HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery analogy
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:05:20 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
# We have seen the following exchange.
# 
#     "IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!"
# 
#     "And if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave."
# 
#     "Bad analogy.  Slaves are people and deserve human rights.  The
#     fetus is not, IMNSHO, a person."
# 
# I disagree that the analogy is bad.  Though imperfect (as any analogy
# must be), slavery is perhaps one of the best analogies I have seen.  I
# will note some strong similarities.

I don't think the similarities are very strong, let alone significant.
My commentary follows.

#     Fetus                                 Slave
#     -----                                 -----
#     Considered by some to be the          Considered by some to be the
#     property of the woman.                property of the slave owner.

Most, if not all, slave owners considered their slaves to be their
property and other slaves to be property of other slave owners.  Many
women do not consider their fetuses to be property.

#     Denied personhood by some.            Denied personhood by some.**

Fetuses are currently denied personhood status by the law, religious
ethic and by the majority of the abortion abolitionist movement.  Many
slave owners simply made a distinction between `free' persons and
slaves.

#     Abortion abolitionists say            Slavery abolitionists say
#     person.                               person.

Very few abortion abolitionists actually believe that fetuses are
persons.  Evidence of this is that only a small minority wish to
abolish abortion even in cases of rape and grave threat to the
mother's health.  Of those that don't, many are totally unwilling to
demand that the law recognize the personhood of fetuses (e.g. Doug
Holtsinger) and the rest are rather candid about their equivocation
in the matter.

I'll leave the task of exposing further flaws in Mr. Skinner's
thinking to better minds.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt              |  the product of anything but might.''
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |                           -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:25:33 GMT

In article <1219@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>#In article <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.
>##
>#Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
>#like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
>#his own fantasies.
>#Who'sz the scorekeeper?
>
>Now, there's a problem.  It's easy to give you the 10 points, but
>how do we decide who gets the big bonus?  Most creative or most
>likely to be correct?
>
>If we use the latter criterion, I'd say you've won already.
>
How about avoiding the conflict and giving the bonus points to one of
each? I don't mind splitting the bonus with whoever wins for most
creative, or just give duplicate awards. :)

--
                  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: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Summary: shh, Larry, they're trying to ignore what happened to those women
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:09:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec23.081321.24304@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In <1099@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#[story about harrassment by "Operation Rescue" thugs, with police cooperation]
#..
##_My rights were violated._  My constitutional right to free passage in
##public property was neglected.  I will not let myself forget what
##people are really capable of.  I hope to God that this does not
##happen to you or to someone close to you.  I pray that if it does,
##this bill will be strong enough to have the police act swiftly to
#ensure not only the safety but the privacy of the individual."
##
##                             -Ms. Sylvia Doe
#
#In <1992Dec23.051627.12920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
##[media isn't nice to "Operation Rescue"]
#
#That's not a refutation of what Susan posted...

No, no, Larry.  Reverend Holtsinger said he was just changing the subject,
that it wasn't meant to refute what I posted.

Personally, I think that he's adopted PHoney's new strategy
of feigning stupidity when you get caught.  By pretending that
the article he quoted wasn't meant to be a response to the
testimony that I quoted, he can avoid trying to explain the
fact that the two articles are unrelated.  To do this, though,
he also has to pretend that he's too stupid to change a subject
line or delete the attribution for my post.

#   "I haven't seen any refutation of his claims thus far."
#            Doug Holtsinger, in <1992Dec23.005514.6333@ncsu.edu>

I think this was just an earlier example of DODie playing
stupid.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Organization: Not.
	<1992Dec31.041831.22787@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec31.051501.16635@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.051501.16635@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <1992Dec31.041831.22787@watson.ibm.com> 
   margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
   >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
   >> the term of pregnancy.

   > Dougie just can't stop lying about this.  Perhaps we should add the
   > refutation of his lies to the FAQ?

   You mean you're going to add more falsehoods to the ones
   that are already in the FAQ? :-)

Well, at least you recognize that you're lying...that's a start.  :-)

--PLH, now, for the aversion therapy...where are those jumper cables?
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: DODie's ethics
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:23:47 GMT

> [reporting obvious, joking forgeries to "the authorities"]

Yeah, right, Susie. "I was only following orders". Where has that been
heard before? Ever been to Nuremburg? Just out of curiosity, do you use
a gas oven, or an electric?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52576 alt.abortion.inequity:6083 soc.men:21585
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How?
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:43:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The Mountains of Madness
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> 
> I think the best way to do this is to require >both< parties to sign the
> same form.  That way the man knows at the time its signed that the woman
> won't abort the fetus, and the woman knows the man can't legally run off.
> 
> That is, there is mutual assent.  
> 
> I like it.  

