HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 22:58:22 GMT

In <183igoINNicf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715464097@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <17s3nmINN73o@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
writes:

>>>There are lots of folks who decide not to repeat some of the dumb things
>>>Suzanne says.  Maybe you have more sense than we had hitherto dreamed of.

>>Don't be so hard on Suzanne. [This refers not so much to what you've just 
>>said as some of the things I've heard before.] 
>>Her heart is in the right place about
>>99% of the time.  I wish I could say the same for you.

>You could, but you won't, because you don't happen to agree with me. 

I'm afraid it goes deeper than that.  For instance, I think Will Steeves
and I disagree almost as much as you and I on what restrictions should
be put on abortion, but I think his heart is in the right place about 99%
of the time too.  In fact, I wrote of him in soc.men that he is exactly 
the kind of person I am glad is involved in the abortion debate.  I feel
the same way about "Jammer Jim" Miller and Elizabeth Bartley.

I wish I could feel the same way about you.

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Nyikos
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Arnold is pro-choice! (was: Roe v. Wade and abortion)
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:31:13 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|I do not suggest that the woman be forced into bodily servitude.  

Welcome to the pro-choice side!  

|I do assert, however, that she is responsible for the 
|consequences of her behavior on others, including the 
|living human being in her womb for whose existence she 
|is responsible.

There's only one human being for 2/3 of that pregnancy,
remember.  That's the woman.  And a perfectly sensible,
practical, and legal way for her to discharge that 
responsibility is to get an abortion, of course.

|Live long and prosper....well, now that I think about it....at
|least prosper....well....

A fine, "pro-life" sentiment... Arnold wishes that someone
he disagrees with would die.  Pro-life until birth, that's
our Steve Arnold.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"'Nonsense, errant nonsense, as ever was talked!' cried Knightley." 
						-- Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Sep 92 00:08:28 GMT

In <1992Sep5.193953.11966@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <nyikos.715653432@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <1992Sep3.211916.20669@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>>In <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>>>>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>>>>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>>>>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>>>>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>>>>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>>>>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

>>>>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>>>>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>>>>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
>>>>particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
>>>>for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.

>>>  (Tragic article deleted).

>>>    Peter, why is it so hard for you to understand that yes, it is WRONG
>>>for someone to perform an abortion on a woman against her will (because
>>>it is interfering with her reproductive independence), but it is ALSO
>>>wrong for someone to refuse to allow a woman to get an abortion IF AN
>>>ABORTION IS HER DECISION (for the same reason)? You seem to be an
>>>intelligent man--why do you struggle so hard with this concept?

>>>                                                               MP

>>Because there is often also another human being involved, the one that
>>is killed if the abortion is a "successful" one.

>     Peter, given the choice between a sentient woman suffering horribly
>and an insentient fetus not having the chance to live, which would you
>choose?  Why?

If the fetus was never sentient, I would allow the abortion.  
Since you are pro-choice, I won't explain why, and I have already
explained it privately to Suzanne, and will explain it to any other
pro-lifer.

Peter Ny.




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Chaney chokes again.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:11:20 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.011244.18565@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <sam.715448934@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >
> >>So they basically said that it's okay to kill a human life as long as
> >>it's done in private and they're too young.
> >
> >That is NOT what I said at all.  Privacy rulings do not allow you to harm a
> >person.  Please show me the law that defines a fetus as a person.  Can't
> >find one?  Oops.  You lose.
>
> The fetus was a person before Roe vs. Wade. And of course, it is Roe
> vs. Wade that we're challenging.

The fetus was *never* legally a person; RvW had nothing to do with it.
Hence Steve Adams' challenge to "show me the law that defines a fetus
as a person".  Which, of course, you can't do.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:55:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep15.145721.37941@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <88947@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>> Eric
>>
>> Hey, Eric.  What is your problem?  Are you just plain stupid?  Or ignorant?
>> First you misconstrue my response (which was just another way of saying
>> abstinence - with no reference intended whatsoever to rape); then you ask
>> me to apologize to raped women for congratulating a woman for getting pregnant.
>>

>Hey, Kevin.  What is your problem?  Are you just plain stupid?  Or ignorant?
>Since you are having a little trouble understanding, I'll spell it out for
>you.  Abstinence is *not* a sure way to prevent pregnancy.  A woman can
>remain abstinent, or voluntarily refraining from sex, but still become
>pregnant by virtue of being the victim of rape, or involuntary sexual
>intercourse.

Hey, Larry.  I said I was NOT speaking about rape.  That should have been 
the end of it.  If we are NOT speaking about RAPE, then abstinence is 100%
effective.

I know the possible consequences of rape.  I know a woman can get pregnant
from rape.  I was NOT talking about that, Larry.

It was a simple issue of abstinence, nothing more.

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

kcw

--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 07:06:59 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<Bu1FJD.F5L@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1992Sep03.215609.14780@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>><Bu09ut.Es5@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
...
>And, beliefs regarding abortion are not necessarily religious.
>My beliefs regarding abortion are certainly not; they arise from
>consideration of morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity, 
>pragmatism, and a bit of scientific experience (research on reproduction).

No offense Don, but my pro-abortion beliefs arise from consideration of
morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity, pragmatism, and a
bit of scientific experience too.  

Where does that leave us?  Suzanne Forgach is fond of claiming that she is
pro-life "because she was once a fetus herself".  Since every person was
once a fetus, and not every person is pro-life, you can see where her
reasoning is less than compelling.


Gordon
-- 
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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:51:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> Don Beaver

>>"Your honor, my religion requires that I shoot Ronald Bense
>> in the head.  Am I free to practice freedom of religion?"

><Fit of Laughter>

Shows complete respect for life...

>>Freedom of religion does not give anyone free reign to harm
>>other people.

>That's why they hurried up and made the z/e/f a "non-person."

Untrue statement, as a fetus was never considered a person, but always
a fetus.

Chaney just hasn't gotten his act together, as he believes a person
can be killed (esp if he disagrees with him) but woe unto he that harms
that little lump known as a fetus, death to them. Can you say - HYPOCRITE?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Why the 5 week sentience point?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:15:13 GMT

In article <nyikos.716337853@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep12.001151.13966@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>>Peter:

>>>> The first is sheer speculation.  Which part of the plant is the seat
>>>> of sentience?  With humans, you will hear it asserted that sentience
>>>> is only associated with the neocortex, which is lacking in most
>>>> animals.   

>>>> I was safe-siding with my 5 week figure.  Somewhere in the 6th week, 
>>>> simple reflexes can be elicited.  Whether that is enough for sentience
>>>> is a deep and abiding mystery, but again, I am giving the embryo the
>>>> benefit of the doubt.

>>My biology books are in Chicago and I'm in New York (telnetting to my
>>U of Chicago account), but if I recall correctly, reflexes are handled
>>by the medula, which is sometimes considered the most "primitive" part
>>of the brain and sometimes considered a part of the spinal cord.
>>Certainly they are not handled by the parts of the brain considered
>>the seats of sentient/sapient thought.

>Descartes thought the pineal gland was the seat of the "somebody home".
>Subsequent philosophers generally have been of the opinion
> that it was a mistake to 
>locate that "somebody" in too small a place.  I wonder how
>many so-called neuroscientists are really aware of what these
>old debates were all about.  

Peter, what are your criteria for deciding what scientific evidence to
accept and what scientific evidence to reject?

As far as I can tell, you are being arbitrary at best.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:20:56 GMT

In article <xbnnk4=.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><Bu1EML.E6o@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1992Sep3.193512.23785@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>>>
>>>Sure.  And I'd be happy with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>>every male child to undergo a vascectomy at 12.  They could only reverse
>>>it (or attempt to reverse it) with written permission of their wife.
>>>
>>>How do you like those apples?  You want control over other people's
>>>lives, then I'll have control over yours.
>>
>>With this absurd escalation, you would of course accept tubal ligation
>>for girls at 12, reversible only by permission of a husband.  Is that 
>>really the equivalent of consent for abortion?
>
>Pretty close.  I agree pretty much with Jennifer here.  If you are going
>to legislate that the state controls a woman's womb then you had better be
>prepared to have your testicles controlled by the state too.

Okay.  I do respect your lack of hypocrisy.  I personally didn't really 
think of tubal ligation as a rough equivalent to non-abortion, and it
enlightens me (no sarcasm!!) that you feel strongly enough about abortion 
to think so.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
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 22:21:58 GMT

<1992Sep3.145448.26265@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>><1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug31.211903.25718@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
>>>do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.
>>
>>The difference might be that while we can all believe what everyone "should" and
>>"shouldn't" do, we are not all out trying to make laws to force people to 
>>do the things we think they should be doing.
>
>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>they think we should be doing.
>
>And no, this law will not force women to get abortions, but it WILL further
>reduce the probability that fathers will EVER have any rights in regards to
>their unborn children.
>
>>There is a group of pro-life folks who *are* trying to make laws to force
>>people to do what *they* think is right for them.
>
>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.

I realize that this is an older post but, let's assume that the woman
wants an abortion and the man doesn't want her to get one.  All discussion
is over, no amount of counseling will change either person's mind.  Who
wins, and why?  Who do you rule in favor of (granted you do not have that
power, but you know what I mean).  Keep in mind that the longer it takes
for the decision the closer to the "viability line" the fetus gets.

>I simply support making abortion illegal, because it is the most politically
>expedient way of making the rights of men and women equal.

But it doesn't make the rights of men and women equal.  It subjects women
to bodily slavery while men are only occassionally subject to making some
monetary payments.

>As an ex-feminist, I am VERY supportive of the idea of equal rights,
>regardless of sex.

Why *ex*feminist?  And lots of people support the *idea* of equal rights,
not many act like it.  You don't seem to act like it, but I could be
wrong.


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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:35:54 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

We're waiting for responses to other posts, Erik, let's get with it,
eh? :)

In talk.abortion, ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
>1.  The woman with limited financial resources should have spent them on
>contraception.  A condom costs 25 cents, maybe 50 at an expensive gas
>station.

Maybe she did. Maybe it failed. Maybe she still doesn't want a baby.

>2.  Okay, you guessed it.  The Pennsylvania legislature just wanted to
>get poor women.  That's the goal of all of us in life.  COME ON!  The
>intent of the law, and the effect of the law, is to place restrictions
>on abortion.

The effect of the law is to limit abortions in one small state, where
those that are more wealthy have little or no problem still obtaining
them, and the poor must go without. The net effect is that this law
aims primarily at poor women, not abortion itself. If PA tried to make
it illegal for women residents of PA to get abortions, I think you'd
find it either quickly overturned, found unconstitutional, or a rather
empty state (pro-lifers have little brains, so empty is an appropiate
adjective, imo).

>3.  All the picture tell how far through the pregnancy the fetus was.  A
>woman knows how far in her own pregnancy she was and can make her own
>assumptions.  The pictures show that there really is something alive
>inside of her, and give her an idea of what it is.

So are tapeworms. Your point?

Pro-choicers see it as nothing more than a false emotional appeal.

>Stop dodging the issue.  Nothing can ever be totally equitable, but
>that's the price you pay for living in a free society.  The simple fact

If it was a free society, we wouldn't be trying to limit abortion, nor
would the discussion of censorship, book-banning in schools, or gag
rules be running on this net.

Have fun.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35438 alt.flame:12601 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:391
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:43:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Aug31.122448.2125@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
|> Kevin Darcy wrote:
|> 
|> -> I support the idea of a moderated group. 
|> 
|> of course you do. no one would ever question that.
|> as ms. birmingham said above:
|> 
|>         "That it is not surprising that someone who
|>         desires to control what women do with their
|>         bodies would wish to control the content of
|>         people's posts.  I can't imagine any other
|>         reason for restricting freedom of expression."

	If you're adopting this position James, you're being ridiculous.  You
mean you can't imagine any good reasons in any context for restricting freedom of
expression?  What about a classroom, where a specific subject is being discussed
and where willy-nilly "freedom of expression" would rarely be anything other than
counter-productive?  Surely you'd agree that a teacher should and must provide
some direction and exert some control over the direction of the conversation?
	A moderated abortion newsgroup has advantages and disadvantages.  Among
the advantages is a screening-out of the bile, the insults, and the pompous rhetoric.
 What remains would be the actual substantive arguments, the serious
contributions to the discussion.  What person who supports a rational discussion
of abortion could oppose a moderated newsgroup?
	I'd add that the existence of a moderated group does not rule out the
continued existence of t.a.  But everyone knows that more flaming gets done on
t.a than anything else, and it would be refreshing to write and read only
substantive material without having to wade through the drool and the flames.

Steve
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:39:08 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>	  Police have arrested a Fort Lauderdale abortion clinic
>	physician after his wife reported that he handcuffed her,
>	strapped her to a table in their home and performed an abortion
>	against her will.

I'm glad that the bastard got arrested.  I hope they throw him under the jail
and throw away the key.

But this has nothing at all to do with "choice", does it, Peter?  If some
doctor flipped his wig and decided he wanted to forcibly perform an unecessary
triple bypass on me, would you really say, "SEEEEE?  *This* is why heart
surgery needs to be illegal!"

What a maroon.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:09:08 CDT

In article <1992Sep10.042326.12937@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

[discussion of father's right to control woman's 
reproductive system deleted.]
>
>For the logic impaired, the desire to control does not imply hatred of the
>person being controlled.  I control my baby, and I love him more than
>anything else.
>
Does anyone besides me find this analogy chilling?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 23:24:43 GMT

In <Bu4381.6Kt.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715652639@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Sep01.184825.34350@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>##The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
>##law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
>##were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
>##but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
>##and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
>##abortions were *not* struck down.
>#
>#They were in Thornburgh v. Coll. of OB/Gyn.  To the best of my knowledge,
>#no such law was upheld until Webster v. Repro.

>I hate to break this to you, Nyikos, but this is 1992.  Thornburgh was
>decided in 1986.  Larry is referring to the Pennsylvania Abortion
>Control Act of 1989.  PA has passed many anti-abortion bills.

But were the fetal survival parts at issue in the _Casey_ decision at
all?  If not, I still don't understand Larry's point.  If they were,
this is the first indication I have that _Casey_ struck down anything
relating to post-viability fetal survival.

>Your statements are technically correct, I'll grant you that.  They
>weren't, of course, at all relevant.

Whew!  Finally I get credit from you for a correct statement!

>Susan

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion