HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:20:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1993Jan12.015522.1817@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <bob1.726775467@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <1ir2sqINNgio@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
>>>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>
>>>>Now, there is no law that says that I (as a man) cannot elect to
>>>>have a fully functional kidney removed, assuming I can find a
>>>>surgeon willing to perform the operation. I imagine I would have
>>>>about the same chance as a snowball in hell. 
>>
>>>Poor example.  Such "removals" are not infrequently performed for 
>>>kidney donations. 
>>
>>OK, try liver then. Yes please, I'll have mine with fried onions.
>>
>Not your entire liver, but the liver is a multi-lobed organ, and it is
>possible to remove a single lobe from an adult liver for transplant
>into a child.
>So your chances here are still vastly better than a snowball in hell.

S**t, but you people are picky! I think it was rather obvious that
my reference was to my selecting some totally unwarranted surgical
procedure, and that my chances *of having it done by a qualified
surgeon* would be those of a snowball in hell. However, it was real
nice of everyone to delete the top part that challenged the original
post. Now you may resume your original occupations of nitpicking. :-p

>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
>Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
>Member, T.S.A.K.C.

REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:19:43 GMT

In <1993Jan8.221548.28016@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

->From article <1993Jan8.185215.12992@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
->by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):

->Lessee.  Just browsing through t.a.  I like Mark Cochran's posts,
->so I gave this one a read, and...

->> In article <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu>
->> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

->>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been
->>>with your wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

->Here it is!  I found it!  James Keegan wrote a post called "anti-
->choice morality" based (in part) on this atrocity.  He suggested
->that the failure of pro-life folks to condemn Suzanne's behavior
->was evidence for some sort of moral compromise.  Now I see why.

->Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
->I think an apology is in order.

->James: remember, I don't care what you think.

that's ok. you did quite nicely here. 

->Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
->sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 17:09:44 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.725736262@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>It was clear to me that Paul's statement (about abortion deaths "then" and
>now) referred to the United States. It's not surprising that under the
>conditions in Communist Romania, women would lose hope and seek abortions.


Ya know, I was watching late night TV the other night, but I can't
quite recall at the moment...
                            What was the theme song for The Ugly American?

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:58:10 GMT

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
->eegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.):
->> just in the past few weeks, we've seen an anti-choicer,
->> admitedly a disturbed personality, post repeated sexual
->> and personal slurs about an adversary's spouse and
->> family.

->This was posted email by Chaney to Humphrey, right?  If that's what you're
->referring to, it was far too disgusting and perverse to merit any
->sort of response.  Besides, it was email, and therefore not necessarily
->appropriate for public consumption.

i read it here in talk.abortion, as you did.
consequently, i think it's reasonable to state that it
was posted, which is why i said that it was posted.
your position, if i understand it, is that some things
are so disgusting and perverse that they don't merit a
response? if so, that strikes me as, well, unusual. how
do you feel about child molestation?

->> we've seen another anti-choicer, a roman catholic, post
->> that she hoped one of her adversaries felt pain and
->> discomfort that his spouse was the parent of a child
->> fathered by another man.

->That's pretty disgusting.  It's deserving of condemnation, if in
->fact that's what was actually said.

don't you read forgach's posts? did you not see exactly
what it said?

->> i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
->> of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
->> nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
->> anti-choice perspective, of course.

->I'm sure you believe that only "anti-choicers" post offensive
->material.  Not that I care what you think, James, but I'm more
->than willing to criticize other pro-lifers, and I've done it
->on several occasions.  The next time I see something offensive
->written by a pro-choicer I'll be looking for your critical response.
->After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, right?

you just point out the first pro-choicer who attacks an
adversary by suggesting he's had oral sex with his
adversary's spouse and i think you'll see a lot of
criticism. oh heck, find something similar if that's
the kind of thing you like to do.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:17:43 GMT

In <29570@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <29533@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>>chance ==    contraception failure    == acceptance of getting pregnant
>>>rape   == security precaution failure == acceptance of getting pregnant

>>>See where I'm going with this, Mark?

>>Apparently, you're headed for the proposition that there is no true
>>choice in a reality where things can happen by chance. If so, let's
>>talk about it in some other group. (I don't buy it.)

>The blind...apparently you do not see. It is reductio ad absurdum.
>If you don't know what that is (you obviously didn't recognize it) it
>is defined in any reasonably decent dictionary. 

Another Big Swinging Dictionary.

>You propositions are
>logically inconsistent and have no supporting basis. 

No; your equating contraceptive failure with security precaution failure
has no basis. The action of chance is a basic fact of this reality;
the action of a rapist is contingent.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:26:35 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

Fame at last; to have a drieux response.  I can die happy. :-)

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>]
>] The "usual" definition of AA, as I have met it, is along the
>] lines of:
>]
>]         If there has been systematic discrimination in filling
>]         certain positions, on a basis that was not relevant to
>]         suitability for those positions; and if this led to
>]         underrepresentation of an underprivileged group; then
>]         when there is a choice in filling future positions,
>]         among those people of the necessary standard, there
>]         should be a preference for those people of the
>]         underrepresented group.

>Sorta sounds like the basic case of awarding both
>child custody, as well as child support awards.

Doesn't bother me.  Now all you have to do is convince all
those prejudiced judges.  But I thought the problem with
child custody was that so few men wanted it...

>I believe that Chris has put forward a clear case that
>far too many child Custody Cases have been Explicitly
>a violation of the general tenants of AA.

Because so few men were willing to live within the necessary
conditions?  [I don't know.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Majore Mental Stimulations Please
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:22:14 GMT

al@spring.unr.edu (Al Benincasa) writes:
] In article <1993Jan9.231904.10575@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >As a general rule do you always start out by 
] >asserting as True an unproveable premise,
] >and assume that this will lead to a logical
] >following through the rest of the 'argument'????
] >
] >
] As a matter of fact, ONLY an unprovable premise should be asserted
] as an axiom. Reason, to avoid being circular, requires the acceptance
] as true of non-provable premises. In order to command respect however,
] a reasoned argument must choose its premises sparingly, and restrict
] them as nearly as possiblr to the self evident.


and as a general primciple, the matter should be
relegated to the axioms and primatives of the system.

This, as you will have noted, was not the case.

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 12:40:45 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0KBxJ.10x@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.151527.17439@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(The_Doge) writes:
>>	Maybe she just had one line too many of the smug, self-righteous stuff
>>you've been posting here, my man.
>If one is adamantly anti-abortion he is deemed, self-righteous. 

Uh, I don't think that's what he said.

Hmmm.  And I read it twice.

I think people are deemed to be self-righteous if they post things that
sound self-righteous.  Correct me if I'm wrong....

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:46:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.001102.13321@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <1993Jan8.221756.6725@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
##In article <1993Jan8.215745.19274@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
##mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
###dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
####mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
##
##### She is now claiming that Ms. Garvin is a lesbian.
#####
##### Now, I don't know if this is true, since (contrary to what
##### PHoney claims) I don't know Ms. Garvin at all, except from her posts
##### here. But if it's not, I'd say we've got a fine case of libel going on
##### here...

I do have one question - if I were a lesbian, as Suzanne implied,
shouldn't I know what the "teaspoon method" is?  I've never heard
of such a thing.  I've heard about turkey-baster babies, but
nothing about teaspoons.

#### What do you find libelous about falsely labeling someone as being
#### a lesbian?  Do you believe there's something wrong with someone 
#### who's a lesbian, Cochran?  
##
### Here's a definition for you:
### A written or oral defamatory statement or reprensentation that conveys
### an unjust or unfavorable impression.
###
### I have no problem with homosexuality in any of it's various forms
### DODie, but society often does. Given that, making false 
### accusations about ones sexuality may easily be seen as libel.
##
##So you were helping to perpetuate the bigoted notion that 
##homosexuality carries an unfavorable impression.  Thanks 
##for clearing that up.
##
#No DODie, this is just another example of you being the *only* one
#incapable of understanding what was written. Don't try to balme your
#warped perspective on me.