The only problem is Karl is that, as has been pointed out here a
number of times, it is a woman's right to change her mind and abort
or not as she pleases. It is not a man's right to support or not as he
pleases. I can't believe that if an agreement was signed (whereby the
man would not be obligated to support a child he did not want) and the
women decided to keep it and go to court for support, that the judge
would rule in the man's favour. I'm also sure that her legal council
would have a (probably successful) go at ruling the agreement
unconstitutional. One way or another, they'll make you pay.

As some have said earlier, the only sure way is to get the snip.   

> Which I believe this change would do.  Only a foolish woman would have a
> child which she could not afford if she could not bill the man for half the
> cost -- and men would have no reason to "run off" on their kids, as they
> wouldn't be responsible for them unless they wanted them in the first place.

A 'sensible' woman would not make love to someone without making damn
sure she was 'protected', irrespective of who's responsibility
contraception 'should' be.
> 
> I fully support holding people to their agreements in this area; the key is
> consent.
> 
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
> Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
> Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Dave
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------              Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year          -------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: the one bad apple theory of pregnancy.
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:55:14 GMT

In article <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
> Dr. Tiller?  

I haven't seen any refutation of his claims thus far.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:14:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


If you have a Planned Parenthood affiliate nearby, keep an eye
on it during January.  Most pro-force groups are targeting
PP's in the coming months.  They're planning to sidewalk harass
people entering PP clinics even if the clinics don't do abortions.
They're upset about the fall of the gag rule,

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Does Susan Garvin support abortion legislation? 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 18:23:24 GMT

In article <1171@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> When people on talk.abortion discuss "legislation," they are 
> usually talking about legislation that affects abortion.

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'?

Or would it be better to acknowledge that the term
"legislation" usually implies "anti-abortion legislation"?


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
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 04:34:12 GMT

In article <=-22d2b@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>->[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
>
>->Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
>->going to post that much junk about it.
>->You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. Just
>->try to avoid the psych boys when you're doing so.
>
>i don't really believe kebbie thinks of himself as a
>group. he simply needed to convince people that he was
>a group once in order to slither away from admitting he
>fucked up yet again. in the global scheme of
>kebbie-dialogue, this was just more of the same.
>
I don't really think he considers himself a group either, but isn't it
fun to watch him squirm?

--
                  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: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery analogy
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:29:14 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec23.163240.15733@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu
writes the old saw about slavery and abortion:

>I disagree that the analogy is bad.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the support you provide for it
is faulty:

>    Fetus                                 Slave
>    -----                                 -----
>    Considered by some to be the          Considered by some to be the
>    property of the woman.                property of the slave owner.

The slave was legally the property of the owner.  A fetus is not and
never has been the property of her mother.

>    Denied personhood by some.            Denied personhood by some.**

In my opinion, the personhood issue is a red herring and irrelevant to
abortion rights.  However, to answer your statement, legally a fetus
is *not* a person and a slave (in the US) was legally 3/5 of a person.

>    Abortion abolitionists say            Slavery abolitionists say
>    person.                               person.

Abortion abolitionists can say person all they want, but it has
nothing to do with abortion rights.  No entity (human persons
included) is allowed to occupy the body of another person against
their will.  Further, a 5 year old child cannot legally compel its
parent to donate bodily resources, e.g., blood, tissue, or an organ,
to save its life.  Why do you want to give special rights only to
entities that occupy the bodies of women?

>(** Historical evidence bears this out.  I have seen drawings from the
>slave era of slaves with the facial features exaggerated to yield a
>beast-like appearance.  One drawing I recall in particular included
>labels specifically comparing the head of a slave to the head of a
>boar.)

How interesting.

>To be sure, there are differences.  For instance, the fetus is inside
>a woman's body; the slave's situation is not analogous.  But those of
>us (myself included) who would leave the abortion choice to
>individuals must ask ourselves whether we would also leave the choice
>to keep slaves to the individual.  If our answer differs, we must be
>able to clearly explain why.

A slave is not occupying the body of its owner.

>  Arguing "slaves are people" will not do,
>for it is probable that not everyone agrees.  Certainly such a
>concensus had not been reached at the time of the Emancipation
>Proclamation.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:16:05 GMT

In article <BzL9Jq.18y@ddsw1.mcs.com>
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>If you are currently the underdog you can achieve equality two ways:

>1)	Gain rights for yourself.
>2)	Take them from the advantaged group until you are equal.

Congratulations on convincing this member of talk.abortion that you
would *prefer* the latter, but would reluctantly take the former
instead if you can get more help that way and so get it easier.

