HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:27:04 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
-> Adrienne demands the no choice-for-men but she is
-> not willing to give the respect she demands.  She
-> just knows that her moral values are so superior
-> that it is perfectly fine to enforce them on other
-> people.

does salit know that you are reading other women's
minds again?



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Companies stands on abortion rights? Who are theyyREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Sep 92 00:26:47 GMT

In <1992Sep4.082856.1@indyvax.iupui.edu> idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:

>Can anyone supply a list of companies which support abortion 
>rights? 

Here in Columbia at least, Burger King belongs in this list.

[Aside.  Adrienne Regard likens the choice of whether or not to have
an abortion to the choice
of a hamburger.  I don't think she realizes how fraught with
significance that latter choice can be.]

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:04:07 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <18ng0pINN37g@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:

>From my point of view (non-activist, but pro-choice), I think that
>most pro-choice people really are neutral, or perhaps even a bit
>negative toward yet more legislation.

I would agree with the latter - that they are negative - not the former.
I have heard few pro-choice arguments which say, "I don't care if you
legislate or not".

Pro-choicers may be neutral when it comes to whether or not a woman *should* 
have an abortion.
But, in my experience, they are not neutral when it comes to whether or not
a woman *is permitted* to have an abortion.

Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers are prepared to resort to either
laws or constitutions to back their views on this permission aspect - AND to 
make the other side obey those views.

>My support for the right to abortion being written into law stems
>from my desire to prevent others from foisting their opinions of
>how I should live my life onto me legally. 

Of course.  And that is a reflection of your values.

But surely you must see that to someone who rejects your values, such a law
is an imposition.  It is, in effect, an example of the very foisting that you 
wanted to prevent.

Now this is not an argument against you trying to enact such laws.  Far from it.
All laws "foist" on someone.  If that wasn't the case there would be little
point for the law.
I am arguing that it is not "foisting" in general that you oppose, but 
foisting of *a particular* value - that of the foetus.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:11:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.

"You see hatred even where there isn't any."
 - Suzanne Forgach <1992Aug27.205422.12420@noao.edu>

Motes and beams, Suzanne.

Susan
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: (Badges of Honor)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:47:14 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <88923@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Ray
>>Peter
>>>let me point out that the umbilical cord connects to
>>>the placenta, which is still not a part of the mother's body, coming
>>>as it does from the original fertilized ovum, along with the cord,
>>>fetus, and bag of waters.
>>The placenta, umbilical cord, bag, and fetus all have come from the mother,
>Woah!  Did I read this correctly?  Surely you made a mistake...
>Or is it that you actually believe that the fetus is a spontaneous creation
>of the mother?  No, sonny, the fetus is created by the mother AND the
>father.

In a time honored tradition:

This statement is not correct.

The fertilized egg might more correctly be noted as 'created by the mother
AND the father", but the moment the ferlized egg begins cellular division,
it begins using the resources around it, and developing the placenta,
the cord, the bag of waters, etc.  ALL of which use resources from the
WOMAN's body, not the man's.

Heck, if it *were* using the man's, we might not be so upset about it (-:!

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36480 alt.abortion.inequity:3722
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CHRISTIAN VIEW
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:04:16 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>] In <Bu26zo.6In@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu writes:
>] 
>] [goofiness deleted]
>] 
>] > Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
>] > jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
>] 
>]   This boy don't know drieux too well, do he?  Hey drieux, I got some spare
>] M-40's you can use to straighten him out...

>thanks for the Offer....

>We Have Tried to WARN folks what would Happen
>when the SeXularHUMANISTS took over Public
>education and began to distort innocent MINDS....

>Now They No Longer even Acknowledge that this
>is a Christian country, and that Only the Morally PURE
>should be allowed to RUN it by the Divine Providence
>of Divine Grace.....

Ah, sarcasm... ...I humbly apologize! :)

>ciao
>drieux


>12 yesrs of the Reagan-Bush Team, and still they
>have not restored our God Given rights to Concubines....

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 19:38:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
> You have deleted my question to you:  Should we have triage for all?  Shall we
>let cancer patients die because we could save more lives by spending the money
>elsewhere?  And don't forget the millions spent on pure research in the area.
>Should the premie have been allowed to die?  Would have saved oodles of $$. And
>how bout them artificial limbs?  Waste of money.  Shall I continue?

We already have triage for all.  The factors are complex and weigh not only
the cost of the procedure and the likelyhood of success, but also the person's
percieved "value" to society and the circumstances of the need.  Not everyone
(not even nearly everyone) gets _all_ the medical care that might do them
some good.

But in answer to your question ...

Would I rather see $100,000 spent on a 95% chance of saving my life or spent
on a 5% chance of saving the life a 22-week preemie?

Would I rather see $40,000 spent to force a woman to give birth than spent
to save the lives of 40 living, breathing, starving, people?

Take a guess.

Perhaps preventing abortions _won't_ save lives.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.consciousness
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos' amnesia
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:37:14 GMT

In <1992Sep10.160215.36665@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.716075845@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Sep09.035609.23451@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.IBM.co
>>
>> >I was right.  I gave you a number of unbiased sources, and you
>> >acknowledged seeing them:
>[...]
 ^^^^^
List of two or three SPECIFIC sources deleted by Margolis.

>> >How do you reconcile "missed them all" with "I will study [it] carefully" ???
>>
>> Very, very easily.  I have not accessed the info since I saved it.  I've
>> been awfully busy as it is.

>Fair enough.  I take it you'll withdraw the charge that we only present
>evidence from "biased sources"?

As another possible instance of my amnesia, I cannot recall ever
charging that you ONLY present evidence from biased sources.  

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35811 alt.sex:28822 soc.singles:24836
From: mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sex Sacrifices and MultiProcessing Computers
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:56:06 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Sep03.204616.16372@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
writes:
>
>And watch out for that late-night snacking.  And I keep telling you,
>don't eat them in bed - it leaves such a mess.

Women offended by this attitude are welcome to contact me.
And _I_ own a washing machine. ;-)

Mike Ciaraldi
University of Rochester
mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35769 alt.discrimination:4261
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Sorry guys, still uncalled for.
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:58:27 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Of course, I have the feeling that I've made DOD's killfile. :)

In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I will continue to bring it up, until you apologize to Mr. Chaney.

Um, "mr." implies a certain amount of respect, chaney has thrown all
semblence of respect away several times in the last few days. I'm affronted
that you would call such a piece of slime with the same term as you
would apply to those truly deserving of respect. There used to be a
time that only gentlemen (those of certain stature) received this honor,
but its meaning has been debased by those like you who would extend
it to vestibules of sloveny filth such as chaney.

>People who have publically expressed their clear and unequivocal
>objection to Patrick Humphrey's use of term "fat black ass":

Uh, DOD, you left me off this list, too. :)

Except, of course, that I accepted his apology. Chaney's later actions
have fairly well negated any need for Patrick to apologize to him, and,
as a matter of fact, Chaney owes Patrick a few apologies for gloating,
maligning, etc, esp when he knows that Patrick was under extreme duress
due to his wife's condition.  Also, his own rascist remarks have been
repeated, by him, numerous times. Racism is not a one way street, and
I submit that Chaney has shown himself to be rather bigotted.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:09:25 GMT

In article <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep1.134433.12701@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>>>	"It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
>>>	husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
>>>	witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]
>
>>Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves.  On the other
>>hand, the quote does not say which "movement" he is referring to.  From
>>the wording, I would guess that he is talking about a book, and what it
>>is about, and my one remaining question (unless the answer raises new ones)
>>is whether this movement is the whole feminist movement, or some subset
>>of it, like Wicca.
>
>As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
>your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.

Eric, Eric, Eric, those who do not learn from their mistakes are bound to
repeat them...

Remember a few months back, Suzanne Forgach made a statement something to
the effect of:

	Humans value human life higher than animal life

, and you called her a liar, citing several instances where humans had been
valued less than animals? I jumped in at that point, and after several rounds 
of back-and-forth linguistic analysis, we concluded that the missing 
quantifier for the term "humans" was "at least one" rather than "all", and 
therefore Forgach's statement wasn't a lie unless you could demonstrate that 
NO person has ever valued human life over animal life. End of discussion.

We have essentially the same situation here. Mr. Nyikos said, in effect

	Maybe Robertson was referring to the Wicca subset of Feminism

. You read that as implying that ALL Wiccans are Feminists. Universal
quantification, in other words. I, on the other hand, read it as implying
only that a "Wicca subset of Feminism" exists, i.e. at least one Wiccan is a
Feminist. Existential quantification, in other words.

Nyikos is no liar, any more than Forgach was a liar back then. If you 
acknowledge that their statements are parallel, then you should also 
acknowledge that Nyikos did NOT imply that -all- Wiccans are Feminists,
and withdraw your "rebuke".

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Back to Nature (was Re: Observations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:13:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.200048.10650@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.145448.26265@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

[debate re intent to make laws to force actions/beliefs]

>>I've already stated, repeatedly (four times now, to be precise) that
>>I support the idea of legal abortion, but I do NOT support abortion as
>>a unilateral choice.  It is a choice that should only be made by the
>>couple.

>Okay, I for one am tired of this silly line of reasoning.  How about this 
>proposal:  Men who feel they have a "right" to veto a woman's choice to
>an abortion ONLY have sex with women who also feel this way.  Maybe make,
>no strike "make" since that implies compulsion, have both parties sign a legally
>binding contract (if such thing is possible?) stating that said provider
>of any sperm that develops into a fetus (side step the "father" issue)
>gets equal say in any decision to have an abortion; one would also need
>a provision for deciding how to resolve a split decision.  Then leave the
>rest of the world (that chooses not to enter into such contract) with the
>current status quo of "the woman choses" (for all the good reasons that
>have previously been discussed).  ...
...
>If you have other expectations than the current norm, then maybe you should
>make them clear to your partner BEFORE sex.


Sounds okay on the face of it.  (Although I don't know why we'd stop
at such an inflexible contract: adults should be considered competent
enough to construct their own agreements, within bounds.)

We could argue over your default condition (unilateral female choice); 
I find that it constitutionally and logically (in my own humble logic) 
implies that the +default+ for men should be unilateral choice of 
whether to provide child support.

It seems like this goes directly back to Nature, if you take the
popular views of prehistoric/presocietal behavior.  Plus c,a change, ...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Poor Petesie
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:08:28 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <5763@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715465492@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>I've seen real speculation from the pro-choice side.  People
>>calling me a misogynist, a liar [...]
>
>I call you a liar because you make accusations based on hearsay alone, and
>you absolutely refuse to substantiate any of these.  Then, with amazing
>chutzpah, you repeat these unfounded accusations.

A liar per a dictionary is would who tells lies - 
            synonyms: deceiver, hypocrite.

One who makes accusations based on hearsay alone does not qualify as a
liar.  The one who does it may not be able to substantiate their claims,
but that does not make the claims none the less true or the person a liar.
On a public system like this, it is not wise to make hearsay claims, but
again this doesn't mean the claims are false.

I suppose no one else on this net repeats anything without hard proof or
investigation, huh?  :-)

>I'm happy for you to prove me wrong by coming up with evidence for your
>diatribes.

Prove him wrong and then let him respond - but don't call him a liar without
first proving him wrong and proving he intentially deceived.

>--Teddi

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 19:26:40 GMT

<1992Sep04.161117.2870@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com said:
><1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> >And if you are honest with yourself, I'm sure that you would admit that
>> >you support other laws that restrict people's right to practice their
>> >beliefs.
>>
>> Yeah, that human sacrifice stuff is definately out.  Of course, we do
>> allow Catholics to practice cannibalism...
>
>Now Gordon, just because Doug Holtsinger ridicules the beliefs of Judaism
>in his .sig doesn't mean that you should stoop to his level.  Besides,
>it's only cannibalism if you really believe in transubstantiation.

Now Larry, where in my response did I ridicule Catholocism?  Did I speak
an untruth or exaggerate the facts?  Did I use a derogatory slur?  See how
un-Holtsinger I am.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36378 talk.religion.misc:16185 alt.atheism:17171 talk.politics.misc:45319
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:21:23 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <nyikos.716476657@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep13.154534.19424@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

@   Atheism refers
@ to the belief in a god; it has nothing to do with a belief in an afterlife.

>This either/or thinking is typical of pro-choicers on talk.abortion.
>"Nothing to do with" is downright silly.  People who disbelieve in an
>afterlife but believe in a Creator and a god able to intervene in 
>history are few and far between.  The Sadducees may have been of that sort, 
>true, but even in the OT there soon appeared a belief in Sheol, and
>even earlier there is a reference to Enoch that "God took him".    

	Wrongo. Most of the OT has little hint of belief in life after
death, let alone rewards and punishments after death. One becomes a
wispy ghost, apparently, if anything at all. The ancient Greek Hades
was a similar kind of place.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES, NFP SUCCESS RATES
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 07:03:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>   As you may recall, the method effectiveness of the model was 99.6 percent
>in the Creighton-St. John's Mercy study conducted in 1980 (559 couples;
>4,957 couple months of use) (see Table 1).  In 1985, Joanne Doud published
>the results of her study at St. Francis Hospital of Wichita, Kansas.  The
>method effectiveness was 99.1 percent (376 couples; 2,463 months of use).
>In the most recent study, the largest to date, the method effectiveness is
>99.9 percent (697 couples; 7,238 couple months of use).

Very interesting numbers indeed!  Few questions though.  I'm not sure 
what they mean by "effectiveness" or how they  are measuring it.  With
"conventional" contraceptives effectiveness generally refers to how often
the woman can expect to not get pregnant each time she has intercourse.
(that is, if my memory is correct).  The information you posted doesn't
include any information about just what the numbers _mean_.  I'd appreciate
more data, as it could be useful.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity