HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:51:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>><1992Aug25.171409.12451@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
...
>>I don't think it is an unreasonable request to ask that those
>>who are trying legislate what actions I may take with my own body
>>base that legislation on something more than "because I say so."
>
>?????  But that is JUST what YOU are doing.  You are trying to make
>the right to abortion a law on the basis of "because I say so".
>
>You DO NOT occupy the moral high ground here.  You too are trying to
>force your belief system on others.

Nonsense.  *Forcing* people to recognize the freedom of others is
something we as a country have done for many decades.  Forcing you to
stand aside and allow people to choose for themselves is not the same as
*legislating* away all choices but one.

>>If you are not trying to enact legislation that would limit
>>the availability of abortion, than please ignore my request, for
>>I wouldn't dream of trying to play the role of Thought Police and
>>dictate what people must believe.
>
>Of COURSE not.  All you want to do is try to force people to believe
>that a fetus is not a human being, and should not have human rights.

Nope.  No law is going to force people to change their personal beliefs.

Allowing abortion does not require any woman to *get* an abortion if she
doesn't want one, nor does it require that everyone believe a fetus is not
a human being.  You know, recognizing your right to peaceful assembly does 
not *force* you to do so.

You know, as much as you are offended by women having complete control
over their bodies there are people who are offended by Blacks having equal
status with white folk.  Do you think we are wrong to *force* everyone to
recognize Black people's rights?

>I have as much right to enforce my belief system on you, as you do
>to enforce yours on me.

Nope.  Not in this country.  The minority are protected from "majority
rules" in this country by the Constitution.  In this country, when
"rights" collide, we typically (and should continue to do so) err on the
side of personal liberty and freedom.  That's why we are referred to a
"free country".


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:38:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.185929.9951@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>> = (Janice Kendall) writes...
>
>>>  I don't think the man has a right to know if the woman feels the best
>>>  action for her situation is to abort.
>
>>Well, as my good friend, Locutus of Borg :-), might say : "Feelings are
>>Irrelevant".  
>
>[re: possible abuse notifying the man BEFORE an abortion...]
>
>Gee, Will, maybe there IS no "respect" or "trust" felt by the woman.
>THEN what would you do?
>
>>(Note my words carefully : I am stating 
>>that I believe that it is advisable to tell beforehand, but that I would 
>>*require* it to be told afterwards).
>
>Why?  What except possible disappointment, hurt and abuse could
>possibly result from such a repressive law?  Why do you feel the need
>to so totally control a woman who doesn't agree with you, rather than
>either respecting her bodily autonomy or JUST FINDING A DIFFERENT WOMAN TO
>HAVE KIDS WITH?

PRECISELY!  How can a man make a fully informed decision about whom
to have children with, when his "offspring" can be aborted without
his knowledge?

How can you justify responsibilities of husbands (child support, etc.)
based upon their entering into a "marriage contract," without also
providing them full information in these specific respects?

Why do you want to repress men so strongly?

>I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
>like you, Will.
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 

That's what I like about this group: intelligent repartee.     :-|

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 18:48:25 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  <1992Sep1.161013.15018@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.052644.22782@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> > The statement that the states *may* enact legislation is correct.  The
> > Pennsylvania legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin for
> > vagueness, *not* because the Supreme Court ruled that the states may
> > not enact such legislation.
>
> The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
> to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in
> a fetus aborted alive,

This statement is not correct.

> since that type of legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin.
  ^^^^^
How do you conclude one from the other, when you admit that the
legislation was struck down for vagueness, and is therefore totally
irrelevant to the question?  Please stick to the topic, Doug.

The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
abortions were *not* struck down.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: NYTimes article on Robertson letter
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 21:55:43 GMT


   I am continually amazed by the effortlessness with which those
self-proclaimed Christians, such as Pat Robertson lie.  Here is a
man of the cloth, a man who poses as a religious man, and also an
accomplished liar.  Here is a man who, in the name of Jesus, puts
forth an enormous amount of effort to deliberately mislead people
who would turn to him for spiritual guidance.  If there really is
a hell, and people who regularly and knowingly lie go there after
they die, surely Pat Robertson is going to hell.  Pat Buchanan is
also going to hell.  If, just because they pose as having loyalty
to Jesus, they can get into heaven, then anyone can gain entrance
to heaven.  And if the likes of these 'religious' liars can enter
heaven, then heaven is not a fit place for decent people!
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 22:48:28 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Sep2.024157.25980@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Lessee, now, you boycott-hungry folks first wanted to boycott me, then
>David Rasmussen, and now Doug Holtsinger. 
 
Has anyone really ever proposed a boycott of Chaney?  I'd be real surprised
if anyone has.  The last thing anyone pro-choice would want is for you to 
stop posting.  Perhaps it was a group of fetus fanatics that wanted to 
boycott you.  Was this boycott by any chance led by Dennis Hall?
 
>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney  

Dan King
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 4 Sep 1992 01:54:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Patrick, feeling a lot better, 24 hours later

In article <nyikos.715540635@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <BtzIzB.7xI@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.715476331@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <181fotINNse@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>>[Petie's whine about Kaufman deleted]
>
>>>>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>>>>may not be both."
>>>>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
>>>
>>>Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
>>>calls PatricKKK?
>
>>He doesn't have to, because I *am* literate, nitwit.  
>
>>Right now, I have one hell of a situation going on in my life outside of
>>work -- as I type this, my wife is lying in a bed two blocks away from
>>here at Hermann Hospital, and there is a significant possibility the 
>>seizure she suffered yesterday afternoon may have been 
>>caused by a brain tumor.
>
>I'm very sorry to hear about it.  Had I known, I would not have played
>my little game of tit-for-tat about telling you where not to post.
>Consider it unsaid.  

Wrong, brainwipe -- you made your little rant about telling me not to follow
up to you last week.  Consider yourself stupid.  (And I'm still gonna
give you a wigging, because you're begging for it.)

>>I don't appreciate self-righteous little assholes like you dragging my name
>>in where you have no damned business doing it -- and if you don't
>>like that, you know where you can shove it.  Right now, I have enough other
>>things to worry about -- much more important things than the "hurt feelings"
>>of some human refuse that calls itself Peter Nyikos. 
>
>It's not my feelings that were hurt, and in light of your wife's condition
>and present inner turmoil, they are also unaffected by that "human refuse" bit.

I don't think you've got enough smarts to know what feelings are.  We'll
see how "unaffected" you are next week -- as I recall, Chaney (you know,
your idol) waited an awfully long time before deciding he was offended by
what I said.  I don't think you've found a convenient excuse for that yet.


-- 
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. 

                         ...what a difference a day makes...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:40:10 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  <1992Aug31.210559.14664@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.194119.26396@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov
> (Dan King) writes:
>
> }DOD has come up with Yet Another cute as hell .sig.  DOD, if it
> }wouldn't be too much trouble could you add my name right below
> }Susan's in your cute little .sig.  I agree with Susan so I wouldn't
> }mind being added.  I bet you could make your own little list of
> }people who agree with Susan here and come up with a way cute .sig.
>
> I agree with Dan and Susan, too.  So you can add my name.
>
> }>      "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

You people are making fun of Doug for being an idiot, but I think it's
incredibly offensive how he's making fun of the Jewish religion.  If
someone put down Catholics in the same way Doug is putting down Jews,
he would be the first one screaming about it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:39:47 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <BtwrKA.BLG@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Sep1.151316.11437@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> 
> 
>>In article <BtvMtL.22B@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

[...]

Is Steve Franklin a social god?  When was the last time he got laid?
Was s/he good?  Does he masturbate obsessively?  Is he overweight?
What's his IQ?  Does he have video-taped sex sessions with animals?

Maybe some questions are too personal to expect a person to answer.
Go figure, Steve.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: 3 Sep 1992 23:43:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Sep3.175113.6036@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <lach7lINN577@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>> In article <1992Sep2.221028.11532@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  

>>>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>>>>> rape, and theft?

>>>> These are not necessairly moral issues.

>>>If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
>>>then what are they based upon? 

>> They are based on the need to restrict certain behavior in order to
>> improve the functioning of the society. This is not a moral issue,
>> it is a social issue.

>  Okay, but what makes certain "social structures" better than others?  

Define "better". Once we have done that, we can examine your question
in greater depth.

Better for the survival of the society? Better for the well being of
the individual? 

>  Methinks it rests in the eyes of those who behold the society -- who cannot
>but make certain judgements based upon thier moral views.  How should society
>function?  What defines a well-functioning society?  I submit that people of
>differing moralities will supply different definitions of what this means,
>especially when you start applying them via laws and such.

I agree that different people view the purpose of society differently.
That's why I put forth my question in the last paragraph.

I for one don't believe much in the concept of morality, because it is
inherently subjective. I'm somewhat more comfortable with the concept
of ethics, because I don't see ethics commonly being attributed to
an unprovable spirit being.

This all tends to fall into the point I was origionally trying to get
across, that laws should not be based on "moral" positions, but
rather pragmatic ones. I think that is the case with most cases of
homicide, rape, and theft. 

>  Much as we may wish to, I do not believe that morality and society can be
>cleaved from one another.  The best that can be hoped for, functionality-wise,
>is a society based upon the morality of the majority of those within it.  Pref-
>erably, this majority approaches unanimity.  The smaller the majorities, the 
>greater the likelihood of strife.  The reverse is a recipe for stagnation, but
>it *will* function smoothly -- as those within it perceive it.

Well, you just read what I feel about "morality", so apparently we
see these things a little differently.

>Jammer Jim Miller 

Eric
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:24:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: rotag.1992Aug30.222408.22730
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Aug20.231050.1913@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug17132102@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>>In article <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>
>> >I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "take
>> >precedence".
>>
>>Imagine, if you will, a human life, and what rights a person has to
>>take that life.
>
>Well let's see.  I have the legal and moral (according to my moral system) right
>to insist that anyone physically using my body against my will immediately
>cease and desist.  If this person refuses to do so.  I have the right
>to use any force up to and including lethal to enforce my control over
>my own body.  

Please, please, please! I'm as much of a Bodily Autonomist as the next pro-
choicer (as opposed to the Libertarians, the personhood dweebs, or any of the 
other variations of pro-choice), but it is my considered opinion, after much 
thought and research, that the analogies to deadly-force-against-rape, and 
similar legal provisions, are widely recognized as EXCEPTIONS to the general 
and traditional rule of law, namely that deadly force is only acceptable as 
self-defense against a DEADLY attack, and its use against a non-deadly attack 
is considered excessive and criminally punishable. The only reasons rape-attack 
exceptions and "make my day" laws are permitted exist at all is because the 
problems they are purported to address have not been curbed by conventional 
means, and the states felt they needed ("compelling state interest") to employ 
a powerful deterrent. Since no deterrent is possible against a fetus, all such 
analogies are therefore qualitatively distinct from the abortion issue, and 
they are invalidated. In fact, I think trying to hammer these square pegs into 
the round holes hurts the credibility of the Bodily Autonomy viewpoint.

Moreover, remember the traditional pro-life counterpoint that the fetus is 
INNOCENT of any crime (by virtue of being incapable of having a criminal
intent or _mens rea_), and therefore cannot be punished. I find this point
rather compelling in the case of post-viability abortions, but not decisive
in and of itself...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:18:38 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  <1992Sep2.023551.25662@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> What do you call it when the abortion laws were pushed from
> quickening, to conception, back in the 1860's-1870's?

I call it the American Medical Association asserting control.

> Does the word PERSONHOOD ring a bell somewhere in that legal process?

No, it doesn't.  Go check it out for yourself.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) + /h: j, Susan.
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:54:53 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>I personally would like to see what bra-burning feminazi crazies like
>Suzie Q, will say when it happens. 

Here the little psycho with the strange parents proves his basic
inability to come up with anything new; hence, his pathetic useage of Pat
"Joseph Goebbels" Buchanan's convention misogyny - pretty funny,
considering his juvenile snivelling about Humphrey.

>The look on her face when abortion
>doctors are being hauled to prison by the cops, is worth a million
>dollars. In conservative estimates. 

The look on Propellor Prick's face when they haul off the women GETTING
abortions will probably be...pleasure.  This hateful box of shit would
enjoy what even most pro-lifers are trying to prevent.

>I can't wait to see the look on her face when she has to resort to
>Coat Hanger Terrorism, only to get her own ass hauled off to jail.

No, RU486 will do just fine, in the quite unlikely event the Human Fetus
Worshippers Amendment got passed.  

You think we've had a lot of acid and cocaine in the country?
HA-hahahahahahahahaha.

>But then again, Suzie Q Garvin in prison, would be a gross insult to
>the other cockroaches that already inhabit those jails. 

Do you masturbate when you exhibit your misogyny on the net?




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34665 alt.flame:12519
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:08:53 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

Hoping for better results, in article <BtwrKA.BLG@cs.dal.ca>,
franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) wrote:
> 
> Still, aren't ya a little curious to know how old Leftie is?

In article <1992Sep01.185414.41940@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
(Larry Margolis) wrote:
> 
> No, but then, I have a life.

In article <1992Sep1.191912.7964@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>,
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) wrote:
> 
> No, not even a little bit.

In article <1992Sep1.204810.21852@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov
(Dan King) wrote:
> 
> Not even a little bit.

Not exactly the results you were hoping for, I guess.  Tant pis, Stevie.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 07:15:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.202634.11650@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Hell Gordon, why do you think Pro-Lifers laugh up their sleeves every time

Because they don't have any Kleenex?

					Just a guess, you understand.




----------
A better question is: have I ever been WRONG on anything important in this 
forum?					- Kevin Darcy
					<1991Jul19.032603.14432@rotag.mi.org>