-- 
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
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Meet Petey Ny, propoganda specialist.
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:37:19 GMT

In <1992Dec22.012821.14804@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.724627328@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>[Lots of unsubstantiaqted hearsay garbage deleted]
		  ^^^^^^^^

I missed this one in my first follow-up.  I wasn't especially trying to 
look for spelling errors in the message.  These others came later:

>Digoxin is not "related to" digitalis, it *is* digitalis. What is your
>problem with it's use to stop a heart?
	      ^^^^

>Jeeez Petey, if you're going to post this gaqrbage, at least make some
					   ^^^^^^^^
>minimal effort to get yoru facts straight.
                       ^^^^

Not bad for such a short post.  Maybe Larry Finkelstein can teach 
Mark a thing or two about correct spelling. :-)

In a more serious vein, Mark Cochran is quickly moving to the forefront
of candidates for the label "pro-abortionist" (not to be confused with
pro-abort: see my post on suggested FAQ entries).  He shows a most
ready willingness to dismiss the testimony of a pro-choice feminist
as "unsubstantiated hearsay garbage" while believing in the integrity
of the abortionist who fired her.

Susan Garvin has posted lavish praise of Tiller in the past.  I wonder
what she will say to impugn the testimony of Luhra Tivis, testifying
before the Kansas State Senate.

PJN

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Laugh of the week from Steve Mezias (Was:...Will Steeves)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:38:45 GMT

In <34544@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <nyikos.724975331@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 

>>The only one needed for this post, or the one to which I am following
>>up, is one for the sentence beginning, "Is this the same Will..." and
>>repeating a charge which has been thoroughly refuted by both Will and
>>myself.  (And probably also Don Beaver, whom Susan was telling not to
>>post his attempted refutations on all the same places where the charge
>>was aired, in her usual pro-force style.)

>I saw the original post in which Will stated that he felt like killing
>the woman he had impregnated for not respecting his opinion regarding
>whether she should be an incubator for his fetus.

You not only have changed the charge from the way you originally 
worded it, you show evidence of having very poor reading comprehension,
or memory, or both.

And I'm not saying this because of the ridiculous "incubator" talk,
which marks you as a person with strong pro-abortion leanings (see
my post on new definitions for the FAQ, specifically the entry
"pro-abortion").  No, even if you had worded your charge in a less
nonstandard way, I still would have said what I did. 

>  I don't know how
>this could be refuted since he wrote it.  By referring to this
>accusation, I do not mean to imply that I *believe* Will would
>actually have killed her, but I do offer it as evidence that Will
>believes he should have been able to force this woman to listen to
>him.

One year after the deed was done?  Even Dean Kaflowitz gave no hint
of extrasensory powers of this magnitude.  Time travel!  Ability
to alter the past!  Why, even fanatical Christians are reluctant
to attribute to "all-powerful" God the ability to change the past!

>>"Mezias telling Elizabeth Bartley to get real?  This isn't the pot
>>calling the kettle black; this is the pot calling the milk black."

>Well, Peter, you have certainly bested me on this one.  Oh, darn.

Glad we agree on something. :-)

I even added some arguments above (I hope you can read them better
than you did Will's post) in case you have second thoughts about
what you have just said.

PJN


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:35:23 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BzIoB7.4Dr@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1goin9INN1b3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>clothe and educate their children, up to the point where they relinquish
>>their children to the social services set up explicitly for the purpose
>>of continuing the feeding, clothing, and educating of children whose parents
>>cannot or willnot continue to do.
>
>For you see, those "social service" agencies will come and take a child from
>a >women< who does not or will not care for it.  However, should a >man<
>walk away from a child he should be thrown in jail for the same offense and 
>have his wages garnished for the next 20 years.

Horseshit, once again, Karl.

Gee, don't you get tired of looking stupid?

The social services agencies will care for children that have been relinquished
by custodial parents.  Regardless of sex.  Get used to it.

>Yet once that social service agency comes around, its the states' problem
>isn't it?  But only if you're a woman in the majority of cases today.  Men 
>need not apply; just give the kid to mom and give dad the bill.


Well, that's the current method of keeping our taxes below 50%, yeah.  Now,
have you really proposed anything to make that better, or have you proposed
something that makes it worse?  We haven't seen a convincing economic
analysis.

I think we'd be better off awarding custody to men in 50% of the cases, which
is my proposal.  Simly to 'even things up' a bit and make both the rewards and
the hardships more random.  Which would in turn drive more consideration in
both work and social situations towards parents and children alike, instead
of ghetto-izing them as occurs today.  

Adrienne Regard
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:52:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh



In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:

#I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  

Nice trick, Heather.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion