HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: an anti-choice post
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:26:29 GMT

parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>my compliments, ms. birmingham; you were one of the
->>first to identify ms. bartley's hypocrisy as well as
->>her extreme anti-choice stance.

->My understanding of her position *from her own posts* is
->that she favors legal abortions in the first 2 trimesters, and only opposes
->abortions in the last trimester.  

that is also my understanding.

->She may advocate prison terms for offenders
->(what would you suggest?  a fine?  a slap on the wrist?).  

she certainly does. why would i sugggest any punishment
at all. i'm not the one who want to criminalize some
abortions as ms. bartley does.

->That is only extreem in punishment.  

i'll bet the women ms. bartley would imprison will
appreciate your saying that.

->Her position is not "extreemly anit-choice" as you imply with
->the way you describe it.  

to the best of my knowledge, ms. bartley is the first
person to post to this newsgroup that wants to imprison
the women who have the abortions ms. bartley wants to
ban. that strikes me as extreme.

->She is mostly "pro-choice", but considers 6 months of
->pregnancy to be long enough to have made that choice.  

"mostly," huh? is that like being a little pregnant? i
already knew that she wanted to impose her views on
women who don't share those views, but i'm gald you
pointed it out.


->As such she is partway
->between the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" philosophies--"pro-life" being "anti-
->choice"--so she is not "extreem anti-choice" at all.

you may not think imprisonment is extreme. i do.

->*She* is not anti-choice; *you* are
->making her *seem* anti-choice with your own misrepresentations.

she wants legislation to ban choice for some abortions.
i believe that to be an anti-choice position.

she wants to imprison the women who have the abortions
she wants to ban. i believe that to be extreme.

i believe the middle-of-the-roaders who would bleed
away women's rights, little by little, are a greater
threat to the pro-choice concept than any of the
crazies who have posted, and who do post, to this
newsgroup.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47479 alt.abortion.inequity:4995
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 10 Nov 1992 09:04:53 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
>anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
>"be let off the hook".  

Well, there you are, Don.  Here's the guy you are sharing your male-choice
banner with.  

I don't think other posters were entirely incorrect when they said that
the male-choice argument is simply another take on the make-abortion-
illegal argument.  Not at all.

Adrienne Regard
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:42:00 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams) writes:


>In article <adams.721328315@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes: 
>>
>>No they are not....they protect rights.  Killing, raping, and robbing all
>>deprive me of something without my consent.  If I conent to an action, as
>>does the other participant(s), then it is none of the governments business.
>>
>> -Steve
>
>OK:  consider laws prohibiting cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.  
>Do you think these laws constitute an imposition of morality on those 
>citizens who do not agree that cruel and inhumane treatment of animals 
>is in any way morally significant or wrong?

The basic question comes down to whether or not the animals have rights
that are being violated.  Do animals have a right to be free from cruel and
inhumane treatment?  Our system of laws is designed to protect the rights
of the members of our society.  "Animal rights" is an area that is outside
the basic thrust.  

The real problem comes down to deciding what is 'cruel and inhumane'
treatment.  Raising cattle for beef?  Milking a dairy cow?  Chemical and
cosmetic testing?  Harvesting chicken eggs?  Taking animal organs to save a
human life?  Medical tests?  Leather and fur production? Etc.

Some of those things are OK in my book, but rabid animal-rights groups will
say that all of them violate an animal's rights.  I don't have an easy
answer for this question.  In a basic consent action, clearly there is no
consent on the part of the animal.  But I think it goes beyond this.  My
basic rule of thumb is as little suffering for the animal as possible.  But
I don't think we should completely restrict the use of animals.

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47529 alt.flame:14590 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:577 misc.legal:19755
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
From: jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:34:31 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT USA

In article <nyikos.721348444@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Nov3.161742.24954@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:


>>In article <kmr4.36.720737660@po.CWRU.edu> you write:
>>>In article <z+f1y!q@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>
>>>>has anyone been prosecuted for forging a net.post?
>>>>
>>>
>>>      I doubt there would be much incentive to, as they are normally
>>>done in humor. Nor, do I think that one ought to go after every single
>>>last bugger. Like the obcure Maine law which stipulates that one can not take
>>                              ^^^^^
>>>a bath/shower while naked, they are lax in the enforcement. However, there
>>>have been several suits over false quoting in a public bulletin board, and
>>>I certainly think forging a post can be construed as a classification of 
>>>missquoting. So yes, if one causes enough damage, you can be procesuted.

>>Can you give me a reference for this law?  How much do you want to bet that
>>it was passed in reference to showering/bathing on a public beach?

>Sounds about right.  A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
>bizarre when you read the fine print.  South Carolina has laws against
>"adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
>cohabitation or habitual actions.

>Even so, one would think that sometimes people would be prosecuted under
>the law, at the behest of jilted spouses and SO's, but one never reads
>of such things in the papers.

>Peter Ny.

Not to quibble with the main thrust, but there are occasional prosecutions 
under such laws--I believe there were no less than four prosecutions as 
recently as two or three years ago under Connecticut's anti-adultery law. 
Since then, the state legislature has repealed the law, in no small part 
because of the negative publicity these cases generated.

John E. Finn
Wesleyan University
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:37:33 GMT
	<BxJ5FH.n51@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Nov11.123926.944@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>> The referendum was on a law the State legislature had passed for the
>> purpose of preserving (most of) Roe v. Wade in Maryland in case the
>> Supreme Court overturned Roe.  The pro-life people petitioned to have
>> the law placed on the ballot.  A "yes" vote on the ballot question was
>> a vote in favor of the law the legislature had recently passed.
 
>Thank you, Keith.  This is extremely ironic.

>Looks like the pro-life contingent that pushed for the referendum
>was hoist on its own petard.

They didn't really have a choice, if they were to have any chance of
restricting abortion in Maryland.  Question 6 was their last hope.  If
the question was voted down, and if the Supreme Court then overturned
Roe, we would be back to the old law, which didn't outlaw abortions but
made them much harder to obtain than they are now.

About all they can do now is to get the public to change its mind,
and/or lobby the legislature to reconsider.  Given that their strategy
on Question 6 was to present a "no" vote as a pro-choice position,
both options are doubtful.  The legislature does *not* want to take up
a political hot potato like abortion again.  It has more than enough
headaches right now with Maryland's budget deficit.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: My newsserver trashed everything 
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:01:05 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>My newsserver trashed all the articles since today.  If anyone
>wants a response from me on an old article, please e-mail it 
>to me. 

Cool!  What a boffo feature to have in a newsserver.

How do we keep you from reponding to future articles?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47770 soc.men:19189 alt.dads-rights:2597
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:01:13 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1992Nov5.180025.5436@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
...discussion of equality of choice deleted...
>>
>> KSL> >Adrienne Regard
>> 
>> KSL> You are a hypocrite.  Women alone decide to produce a child.  If the
>> KSL> choice to abort is based on, and can only be based on, her own estimates
>> KSL> of her economic and physical future, then the choice to have a child is
>> KSL> ALSO based on those same estimates.  The man has no part in the former,
>> KSL> and no part in the latter.  He has no responsibility for what a woman
>> KSL> decides to do with her own future, and he cannot be held legally
>> KSL> accountable if logic had anything to do with law.
>> 
>
>Stephen, you are being totally unreasonable.  Exactly how would you explain
>the situation that my co-worker, Leona, is in?  She and her ex ADOPTED two
>children, then when they were babies, he decided to leave her for another 
>woman.  She was granted custody, he didn't want it, but he was granted liberal
>visitation, which he has been somewhat spotty at taking.  He makes more
>money than she does, and in SEVEN YEARS has not paid child support.  Every
>time she gets his wages attached for the support payments, he changes jobs,
>then she has to go through the whole thing all over again.  
>How can you say that 'she alone decided to produce a child?'  They BOTH
>adopted these kids!
>
>Sue

Sue, you are being logically inconsistent here.  The discussion was about
when a woman *gets pregnant* and has total control over the outcome, i.e.
whether to abort or not.  You introduced a totally different situation,
where two people voluntarily adopted two children and had equal choice
in the say-so, then got divorced.  These are two different circumstances,
and comparing one to the other is muddying the issue.
 
Stephen's point is correct, as far as I'm concerned, in that women have
total control over birth/abortion decisions, and men have virtually none.
Therefore it is inconsistent and inequitable to force a man to pay
support to a woman who, for example, decides to have a child after she
told him she would have an abortion if she got pregnant,

It's the old saw:  "I'm a woman and I want equal treatment, but I'm a
woman so I want special treatment."  I would think feminists would be
embarrassed out of this kind of thinking, but I guess the draw of the
almighty dollar proves too strong.  The whole point of the feminist
movement was originally that treatment under the law should be blind
as to one's gender, that men should not be favored in business or else-
where just because of their gender.  I don't see feminists screaming
for equal treatment for men in family court now that they've largely
gotten what they want, which leads me to the conclusion that the feminist
movement was never about equality, it was about the acquisition and
imposition of power.


Jerry Roe
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why is Pitt Sponsoring AntiChristian Dogma...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:47:09 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

] In article <1992Nov5.160559.18197@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] |In article <73744@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) 
] |writes:
] |
] |}For THE Christ and His Kingdom,
] |}Richard Pitts
] |
] |Richard Pitts will kill you if you don't heed him.
] 
] Could you give your logic on how you arrived at this conclusion?
] Or is it your bias against my view.  Remember I don't think
] MURDERING THE UNBORN is a noble nor correct thing to do.
] Others, maybe even yourself, think this murdering is ok, but no I.

why is it that you wish to make persons of the UnBorn
in opposition to scriptures?

Or is it merely that you wish to devalue the meaning
of the word murder?

ciao
drieux

ps: its not a Murder, its an auto de fe.....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:32:15 GMT


[Larry performs a posting service for Peter Nyikos and also explains
again to our esteemed doctor the finer points of attribution.]

Another contribution to the excuses use for making an ass out of themselves:
Related to the rather lame:  "It was all a joke."
The slightly improved:  "I thought it was all a joke."

I'm impressed.  


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47723 news.admin.misc:314
From: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:01:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: daisy.1dsvh4INNn58
Organization: Dept. Elec. Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: daisy.ee.und.ac.za

In article <1992Nov10.174712.27216@wolves.uucp>,
news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
> Doug is posting from his csl group workstation.  It feeds to taco, the
> main ncsu news machine.   There aren't any UUCP map entries for taco or
> rock(.concert.net) since they aren't particularly concerned with uucp
> connections (and are doing all their transfers via NNTP or other
> internet based services.)

If the NCSU news system "taco" is not in the UUCP maps, then some other
system could register the name taco in the UUCP maps.  This other system
would then be entitled to use taco as its news system name (in the Path
line).  That would be a Bad Thing.  NCSU should register taco in the
UUCP maps, or should use an FQDN (or some other guaranteed-unique name)
as their news system name.

--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za                    Bang: m2xenix!undeed!barrett
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:59:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.145325.24639@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>Yeah.  But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
>>brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
>>fluffy stuff.
>
>Try the argument from the other direction, then: does there exist
>anything which you would call a "person" but which lacks a brain?  If
>so, then how is this thing similar to an adult human person?
>
>Sure, it might be possible to fashion a computer brain.  But then the
>computer's logic circuits would function in the same capacity as a
>human brain.  Can you think of anything which lacks any sort of brain,
>organic or cybernetic or electronic or what-have-you, yet still
>appears to have consciousness?

Um, Brian, isn't this circular? I mean, if you're going to restrict the
term "brain" to "anything and everything which is capable of having 
consciousness", then, by your own definition, it's impossible for 
consciousness to exist in the absence of a brain. But that's only because of 
the way you have constructed your definitions. It doesn't impart any EMPIRICAL 
information.

The mind-body problem is a very old and intransigent one. The trouble is,
the most precise tools available to us to "measure" mind are themselves just 
physical objects, and therefore incapable of actually measuring mental 
"objects" at all. Yet the mental "tools" available to us -- reason, logic, 
emotion -- don't MEASURE in any objective sense, they just think, and 
experience, and emote. So the exact connection between the physical and the 
mental seems impossible to identify objectively.

I would agree that, based on empirical evidence, the human brain SEEMS to be
a necessary physical component of what we humans would consider 
"consciousness". But the connection is not fully understood, and may NEVER be
fully understood, so I wouldn't rest any absolute pronouncements on that
empirical observation.

								- Kevin
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: abortions, animals, analogous.
Keywords: abortion and animal rights
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:35:50 GMT


 interesting it is that those who oppose choice are those
 who support animal research. it must be fine to destroy
 a creature of god's, as long as it's furry.

 "but mark, killing those animals benifits humans. it
 helps the human race."

 seems to me that preventing a birth which might go unloved
 and end up burdening society also helps the human race.

 "but mark, those unborns might be the next einstein, lincoln
 or martin luther king."

 my only reply to that ridiculous argument is: those unborns
 might be the next hitler, manson or saddam.

 so which will it be? no animal research or the right for
 abortions. we shouldn't have both.

 mark.

 question of the day: when does life really end?
 i am a pro-creamationist!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Patrick needs a Labotomy (was Re: Hear this, Rocker.) 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 21:45:45 GMT

In <1992Oct29.004510.24727@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <BwuKMH.6GJ@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) says through his white hood:
>>In article <BwtIA4.67M.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>
>>>Let's see if the self-appointed defender of all women comments on
>>>Dennis's unwarranted attack on Patrick's wife.

Please show it to me.  My netserver was down and I missed almost a week's
worth of posts.

>>>For that matter, let's see if any of the anti-abortion posters
>>>here make any comment about Chaney/Hall's pathetic ramblings.

In lieu of that, I will comment on something Chaney said below.
I do not know of anything Dennis Hall said.

>The thing is, I don't say positive things about folks whose genders
>are not yet determined. 

>Such as Rocker, though it claims to be a woman... 

Glad I saw this.  First I was almost convinced Rocker was a man, 
then I was almost convinced Rocker was a woman.  Now I'll treat
Rocker the same way I do M. Price, not using a personal pronoun
until I get Rocker's permission to use one or the other third
person singular pronouns about Rocker.

>Or Patrick's wife, whom he continually tries to drag into this issue
>as if any of us give a darn whether or not his wife is of any
>relevance whatsoever. 

>FIRST: Patrick introduces his wife to me and says she's sick as a dog
>in the hospital and that he wishes I were in her position. 
>SECOND: Patrick once again, in response to Rocker's article, bangs me
>over the head with his wife again, claiming I might try to hit on her.

>Patrick, WHY MUST YOU INSIST ON DRAGGING YOUR WORTHLESS WIFE INTO
>THIS?

Steve, I really must reprimand you for calling Dale Ann worthless.
I have yet to see anyone post any evidence of this, and besides I
don't call anyone worthless, not even PatricK himself.

> Go pick her up from the dog pound and stop wasting time nagging
>the rest of us with your infatuation that she just got out of dog
>training school. 

Very bad, Steve.  And so silly too: why don't you just accuse that
redneck PatricK of hiding behind his wife's skirts?  FAR more effective
than your childish comments about Dale Ann, who may be a saint of a 
woman for putting up with PatricK for all these years.  Could be they
threw away the mold when they made her, for all you know.

>>(Meanwhile, I think Steve/Dennis ought to show a little appreciation towards
>>my wife -- after all, she's from a farm up in South Dakota, and her brothers
>>grow a LOT of wheat up there.  Who knows, there might be a little of that
>>Lien Township wheat in the next sandwich he munches on...:-)

Much as I hate to agree with PatricK, I think he is being very restrained
here, and for once it is you who is out of line, Steve.

>I'll make sure I don't eat any bread she's put her hands on. 

Oh, no, not again!  Steve, you disappoint me.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:35:28 GMT

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes ...
>From article <1992Nov5.211833.2926@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com
>(Ray Fischer):
>Yeah.  But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
>brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
>fluffy stuff.

Agreed.  But, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to
the strong, but that's the way to bet."

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche