HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Dancing One More Time...
X-To: DRIEUX, JUST DRIEUX
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:10:00 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
DJD> ] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> ] DJD> 2. That the young gentleman who will kill women if
DJD> ]         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DJD> ] DJD> they do not respect him
DJD> ]      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DJD> ]
DJD> ] So, Drieux, just who is this person who "will kill women if they do not
DJD> ] respect him"?
DJD> ]
DJD> ] I sure haven't seen anyone threatening women here...  Where, then?
DJD> ]
DJD> ] Indeed!  When Janis Cortese spoke of "slitting throats," does this mean t
DJD> ] she is threatening all men?  Or all people?


DJD> p1: it is a mainstay of the AntiAboritonist Rhetoric that
DJD> a thing is that which it can become.

I don't believe that!  Whence do you derive that I believe such a thing?


DJD> p2: janis has not espoused this dogma.

So what...?


DJD> p3: you have espoused antiaboritonist rhetoric.

So what...?


DJD> p4: you did make the assertion that you would kill
DJD> any woman who showed disrespect for you.

I did no such thing.  I said that the act of keeping someone in the dark
about an important matter as abortion, was "disrespectful".

And furthermore, I did not imply that I would kill *anyone*, nor did I imply
that I would kill *anyone* because of any particular *INSTANCE* of disrespect.

And yes, there *is* a difference between a hypothetical argument based upon
one INSTANCE of "disrespect" and your "'logic' jump" to presume that I "would
kill" anyone for showing *any* kind of disrespect, which you have "cleverly"
equivocated into some sort of "desire for control".


DJD> {please, let us not equivocate that this is some
DJD> rhetorical device, such is irrelevant to the argument.}
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No, it's irrelevant to your agenda, actually.


DJD> Now, if YOU will denounce p1, we can carry on smartly
DJD> and not worry about trying to make things that which they
DJD> are not yet, merely as they have a potential to become such.

I have never belived "p1," so please do not attempt to pin it on me, in order
to pass me off as "another pro-lifer".

Thank you.

---
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 * Politically incorrect and proud of it.
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:13:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: will kebbie do what he demands of others? (Re: rights and responsibilities)
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity

I would like to add that even if a pregnant woman is pro-life, she should
still mitigate the expenses by putting the child up for adoption.



This doesn't necessarily represent the opinion of HP.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4953 talk.abortion:47169 alt.feminism:3955
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 8 Nov 92 07:12:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov7.234120.17189@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> 
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.

A lot of good that would do.  A day before birth, absolutely no woman, save
perhaps a suicidal one, would want an abortion.  It would be simpler to carry
the child to term and perform infanticide.

>>> We would be happier if there were even fewer restrictions upon 
>>> abortion roghts.

I was referring in this instance more to the gag rule and the ability of
states to restrict a woman's rights to an abortion more particularly than the
preceding quotation.

>> Does David S. Auer represent the pro-choice movement?
>
>  "i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
>   doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
>   that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>   legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>   third trimester."

First of all, this paragraph is about as straightforward as a sidewinder's
spit.

Don't put words in my mouth.  Don't assume what I do or do not support unless
I specifically say so.  Don't assume that my lack of support for a particular
position amounts to antagonism.  Don't insinuate that most people would be
overly troubled about calling me pro-choice for any particular position I took
concerning a particular portion of abortion rights legislation for most people
are not so anal-retentive.  Abortion rights during the third trimester is a
virtual non-issue.  How not supporting legislation restricting a woman's
rights could be considered a bar to being considered pro-choice is entirely
beyond me.

-dave
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4977 talk.abortion:47312 alt.feminism:4014
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: surrealism
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:49:27 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <BFXSBH2K@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <BxEuxz.In3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>(David S. Auer) writes:
>>>(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>(Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>(David S. Auer) writes:
>>>>>>(Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>>> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.
>
>>>A lot of good that would do.  A day before birth, absolutely no woman, save
>>>perhaps a suicidal one, would want an abortion.  It would be simpler to carry
>>>the child to term and perform infanticide.
>
>>Interesting.
>
>>You say the difference between a woman that destroys a fetus one day 
>>before birth and a woman who gives birth and then kills her child 
>>is that the former is suicidal.
>>[...]
>
>No, I said it would be simpler.  The other difference is an ethical one.
>It is one thing to kill an unborn child than a born one.  What I am saying,
>however, is that one day before birth, there are extreme medical risks to
>aborting a child.  I doubt anyone can find me sizeable counts of women who
>wind up aborting their children a day before pregnancy.  That we are discussing
>this instance at such length, I believe is a testament to how surreal this
>conversation has become.

If it is as surreal or trivial as you say, then why would
you have a problem with banning abortion in the last trimester
or the last month, barring health reasons?

Why do you defend the "right" to abort a child a day before birth?
Do you consider it very different to kill a fetus a day before birth
than to kill it after a cesarean?

Would there be anything unethical about a doctor who sliced up
a baby during a cesarean, by request of the woman?  Why do you
think a doctor would *not* be willing to do so, in reality?

Are the vast majority of doctors "anti-choice" because they
would refuse to destroy a 39-week fetus even after an explicit 
and responsibly-considered decision by the woman?

If you want to draw a "simple" line, this is what results.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:34:59 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


You know, you have just started a GlobalThermoNuclearFlameWar with
that message.

Interesting reading it though.


Simon

(with thanks to drieux for the concept depicted above)
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4990 talk.abortion:47412 alt.feminism:4063
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: surrealism
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:32:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <BxGEIG.1r9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <BFXSBH2K@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <BxEuxz.In3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>You say the difference between a woman that destroys a fetus one day 
>>>before birth and a woman who gives birth and then kills her child 
>>>is that the former is suicidal.
>>>[...]
>>No, I said it would be simpler.  The other difference is an ethical one.
>>It is one thing to kill an unborn child than a born one.  What I am saying,
>>however, is that one day before birth, there are extreme medical risks to
>>aborting a child.  I doubt anyone can find me sizeable counts of women who
>>wind up aborting their children a day before pregnancy.  That we are discussing
>>this instance at such length, I believe is a testament to how surreal this
>>conversation has become.

>If it is as surreal or trivial as you say, then why would
>you have a problem with banning abortion in the last trimester
>or the last month, barring health reasons?

I don't have a problem with it.  I mistrust any attempts to hinder a woman's
right to choose.  I am not so rigid or dogmatic as to discount the possibility
of banning third trimester abortions.  It is not a concern of mine.

>Why do you defend the "right" to abort a child a day before birth?
>Do you consider it very different to kill a fetus a day before birth
>than to kill it after a cesarean?

I do not consider it very different.  Then again I see it a different matter
for a mother to kill a week old child than a two-year old child.  Viability
may be a useful delineation, but all delineations are false, and I prefer to
stand at a more extreme delineation of birth.  That does not mean I would not
be equally pleased to see the delineation be at around the beginning of the
third trimester.

These examples are getting quite repulsive.  I suppose that is the nature of
this issue.

>Would there be anything unethical about a doctor who sliced up
>a baby during a cesarean, by request of the woman?  Why do you
>think a doctor would *not* be willing to do so, in reality?

It does seem unethical.  A doctor would not be willing do so in reality,
because the difference between this action and murder would be difficult to
dissever in the conscience of the doctor.  This is quite obviously a
legitimate reason for a doctor's refusal to do so.

>[...]

>If you want to draw a "simple" line, this is what results.

I am flexible in my beliefs to a certain extent, but I know roughly where I
stand.  I am unequivocally in favor of abortion rights.  The details can be
settled upon by lawyers.

-dave
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5054 talk.abortion:47774 alt.feminism:4299
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Legal Status of Fetuses (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...)
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:58:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <5HWSBDNB@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.001732.25319@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <HQTSB8DR@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.223449.25865@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov3.144951.2536@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>>>>Either the baby is a part of the woman's body and under her sole control,
>>>>>or it's a separate entity, deserving of rights.
>>>>Or maybe it's not that simple at all.
>>>Legally, that is exactly how simple it should be.
>>Why?
>>Did the good fairy promise you a simple life, or something?
>
>The law is ill-equipped to handle such complexities.  Whenever the law attempts
>to handle a complicated matter by increasing its complexity it without fail
                                              ^^^laws, I presume?
>unnecessarily complicates people's lives (except for the lawyers to whom it
>yields employment).

Whenever the law attempts to handle a complicated matter by decreasing the
complexity of the laws to deal with the myriad cases, it tromps on people's
rights.

>In the case of abortion rights this reality is quite obvious.  Additional
>legal clauses mean either additional infringements upon a woman's right to
>choose or greater ability to murder fetuses depending how you look at it.
>Either way, you alienate one side and gall the other.

I'm a lot more worried about justice than the alienation of any particular
group of people.

>Given that I do not consider a fetus full human life worthy of protection
>under the law, I find the slightest infringement upon the woman's abortion
>rights contributing further to the societal snares that already bind her.
>Further hampering of abortion rights leads only to more unsafe abortions,
>harrassment of pregnant mothers seeking abortions, and the doctors who serve
>them.
>
>On most issues polarization is bad; on the issue of abortion rights it is
>inevitable.

In theory, would the following be acceptable:

A woman must inform the father *unless* she believed the father would attempt
to interfere in her right to choose.

It's as loose as the wind, of course, but just as a starter?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN
Date: 11 Nov 1992 05:03:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

achobbs@eos.ncsu.edu (ASHTON CALDWELL HOBBS) writes:

>This is not coming from some hard-core preacher, but from
>a freshman and NC State University.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does your university know that you've been posting on their behalf??

							--  Michal
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:12:18 EST
From: Charles Hessenius <CH8305A@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Civil libs for unborn and equity

     There is something about the anti-abortion movement that has always
bugged me.  It seems to me that if one believes in "protecting the rights
of the unborn," then the only truly logical and consistent pro-life position
from a civil liberties point of view is to be against all abortions and
require all fetuses to be carried to term.
     The logic is simple.  IF the fetus is entitled to "life, liberty,
etc", then ALL must be granted this.  To allow abortions in the cases
of rape and incest creates a caste system among the unborn.  Those who
are conceived in these ways are denied their civil rights.  Furthermore,
for the charge  for performing or having an abortion to be anything other
than premeditated murder is illogical and a violation of the "unborn
baby's" civil rights as well.  A murder is a murder, and this means that
in states with the death penalty, a doctor and the pregnant mother could
face execution.
     I would like to hear anyone's explanation on the antiabortion side
about how any position other than the TOTAL ban of abortion is consistent
with your argument about the sanctity of life.  Please, maybe I'm ignorant,
but the above seems to be the only equitable way to deal with life in
the womb if one believes it to be a human life, or even just POTENTIAL
human life, and therefore worthy of protection.

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4881 talk.abortion:46869
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Back Again To Fa (2)
X-To: NATHAN DORNBROOK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:42:00 GMT

Matthew Dornbrook writes...
ND> Will Steeves writes...
ND> > * SLMR 2.1a * If it has feelings, it's not cooked enough.

ND> "I will deliver your rotting flesh from Evil!"
ND>                              Ministry

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!  Cute!

If I didn't have Bronis' quote in my .sig file, I'd be tempted to take this
one on!

(BTW, I *am* an avid Ministry fan...)  "Flashback, flashback, flashback...."

---
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 * "I'll be Bach" -- Johann Sebastian Schwartzenegger
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:59:14 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes in alt.abortion.inequity...

>NA> On the other hand, if men weren't financially responsible for their
>NA> children legally, then it might be held that they had no right to them
>NA> at all.
 
>Oh, so you THAT'S what you think?  Men should only be sperm donors, 
>AND wallets, and then you can throw them away like a used condom, eh?

Will, Nadja did not make a preposterous proposition.  If I understand 
what Nadja says here, it follows from this framework:

Who has the responsibility to raise children?

-The parties that create the pregnancy (i.e. mother and father)
-The party who determines the fate of the pregnancy (i.e. the mother)
 
If you believe the former, then it is fair to hold men responsible
for children (financially), along with the mother. (Setting aside 
for the moment the history of the sexist guidelines for dividing 
that responsibility between the two parties.)

If you believe the latter, however, it isn't a far stretch to say that
responsibilities and rights are two sides of the same coin.  Whoever
holds the responsibilities for raising children should certainly be,
IMO, the same party with the rights.

I know that this framework may gloss over complexities, but I don't
think it is right to dismiss as aburd the idea that no responsibilites
implies no rights.

rini
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: sexual herasment
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:38:20 GMT
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

>You equate a mug with political slogens on it with a pin-up
>calandar?  You think that if nude photographs constitute sexual
>harassment, so must the political content of a mug?
When the political content slames a group of people then it
definitly condtitutes harrasment. Imo more then some calender with
nude pictures (if women can have Chipindales calenders men can have
play boy calenders) do not constitute sexual harasment. Hiding the
human body is not an answere to it being concidered sexual. The
people in those pictures posed because they arnt ASHAMED of there
bodies.
>You just dont get it do you?
I think that you are the one who doesnt get it. Your the one
who thinks that a calender the exsibites the human body is a
greater sexual herasment then slogens that git there momentum
by slandering a group of people.

ELF-KIN
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: re:Abortion is a sin
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:03:21 GMT

Thank you for expressing your opinion.
Do you also beleive is slavory? How about genocide? The bible
advocates these things in places as well (old testament were god tells
Abraham to go forth and concere) The bible and religion are not a very
usefull argument as difrint people have difrint beleafes. Not everyone
is Christion/Cathlice ect.. Not everyone beleaves in the bible. Not to
mention the fact that every time this sort of argument both sides find
passiges from the bible to justife there side.

ELF-KIN
From: jeremys@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg)
Newsgroups: alt.hurricane.andrew
Subject: ???
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:06:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Why doesn't anyone post to this newsgroup?

Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: alt.hurricane.andrew
Subject: Re: ???
Date: 13 Nov 1992 22:04:20 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: jeremys@eniac.seas.upenn.edu's message of 9 Nov 92 20:06:46 GMT

In article <96823@netnews.upenn.edu> jeremys@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg) writes:

   Why doesn't anyone post to this newsgroup?

The storm is old history now.  How many votes for a rmgroup?
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
From: censtad@flash.gac.edu (Christopher B Enstad)
Newsgroups: alt.wolves
Subject: Re: Name of artist?
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:09:48 GMT
Distribution: all

In article <1992Nov8.132150.11063@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>  writes:
> folks,
> 
> when on a business trip months ago, i found some remarkable pictures
> of wolves and horses depicted with indian women.  i haven't located
> them ever since, and unfortunatly don't remember the name of the
> artist.
> 
> does anyone know?
I think I've seen these pictures too but do not know the artist either