculous suggestion does not even warrant a response.

Nonetheless, you responded to it.  Hmm.

##Is Skinner really unable to understand that the analogy breaks
##down because fetuses reside inside women's bodies and slaves
##do not?
#
#Whether I am able to understand this I know not, and I shall not find
#out here if posters continue to ask intellectually arrogant questions
#instead of making arguments that might clarify their positions.

If you read talk.abortion, you could see lots of articles
in which people clarify their positions on bodily autonomy.
If you're of average intelligence, you should be able to
understand that no argument in favor of slavery hinged on
bodily autonomy.  

If you think that the fact that a fetus is inside a woman,
consuming her bodily resources, and damaging her is not
worth noting, then you can continue to argue that your
analogy is valid.  There is no way to support the analogy
without ignoring this.  

Frankly, I don't understand why this is so hard for you.  I
could claim that there are many similarities between me and
another person, and therefore we are the same person.  You
wouldn't, I think, have any problems understanding why
I would be wrong.  On the other hand, you keep trying to find
similarities between slavery and abortion and not focusing
on the most obvious difference.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Equal rights
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, 1 Jan 93 05:17:06 GMT

In article <1298@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.021250.25307@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>#In article <1276@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>##[deletions]
>###BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
>###willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?
>##
>##I just wanted to see this again.  I think it's the best response
>##I've seen yet (closely followed by those who support a man's
>##right to have an abortion) to those who would ignore biology
>##in their quest for absolute equality.
>#
>#Um, Susan...
>#This *is* possible...
>#All you need isa surrogate mother, and an in vitro fertilization, and
>#a little luck in the implantation...
>
>Sorry, Mark, I've decided to be ridiculous about this.  Your reply
>makes perfect sense, so I have to reject it.
>
ObCheapShot:
*GASP!* You're rejecting a perfectl sensible reply? OhMyGhad! You've
gone Pro-Life on us!!!

>You've involved a third person.  I want to see support for a woman's
>right to have her biological child with only the help of a willing
>SO.  Otherwise, things wouldn't be exactly equal.
>
I've invovled a hell of a lot more then a 3rd party. :) Lets add the
lawyerbeast that writes up the contracts, and the whole mob of peolpe
invovled in the fertilization and implantation. :)

Uh Oh... Susan, I think the humor police are coming after us. There's
not supposed to be any in this groups is there?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:02:55 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Dec31.002332.9843@wdl.loral.com>,
by bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt):

> You're getting the argument all confused with noise about fetal
> personhood and distractions designed to draw attention away from the
> fact that the anti-abortion-rights movement is entirely a backlash
> against feminism and a vehicle for the acquisition of power for the
> religious right wing.  It simply ain't about saving fetuses from the
> gruesome fate of vacuum aspiration -- it's about political power.

Oops.  The genius has me all figured out...

Okay.  Okay!  OKAY, I ADMIT IT!!!

[SOB]

Between experiments, I...[sob] I sit down at the keyboard and...[sob] 
diligently construct arguments designed to... to distract pro-choice folks
so they won't know that I'm really on a...[sob] secret crusade against 
f... f... fem... feminism [sob] [SOB] [WAAAAAIIIIILLLLLLLLL]
Yes... yes, it's true -- I take my orders from the Great Satan himself...
[sob][sob]...  BILLY GRAHAM!!!  [SOB][SOB][SOB]  He...he told me to do
it so he... I mean we... I mean he...[sob] could get some more of that
political power stuff... you know...

H... Huh?  Oh.  Heh.  [Sniff]
I... I need to go finish my experiment now...[sniff].  If only I had
more political power...[sniff][sob]  Then I wouldn't have all this
work to do...

------

Dude.  Get a clue.  You pro-choicers just want more abortion so
there'll be more political power for all your buddies.  You're just a
bunch of baby boomers trying to make sure there's more of you than
anybody else.

How's that for stupid, obnoxious, offensive and (get this) false?

Close to your offering, but not quite as bad.



--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: an example of dodie's "honesty"
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:42:41 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes
to susan garvin:

->Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
->a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
->abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

it would be as fair, and as dishonest, as most of the
material you post.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53869 alt.abortion.inequity:6237
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 2 Jan 1993 20:49:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>>just imagine if the government WERE to outlaw abortion and started telling
>>>women to "hedge their bets"...

>>We don't have to imagine.  We can remember.

>Oh!  So you *would* have a problem with the government telling women to
>"hedge your bets"?

>You seem to have no problem telling this to men, however.

My opposition to abortion banning legislation stems from an opposition 
to having the government tell women what medical proceedures they can 
or cannot undergo for moral reasons.  I would similarly oppose the 
goverment telling men that they must/mustn't have vasectomies.  
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:39:10 GMT

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is 
>to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use 
>certain words in certain situations.

Close, but wrong.  *ZAP*  Your description is closer to describing the origin
of "pro-life".  "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" mean almost the same thing, but
"pro-life" sounds a bit nicer (and it describes the reasoning behind the
position more clearly, which is the *real* reason).

"pro-choice" does not mean the same thing as "pro-abortion".  Most politicians
are "pro-choice" (as oppsed to "pro-abortion"), in part because it doesn't
sound "immoral" but also because it better describes the position (abortion is
"wrong" but is also a matter of private choice).  (Actually, they take that
position because *it* sounds less "immoral" so they won't alienate as many
conservatives.)

On the other hand, I would be more accurately described as "pro-abortion"
than "pro-choice".  (That does not imply *forcing* abortion on someone; it
means I consider abortion to be perfectly "moral" in most cases.)

>-Paul

-Rob
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53222 talk.religion.misc:24670 alt.atheism:24403
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:21:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec28.181720.27176@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
>completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? Here in Finland, when you join
>the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
>have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
>you are 18, of course.

There is no state-sponsored church in the U.S., and no one is
(legally) a member of any church at birth. Donations to any of
the countless different churches and other religious organizations
are entirely voluntary (modulo any hypothetical effect of
brainwashing).
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:26:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.725557125@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>I wish a happy Christmas season to everyone, including the abortionists,
>those super-Grinches 

Can't you even say "Happy Christmas" without smirking and pontificating?

>Were it not for the above HOPE ["that there is a life after death and a
>very powerful, very merciful God"]

... then you wouldn't be celebrating Christmas, Petey dear.  Never mind
your abortion position.

>Finally, here is a special Christmas season wish to those little ones
>whom I sometimes fondly call "Whos from Whoville", aborted by the
>super-Grinches, that they may indeed experience their First Birth

You'd like the 'little ones' who have already been *aborted* to experience
birth?  Are you a reincarnationist, or just incoherent?


To append my (belated) wishes to Peter's ...

I hope that everyone, regardless of faith or politics, had a merry and
blessed December, and I wish you all an exciting and prosperous new year.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                     suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu


--
   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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:23:43 GMT

In <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  

>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
>race to Patrick.

There is no racial slur.  Patrick publicly admitted to being a redneck,
to me, no less.  "Give that man a cookie--he's figured out that much"
--I hope I got every word right.  

"Redneck" is not necessarily a derogatory term, and I think Patrick 
and I understand each other pretty well on this.  To anyone who was
misled by my use of the word, my apologies.

I don't think Susan was misled, so no apologies to her are in order.

Peter Nyikos
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:33:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <nyikos.725557125@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> I wish a happy Christmas season to everyone, including the abortionists,
> those super-Grinches who steal EVERY Christmas from the little ones they
> abort.  May they and everyone else begin to catch a glimpse of the twin
> paradoxical motives which prod me forward in my pro-life efforts:

Are you also wishing well to all those poor women that will lose
their babies due to spontaneous abortion, or are those also
super-Grinches? It's interesting to note that even Nature itself
uses abortion if the body is in danger... I guess God didn't 
create this effect, or did he? 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:36:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec23123233@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
#In article <1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
#   Excerpts from:
#      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
#      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,
#      Reprinted in the Congressional Record, Oct 9, 1990 S 14817
#
#followed by 250 lines of meaningless drivvle which has nothing to do
#with the letter Susan posted.  What is the point?

I'm not sure what his point is, either.  I do think that DOD is
the wrong person to argue that not all pro-forcers are fanatical
lunatics, though, don't you?

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:18:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.175100.20873@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:
> > Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
> > In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com 
(Muriel 
> > Nelson) writes:
> > 
> > ....
> > > In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan 
> > Idler) w
> > > What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
> > > dies?  What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
> > > Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
> > > or self-induced abortion?

> > Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then 
than 
> > now -

> 
> Have you any support for this assertion?  

[raises questions of statical factors possibly left out]

> Dean Kaflowitz

Yes Dean I can support my assertion, I will provide you with excerpts from 
a Planned Parenthood official, census data,  a gynological journal.  I 
don't have them here,  but I at least want to reply.  I feel very safe in 
assuming that no matter what statistic I have, you and a host of others in 
this group can cast a negative spin.  

Even if you can come up with a conflicting set of statistics (and by THEN 
I mean, prior to Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton), it still wouldn't change 
the fact the the 'coat hanger/back alley ' ploy is a red herring.  If I'm 
wrong, I 'm not off by much, not enough to warrent the slaughter of 
millions of children to spare the life of a relatively low number of women 
who would choose to break the law.  This is the REAL issue.  The sad part 
is that the pro-aborts present as fact that thousands of women will surely 
die if abortion is outlawed.  There is nothing to support this whatsoever.


- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:39:03 GMT

In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>
If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
*another persons* body.
Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:01:27 CST

In article <C01KMr.uK@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

[exchange with Dean about possible deaths due to abortion
restrictions deleted.]
>
>Yes Dean I can support my assertion, I will provide you with excerpts from 
>a Planned Parenthood official, census data,  a gynological journal.  I 
>don't have them here,  but I at least want to reply.  I feel very safe in 
>assuming that no matter what statistic I have, you and a host of others in 
>this group can cast a negative spin.  
>
>Even if you can come up with a conflicting set of statistics (and by THEN 
>I mean, prior to Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton), it still wouldn't change 
>the fact the the 'coat hanger/back alley ' ploy is a red herring.  If I'm 
>wrong, I 'm not off by much, not enough to warrent the slaughter of 
>millions of children to spare the life of a relatively low number of women 
>who would choose to break the law.  

Thank you for making it so abundantly clear that
you don't care if desperate women die.

>                                    This is the REAL issue.  The sad part 
>is that the pro-aborts present as fact that thousands of women will surely 
>die if abortion is outlawed.  There is nothing to support this whatsoever.
>
Anyone have the Brazil stats archived?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc