HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:10:10 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov10.203304.22081@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill
Overpeck) wrote:
> 
> Is it "good" to have rights?  If so, why?   

This is a content-free question.  It is neither "good" nor "bad" to have
"rights".  People are considered to have them.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quotes
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:08:11 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes:

>In article <adams.721930917@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes:
>>
>>>Suzanne - The Presidency was stolen from Carter but, you'll hear
>>>more about that in the years ahead.  Funny, I didn't realize you
>>>were a psychic and funnier yet that you seem to take great glee
>>>imagining the destruction of this country, more Republican sour
>>>grapes and unwillingness to accept defeat gracefully.
>>God, I hate to step in and defend something Suzanne is saying, but I can't
>>let this go.  What you are describing is the DEMOCRATIC reaction to the
>>fact that Carter lost and Reagan won.  There is NO proof of any 'October
>>Surprise' - the Democratic Congress even said so after their investigation.
>>Carter lost.  And the left just can't acknowledge that.  Reagan *was*
>>widely popular, and still is, even though there is a concerted effort to
>>rewrite history.
>>
>>>Now, let me make a predicition, I see the complete destruction of
>>>the Republican party as more and more of the truth of the dirty
>>>deals made by them comes to light.  I predict that never again will
>>>they have their dirty hands on the helm of state.
>>
>>Jack Kemp will be President in 1996.
>>
>Uhhh, Stevie could it be that you're a little repub?

Nope...just a reasonably astute political observer...and I tend towards
libertarinaism.

Could it be sour grapes on your part about Carter??

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:53:20 GMT

In article <1eb92iINNiuq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.055842.5919@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
>>> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>>This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
>>>>everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
>>>>is stopped - permanently.
>>>Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!
>>One key (and to me, obvious) difference is that women have far greater
>>say about their level of financial contribution.  A woman need not pay
>>much of anything if she is so inclined. 
>
>Obviously, by not having the baby.
>
>However, for those women who have had the baby, either through a belief that
>abortion is a moral wrong, or a desire to become a mother, this isn't true.
>A mother is as obliged to support her child as a father, under the law.

Both of those things you cite -- moral qualms with abortion, desire to become
a mother -- are examples of voluntary choices, Adrienne. And a voluntary 
choice amounts to consent. The woman consents to her liability, but the man 
does not. Do you still suffer from the "invisible consent" syndrome?
 
								- Kevin
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:41:46 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <shl2l14@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <Bxvwop.M1x@access.digex.com>, roger@access.digex.com writes:
>|cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes: 
>|>In article <1992Nov14.151657.8820@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
>|>|If my greatest joy in life is torturing cats to death, does anyone
>|>|else have the right to interfere?
>|>Are you destroying someone else's property?
>
>|The local newspaper just had an item a few days ago concerning a man 
>|who was convicted of beating his (underline his)  puppy to death.  Do you 
>|think the state had a moral right to interfere with this man's puppy 
>|beating, CJ?
>
>The phrase "moral right" seems a non-sequitur to me.  (I would
>say, in fact, that the state shouldn't ever use "moral rights"
>as justication for laws.  The state has no business making any
>statements about "morality".) The state might well decide that
>animals are worth protecting for non-"moral" reasons.

Name me a reason for doing _anything_ which is non-"moral"?  You're 
so hung up about the inherent _morality_ of "Don't force your morality
on me" that you want to rename it to be non-"moral".  It doesn't work.

Nope.  It's time to come clean and admit that states do indeed force morality
on people - the important point is that the morality a state uses must be
very general, and be as broadly acceptable to as many people as possible, and
be no more than the state needs to function.  That is, one seeks to diminish
the force, not the morality.

>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:01:19 GMT

demonstrating that even the best of people can have a
bad day,

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
->> = (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>> = (Bill Overpeck) writes to steve novak:
->>>My experience with the "rest of humanity" suggests that they're not
->>>nearly as hateful as you seem to be.  Perhaps you should take your 
->>>own advice.

->>novak doesn't seem at all "hateful" to me bill. he
->>seems witty, fair minded, interesting, caring. then
->>again, i suppose these are all attributes you might
->>find "hateful."

->(Thanks.  I'll send you that $10 later.)

the previous line was the beginning, and the end of the
good part. now comes the bad part ......

->I'd get you and Eric together to drink some Chimay ale

good grief! and after all the nice things i've written
about you! cutting my toenails would be more
interesting than having a drink with that pedantic git.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48907 alt.abortion.inequity:5218 soc.women:20061 soc.men:19696 alt.feminism:4798
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 20 Nov 1992 16:38:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: nyikos fails to apologize for false accusation of forgery

You know how it happens that things are always in the last place that
you look for 'em?  There's a reason for that.  And now I gleefully
note to the net that I'm a gonna be gone for about a week, and will
probably "c"atchup all of talk.abortion when I get back, so in all
probablility will miss mr. phoney sweety peetie when he FINALLY
"gets around" to me.  Now ain't that a cryin' shame.....  Jim, save it
for me, will ya?

In article <va11wlf@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to
>->Well, I don't know what qualifies as an apology in your eyes, but I just
>->posted one in response to Susan's initial short post about my "selective
>->editing".  
>->Adrienne is a trickier case but I'll get around to her too when
>->I have a little more time.
>
>adrienne is not a "trickier" case. you accused her of
>forgery. your accusation was false. in fact, anyone
>familiar with the net knew your accusation was false
>when they read it, which is why i suggested you speak
>with your sysadmins immediately and then post an
>apology for your false accusation. so much time has
>passed since then, three weeks or more isn't it, that i
>am forced to conclude that your accusation was an
>intentional smear rather than just a stupid mistake.
>unfortunately for you, this incident has gone a long
>way to solidify your growing net.reputation.

WHAT net.reputation!?  (-:

Adrienne Regard

PS, oh yea, all you talk.abortion posters that I've had entralled
(against your will of course) in my web of deceit for the last few
months, who have been posting that Peter is lacking integrity -- I 
release you for the week.  You are now free to post your OWN thoughts,
until I get back, and seize your minds again and force you to type
nasty things about mr. clue-less-big-time.



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48082 news.admin.misc:342
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Purpose of lat/longs
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 12:18:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

In article <1992Nov15.062558.14903@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com writes:
>1. so there is a good reason to get sites into the UCCP map 
>project, and keep it up to date?                   ^^^^
                                                    ^^^^
Obviously a typo.  It should have been "CCCP".


mathew
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:37:35 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1efh9gINNcg9@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) wrote:
> 
> It's pretty clear to all of us, I think, that cancer is always unwelcome, 
> and pregnancy isn't.  I don't imagine women will voluntarily place cancer 
> cells in their womb anytime soon, and I don't believe you do either.

It's likewise pretty clear that, in those instances where pregnancy is
welcome, abortion is not an issue.

So, what's your point?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ray fischer: lover of free and open communication
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:17:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>I know about killfiles, but ignoring him isn't nearly as much fun as
>poking at him.  But he has been quiet lately (as have Forgach &
>Chaney).  What gives?  Has an unequivocal message from the voters that
>they just _might_ be wrong cast some doubt on their self-determined
>moral superiority?

I guess their tape player broke after the results came in. Since the
last message didn't work, their miniscule minds are trying to come up
with a new theme that they can hammer away with.

>Is the universe about to end?

Just theirs, as they see it. :)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim's bizarre equivalencies.
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:01:11 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.220557.23514@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
argues for some equivalencies that would worry me if they were the
basis of my argument:

>That is an appropriate way to view the situation if it is accepted
>that abortion is an acceptable way to handle a pregnancy and the only
>question is whether to choose it in the particular situation.  Of
>course, not everyone looks at things that way.  From the pro-life
>point of view, you might as well say that a dispute between those who
>do and those who don't want to forbid torturing cats to death for fun
>depends on whether the owner or some interfering do-gooder is best
>qualified to decide how to handle the situation in which cat owners
>find themselves.

Man torturing cats == pregnant women.
/z/e/f/ == cat.

Of course, these are no more ridiculous than the fundamental
equivalency in consequences of behavior, most vehemently not gender
says Jim, that is the basis of the chastity belt theory of forced
pregnancy:

{Financial support} == {Financial support} U {Use of body for 9
months}.  

Obvioulsy false unless the consequences of the use of one's body for 9
months is the empty set.  We have strong evidence that it is not.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:39:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.011952.4766@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <adams.722195596@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
>> I am ELCA.  We are catholic....(ie universal).  The intent of Luther was to
>> reform catholicism.  ELCA considers itself a reform movement within
>> catholicism.
>> 
>> Protestant and catholic are *not* mutually exclusive...
>Hence the Ecumenical Movement.
>
>Are you ready to come home yet, Steve?  ;-)
Probably as soon as the RCC steps out of the dark ages.
-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
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:59:16 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->#regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
->#->And this from our own Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos who *just* before this
->#->article told James Keegan that he didn't lie about adrienne regard.
->#
->#hell, if he can lie about you and susan garvin, there's
->#no reason why he can't lie to me.
->#
->#perhaps he's displaying misogyny when he lies about
->#women and only lies to men. wait a minute! didn't he
->#lie about dean? never mind.

->I think that he's lied about a lot more people than just
->Adrienne, Dean and I.  (And I really hope that Dean will
->write a song about the three of us - I like the way that
->sounded.)  I think that it's time for everyone else in
->the group to step forward.  We can form one of the most
->non-exclusive clubs in the world.

you raised such good points that i just made a separate
post asking Phoney to lie about me so i can get into
the song.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:28:41 GMT

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

] bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
] 
] >The unsaid element here is whether or not the magazines (mugs) 
] >were placed with the knowledge that they offended. If a complaint
] >was made --and none was mentioned-- and the magazines weren't
] >removed, it could be construed as harassment; but it strikes me
] >as a weaker case than a posted pin-up. This due to access. A
] >pin-up doesn't need to be read to offend, a glance will do it.
] >However, on the whole, a magazine with negative content must be
] >read to offend, which makes the offended a party to the problem.
] 
] I don't think of pin-up calenders in the workplace as sexual harassment 
] but rather as a sign of cultural gender gap.  The best solution I heard of 
] was the following.
] 
] A new woman at a construction site was mildly annoyed by the pin-up calenders. 
] So, she bought a few Chippendale (male stripper) calendars and put them 
] also.  When some of the men asked her to take these down, she said, I 
] will if you take yours down.  That workplace is now free of pin-up 
] calendars.  

Well - I already posted this on soc.women under
another thread - but here goes again.

When I worked at a job one time where my supervisor
had a penthouse calendar given to him for Christmas
one year - he brought it in and put it up in the 
"Key Closet" - a place that was off-limits to anyone
but he and I.  

I went out and got a playgirl calendar - and the two
of them hung side by side for the full year.

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: restrictions
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 00:44:40 GMT


Well said, Galen.

I think that some people are afraid of expressing their desire to
restrict abortions, and I don't know why.  ("Keegan will flame
me" seems like a lame excuse, to say the least.  There are plenty
of pro-forcers who will flame people for any support of legal
abortion.)  I, like you, don't support any legal restrictions
on abortion.  I don't consider those who do to be on the same
side of the issue as I am, but then, I don't see only two
sides to this issue.

One thing that strikes me is how quickly the supporters of
restrictions resort to anti-abortion rhetoric when they
are challenged.  In a recent example, Ray Fischer asked
Jim Keegan if he would support the legality of a woman
ripping the head off of a fetus when it was in her vagina.
I wonder if he merely copied this question from one of
the many who have asked similar questions here, or if he
has thought about it at all.  Before invasive surgery became
commonplace, before antibiotics and sterile technique,
when C sections were very rare because they were very
dangerous, this was not just a rhetorical question.  A
fetus whose head was too large to pass through the
vagina represented a very real threat to the life of
the woman.  The medically indicated procedure was to behead
the fetus and save the woman's life.  Some doctors refused
to do it, based on their belief that the fetus was more
valuable than the woman.  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.

I would encourage people who support restrictions to
think through their reasoning again, too.

Susan
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 18 Nov 1992 09:26:40 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov18.125831.2667@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>I could attempt an "Adrienne, Dean, and Susan" poem, but then
>I'd get all hung up trying to get the order right (who gets
>top billing; should it be "Adrienne, Dean, and Susan," "Susan,
>Adrienne, and Dean," "Dean, Adrienne, and Susan," and so on?).
>After all, I want to be fair.


So, now we have to figure out who was lied about first?!?!?!?!

Gee, maybe Petey could tell us!  (-:

Adrienne Regard

PS.  If you are going to put 'Yo' in the song, anywhere, you are going
to have to substitute James Keegan for me.  I'm sick of the joke.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:02:41 GMT

From article <ymt1y#_@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> 
>>If you are pleading on the half of incest or rape victims, that is
>>one matter.  However, the MAJORITY do not fall into this and they 
>>DO NOT fall into this supposed UNWILLING catagory.  They may and 
>>probably do fall into the UNPLANNED or rather LACK OF PLANNING 
>>catagory or even into the UNEDUCATED one.  Families needs to teach their 
>>children (males and females) how to control their body - don't just let 
>>them run wild and then excuse their actions.  The error of thinking
>>that pregancy is unwilling is that the action (the sex act) is so 
>>trivialized and young girls think they need to give themselves to
>>some supposed man to gain acceptance.  Everyone needs to learn self-control
>>and self-acceptance.  One doesn't really gain either by having sex.
> 
> For someone who professes to be a Christian, you sound terribly
> full of hate.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why this is so.

Cathi, this is so bizarre, the only thing I can call it is a non-sequitor.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion