HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:38:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <C03EL2.H24@ddsw1.mcs.com>
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.061605.15824@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>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.

Huh? He presented two alternatives, Elizabeth, why do you ASSUME he prefers
the latter? Is it just that you FEAR that the latter may become necessary, so
you're trying to get Karl to repudiate it -- a "pre-emptive strike" if you will?

>>Wrong Elizabeth.  I would prefer the former.  I begrudgingly accept that the
>>former >explicitly< and >implicitly< includes the latter (specifically: the
>>right of women today to attach a man's earnings for 18 years) and therefore
>>the realities of the situation are that women, particularly feminists, will
>>not support the granting of equal rights in this area to men.
>
>If you don't want to make people think you'd prefer to take away
>women's rights instead of give rights to men, maybe you shouldn't
>issue so many threats.  

If those who defend the status quo weren't so close-minded, Elizabeth, maybe
Karl wouldn't feel the necessity to put a threatening "spin" on his posts in
order to get their attention and make them THINK about their position. How 
many recitations of empty platitudes like "children deserve support" do you
think male-choicers can stand before they feel a need for escalation?

>I *know* you've done nothing to me but make me
>emotionally more hostile to father's rights.  (I still support the
>same things, but now I do it grudgingly.)

Grudging support is still support. If Karl has stimulated some of the
undecideds or the borderliners into thinking through the issue, and
realizing how unfair the current system is, then maybe it has been worth
the risk, don't you think? Yeah, I know the old saying about flies and
honey and vinegar, but there's an equally (?) old term -- "dogmatic
slumber" -- and the cure for that affliction is an irritant...

>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?

It's got MY vote... 

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53974 alt.flame:17564 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:676
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
-> >Darcy certainly doesn't dispute that he made
-> >the accusation, he just claims now that it was a joke.  
-> 
-> I _always_ said it presented as a joke.

no doubt because you realized how funny the net.world
thinks further abusing the victims of child abuse is,
right?

then again, i suppose you'd prefer readers to see this
as a reflection of your understanding of humor, rather
than one of your honesty,
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:40:17 GMT

I cancelled my original article less than a minute after I put it up,
Patrick, because I was in a bad mood when I posted it and I said some
things which could be interpreted as flames.  I'm not sure how it
still got out to your site, but what's done is done.

One thing I'll say in my defense, though, for those readers who
somehow got the article: There's a difference between clueless newbies
who parade around this newsgroup saying "ab0rtion is murder" and reply
to every single thing a pro-choicer says by parroting those words over
and over again, and considerate pro-lifers who believe that abortion
is murder but can back up their opinions by responding considerately
to pro-choice arguments.  (As in, "I know you feel that abortion
should be allowed because _____, but I still believe that the reasons
to protect a fetus are more important than the reasons you give to
take its life because _____.")

I encourage considerate discussion with pro-lifers.  I don't like it
when people assume some morally superior attitude, though.  You seem
reasonable, Patrick; I look forward to debating with you.  :)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:26:43 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1guoq3INNegd@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>In article <1gtt9jINNn66@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|If the question is 'saving the life of the fetus', then the means,
>|outlined above, is quite clear.  Loren can save the life of a fetus by
>|consenting to being fisted for nine months.  Guaranteed.  He can do
>|this 'good' thing for the world.  He actually *can*.  It is within his
>|power.
>
>I say that there is a morally relevant distinction here, between the
>situation Loren is faced with, and the situation a pregnant woman is
>faced with.

So?

_IF_ the question is 'saving the life of the fetus', who gives a damn
about the niggling and squiggling methods you and Loren use to get out
of actually putting your bodies where your mouths are?

Do you or do you not want to save the lives of fetuses?  

Or is it REALLY only that you want to force OTHER PEOPLE to save the
lives of fetuses?

Why do you figure *you* get to decide who is morally distinctly obligated
and who is not?

I say *I* get to decide who is morally distinctly obligated to save a fetus'
life.  And that you aren't going to like the means or the answer.  Gee, too
bad.

(a bunch more niggling and squiggling about how Loren doesn't have to
do anything even though HE is the one who values the fetus' life, but 
how many unknown women DO have to do something even though they do not
value the fetus' life, deleted)

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:16:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.043830.9305@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.021611.412@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec31.010805.20244@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>
>}>It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
>}>think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
>}>no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.
>}
>}If you lack the ability to abstract from actual, mundane EXPERIENCES of 
>}pregnancy and/or abortion, Galen, how do you expect to ever discuss these
>}issues intelligently?
>}
>}Perhaps you should consider just leaving the discussion to those of us who 
>}CAN abstract... 
>
>Well, I might, except then people like Kevin Darcy might jump in with
>no counter.  Perhaps it escaped you, but using slavery as an analogy
>is often unproductive, as many are confused as to who is the oppressor
>and who is the oppressed, ...

Correction: because GALEN is confused, or someone set up the analogy
improperly, NOT because the analogy is inherently faulty.

>To put it rather bluntly, Kevin, I tend to care more for the "actual,
>mundane EXPERIENCES" as you put it, than I do for whatever abstracts you
>might care to construct.

If that's true, then I fail to see how you, as a man, and therefore as 
someone unable to gestate and give birth to a child, i.e. as someone who
cannot actually experience abortion or its alternative, can possibly have
any meaningful contribution to an abortion discussion.

>ps  how is your definition of the crucial dividing line which you can't
>detect going?  

The definition is well-known and well-understood in medical circles, Galen.

Maybe all of these so-called medical "experts" you know are just fakers (?)

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.131733.14752@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}I expressed no ABSOLUTE degrees, Galen. 

Its "Kevin" Darcy, not "Kelvin" Darcy.  

}> [diatribe about Darcy being the most evil force in the universe, deleted]

Deleted, but not refuted or even denied.

}Try decaffeinated, Galen.

Jack Daniels has caffeine in it?  Darn.  Where can I get the decaff kind?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Reverend continues to search for his niche
Date: 24 Dec 92 20:05:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec24.172719.3996@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:


#To criticize Mr. Nyikos
#for doing something which you and Susan Garvin have done
#ad nauseum is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.

Sorry, Rev, this isn't it, either.  You might be able to
find a sin that you're not famous for if you look hard
enough - then, you can criticize without looking like a
hypocrite.  Obviously, hypocrisy is not that sin.  Neither
is selective editing.  Keep trying.

Susan,
who wonders if DODie dropped his support for the HLA, or if
he's lying about that, too
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53037 alt.flame:17450
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:11:58 GMT

In article <75974@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>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).

Oh yeah, I forgot to say that those taxes are in *addition* to the voluntary
donations you have. Actually, I find it quite an income to the church, as most
people go to chuch only on Christmas.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:13:30 GMT
	<1992Dec12.231358.18006@ncsu.edu> <1hkqb6INNj7n@mirror.digex.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: What a concept!

In article <1hkqb6INNj7n@mirror.digex.com> q@access.digex.com (The Omnipotent) writes:

   In article <1992Dec12.231358.18006@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >Why not bring it up here?  This newsgroup is dead anyways.
   >Why doesn't somebody send out the rmgroup?  

  Because this group is NOT dead, you ignorant toadie.

Rev. Doug never has been much for figuring out the obvious.

   >> -- every time he attacks me in here, I re-direct the follow-ups
   >> back to talk.abortion.  
   >
   >Like the coward that you are...

  You got that damn straight.    Wussie weenies who can't face me on my own turf
  are beneath my contempt.

De gustibus non est disputantum, of course.  Poor ol' Rev. Doug, though,
goes on these tears occasionally, where he disappears from the newsgroups
he's causing the most trouble in, and pops up in groups that have very
little if anything to do with the dreck he posts.  Think of him as a
slightly lower-posting-volume version of Serdar Argic/Hasan Mutlu.  :-)

   >> I suspect he doesn't want to appear there because
   >> too many people are wise to his act.
   >
   >No, I've appeared there when I want to discuss abortion.  Your 
   >racist remarks have nothing to do with abortion, coward.

   There is no place for racism, OR for opposition to a woman's right to her
   own reproductive control.  So bloody well there!

Damn straight.

   >> (Q would have fun with him, for sure...)

   Actually, only "pity" comes to mind.  Not "fun".

Well, now I can say I've seen everything -- Q and I agreeing on something.
(And they said it couldn't be done...)

--PLH, finally, a newsgroup that's *slower* than the USPS DeMoss Station...


--
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52870 soc.men:21768
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:05:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.034029.16264@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <sdz20-l@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>->>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes to
>>->>kebbie:
>>->>->I'm game... Lets hear you explain the difference between a fantasy and
>>->>->a hypothetical situation which has NO basis or cantact with the real
>>->>->world.
>>->>
>>->>i can see you need to review some history, particularly
>>->>kebbie's explanation of the GROUP kevin darcy and the
>>->>INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy.
>>
>>->You mean Kebbin thinks he's a group? He has Multiple Personality
>>->Disorder, or what?
>>
>>it wasn't all that complex. when kebbie was addressed,
>>specifically by name, he claimed that a group was being
>>addressed. it was one of those funny and sad things
>>that kebbie does frequently. it seemed to me that it
>>was one of those semantics games he plays to avoid
>>admitting to a mistake which many readers saw him make,
>>which is why so many people have teased him about it
>>ever since then.
>>
>>you might have something similar developing with him in
>>another thread, you know.
>>
>Wonderful. I know I once suggested to Kebbin that he let his
>"contacts" at UMMC check his brain, but here we have it...
>Further evidence that if they do, we'll lose him. I don't think they
>have net access from the Psych Ward...

Mark, you've allowed yourself to be flim-flammed by yet more propaganda. 
All you need do to dispel this odor of ignorance is to ask yourself "Does 
the term 'Kellmeyer and Darcy' denote a group, or an individual?". Assuming 
you pick the correct answer, then the ignorance dissipates, and all is well 
again.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:15:01 GMT

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? :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: information for dodie
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:45:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <2jz2n_m@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#dodie, i think you might want to visit the restrooms of
#a train station in a middle- large-sized city.
#name-flaming susan garvin with "shit" is so, well
#uncreative. you might, if you follow my advice, you'll
#learn some new words you can use. just read anything 
#written on the wall.don't worry; no one will
#tell mum on you. plus, those new words will provide all
#those who laugh at you with more merriment.

Hey, I thought that he'd shown some progress - he was talking
about "snots" to Patrick just a little while before.  

He's slipping in another sense, though.  He's revealing more about
himself than I think he means to - it'll be fun to see what he'll
admit to next.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Meet Operation Rescue
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.005201.15299@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <CORWIN+.92Dec24140340@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
   corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   >>corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
   >>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >>>>      "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
   >>>>      by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990,

   >>> What is the point?

   >> Ms. Garvin posted a one-sided and biased account of a woman's 
   >> encounter with Operation Rescue.  In response, I posted another 
   >> viewpoint of the group.  Sorry if that confused you.

   > Your article had nothing to do with Operation Rescue.  

   Obviously you didn't read the article, since it mentioned 
   Operation Rescue 12 times.

You are right that the article mentions Operation rescue.  But the
main point of the article has nothing to do with O.R., but how the
media portrays anti-choice people.  Operation Rescue is simply an
example of what the article implies is a trend or conspiracy towards
this poor mistreated and misrepresented movement. 

I'll ask you again: do you think every anti-choice person is a member
of operation rescue? 

   > It seemed to be mindless blathering about the mediate and 
   > anti-choice folks.  

   I'm not surprised that you're unsure of the article's 
   contents--many people can't bring themselves to read
   material which might conflict with their preconceived 
   notions about the world.  

It is true that I do not perceive anti-choice people as being
misrepresented or maligned by the media.  I also don't feel sorry for
them. 

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"We do not have an anti-gay policy... The problems Boy Scouts are
having are with people trying to get in - the gay community, the
homosexuals, the atheists."
Burford Hill, Western Regional Director, Boy Scouts of America. 
5 June 1992, San Francisco Chronicle

"We don't necessarily discriminate.  We simply exclude certain types of
people."
   Lt. Col. Gerald Wellman, an ROTC instructor at the MIT,
   on the military's ban on gays
   Newsweek, May 25

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:58:56 CST

In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>Physicians should be qualified to make some measure of the
>relative (health) risks of continuing a pregnancy.
>(However, much of this is a matter of professional *opinion*
>and will always bea subject of dispute.)
>
>I have to disagree that the pregnant woman or her physician 
>alone have the right to terminate the life of the child. 
>The child has a right to life (and quality of life) that must
>be balanced with the mother's right to life (and quality of
>life).
>
So, if a few women more women lose their lives, or
their 'quality of life' would that be more 'balanced'?

>The child has *no* advocate and no voice -- yet faces grave 
>consequences.  I would hope that the mother (and father)
>is taking the child's interests into consideration, but
>there is no guarantee.  The physician only receives a fee
>by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
>to be impartial.
>
>Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
>ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
>is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
>evaluate the situation.

This is not best for the woman.  Even when her request
is granted, she would be subjected to humiliating and
demeaning inquisition by strangers who may not always
have her best interests at heart.

>Because there may be some urgency in the medical condition,
>these procedures should procede fairly rapidly.

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?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: xmas Operation Rescue news from Louisiana
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:53:16 GMT

In article <Bzw2xC.440@wpg.com> 
russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

> AP - Baton Rouge.  A state district judge has ordered Kim Carmouche, 
> an anti-abortion leader and unsuccessful Baton Rouge mayoral 
> candidate, to pay more than $13,000 in child support or face three 
> months in jail.  

Is this a case where he was unwilling or unable to pay child support?

And if the former, will we see Stephen Mezias post an article
entitled "the one bad apple theory of Operation Rescue"?
 
>Russell Lawrence


Doug Holtsinger
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:21:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec22.153207.4729@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
( Steve Novak) writes to Petey Honey:  
[text deleted]
>It's gonna be fun watching Sue Garvin embarrassing you again.  Welcome 
>back..."Professor".

Actually, I think that it's going to be Mark Cochran who gets to be
the leader in embarassing PHoney for a while - Nyikos is posting a
lot of medical misinformation in his latest incarnation.
I'd also guess that Steve Adams, Eric Rescorla, and drieux will have
their turns, too, since Nyikos has decided to branch out into
theology.  

I'll add that there's plenty of material already available - these
guys can have fun even if PHoney runs for cover, er, his rewsreader
breaks down again.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show