HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Headaches -- the Excedrin Holocaust (was: Re: The Silent Holocaust)
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:00:46 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <Nov.19.11.14.25.1992.12839@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
>And I must note that I wouldn't be 
>able to voice these thoughts if my birthmother had opted to have an abortion
>instead of giving me up for adoption in Bogota, Columbia!

You also wouldn't have been typing those thoughts if your birthmother had
had a headache on the night of your conception, ?verdad?  Now should we
outlaw headaches as murder?

Goddess Bless,
--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim's logic problems extend beyond mere equivalence.
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:18:19 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov20.141840.10285@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>I don't understand the grounds for the assertions you make well enough
>to continue the discussion.  You were the one who raised the analogy
>between drunk driving and sex.  As I've pointed out repeatedly,
>responsibility for one's acts is not necessarily punishment so
>prohibiting abortion where the pregnancy is due to the voluntary act
>of the woman is not necessarily treating the woman as a criminal.

I raised the analogy of drunk driving to suggest that we don't even
force *criminals* to use their bodies to support their victims.  Why
do you want to punish the voluntary acts of women (by forcing them
into bodily servitude) as you would punish drunk drivers (by forcing
them to donate body stuff to save victims)?  That is the question.  In
response, you assert that having the state use its resources to force
women who engage in consensual sex to carry all pregnancies to term is
not punishment; I find this claim downright disingenuous.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:24:26 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes ...
->>  If someone who lived in an isolated
->>area took this action today, believing it to be safer than
->>performing major surgery undernon-sterile condition, I wouldn't want
->>that person to be prosecuted for manslaughter.  I wonder
->>if Fischer would.

->Of course not.  But to argue that the life of a born -10 minutes
->fetus is less important than the life of a cat is equally absurd.  

strawman; anti-choice rhetoric. no one claimed that it
was.

->Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
->right of a woman to end the pregnancy?

another strawman. abortion is the termination fo a
pregnancy. the fetal rights argument is simply another
old, anti-choice strategy. pro-choice organizations
focus on protecting a woman's right to abortion.
anti-choice groups focus on restricting those rights.
some anti-choice groups still use the fetal rights
argument.


Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:27:39 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Nov13.163212.27900@ncsu.edu> <adams.721675706@spssig> <1992Nov17.202633.24525@ncsu.edu> <adams.722035768@spssig> <1992Nov19.172239.20448@ncsu.edu>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov19.172239.20448@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>
>In article <adams.722035768@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>|>
>|> How so in public schools?  What exactly do you want?  I'd like to know.
>
>I think there should be a time, if nothing else set apart, or even better, an
>optional assembly every day in which organized prayer is held.

Why does it have to be organized?  Seems rather unamerican.

>|> What if precautions are taken during sex and they fail???
>
>Then you must deal with the consequences.

Getting an abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences.

>Yes, but like you said, homosexual sexual relations, and to some extent therfore,
>homosexuality is ILLEGAL in at least one state.

Homosexuality refers to the preference for a same-sex partner.  Thankfully,
they can't legislate against feelings, only against actions.  Also, the law
is against a specific sex act, regardless of the sex of the people involved.
Did you know that a woman was arrested for performing oral sex on her husband
in their own bedroom?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Holtsinger allegedly refuted
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:15:36 GMT

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

> I followed up to this article yesterday evening (19 Nov 92 23:00:39 GMT)
> and made a couple of embarrassing mistakes thru not pausing to reflect
> on all the possible meanings of what Chris was saying.  I canceled the
> article this morning but if some copies leaked through, I ask readers to
> disregard them and to take *this* follow-up to be the true one.

Well, I had some raucous good fun with Peter's earlier reply to me about
two hours ago.  Unfortunately, I can't cancel articles with my posting
software, but I think Peter's ego is robust enough to stand a little more
nose-tweaking.  I'm sure he'll have a chance to return the favor. :-)

Anyway, Peter, it was good to see the light bulb come on, so to speak.
I don't think you have to worry about other posters neenering you about
this particular controversy the way Chaney was neenered about the
Dennis Hall flap, for the simple reason that you resolved this one in
a classy and amicable manner, imo.  Hopefully, the Adrienne attribution
controversy can also be similarly resolved.

Back to our regularly scheduled food fight, eh?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Summary: Why Petey Honey's a babbling idiot.
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:04:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.

In article <nyikos.722026954@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <s5k1nx=@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>
>>i wonder why peter simply hasn't mailed adrienne his
>>apology and asked her to post it.
>
>The reason you are wondering is that you haven't bothered to read
>the evidence for yourself but are taking Adrienne's word for it
>that things are the way they are.

You're so cute when you throw your little temper tantrum -- but rest
assured, you provided all the evidence needed to come to the conclusion that
you don't have anything better to do than deliberately try to stir up
trouble.  I reached that conclusion without reading anything of Adrienne's,
all by myself -- you must be one hell of a wonderful guy to have such
contempt for your opponents that you believe all of us to be incapable of
reaching our own conclusions.

Man, I pity anyone who has to put up with your teaching at The USC, if the
drivel you dump in this newsgroup is any indication...

--PLH, taking up a collection to buy Petey Honey a clue or two.


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

        Beware of being the Roller when there's nothing left to roll...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The Best of Enemies - John Dee
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:51:23 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>I still don't understand why a non-violent protester deserves
>six months in jail.  Who cares how many times he violated
>the restraining order?  That still doesn't warrant a six
>month jail sentence.  

Fraud and forgery are also non-violent crimes, as is counterfeiting.
You can get a damn sight more than six months for those non-violent
crimes.  Why shouldn't some person get six months for BREAKING THE
LAW?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:26:07 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <shis074@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <nyikos.722027741@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
>|Still playing along with Adrienne's gag, eh?

>I think gags are more along Nadja's lines than Adrienne's.

Yep. You got it. Also whips, chains, fetters, and my brand new real
nice made out of heartwood redwood RACK!

(Ummm.... cj, I noticed you're a little on the short side. I could fix that.
 Wouldn't take long. :-))


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:05:20 GMT

psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:

>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.

(Ignoring for the moment that this is NOT an alternative to being
pregnant...)

Smith, I warmly invite you to explain to my husband why he should
resign himself to never again having sex with his wife simply because
neither one of us wishes for me to become pregnant.

(Not to mention that voluntary abstinence is NOT 100% effective.)

>-Paul

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: Darcy fantasizes
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:17:44 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <ar110=m@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>Of course she does endorse Jeff Greenfield's bogus arguments.
>>
>>Trying to control women again, Dougie?

>Are there misogynists hiding under your bed again, Rockie?

Ummmm, not knowing who "Rockie" is (unless you meant the movie guy,
but that was Rocky), I'll take a stab at this one.

Any misogynists hiding under my bed would have to be  v e r y very
small, since I sleep on a matress on carpet.

Do you have any other decorating questions you'd like answered?

>								- Kevin

                  -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48883 alt.abortion.inequity:5211
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:41:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.221554.37953@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov13.171159.15074@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>>
>>Horseshit yourself, Adrienne:
>>
>>MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents
>                     ^^^^
>>
>>       Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock are liable
>                                           ^^^^^^^
>>       for the necessary support and education of the child. They are also
>>       liable for the child's funeral expenses. The father is liable to pay
>>       such expenses in connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its
>>       discretion may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).
>
>You proved Adrienne's point - *no* obligation until *after* the child is
>born.  The fact that he [maybe] has to pay expenses incurred *before* the
>child was born does not alter the fact that there is no legal obligation
>until *after* the child is born.

Your 16-year-old child decides to drive your car into a store,
doing $10,000 damage.  Are you liable for damages?

Your 16-year-old child drives your car.  Are you liable for damages?

Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
has been restricted, even before any damages occur?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More of JIm's strange equivalencies.
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:55:19 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.222645.24532@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes: to me:

>I take you out in my boat knowing that you can't swim and that you're
>extraordinarily clumsy (as helpless as a babe, you might say).  If you
>fall in, my guess is that I would be held legally responsible to pull
>you out.  On the other hand, if some third party threw you into the
>water next to my boat I believe I would have no such responsiblity.
>Your right to live would be the same in either case, but my legal
>obligation to help realize that right would depend on whether the
>danger you were in resulted from my action or from the action of a
>third party.

Me, adult male human being == human /z/e/f/

Taking action to save a drowning person == months of forced pregnancy
and childbirth

Taking physically inept person out on a boat, apparently without a
life jacket == Making good faith effort to avoid pregnancy using birth
control

I don't accept any of these.  Nor do I hold the gender equivalence of
a chastity belt policy of forced pregnancy that would force men and
women to provide financial resources for the /z/e/f/ but compel only
women to be used as incubators for it.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The answer (are the unborn alive?)!!!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:50:21 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <markts.721552522@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>>
>> please let me rephrase: the unborn are composed
>> of living cells. but they lack the elusive soul
>> needed to be alive in our little christian
>> spectrum.
>
>Substute the minority group of your choice for 'unborn'.  Now prove that the
>statement is true for 'unborn', and not for the minority group of your
>choice.

Easy.  Find something which is commonly considered as having a soul
(you, for example), and find something which is commonly considered as
not having a soul (a cat, for example).  Note the differences between
you and the cat that lead people to believe that you have a soul while
the cat doesn't: the ability to conceive of indirect solutions to
problems, the ability to use language, and so forth.

Now compare anything against the two of you.  A minority person would
possess many, if not all, of the distinctions that distinguish you
from the cat.  A fetus, on the other hand, would not, nor would it
even biologically be similar to either you nor the cat until late in
its development (that's biologically, note, not genetically).

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:48:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.000433.5823@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Nov15.035941.20377@rotag.mi.org>, by kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy):
>> In article <1d85iaINNate@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>>
>>>I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
>>>more important than an animal.  
>> 
>> Does it demean YOU, Frank? Do you consider yourself a fertilized egg? If not
>> demeaning to you, then to whom? I see it potentially demeaning only to
>> fertilized eggs. It could hurt their "feelings", maybe.
>
>Kevin, every single one of us is a fertilized egg.  Some of us are just older
>than others.
>

Every living animal, for that matter, is a fertilized egg. Some are
sentient, some are not.

>
>Suzanne.

Lost Boy

******************************************************
* If a foetus is pre-born, does that make me undead? *
*                             -Karen Uru             *
******************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:53:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.204543.5755@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Tell me again that character doesn't matter.
I'll tell you. I'm far too cynical to expect politicians to be honest.
I simply want someone in office who will do what I want him to do.

>With a past like his, I fully
>expect him to commit impeachable offenses while in office, if he hasn't already.
Even so, judging from the history of the presidency, I suggest that
the probability of Clinton being impeached is slim to none. And the
probability of that doing the Republicans any good even closer to zero.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Why Does Clifton Hold that Christianity is MEANINGLESS?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:29:23 GMT

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
] 
] Jesus said follow me.  Paul said man is not saved by God's law alone.  Jesus
] also said love God and your neighbor.  In one sense you could say that is our
] 'doctrine'.   Before, I was refering to the doctrines made by the church as to
] praying, reading the word, and such.  But, you will object to this because you
] aren't really looking for truth, but instead try to justify by degrading
] otheres.
] 
] ...Ken!


So let me see if I understand you,
the bible is wrong, and communicable Ideas
are not a part of YOUR notion of Xtianity?


And YOU call ME degrading OTHERS....

WOW!

pot, kettle, black!

ciao
drieux


ps: and thank you for playing....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49150 soc.singles:31524
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles
Subject: Dear Old Doug Has Problems
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:59:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


folks in soc.singles, we'd like to apologize for
dear old doug wandering around without adult supervision.

We have tried to address his anxieties in public,
in private, and through all the known means, but
he seems to have a psychological need to continue
on in his hope that if he tells his lies often 
enough folks might start to believe them.

So I shall offer the master of 'misplacing quotations'
the simpler question:

if I ask: "was your mother still on a Chain gang when you were born?"

can we all conclude from this that you
were born to a woman who was working on a chain gang?


ciao
drieux


dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] In article <1992Nov20.221931.97865@watson.ibm.com> 
] margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] 
] >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >> I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
] >> Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall
] >> continue to post to soc.singles.
] 
] > This statement is not correct.
] 
] Are you saying that you didn't contact my sysadmins?
] Or that your e-mail wasn't threatening?   You e-mailed 
] the postmaster at 'ncsu.edu' that someone should have
] a talk with me about my posting to soc.singles.  The 
] sysadmin e-mailed me a copy.  Shall I post your e-mail 
] to prove it?  
] 
] You know, the really funny thing is that you didn't
] contact me first via e-mail -- you went straight to
] the NCSU system administrators.  What does that say 
] about you Margolis? 
] 
] >Larry Margolis
] 
] 
] Doug Holtsinger
] 


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:50:28 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <1992Nov21.222825.4882@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>
>>>There have also been recent discussions of college men
>>>doing things like getting women drunk and having sexual relations with
>>>them while they were not sober enough to consent.
>>
>>If she knows that she's drinking enough to impare her judgement, beforehand,
>>then she IS giving consent; knowing she won't give it later.

>Yeah, and if you get drunk in a bar and wake up naked in an alley somewhere,
>you gave your consent to being robbed, too, right?  Idjit.
>--

No, but you took it upon yourself to give up your choice of being able
to make enough decision not to let yourself pass out, and then get robbed.
Once again, it's your own fault.
-Doc

-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48211 talk.religion.misc:21266 alt.atheism:21409