HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Must Pro-Life Be Inconsistent and Misogynistic?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 02:01:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>In article <3zsnlfl.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>>>First, nothing was said about a right to kill.  "Merely" to remove the
>>>fetus intact would suffice.  Its right to support would be overridden
>>>under certain circumstances, not its right to life.  It would pursue
>>>life as best it could, which wouldn't be very well.
>>
>>So then, the fetus _isn't_ a person.  I know of no other case where 
>>killing a person is allowed because of an action somebody else did.
>
>How does this imply the fetus isn't a person?  I'm not even arguing
>whether a fetus is a person or not.  I'm saying it's not inconsistent.

Walk into a hospital.  Remove the life support of any non-terminal patient
and I assure you that you _will_ be charged with murder.  But if you
remove the life support of a fetus it's not murder?  Double standard?

>>The difference between your view and mine is that I think the mother
>>should decide whether to continue the pregnancy, and you think you 
>>should decide.
>
>In any case, one might say you think you are best qualified to decide
>who should make the decision.

The point is that women have rather more at stake in pregnancy than do
men, and your commitment to any woman's well being with regard to 
pregnancy is rather suspect for that reason alone.  If she makes the
wrong choice, she has to live or die by it.  If you make the wrong
choice, it's still her that must suffer the consequences.

>If what you're attacking is a position that I haven't laid claim to,
>namely that abortion should be illegal, then consider the following:
>An anti-abortion law might prevent her from taking action to reduce
>her risk of death from pregnancy, but this is not contradictory to
>any legal principle, presuming one holds that she made her decision
>to undertake risk when she decided to have sex.

A pretty big assumption, one not supported by fact and one I don't accept.
The mere fact that an abortion is desired seems to be a pretty good
indication that she is _not_ consenting to pregnancy and birth.  Sex 
is no more consent to pregnancy than driving is consent to dying in 
an accident.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:13:16 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <SCOTTS.92Sep5142954@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>, by scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier):
>> In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>    From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>>    > 
>>    > Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>>    > they won't have sex with them".
>> 
>> 
>>    What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
>> 
>> Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>> are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
> 
> 
> Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to respect
> for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful to them), a case
> can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.    There is only the
> occasional exception.

Even if your beliefs of what gays think are true, that doesn't explain
that gays do not have sex with women for these reasons.  Besides that,
gays just don't hate women.  Maybe some pro-abort gays don't like
pro-life women, but that's *not* the reason you don't here about
pro-abort gays having frequent sex with pro-life women.

Also, (this has been brought up before, but I may as well say it
again anyway, eh?) I'm hetero, so I don't have sex with men, but
it isn't because I *hate* men.  

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:02:34 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <lefty-310892165951@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> I've seen the following quote in Doug Holtsinger's signature in several
> messages, and I've grown more offended by it each time I've seen it.
> 
> In article <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
> Holtsinger) wrote:
>> 
>>       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>>  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>>  we want to be precise)..."
>>    -- Gloria Feldt,
>>       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
>> 
>>   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>>     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
> 
> Gloria Feldt is accurately summarizing, as I understand it, the Talmudic
> point of view regarding personhood.  I see no evidence that, unlike you,
> Ms. Feldt is attempting to impose her point of view on anyone else.  Do
> you have a specific problem with this, Mr. Holtsinger?  Do you object to
> the beliefs or practices of the Jewish religion?  What point are you 
> attempting to make with this?
> 
> Oh, and for the record, I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this
> statement, either.
> 
> --
> Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
> C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Any Jew who knows the Bible will remeber that King David refers to the Lord as
having formed  him.  David goes on to say, "surely I was sinful from the moment
I was conceived'!  (in the Psalms)  Interesting isn't it.  He didn't consider
life to begin one month after conception.  Nope; as far as the Lord Jehovah is
concerned conception brings into this world a new person!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36346 alt.abortion.inequity:3695
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:10:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep12.170820.26844@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ->      Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of)
|> -> proposes to enact state controls over the womb.
|> 
|> are you suggesting that you know of no single
|> anti-choicer who supports legislation to prohibit or
|> restrict abortion?
|> 
|> please.
|> 
|> mosogyny is one thing; out-and-out lying is another.

	Did you read the whole article, or just that one line?  I myself would
outlaw most abortions, by which I mean the intentional or criminally negligent
killing of an unborn child.  This does not mean I wish to control the mother's
womb.  As far as I'm concerned, she can remove the child from her womb at her
pleasure provided she does not kill it.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:40:16 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Machiavellian Pro-Choice Strategy


I should first explain that I admire Machiavelli.  Some people have the
unfortunate idea that Machiavelli is someway bad or evil.  I propose to
look at an anti-abortionist question in the manner that Machiavelli
would.

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 12-Sep-92 Re: The fundamental
questio.. by luebeckd@nextwork.rose-h 
> I was rather hoping my question might result in some logical examination  
> of the evidence as to just what exists inside the womb of a pregnant  
> person. In this forum, I have yet to see any such examination. As I am new  
> to this forum, excuse me if this was discussed at length a short time ago,  
> but as I read back, I find mostly flames thrown one direction or the  
> other, or opinions that are stated as facts that are proven merely
because  > the writer says they are so! If I tried this technique in my
college  
> writing class, their would be more red ink on my paper than black.

    In a court of law, a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, and not beyond an absolute doubt.  I would suggest to other
people that support a woman's right to choose that beyond any reasonable
doubt the anti-abortion movement hates women and especially hates their
sexuality.  For quick and easy evidence, look at the post of the
anti-abortionist on this bboard.  Thus, when we are confronted with a
demand to talk about BABEES, we should realize it for the propaganda
move that it is.  Many arguments when ignored will go away especially,
if a lot of noise is being made somewhere else.  
    In the case of abortion, I think much be made of the anti-abortion
motives.  Talk of banning forms of birth control, attitudes about
homosexuality, attitudes about extra-marital sex are reasonable
countermoves. Of course, the anti-abortionists will whine like Mr.
Luebeck does here.  So what, we are under no complusion to answer their
questions at all except as required by the dictates of
counter-propaganda.
    On the other hand, we should remain honest.  Ultimately, the looney
dishonesty of people like Nyikos and Chaney (and mirrored in the
national arena by people such as Pat Robertson and Dan Quayle) is one of
the best political weapons we have.

Hoping for a more effective pro-choice movement,
Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:04:54 GMT

In article <ft1y14c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>Oh dear.  We have another person who believes that his actions are
>controlled by people he's never met, who may be thousands of miles
>away.

Er, rocker, he _has_ met them, electronically, and "thousands of miles
away" doesn't mean diddly-squat given today's high-speed digital networks
(how many microseconds, coast to coast?).

The "controlled" part has some potential substance to it, but the rest of 
your cute little text macro is just empty-rhetorical technologically-absurd 
crapola.

Get into the Information Age.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 03:15:08 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.715643263@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> That is why I suggested sending names and/or locations [I know of one
> such abortionist who did not want to be identified by name, but the
> city was mentioned in the article I have] to a neutral third party, who
> could compile them and then tell who is correct.  I suggested "Jammer
> Jim" Miller but if he is not acceptable, I am open to other suggestions
> (to save time, let me say that Will Steeves and Elizabeth Bartley would
> also be acceptable to me).

Will Steves?  The individual who said in <1992Sep3.025255.4014@zooid.guild.org>
>And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
>situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
>but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
>or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
>stood.

That's the guy you think is a neutral third party, who you want to tell
where to find doctors performing third-trimester abortions?  Umm, I don't
think that's all that hot an idea...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 18:16:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep8.123719.3563@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
> How many babes in a bevy anyway?

I once got in an even dozen...  No, wait - that was a Chevy.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Summary: Six questions DOD is afraid to answer
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.183556.28508@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
## #garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## ## margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
## ##
## ## [massive deletions]
## ##
## ## #Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
## ## #of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
## ## #veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
## ## #"pro-abortion organization".
## ##
## ## DOD never answered this, did he?
## ##
## ## I wonder why.
## #
## #Probably for the same reason that he never answered as to whether you
## #satisfactorily demonstrated a crucial difference between a late-term
## #fetus and a neo-nate.  And he never answered why he was claiming that
## #"only 3 doctors perform third-trimester abortions" was unsupported, in
## #the very same post in which he was saying he didn't like the source of
## #that support.  And he never answered why he has such problems with the
## #beliefs of Judaism.
## 
## He also never answered why he continues to claim that Roe
## guarantees abortion "on demand throughout the entire nine months
## of pregnancy"  even though the decision specifically says
## otherwise.
#
#He also explicitly refused to answer the direct question of whether,
#in his view, there are any cases in which a woman should be permitted
#access to abortion.

You're right.  

Make that six questions for Holtsinger.

## Well, DOD, can you answer any of these questions?  
#
#I'm not holding my breath.

Good.  We wouldn't want to lose you.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: It Ain't Us.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:06:59 GMT

In article <f5nn#1b.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes ...
>> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>   What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
>>>
>>>Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>>>are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
>>
>>You know that, I know that, most people with more than a single functioning
>>neuron know that -- but you have to keep in mind that "not being sexually
>>attracted to" is the definition of "hate" in this week's version of
>>Suzanne's Variable Dictionary of the English Language...:-)
>
>Well, since I presume that Ms. Forgach is not attracted to women, then she
>must, therefore, hate women.  Say, that explains quite a bit, doesn't it?

It does, at that -- which is a little scary, considering I posted that
yesterday at a time when I'd had an hour's sleep or so of the past 48.  :-)


-- 
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. 
    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:34:38 GMT

In article <nyikos.715893475@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <Bu70vG.Ax3.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#[talk.religion.misc deleted from newsgroups]
##In article <1992Sep6.231834.17478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
###In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#### ... But you see, I feel discriminated against
#### by not having the possibility of being pregnant.
#### 
#### 	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
#### 				--Pro-abortion slogan
#### 	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
#### 				--Peter Nyikos
###
###I think I'm seeing a case of uterus envy that defies belief.  Someone
###pour cold water on me.
#
##Okay.  Here.
#
##You mean, you *don't* feel discriminated against because you
##can't get pregnant?   Gosh, I look at pregnant women and 
##think to myself, "I sure wish I could be nauseated and
##have backaches and look forward to going through labor
##by and by."  I thought everyone did.
#
#Ah, now we know who has been brainwashing poor bard@cutter (sorry, I forget
#his name).  She even offers to continue the treatment ("Okay. Here")

That was cold water, Nyikos.

#Not all women think the way Susan Garvin does.  Here are the words
#of Frederica Mathewes-Green, president of Feminists for Life of America:
#
#  "A ... disparaging of pregnancy itself also has an unhealthy ring.
#Harping on the discomforts of pregnancy treats woman as weak, incompetent;
#yet we are uniquely equipped for this role and strong enough to do much
#harder things than this.  Every woman need not bear a child, but
#every woman should feel proud kinship in the earthy, elemental beauty
#of birth.  To hold it in contempt is to reject our distinctive power,
#our bodies, ourselves."

It makes one wonder why FFL refers to pregnancy as a disability in
their tract against euthanasia, doesn't it?

There is, of course, no logic in the above quote.  Recognizing
the "discomforts" of pregnancy also recognizes the strength of
the women who endure them.  

I was not holding pregnancy in contempt, by the way.  I was
noting that it is not the bed of roses that you believe.  
#{Satire, but with a grain of truth: Now do you see why I have such a
#bad case of womb envy?}


Right, Nyikos, it makes as much sense as envying soldiers because
they get to wear such pretty uniforms while ignoring the dangers
that they face.

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36479 alt.abortion.inequity:3721
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:39:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: It only hurts when I sneeze.

In article <1992Sep2.210420.9617@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Aug31.150147.12678@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>><1992Aug25.204749.4281@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>><1992Aug25.182118.13682@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>> <1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer
>>>> ><1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike
>>>> >
>>Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.
>
>This argument has been used before.  My reply is this:  You contributed
>1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  At the eight week abortion point the fetus
>consists of millions of cells.  For sake of argument let's say 3 million
>cells.

Fair enough.

>You get 1/3000000 worth of the decision.

And the woman only contributed 1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  So her share
in the decision is, Ummm . . . (click, click, click of mouse using X
windows Hp calculator program . . .) 1/3000000 of the decision.

Wow!  Look at that!  You've mathematically proven that the contributions
are equal!

So the the other 2999999/3000000 worth of the decision is the babies, since
he/she grew those cells, not mom or dad.

>See how insignificant your opinion is?

Yup.  Just EXACTLY as insignificant as the womans.

>>I disagree.  Obviously.  Getting it INTO her body was a joint decision.
>>Getting it out, should also be a joint decision.
>
>You haven't shown compelling evidence that we should accept your premise.

Nor, have you.

And the next time you try a mathematical argument, you might try remembering
that data and information are two different things.

>Gordon

John
stevens@uswest.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35535 alt.flame:12611 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:397
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: kebbin and child molestation -- again (Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS))
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:38:04 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to ray fisher:
-> Ohmigod! HE'S MAKING FUN OF CHILD MOLESTATION!!!!
-> What kind of sick, twisted, low pervert is he???

if the net reacts to his post on child molestation the
way it reacted to yours when scads and scads of people
bashed you and humiliated you for your characterless
use of chile molestation, then i think he made a
mistake.

of course, you're the only person posting to t.a. who
suggested that he was doing so. i've seen no evidence
that he has. it would appear that no one else has
either.

and as you recently wrote:

        "It is my opinion that if a claim is made, and
        challenged in good faith, then the only two
        acceptable choices are to support it, or to
        retract it."
		<1992Sep4.035233.6281@rotag.mi.org>

so i'm sure you'll eithr be providing evidence to
support your claim or apologizing.

unless you want to be seen as both a liar and a
hypocrite. then again, many see you as that now.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:31:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.202917.9212@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
#Propellor Head expectorates:
#
## If everyone responded to pro-abortion flamefests like Steve Franklin
## did to Lefty, the pro-aborts would either be scared off of USENET,
## or would be more inclined to shape up and calm down ...
#
#I nominate this as the funniest t.a statement of the week.

I'd second it, Chris, except that the week isn't over yet and
the A.B. is still spewing them out.

It is funnier than most, though.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.politics.misc