Oh, DODie's just recycling one of his old attempts at argument,
Mark.  He's used it before.  (Of course, DODie has compared
homosexuality to cannabilism before, too, so I wonder if he does
really think that there's nothing wrong with it or if he's just
desperate, as usual.  I know he's too cowardly to post his real
views, of course.)

I'm sure Suzanne was just joking, anyway.  That's always her excuse.
I wonder if she shares these little jokes with her confessor.

#BTW, I repaired the damage you did to my original words up there.

It sure makes following him up a pain, doesn't it?

Susan
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:30:38 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) whines:
-> [...] not me, not Elizabeth Bartley, not Nora
-> Rivkis, not CJ, not Siren, not Ray Fischer, 
-> not Eric Rescorla

why do i suspect that much, if not all, of this
group is revolted by the thought of being linked
with you?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:54:30 GMT

In <1993Jan10.035956.21622@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726625670@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:

>>>>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was
>>>>denied her
>>>>right to choose avoiding pregnancy.
>>>You don't consider contraceptive failure (as in, the surgery didn't
>>>work) to be a case in which the woman was denied her right to avoid
>>>being pregnant?

>>No; why should I?

>Because the whole basis for "rape or incest" bit is that in those cases
>the woman could not choose to avoid pregnancy. When a contraceptive
>fails, the woman has obviously made an effort to avoid pregnancy, but
>was foiled by (fate/luck/G-d/hoodoo). 

These are two very different situations. Even in a Libertarutopia
where every person respected the natural human rights of every other
person -- so there was no rape -- chance ("fate/luck/G-d/hoodoo") would
still play a large role in every life. Rape takes away choice; 
chance does not.

>Now answer the following question
>with only one word, yes or no: If a woman who chooses to avoid pregnancy
>gets pregnant anyway, should she be allowed to abort?

As shown above, this question assumes an equivalence which is false;
to answer it "yes" or "no" would be to assent to the false assumption.

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: I told you so...
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:12:05 GMT

In <1993Jan10.202947.4898@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>I fully retract any apology I have given concerning Patrick Humphrey,
>because of this b.s. letter he sent me. He's a punk, and he deserves
>any insult laid on him or his family or whatever pertains to him - he
>IS an insult to his family, so what else would be new? 

I missed the post that led up to this. Can someone mail me a copy? I'm
interested in seeing what an apology from Mr. Chaney might look like.
I gather that it was halfway civil, which surprises me. I would have
expected something along the lines of "I'm sorry that your wife is
ugly."

Anyway, assuming that Mr. Chaney's apology was civil, I'm willing to
accept it. However, I feel no obligation to accept his subsequent 
retraction, since it was rude and contained curse words. As far as 
I'm concerned, his apology is still in effect.

>[Deletia]
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The number of third-tri abortions in Georgia, 1979-1980
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:10:24 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



This is from _Family Planning Perspectives_, 15(4) 1983, 
p. 196.  The article, "Reporting Errors Inflate Third-Trimester
Abortion Rate in Georgia; True Rate is Four per 100,000",
describes the conclusions of a review of the third-tri's
reported to the Georgia Dept. of Human Resources.  The
review was done by that department along with the U.S.
CDC.  Georgia defined third-trimester abortions
as those performed at 27 weeks gestational age or later.

     "The investigators were able to obtain information on 78
of the 86 reported third-trimester abortions.  Of these 78 
reports, as Table 1 shows, three were for true third-trimester 
procedures.  (Two had been performed for women who were 
carrying anencephalic fetuses.)  Fifty-eight were, in fact,
spontaneous fetal deaths in utero.  In 51 of these cases,
labor was induced to expel the fetus.)  In 15 cases, the
procedures were actually first- or second-trimester abortions,
wrongly transcribed because of coding or keypunching errors.
One woman had not had an abortion, and one woman had been reported
twice for the same procedure.  In eight cases, the outcome was
unknown because the investigators were unable to obtain the
medical records.  After recalculation on the basis of the 78
verified reports, the investigators found that the real
rate of third-trimester abortion for Georgia in 1979-1980 was
4.3 rather than 123.1 per 100,000 abortions."

(The articles points out that if the eight unverified abortions
were actually third-tri's, the rate would be 15.7, which is
still a long way from 123.1)

The investigators looked at 170 abortions in which the reported
gestational age of the fetus was 25 or more weeks, to see if
any actual third-tri's were reported as second-tri's.  They
verified 143 of these, and found no such cases.  They concluded
by pointing out that the overcounting was probably not limited
to Georgia.  I haven't found any articles indicating that other
states have been checked.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:47:09 GMT

> = (Paul Lebow) writes:
>> = Dean the K:

>Without repeating the long pondorous lecture on manners and consistancy
>given by Mr. Kaflowitz,...

TRANSLATION: He trashed me so badly, I'll ignore his entire post and
instead put out a posting so goddam boring it can bring one to tears.

>...I will try to readdress the objections to my 
>comments on Heather's (if I may be so bold) question. 

Give it up, Lebow.  Damn, you're a downer.  I leave in just enough of
your droning to make my point...

>It also has to 
>be understood that, despite your wishes to the contrary, questions like Heather's do not exist in an intellectual vacuum.  They exist in a 
>pre-existing context which, I feel, is my obligation to point out.
>I agree that the contention of rights is an extremely important issue
>in a society where abortion is illegal.  But, to use the difficulties
>of this issue as a basis for deciding the merrits of legal abortion, which
>is what is usually implied by the question, is irrelevant.  

Gads.  Can you believe this garbage?  

BTW - your paragraph's point is oblique, and that's being kind.

[another ~4000 lines and umpteen attribution nestings removed to save 
reader's sanity...]



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:35:08 GMT

In <ny!38-_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>just in the past few weeks, we've seen an anti-choicer,
>admitedly a disturbed personality, post repeated sexual
>and personal slurs about an adversary's spouse and
>family.

>we've seen another anti-choicer, a roman catholic, post
>that she hoped one of her adversaries felt pain and
>discomfort that his spouse was the parent of a child
>fathered by another man.

>i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
>of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
>nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
>anti-choice perspective, of course.

Quite a leap of logic, there. But to avoid confusing the easily
confused:

I agree that the above-paraphrased postings were repugnant. I wish
nothing but the best for pro-choicers and their families.

Now can we get back to the issues?

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:12:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.021048.2261@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>Abortion is not a passive act.  It is an act of violence and aggression.
>>The government should outlaw murder.  The woman who has an abortion does not
>>just decide not to carry her child in her body.  She actually has her child
>>killed.  
>>
>Nonsense. She has a fetus removed from her body. That it dies is
>simply a fact of it's inability to survive as anything other than a
>parasite, at this stage.

How many abortions are performed simply by removing the child from the womb
without harming it?  What about "vaccumming" and saline abortions?

>>There is a serious inconsistency in government policy.  It is illegal for a 
>>mother to abandon her child, or to neglect him in some other way.  One
>>can even be arrested for not feeding one's horses in this country.  
>>Generally, parents have a legal responsiblility to their children.  If mothers
>>and fathers can legally be held responsible to use their bodies to care for
>>their children, then mothers should legally be held responsible to use
>>their bodies to protect their children in the womb.  
>>
>No mother or father is required to use their body to care for their
>children. They are free to provide care via a nanny, grandma, sitter,
>or adoptioni agency. Requiring them to use their bodies would mean
>they could be forced to donate bllod/tissues/organs to the child. This
>is not true.

Requiring the use of the body need not require blood/tissue/organs.  
If you provide a nanny/grandma/sitter you have to use your body to dial the
phone, talk to the sitter, sign the check, etc.

LINK HUDSON.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion