HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 21:46:47 GMT

In <1992Sep1.081217.8096@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>>Nyikos
>>>Mills
>>>>Nyikos
>>>>> Rick Kelly
>>>>>> Suxie

>>>>>>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
>>>>>>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
>>>>>>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved.

>>>>>So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
>>>>>purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
>>>>>you stopped.

>>>>A truly tasteless joke.  But it has possibilities: properly reworded,
>>>>it makes a perfect illustrative example of the term  "non sequitur". 

>>>Hardly, twit.  What Rick is asking is: since you feel that the woman should
>>>be ennslaved to her body for the sin of failinng to "control" herself
>>>"at the correct time," do you advocate the same "control" for men, and,
>>>more specifically, for YOURSELF?

>>>In other words, have you ALWAYS engaged in sex for the SOLE purpose of
>>>procreation, or are you a flaming, raving hypocrite?

>>This makes a perfect illustrative example of the fallacy of "tertium
>>non datur" -- "there is no third way."

>>One of the third ways: use natural family planning, and in the highly 
>>unlikely event of pregnancy, embrace the child or give it up for adoption.

>So, in other words, YES, you feel that sinnnce the woman "failed to conntrol
>herself," she SHOULD be enslaved to her body. 

Not quite.  I was trying to guess what Suzanne would say and save her
the trouble.  Seems from the context that "you" kept referring to her,
not me.

My position is different.  I am against banning contraception,
morning-after pills, IUD's (except those things in all three categories
that are significantly more dangerous than what else is available, like
DES and the Dalkon Shield), and even abortion prior to the end of the
5th week.  

I'm not sure what Suzanne's position is on these things, though I do 
know she would not ban contraceptives, and I don't even know whether
she uses them herself.  Trying to pry that information out of her is
something I call tasteless.

> Contraceptionn is NOT ann
>alternnative to abortion.

It's too bad so many people literally believe this, like the teenagers
on a recent Oprah Winfrey show who (so I'm told, correct me if I'm 
wrong) were asked why they did not use (more?) birth control, and replied
that it was because they knew they could always get an abortion.

Peter Ny.
From: ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:04:39 GMT
 <ceZeicS00WBK42TGI7@andrew.cmu.edu> <nyikos.714612404@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
 <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> <92238.230642ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
 <nyikos.714854358@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute

In article <nyikos.714854358@milo.math.scarolina.edu> Peter Nyikos says:

>In <92238.230642ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
>>>In article <nyikos.714612404@milo.math.scarolina.edu> Peter Nyikos writes:
>>>
>>>> I wonder...how many pro-choicers share Mr. Loomis's view of infanticide?
>>>> How many agree that newborn babies are not yet appropriate objects for
>>>> ethics?
>>>
>>>I don't think you're going to get any answers from the pro-choicers
>>>on this newsgroup.  Michael Loomis has occasionally expressed the
>>>view that infanticide is not wrong, and I've never seen a pro-choicer
>>>disagree with that view.
>
>>I have never seen Mr. Loomis express the
>>view that infanticide is not wrong.
>
>Did you miss the remark about ethics in my response?

Did you miss the fact that I was responding to
Mr. Holtsinger's comments and not your's Mr. Nykios?

>>What is a rare sight is prolifers admonishing
>>the homophobic misogynist prolife loon,

>I haven't seen any so far.

Perhaps you should read what your fellow prolifer's
write Mr. Nykios.



Linda
--
They're complicated people leading complicated lives, and
he complicates their problems by telling complicated lies
     The Flag, Barenaked Ladies
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:42:30 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <17j6hfINNkc2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <exukjb.98.714932009@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>In article <176sg0INN27n@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>What did you want to know about marriage?
>>
>>How about: Would marriage exist at all without the sex urge?  
>
>Yes.

I think I would agree that it would still exist, for sex is not what
keeps people together - I take it that sex would still be there, but
the drive would not be and so sex would be of use only to procreate.

