HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: richarde@baseball.mentorg.com (Richard Ellermeier)
Subject: Re: Slavery analogy
Originator: richarde@baseball
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:33:52 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


In article <1992Dec23.163240.15733@csrd.uiuc.edu>, skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

I will come out from behind the lurker screen to address this from a point 
no one has addressed it before.

This analogy is falls apart as indicated.

--deletia--
|> 
|> 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.
|> 
|> 
|>     Fetus                                 Slave
|>     -----                                 -----
|>     Considered by some to be the          Considered by some to be the
|>     property of the woman.                property of the slave owner.
|> 
|>     Denied personhood by some.            Denied personhood by some.**
|> 
|>     Abortion abolitionists say            Slavery abolitionists say
|>     person.                               person.

       Fetus is a financial and              Slave is a financial positive
       physical drain on the woman.          with NO physical consequences
                                             to the slave owner.

It should also be noted that at any time the slave owner decided he could 
sell or otherwise dispose of a slave he did not want.  Hmmmmmmmmmm.  Very
Interesting.

|> 
|> (** 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.)
|> 
|> To be sure, there are differences.  

--deletia--

|> 
|>                                        Gregg Skinner

And now---back from whence I came with followups and flames directed to "Ye
Olde Bit Bucket"

--rich

******************************************************************************
The Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908, but hey, any team can have a 
bad century.                          --Jack Brickhouse on KFXX radio 4/1/92 ******************************************************************************
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:30:07 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec31.192723.7258@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.171914.12814@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>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? :-)
>
>> Yes, we'd probably have to include your falsehoods in order to refute them.
>
>Are you saying that the following quote from a law professor
>at Georgetown University is a "falsehood"?

Yes, since it's clearly contrary to fact.  He concludes that states can not
prohibit post-viability abortions, when in fact they do; such restrictions
have been passed *after* RvW, and remain unchallenged (because *nobody* with
any intelligence believes that nonsense).
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 1993 10:41:30 -0500 
From: Steven Timm <st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Women's health clinics


A friend of mine from South Africa who is in the ANC women's collective
would like to spend some time in the US learning about how women's health
centers are run, also learning about rape crisis centers.  If anyone has
any idea about whom she could contact, please send me E-mail.

Also if there are any colleges with programs in this area, please let me know.

Steve Timm

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:11:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.022404.23240@jetsun.weitek.COM> 
nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
> In article <1992Dec30.161156.9317@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
Nelson) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec30.192012.7684@mksol.dseg.ti.com> 
noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
> >>In article <1992Dec30.111143.29938@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com 
(Muriel Nelson) writes:
> >>|> In article <C01L6s.11v@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul 
Lebow) writes:
> 
> >>|> >You are a bitter person Muriel.  

Oh, I see, "misogynist twit" is just pillow-talk 
> 
> Sorry Paul. We women in this group are used to being called bitter.
> Say what you mean. What you mean is Muriel doesn't agree with you and
> doesn't know her place.

Oh, I see again.  As a man, I can't speak for a woman, but as a woman...no 
problem!
> 
> >>Do you believe that a male does not have a right to hold an opinion
> >>on this issue?  I have encountered such women before, and constructive
> >>debate was ended before it began.  I will assume otherwise.
> 
> When men get pregnant, then they have a right to make their own decisions
> about whether or not they wish to continue a pregnancy. They have no
> business telling the rest of us how to live.

Gee, I don't see you telling Mr. Kaflowitz, or others of his persuasion, to 
mind their own business.

> 
> >>Why do you think Paul does not sympathize with the women who are in
> >>these straits?  I admit I do not know Paul, but to assume that anti-
> >>abortionists do not see the evil of illegal abortions is improper.
> 
> The fact that permitting ten thousand women a year to die is seen by
> Paul as a desirable outcome suggests to me that the young man is totally
> unable to see the position of the pregnant woman.

Please give the reference on this supposed statement of mine.

> 
> >>legal abortions are performed each year (millions) than deaths of
> >>women in back-alley illegal abortions (thousands perhaps?) years
> >>ago.  An anti-abortionist is making the agonizing decision between
> >>millions of deaths and thousands of deaths.  There is no good
> >>choice, only the lesser of two evils.
> 
> Thank you for making it clear that the life of a three day old z/e/f is 
> held to be of greater or equal weight than a full grown woman. It is 
probably
> beyond your comprehension, but this is part of the reason that I find it
> hard to believe that Paul sees the pregnant woman at all. The boy has
> X-ray vision, only. 

Because if you didn't dehumanize me (as you do the unborn) it would be much
more difficult for you to be so bombastic.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: 4,128 Maniacs
	<1992Dec30.230807.5753@ncsu.edu>
	<1992Dec31.002354.19884@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <hb32rxl@rpi.edu>
	<1992Dec31.023534.12352@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:40:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.023534.12352@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <hb32rxl@rpi.edu> 
   keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >> You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
   >> could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 

   > but someone has tried to use a
   > person's death to unjustly flame someone else. do you
   > know who that person is

   Sure, Larry Margolis:

   ---
   Message-ID: <1992Dec30.213100.12519@watson.ibm.com>

      nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
      >Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?

      Because she's dead, you ignoramus.

      "Remember me at my best."     Rest in peace, Siren.
   ---

   No doubt we won't see pro-choicers flame Larry Margolis for
   his mistake.

Hmmm...could that be because it wasn't necessarily a mistake?  I notice
you're not screaming at PHoney, and he *did* bring it up in the first place
as a taunt -- so why aren't you attacking his actions?  Could it be because
he's on your "side" and is thus incapable of doing anything wrong, by your
standards?   Way to go, Rev -- with the attitude you're showing here, you'd
have been a hit in the old KGB...

--PLH, it *has* to be something in the water up there...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: More abortion stuff (was Re: Reconciling OT with NT)
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:11:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.174423.12108@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
|> 
|> >Talking and doing are two separate things.  Please remember, it would
|> >never have occurred to me to compare the abortionsist to Nazis.  I am
|> >merely using your analogy.  Obviously your analogy doesn't do much to
|> >convince me that pro-choicers aren't actually pro-abortionists.
|> >Please, I'm not some abortion fanatic.  I merely wanted to point out
|> >a fallacy of Suzanne's and I got drawn in to this argument of semantics.
|> 
|> Well, try this. I am a pro-choice, but I am personally against abortion. The
|> reason I am a pro-choice is because I find the thought of forcing my believes
|> upon others as horrible, outrageous and cruel. As an analogy, if there were a
|> muslim dictator in my country and he made a law which prohibited me from eating
|> pork meat just because he believed that it was wrong then I think I would have
|> fled the country!
 
But why are you against abortion?  Which act is abortion closer to, murder
or eating pork?  Do you consider it immoral for states to enforce morals
on others by passing laws to prevent stealing and killing?  Is not getting
an abortion something like keeping kosher?

|> Onar.

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:43:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.180606.27847@cbnews.cb.att.com> 
jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:

> I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation
> to provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
> personhood.

During most abortions, the child's right to bodily autonomy is 
violated.  If the child is a person, then you cannot support 
unrestricted abortion-on-demand using the notion of bodily 
autonomy. 

> This condones "infanticide" only if there is no cost-effective way to
> cease providing support short of "infanticide".

Why does the morality of infanticide depend on the amount of
money which is necessary to transfer custody of an infant
to another care-taker? 

>James Parker


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 06:08:19 GMT

In article <nyikos.725752055@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec29.052604.26318@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:

>>You'd like the 'little ones' who have already been *aborted* to experience
>>birth?  Are you a reincarnationist, or just incoherent?
>
>It was an allusion to the "Second Birth" in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing."
>
[Richard Dawson voice ON...]
And the survey SAYS.... *bing* Incoherent! [Wild applause and
screaming]
[Richard Dawson voice returned to owner]

>I say this for the benefit of people who tuned in late, since you know
>damn well what I was talking about, having deleted my long painstaking
>explanation of what I meant by "First Birth."
>
Long... Yes, we'll all agree with that. You've always been good
at demonstrating your inability to reply in a succinct method. Your
rambling pointless diatribes are your one claim to fame.

>Yes, I do believe apologies are in order *all around*.
>
Excellent! When will you begin issuing them?

--
                  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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53068 alt.society.civil-liberty:7070
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:04:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec26.212139.9327@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Dec25.191755.12514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
#clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
#
## The *really* interesting thing is that [Mr. Holtsinger] apparently regards
## firebombs, death threath, vandalism, and couragous acts such as pouring
## gasoline into the ceiling of a clinic and dropping in a match as acts of
## "civil disobedience".  
#
#Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
#recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  The article that
#I posted mentioned nothing about firebombs or death
#threats, but it did mention several instances where
#Operation Rescue had its free speech rights curtailed.
#One wonders whether the 'civil libertarians' on this
#newsgroup are that in name only. 

If you could read, Reverend Holtsinger, you'd know that
the comments were not a reply to the newspaper article that 
you posted, but to your comments describing O.R.'s actions
as civil disobedience.  Do you consider firebombing and
death threats to be part of guaranteed free speech?  Do
you have any documentation for O.R.'s claims that their
rights have been abridged?  The group sued the city of
Pittsburgh in federal court - the case was dropped because
there was no evidence of any of their claims.  In another
incident, an O.R. member here claimed that he had been
stun-gunned by the police.  The videotape that they offered
as evidence clearly showed the officer's "stun gun" to
be a flashlight.  


Are you defending O.R. because they're fetus fanatics like
you, or because they're pathological liars like you?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Peter Nykios needs a better NetNews Server (was Re: Mark Cochran)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:25:19 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: risks, surgical procedure

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>My thanks to Peter Cash for relaying this follow-up to one of my posts
>while my netserver is blind [still is--175 hours and counting, since
>the last time it received any news].  

Your site needs better network connections or a better sysadmin.  If you
have intercet connections, then how about reading at a public acess or
promiscuous nntp site?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.183353.16725@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu 
writes that we can draw valid conclusions about the legality of 
abortion from looking at slavery:

}If one wants one's argument to be compelling, the connection is best
}not left to the reader.  If it is, however, and the reader doesn't
}make the connection, the proper response is to make the connection
}explicit.  An improper response would be to flame the reader for not
}making the connnection.

Oh, in other words, we should first allow states to ban abortion only
in those territories in rebellion.

Is that a proper response?  If I (the reader) did not make a proper
connection, would you please show the connection, not just simply assert
it?

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: an3329@anon.penet.fi
Subject: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: talk.abortion
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:13:21 GMT


Killing babies is wrong because they are human beings just like everyone
else. They didn't do anything wrong and killing them says a lot about the
way we treat each other. We should help pregnant women experience pregnancy
with dignity instead of having to get abortions because of circumstances
they can't control. We as a people are forcing pregnant women to destroy their
babies when we say a woman must turn to violence to keep her job or survive.
It sickens me to hear of pregnant women having to get abortions because
they didn't have the support system they needed to nurture and protect their
babies. That is the biggest injustice ever perpetrated on a woman. Turning
a blind eye to the plight of these women is cruel and inhuman treatment.
We will always remain a nation of violence when we say babies can be killed
because they can't be helped. We must never tell the weakest and smallest
members of society they must sacrifice their lives. We must never tell
pregnant women violence is their only solution.  We must show our love and
compassion towards pregnant women and their babies, or we will never be
able to show our love towards other members of society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Another Satanist Misses with Slavery
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:41:41 GMT

] 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.  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.
] 
] 
]                                        Gregg Skinner


Lets stop, take out our bibles, and read a little.

Then Stop, and ask yourself.

Would YOU ALLOW YOUR GOVERNMENT TO OPPOSE THE BIBLE?


ciao
drieux

ObHistory: Do try to remember that the Emancipation Proclamation
ONLY covers the matter of Slaves in the 'rebelling states' RATHER
than all slaves..... It took a PACKED HOUSE of congress to whitewash
the matter of SLAVERY and stand AGAINST THE BIBLE!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:00:02 GMT

In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>In article <14DEC92.20420711@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>|I'm willing to sign a legal contract stating that I will not abort any 
>|unwanted pregnancies if you will agree to be fisted for nine months.  What's 
>|nine months of your time compared to the life of a cute little unborn baby?

>|Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
>|resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>|Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.

>I find this argument bizarre.

>For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
>sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,
>and being willing to submit to the conditions imposed by someone else
>as a condition for their doing so.

In this case, submitting to the conditions imposed by someone else is
necessary to safe the life of a fetus.

The CuteWarmFuzzyUnbornFetus can't tell the difference between being
aborted because Mommy didn't want him, or because you wouldn't pay the
price Mommy demanded to give birth to him.

>It is similar to the difference
>between being willing to risk your life to defend another, and giving
>in to terrorist demands.

No.  Terrorism is illegal.  Abortion is legal.  You may find both
equally immoral -- but there is a significant percentage of the
American population that does not agree.  I see the similiarity, but
the differences are major.

You know what really annoyed me about your article?

Not your refusal to be fisted -- you have a valid point that the
contract would be unenforceable, and I understand your distinction
between things that nature makes necessary to save a fetus and things
that the mother demand.

I was annoyed because you didn't give any indication you were willing
to do *anything* beyond taking away the option of a legal abortion.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
From: dan@stanton.UUCP (Dan Mahoney)
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:59:26 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Stanton Public Domain Systems, Stanton, Ca.
Summary: Pro-choice vs. pro-abortion

> 
> Understand, that I use the terms pro-abortion and pro-choice synonymously.
> Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me, but if your fighting
> for the right for people to have abortions, aren't you pro-abortion?
> Who cares whether or not you would use that right yourself, if you are
> pro-abortion-rights, you are pro-abortion.
> It seems to me that the terms pro-life and pro-choice are merely table
> dressings, IMHO.
> 

Actually, pro-choice and pro-abortion are different.  Many of the people
I would call pro-abortion feel that abortion is acceptable as a method of
birth control; that is, it carries no negative emotional or ethical
impact.  Most of the pro-choice people I know (including myself) feel
that that the question of whether abortion is right or wrong must be
answered by the woman in question.  I feel that it abortion is a very
drastic move and must not be undertaken without careful consideration,
but if a woman feels compeled to terminate her pregnancy in this way,
then she must have the right to do so.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion