HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Birth Positions...
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:03:18 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec16.161728.17801@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>AR> PS, yes, I also had a quite carring and supporting and wonderful helpmate
>AR> during my second delivery.  But not even he, who rubbed my back ceaselessly
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>AR> for 6 hours, would claim to have carried anywhere near the 'same' burden.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hmmm...?  You delivered while on all fours?  (It would seem this way, if your
>husband had to rub your *back* while you were in labour, unless it was the case
>that you switched back and went onto your back after he rubbed your back)

Scuse please but (a) I don't have a husband, (b) No, I didn't deliver on
all fours and (c) 'delivery' is something of an event, not a 6 hour duration.
Labor can occur in multiple positions.   

>This isn's a flame, just a question - Why???  I realise that it's a valid
>labour position (another one of those things that I noticed in the delivery
>room, was a picture of labour positions), but wouldn't it be really tiring to
>do it that way?  Just curious...


Nor is this a flame.  Let me point out that one can go through labor
lying on one's side for a good deal of it, without any adverse affects
whatsoever (good thing, too, or some dipshit would come along and want
to outlaw labor while lying on one's side (-:)

And that one's partner in things, or even just a sympathetic nurse, can
indeed reach one's lower back while one is lying upon one's side.

And I would presume that the reason some women choose one of the many
labor positions over others is because they find it comfortable.  I had
severe back labor, so I appreciated the backrub.  And I'm quite sure he
had cramps in his hands, too.  But, as in the original question, neither
he nor I would equate his cramps with mine.


Adrienne Regard
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MURDER
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:09:14 GMT
Organization: Boulder CO

>    = (Karl Rominger) writes:
>>   = ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>KR> = (Karl Rominger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>KR>
>KR>ABORTION IS MURDER
>KR>no elaboration required.
>> 
>> Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
>> murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
>> Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.
>
>In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
>question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
>question of justice as it relates to abortion.

OK, then you've just contradicted yourself.  So what is abortion?
1) "Murder", so obvious that your blatant assertion resolves the issue?  Or:
2) a "complicated" "question" requiring a (forthcoming) "thesis" 
   about "absolute justice"?  Or how about:
3) something other than what you proclaim it to be?

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51733 soc.men:21019 alt.dads-rights:2898 alt.abortion.inequity:5816
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Birth parents
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:32:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:

>Does that mean I approve of anybody abandoning responsibility?      No.
>Does that mean I judge my 'birth mother' by the same standards I hold men to.
>                                                                    Yes.

What about your genetic father?  Is he "chopped liver"?

							--  Michal

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:17:10 GMT

In article <adams.724724398@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>
>>bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes: >
>>
[...]
>>Well, I had two eggs in an omelette on Sunday, does that count?
>>I suppose a Christian would claim I've killed hundreds of
>>unborn children because I've never been pregnant, and allowed
>>all those potential lives to waste away every month.
>Hardly all...I'm a Christian, an Evangelical to boot, anti-abortion, yet
>pro-choice.  Strange eh?
>
	I don't know about "strange", but you've got to admit that (at least
on talk.abortion) it's unusual.  But your point is well-taken.  The *fact*
is that there is considerable disagreement within the subset of folks who
consider themselves Christians over whether a) abortion is morally wrong and
b) whether laws should be passed banning it.
	It's unwise for pro-choicers to buy into the lie that Christians must
support the pro-life cause.  Just ask the Religious Coalition for Abortion
Rights, to name just one Judeo-Christian pro-choice group.

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: abortion
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:39:14 GMT

In article <nyikos.724089886@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>And BTW, an earlier post on this thread said all pregnancy involves a 
>risk to life, and asked what the Weaver Nelson probability should be 
>before abortion is allowed.  To which I would reply, that all abortion
>involves a risk to life, and what anyone's probability should be
>before they will EVEN SUPPORT LAWS MANDATING ABORTIONISTS INFORM WOMEN
>OF THE RISKS INVOLVED.
>
What makes you think the risks are not explained?
All invasive medical procedures require informed consent.
Informed consent requires that all risks of the procedure be detailed.
Care to try again?

--
                  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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Reverend Holtsinger's obsession with Patrick (Was: Re: Patrick Humphrey finds humor in mass rape? (was Re: Rape After Rape After Rape)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:10:11 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->#Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
 
->Putting quotation marks around the phrase implies that
->Holtsinger is quoting Patrick.  I'd like to see the cite
->for the post where Patrick used those exact words.
  
oh i don't think patrick wrote those words. DODie has
fudged quotes before, you know. i don't think it's a
good idea to distrust any quote or reference which DODie
posts until you check it against the original.
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:07:25 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1992Dec10.164901.1380@news.stolaf.edu> cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson) writes:
>
>In your article you consistantly use the phrase "pro-life"....i myself am
>pro-life but i am also pro-family and VERY pro-choice.....
>
>i wonder what you folks out tehre woh are pro-choice think of refering 
>to "pro-lifers" as anti-choice.....
>
>just a thought i had.....
>
>thanks
>cj

Gee, cj, how original. I'm pro-life, but i've never *ever* been called
anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-freedom, pro-force, or any other
little nasty name the opposite side can collectively brainstorm.
If I was, I think I would cry hysterically for days................


drip, drip <=drips of sarcasm, for the humor-impaired
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: something in common: overpeck, kebbie, fischer and DODie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:52:45 GMT

isn't it interesting to watch the anti-choicers flame
susan garvin? but then, these types often flame anyone
who argues in support of choice.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:04:35 GMT

In article <34460@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.224007.17068@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes in response to my claim that he was incorrect in
>asserting that equal pay for equal, i.e. identical, work required a
>presumption of intent to be proven by posting a case of housing
>discrimination.  

_Hernandez v. New York_ was not concerned with housing discrimination,
Stephen. Did you read the quote at all?

>I think the non-responsiveness of this is obvious.

It was very responsive. In the first place, the cite I made from _Hernandez v. 
New York_ contained at least one statement of law which applied generically to 
_all_ forms of discrimination, not just racial discrimination. In the second 
place, in the scale of Equal Protection claims, race is much more recognized 
as a basis of discrimination than gender is. The ERA *FAILED*, remember, 
Stephen? It was in all the papers. If racial discrimination requires a showing 
of discriminatory intent, it's a fairly safe assumption that the burden of 
proof in gender discrimination is at least as high. Lastly, I note that while 
I have provided legal cites which may or may not be 100% on point, Stephen has 
declined to present any legal cites whatsoever in support of his side of this 
argument about law. He has done scarcely more than blither vaguenesses about 
"critical legal theory", and attempt to pick little crawly nits in my 
arguments. I leave neutral observers to make their judgments based on the
facts and reasoning presented.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Biological Reasons Against Male Choice...NOT!
X-To: BRUCE CAMERON
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:03:00 GMT

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes...
BC> In article <1992Dec1.212452.19786@nsc.nsc.com>, jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
BC> es:
BC>                                                         --  Michal
BC> |> Grrr.  Let's practice the art of clear thinking for a moment.  The above
BC> |> argument continues to presuppose that the woman should always have the
BC> |> say, and the man should always have the consequences.  I feel like a
BC> |> broken record, having made this point frequently but intermittently in
BC> |> this group in the past, but here it is again:  WOMEN have the power to
BC> |> choose whether they want to bear the child or not.  If they choose not
BC> |> to, the father has no say - and he has no child.

BC> While we are practicing the art of clear thinking, it would seem
BC> that if a male did not wish to become a father, then that male
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BC> would be able to figure out a method to prevent the introduction
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BC> of his semen into a woman, thus he would not have to face the
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BC> consequences of a pregnancy he does not wish to be a part of.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BC> Of course, this would require the male to consider all women
BC> are in their fertile period and to be ready to implement his
BC> desired method of contraception each time he wishes to have
BC> intercourse with a woman.


This is just a *little* unfair, Bruce...  Remember that not every man and woman
have such an level of intimacy that he knows her cycle.  Also, it *does* rather
seem as though you're saying "Tough luck" to men, "you should have been
prepared before you unzipped your pants".  Remember that roughly the *same*
thing was said to women - "If you didn't want to get pregnant, you should have
taken precautions before you spread your legs".

Mind you, I think that *both* the man and the woman should take precautions,
but it's *hardly* fair to place the blame for an undesired pregnancy, upon the
party who didn't want it.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * #############  <------Scratch off to reveal your prize.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:07:05 GMT


In article <nyikos.724089886@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
 
>And BTW, an earlier post on this thread said all pregnancy involves a 
>risk to life, and asked what the Weaver Nelson probability should be 
>before abortion is allowed.  To which I would reply, that all abortion
>involves a risk to life, and what anyone's probability should be
>before they will EVEN SUPPORT LAWS MANDATING ABORTIONISTS INFORM WOMEN
>OF THE RISKS INVOLVED.
 
I think this reply was to my question to Weaver Nelson.  However,
I have been unable to figure out what  Peter is trying
to say here.  I've read it over a number of times but I can't 
figure it out.  Then again I never took a SAT test so I don't
know if it is my failure to understand someone of Peters 
intellect.  Could someone with comparable SAT scores to Peters
please help me understand what the hell Peter is saying here.
 
Thank You,
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 DEC 92 17:34:51 GMT

In a previous article, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) wrote:
>In article <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>
>>>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> 
>>>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.
>>
>>I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
>>instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.
>>
>>This started by talking about the united states government, and the way 
>>democracy works.  I seem to remember saying that if 51% of the population 
>>voted that way, then it would be law (but you seem to have deleted that).
>>I was considering the population of the United States.  If really want to make 
>>this bet, I demand a more impartial population representing a better cross 
>>section of the United States.  Most likely, people who have never heard of 
>>either of us.  Not to mention a much more impartial ballot counter.
>	In all fairness, the point Adrienne was trying to make was that our
>form of government places limitations on pure majority rule, and those
>limitations are codified in our Constitution.  The founders of this nation
>did this in order to assure that minorities could not be deprived of rights
>which, in their view, they posessed by virtue of their status as human beings.

But my point is that the constitution can be ammended.  If the majority wants 
something that is unconstitutional, all they have to do is elect people who 
will make ammendments to the constitution.  An example of this is prohibition. 
When it was ammended to the constitution that drinking was illegal it became 
unconstitutional to drink. Then, prohibition was repealed, making something 
that was once unconstitutional legal again.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A test for would-be parents
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:56:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

[carole's libertarian scenario deleted]

>(It will probably be a nightmare for all the feminists like Michal,

I have mixed feelings about the "survival of the fittest".
Ont he one hand, as Carole pointed out, it does tend to 
encourage fitness.  On the other hand, it is mighty hard 
on the little 'uns.  (Should we be letting the Somali's 
starve?  After all, shouldn't they be able to fix their
own problems -- never mind the military $$ poured into 
the warlords' coffers during the cold war.)  Are there
no extenuating circumstances?

I find your comments most disturbing in this Holiday season.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:28:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> In <By35zD.3x3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
LM> >In article <1992Nov21.031905.123870@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com
LM> es:
LM> >>In <robert.722307483@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) write
LM> >
LM> >>Not *just* "in a different way".  Worse in a new way, and just as bad as
LM> >>before in the other ways.  It's not saying, "If I can't make it better for
LM> >>me, I'll make it worse for you."  It's saying, "If I can't make it better
LM> >>for me, I'll make it worse for *both of us*."  That's what I think is stup
LM> >>You're either making idle threats, or you're prepared to "cut off your nos
LM> >>to spite your face".
LM> >
LM> >Actually, the idiom isn't really appropriate:  one is prepared to
LM> >cut off someone else's nose.

LM> It *is* appropriate, because it will hurt many men, also.

LM> >And I'd think the comment is, more accurately, "If you won't help
LM> >me find a solution for everybody because you're satisfied with an
LM> >unfair status quo in your favor, I'll remove your advantage."

LM> I don't see it that way.  (See below.)

LM> >>>       It's not mine, though.  I'm pro-choice; but I'm also open-eyed eno
LM> >>>to recognize that as long as choice for women is a bad deal for men, ther
LM> >>>will be men who fight it.
LM> >>
LM> >>Choice for women is not a bad deal for men.  Lack of choice for men is a
LM> >>bad deal for men.  Taking away additional choice from everyone helps nobod
LM> >
LM> >Choice for women -only- is a bad deal for men.

LM> Taking away additional choice from everyone helps nobody.

LM> I don't disagree that the current situation is a bad deal for men.  If you
LM> say, "Help me make the world a better place", I'm behind you.  If you say,
LM> "Help me make the world a better place, or I'll kill these widows and orphan
LM> I'll think you're pretty sick and need to be stopped regardless of whether o
LM> not I think your cause is good.

LM> I see taking away choice as hurting *everyone*, both men and women (although
                                                                        ^^^^^^^^
LM> women more).  Do you agree?
    ^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm...not necessarily...  For every woman forced to remain pregnant, there
will probably be at least one man who does not necessarily wish to be a father.

I am not convinced that women necessarily wish to be parents any more than men
do, yet I am willing to listen to any statistics...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Windows: From the folks who brought you EDLIN!
From: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: Re: ANTICHOICE vs PROLIFE or whatever (was Re: Suzanne's abortion....)
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:09:55 GMT

In my last posting the last line stated....

"i don't ......"

it shoudl read, "i don't know, ......."

sorry about the mix up

(no flames about that please, i feel dumb engoh as it is for not reading it)

carrie


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 00:29:35 GMT

---
This subject line sounds like the title of a failed
Dr Seuss book:
   Loren J Finkelstein, Will You Please Clarify!

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: My vote for funniest comment of the week
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:06:42 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.724092839@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <lefty-051292033007@90.190.56.101> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> 
> 
> >Come on, Susan.  Kevin has certainly had admirers in the past, Steve "Late
> >But Not Especially Lamented" Franklin being only the most recent.
> 
> >Not surprisingly, they were uniformly even sillier sons of bitches than
> >Darcy.  Mr. Beaver seems to be no exception in this regard.
> 
> I've decided to put no more weight on insults emanating from
> lefty@apple.com  than if they emanated from apple@apple.com
> instead.  They bear so little resemblance to anything going on in
> the world of human beings.

Imagine my tremendous concern.  I'm being ignored by another fool.

> >--
> >Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
> >C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
> 
> I know DOD stands for "Dear old Dougie."

Strike one.  The D:.O:.D:. in my signature predates Mr. Holtsinger's
acquisition of his nickname.

> What does CMC stand for?
> and how do all those :. change the meaning?

Canonical answer: if you needed to know, you'd know already.

Listen, if you're planning on offering me "archive services", you'd better
speak to Darcy.  He's been trying to sew up that concession for a couple of
years now, with no noticeable degree of success.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.164901.1380@news.stolaf.edu>
cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson) writes:

>i wonder what you folks out tehre woh are pro-choice think of refering 
>to "pro-lifers" as anti-choice.....

I do them the courtesy of using their chosen label as long as they pay
me the same courtesy.  If I were to use the label I considered most
accurate, it would be "anti-abortion" rather than "anti-choice", as
most of them are anti-choice only as a result of being anti-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.