>Marriage is basically an economic contract.  It only recently became the 

I'm not sure what ecomomic contract comes with marriage, for if it
was such, then there would be no use for pre-nuptual agreements.
There is responsibility in marriage of which finances are a part.
As far as taxes go, marriage doesn't really give you a break.

Actually, the need for such contracts shows a lack of trust in the
person one is supposedly committing for a life time, isn't it?

>'approved' environment for sex.
>
>Adrienne Regard

As far as the Christian and Jewish adherents (I being a Christian) are
concerned, the marriage covenant originated a little farther back than
'recently' and was then, as is now, within these two groups at least
the only approved environment for sex.

Marriage was sanctioned at the very beginning and has not been repealed.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: Should abortionists be allowed to purposely kill viable fetu
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 05:02:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.200508.12731@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug 
oltsinger) writes:
>Consider the following scenario.  A woman who got pregnant from a rape
>is seeking an abortion.  She had to wait until the third trimester to
>save up enough money to pay for the abortion.  The woman can choose
>among two abortion procedures.  Procedure A kills the viable fetus.
>Procedure B has a good chance of producing a live fetus.  Both procedure

>are equally safe for the woman.  The woman wants procedure A because
>she doesn't want the rapist's child to haunt her memory.  Under Roe 
>and Doe, this type of abortion is legal, because it would preserve 
>the woman's emotional health.  The woman asks the abortionist to use 
>procedure A.  If you were the abortionist, what would you do? 
>


H
hmmmmm...
Well, if I were ready for a brand new viable fetus to become
a part of my loving family, or I knew someone who just happened
to be looking for a brand new viable fetus to add to their loving
family, I suppose I would try to convince the woman to try
the other procedure.  Otherwise, mr. fetus bites it.

Brian McBean - bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (at least for tonight)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 02:57:39 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
> pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
> simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label

No, generally it's because the person has expressed misogynistic views.

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

There are sick people in just about any group.  What's your point?
The fact that one abortionist forcibly aborted his wife does not
reflect on the majority any more than does the fact that a handful
of priests sexually molested young boys.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:23:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug25.000931.10941@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <nyikos.713807310@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>
> >>Pro-force?  That's a good one.  I'll have to remember it when I once
> >>again post on the subject of coerced abortion.
> 
> Exactly. Like how they support the funding of China's forced abortion
> program... 

Beg pardon, but _who_ _exactly_ supports "the funding of China's forced
abortion program"?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--
David "Lefty" Schlesinger (lefty@apple.com)
AppleTalk Bug Wrangler
Apple Computer, Inc.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:26:34 GMT

From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> 
> Tell me Doug, do the *number* of people who object to something have any
> bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the event or action?

Hell Gordon, why do you think Pro-Lifers laugh up their sleeves every time
pro-"choicers" cite polls inflating their numbers?   (Hint: it just doesn't
matter.)

Suzanne Forgach
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:32:51 GMT
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>> 
>>>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.
>> 
>> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.
>
>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  

Suzanne, wouldn't it be FAR better for that person to get sterilized
and start adopting, instead?  I don't find this admirable, I find it
a colossal waste.

>I had a
>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>more beautiful way to go."

I can't think of ANY beautiful way to go, but a death caused by selfishness
and stupidity is worse than most.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:29:43 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug28.174556.14019@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BtoJJo.GH7@chinet.chi.il.us> 
>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>>[Thank you deleted]

>I think these statements denigrate Christians.

Boy, first Chaney gets his panties in a bunch about a lighthearted spoof
song, and now this.  It's starting to sound like a Tropicana Twister
commercial around here.

So much for the myth that all Politically Correct Speech Police are left
wingers...

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
"Could lead to dancing."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 15:37:52 GMT

mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:
: >Fine, if that's true.  I don't want statistics.  I'd settle
: >for one honest woman who can look into her heart and tell, not me,
: >nor you, but herself, that this is the case.  Not saying, "all in all, 
: >trading this against that, I did the right thing", but "I *feel* fine 
: >about it.  I have no moral doubts whatsoever.".  Heart not head, you see.  
: >Conscience, not predicate logic.
: 
: I *feel* fine about it.  I have no moral doubts whatsoever.

Which is all that needed to be said...  Thanks.

So to say that abortion is always immoral is to call this woman and countless 
others liars, or to deny the existence of conscience.  Any bible-thumpers 
care to comment?

You see, this is what I cannot understand - that everyone seems
to "know" that (say) murder is wrong, because their conscience tells
them so.  If abortion is supposed to be in some way equivalent to 
murder, then why is a similar consensus missing from the abortion
issue?  

How could something which is supposed to be so *very* wrong produce 
such divisive debate?    And how could something which is *not at all* 
wrong produce such divisive debate? 

Isn't it because the issue is not nearly so black and white as both 
sides would have you believe, having as much to do with delivering 
mothers as delivering babies?

: -- 
: "A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
: 
: Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:21:31 GMT

IN <1992Sep1.121531.24114@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes > 
In article <1992Sep1.022621.15823@crd.ge.com> 
   james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes: >>
addressing the chaneyhall thing,
  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>

>>> And he says his home life was not dysfunctional, yet
>>> look at what it produced.
>>> 
>>> He's one sick little boy.  His mommy and daddy
>>> better get him some serious psychiatric treatment
>>> before his visions of his inheritance get the better
>>> of what passes for his patience.  I won't be
>>> surprised if I see him on A Current Affair somewhere
>>> down the road.

>> hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it was
>> prejudicial to suggest that someone seek psychiatric
>> help when i suggested that DODie do so.
 
Not what I said...

>> i wonder if he'll think the same here.

> Yeah, well I wasn't sure what Bill was driving at with that
> one.  

When I was a kid it was acceptable to derogate others by 
calling them "retardo" or some such.  Seems like casting 
someone as emotionally disordered is really no different.  
Each is an affront to the dignity of those who actually
suffer from an intellectual, affective or thought disorder.

> But I'm not prepared to change my opinions because
> Bill doesn't approve.  I like and respect Bill's opinions.
> Old Rngduus and I may not agree about abortion, but I don't
> find him difficult to take.  And I do think Chahallney has,
> if nothing else, an identity crisis of mythological
> proportions.  The Two Gentlemen From Verona had nothing
> on that boy.

I'm not sure what you mean by identity crisis, unless you're 
referring to his posting from two different accounts?

> And Bill, if you're listening, how's Irene?

She's leaning toward the pro-life position.

> Goodnight Irene
> Goodnight Irene goodnight
> Goodnight Irene goodnight Irene
> I'll see you in my dreams

But then a crooner like you might cause her to stumble...

Stop it.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:18:50 GMT

In article <BtqG7r.J43.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>>dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> You miss the point Ms. Garvin.  When you vigorously denounce the 
>>>> extremists on the pro-life side and try to ignore the extremists 
>>>> on the pro-choice side such as Mr. Loomis, it makes you look a 
>>>> little hypocritical.  

>>> No, you miss the point, Holtsinger.  Did you denounce Buchanan's
>>> speech or didn't you?

>> No, I didn't see Buchanan's speech.  But then again, I haven't
>> denounced any of the extremists in the Democratic party.  

> Have we all been mistaken in believing that you disapprove
> of "abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months
> of pregnancy?"  

You appear to have some difficulty understanding the difference
between "vigorously denounce" and "disapprove".  

>>>> I'm glad you can finally acknowledge the 
>>>> existence of extremists on the pro-choice side, even though I had 
>>>> to give you a little prodding.  

> You assume that your "prodding" motivated my post.  I responded
> to Steve.  

Yes, but my post was aimed at all pro-choicers, not just Novak. 

> I don't recall "denouncing" anyone, either.

If you say so.

> That's true, DOD, and if you could read, you'd know that
> I have criticized people who support legal abortion for *their*
> stands on other issues, too.  

Like who, for example?  And have you criticized them by insulting
them, like you've done with many pro-lifers?  

> Unfortunately, you don't
> seem to be willing to publicly criticize any of your fellow
> pro-forcers.  May I quote you again?
>
> "I am not "pro-life", and I don't normally express substantial disagreement 
> with pro-lifers in my posts because I know pro-aborts like you will gloat 
> over it.  I do sometimes send e-mail to pro-lifers when I disagree with 
> their views."

Ms. Garvin, I'm not "gloating" over your disagreement with Michael
Loomis.  I'm commending you on your display of consistency. 

This is the first time that I've seen you denounce an extremist pro-choicer
who agrees with you on the issue of abortion.  You should be proud of
yourself for finally having the courage to recognize the extremists
on your side.  Keep up the good work.  


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

  ``I don't recall "denouncing" anyone, either.''
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtqG7r.J43.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Illegal abortions
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:55:50 GMT



     "Generally, abortion laws in Latin America and the Caribbean
were quite restrictive since both regions were under the influence
of the Catholic Church.  In some countries, such as Brazil, where
government birth control policies were less rigid, a full-scale
effort to reduce the population growth rate was being initiated.
Nevertheless, abortion remained illegal, and although wide-
spread birth control was partially effective, statistics showed 
that about three million Brazilian women resorted each year to
illegal abortions."

- Catherine Whitney, _Whose Life_, p. 193


Susan
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:24:44 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
	<17qs7eINNqlb@agate.berkeley.edu>


martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes
>But practically speaking, the genetic code of the unborn (whether twins
>or not) is UNIQUE and separate from the mother.  So this, hopefully, 
>discounts the 'just an extension of the mother' justification.

Perhaps what you wish to say is the genetic code of fetus is different
than the mother's.  By the use of scientific method, we are not able to
answer questions like when is the killing of a homo sapien the murder of
person, but the scientific method has clearly shown that the genetic
code of identical twins is not unique.  Though I cannot imagine why
uniqueness of a genetic code would be a morally relevent issue, let's
assume so for a second.  Is it ok for a mother to abort one of two of
the identical twin fetuses?

>Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death.

I am reminded of my favorite Basque proverb.  "Under the tulip is the
esophagus.  Over the mayonaise is the defenestration."

MIchael Loomis

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:35:31 GMT

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

>In <1992Aug18.002226.21765@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>>"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment
>>for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
>>exist within the United States."

>>   Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
>>against her will, to bear young?

>Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, who had
>no say-so in where he/she is, like a condemned prisoner awaiting 
>execution for the crime of being where he/she is not wanted?

Good grief, then the best thing we could do for it is liberate it,
don't you think?  Free the Fetus!

I nominate Nyikos' note here for runner up for "Worst Attempt to
Reword the Opposition's Argument".  The winner is still the one
about only women have the right to have a fetus occupy their body.

Oh, and Nyikos, I sometimes get several copies of posts you write
and then repost saying "apparently this didn't get out the first
time...".  Please consider the possibility that some of your posts
just aren't interesting enough to respond to.

                -rocker
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:14:43 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <nyikos.714506449@milo.math.scarolina.edu nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>	This item, for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong, appeared
>in the _Jackson Herald_, September 30, 1989.  It appears between the 
>two rows of asterisks.

[Item about a Dr. Chepko who is an abortionist and child pornographer]
 
So what is the point in this article?  I'm kind of curious if you see
some link here or what?  Does it matter that this doctor performed 
abortions?  Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
discredit the pro-choice movement?

>QUOTE OF THE DAY:

>   	Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this?
>				--Stephen A Chaney

As a pro-choicer I'd have to say no, not at all.  I find that both
your and Chaney need to resort to this silly form of argument mildly
amusing.  I think you do are both a credit to your side of the 
debate when you stoop to this guilt by association argument.  I
not only support your right to spew this drivel, but I encourage you
both to continue.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion