HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:44:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.194237.16141@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> The ends do not always justify the means. If I wanted to obtain
> someone else's property, I could possibly (a) kill them outright, 
> or (b) surround their property and prevent them from escaping,
> thus slowly starving them to death (among other methods). 
> In my opinion, you cannot attach the same moral significance 
> to those two acts, even though the end result is the same. 

If all that takes place inside your womb, DOuglas, I will support your
right to obtain that property and get those people out of there by
whatever means necessary.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:50:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.012050.25180@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu writes:
> > Ron Bense
> 
> >    Since this *desireable* :) ex-girlfriend has this reaction to DJR
> >(whoever the hell he is, I missed all his threads, evidently) I vote
> >him out, totally hopeless case or not...I'm not in the charity business:)
> 
> Mmmmm ... a club of men without girlfriends who *want* girlfriends?
> Now this I can't resist ...
> 
> So, Dean, are you in on this?

I was just trying to help the guys who were so hot on
acquiring girlfriends.  I have all the ex-girlfriends I can
satisfy already, and as for current girlfriends, there's only
one woman I can think of whom I would nominate for the position,
and she's in Norcross trying to get some guy (name withheld
for reasons of discretion) to make up his mind what it is he
wants.  Me, I'm ready to start lookin ginto jobs in Norcross
and all, but I need more commitment that the ssimple fact of
liking the hell out of each other to make me move my entire
life.

Anyway, as far as finding a girlfriend is concerned, I can
take care of that without a support group.

When I'm ready for that sort of thing again.
Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15452 alt.flame:6904
From: keegan@calyx.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: darcy labels opinions lies
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:10:37 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@calyx.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

if anyone wonders how darcy became the net.pariah, take a peek at
this. a few days ago, i replied to a darcy post with this comment:

        'i want to say that you calling yourself a pro-choicer
        ("we as pro-choicers") is the single most damaging
        statement i've seen written on the pro-choice philosophy.
        you, kevin darcy, are, imo, the least pro-choice person
        i've seen post to this newsgroup.'
		<1992Apr13.174429.2292@crd.ge.com>

kebbin replied with this!

	'Please support this. *NOW*. Or forever bear the badge of
	"liar".'
		<1992Apr14.043728.4879@rotag.mi.org>

so he's asking me to support an opinion clearly expressed as such
or else be labeled a "liar."

exchanges like this are what earned darcy his net.reputation.

lefty got it right when he once wrote of darcy.........

        'Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game
        is that the sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe
        him. "Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...'  
		-- lefty@apple.com
	        <9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: djd@agent99.East.Sun.COM (Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A new test of rights? (Was: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:58:29 GMT
Reply-To: djd@east.sun.com (Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. - BDC
NNTP-Posting-Host: agent99.east.sun.com

In article <1992Apr14.171626.15538@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:

	>Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, they
	>would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right
	>to life because it can't waive it.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but it's seriously flawed.
A newborn infant also cannot consciously choose to waive his or her
rights; mentally incompetent people also cannot consciously choose to
waive their rights. Replace "fetus" with "newborn," and I believe you
have a theory that you would not want to present.

The ability to waive one's rights is not, to my knowledge, recognized
anywhere as a test of Constitutional rights. Your side of this debate
has many profound Constitutional-rights arguments to offer. But this is
not one of them.

Dave
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:43:33 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr10.152706.408@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>In article <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
>|But you people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:  

>What is it with the name "Kevin"?  I haven't seen a
>sensible, coherent poster with that name in years.

   Cj - someone mentioed you resembled a fetus, and i take strong objection to 
that. But I bet the fetus is a helluva lot more intelligent than you. Your 
tactics are embarassing to your movement. When I started to post here, the 
first thing you guys wrote was "what is with the name "steve"? "blah blah blah...
   Nice - scare off any newcomer to the game before they get any
good ideas in... Maybe George wasn't so wrong with 1984... Suppression
of ideas and intimidation of individuals should be a crime. you are guilty
as charged dear...
   
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:58:35 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:

>>But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.

>The end result of an egg that doesn't meet a sperm is also death.

An unfertilized egg dies from a lack of support, it is not killed.


>The end result of a fertiziled egg that doesn't implant is also death.

A fertilized egg dies from a lack of support, it is not killed.


>What does the 'end result' have to do with it?

An aborted fetus is killed, it does not die from a lack of support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 01:14:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.153204.29957@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.025242.16362@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>What exactly do you mean by "with the premise", Eric? As I understand it, the
>That when the case went to trial, it was still generally believed
>that Norma McCorvey had been raped.

Maybe so, but part of the job of a judge is to filter out rumors, innuendoes,
"general beliefs", etc. and just stick to the facts of the case. I'm confident
that Ms. McCorvey's alleged rape had no effect on the outcome of RvW, and
that's why I object to a pro-lifer claiming that RvW is premised on a "lie".

I would also point out to all pro-lifers that Ms. McCorvey originally resorted
to lying because, in her mind, she was FORCED to by the unconstitutional Texas 
law and her NEED to obtain an abortion at virtually any cost. If RvW is 
overturned, and rape exceptions are allowed, then it's possible we might see
a lot more of this kind of thing. That's not a threat, just a speculation.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:26:19 CDT

In article <1992Apr12.225153.2777@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) says:
>
>>Only disagreeing technically.  Abortion is NOT contraception (ie. agreed) 
>>but Abortion IS birth control (no birth takes place).  A minor point
>>nonetheless.
>>
>Kicking my girlfriend in the stomach so that she miscarriages is birth 
>control too. Does that make every method of birth control ok?????
>
Does your girlfriend know that you think about things like that?

Do thoughts of violence against women really just jump into
your mind so casually as that?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Nazi Comparisons (was Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM!
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:59:18 GMT

In article <14APR92.04060893@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Gee, didn't the nazi's kill a whole bunch of people and justify it by saying 
>that they were sub-human?  Now lets just think for a minute about which side 
>of the abortion issue is most similar to that?

Gee, didn't the Nazis revitalize a crashing German economy? Now let's
just think for a minute about which departments in the academic world
are most similar to that...

There are a whole lot of things that the Nazis did. You can take any
one of them and make a comparison to anything you like. I don't think
that killing a whole bunch of people and justifying it by saying they
were subhuman (which is a slight misstatement to begin with -- the
"subhuman" argument was very rare in Nazi Germany; they had other just-
ifications to the extent they felt they needed them) was anywhere near
the worst thing they did, so even aside from the fact that you're being
offensive and dangerous, you're also making an extraordinarily dumb
argument.

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: rh0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Warren Harris)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Punnishment for abortion?
Date: 11 Apr 92 14:56:12 GMT
Organization: Senior, Social & Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I have a question:

The assertion is that abortion is murder, and thus should be
illegalized along with other forms of murder.

It goes without saying that abortion clinics should be shut down in
that event.

What about the punnishment, however?  It seems to be that it logically
follows that in the event that abortion is declared to be 
murder, that a woman who has one should be punnished in accordance
with that.  Thus:

1.  A woman who gives herself an abortion should be charged with
third-degree murder, since it was clearly premeditated.

2.  A miscarraige should be investigated for potential wrong-doing.
(There is the phenomena of 'crib death', where newborns simply stop
breathing and die overnight.  Are instances of those investigated?)

3.  If a woman has one performed on her by another, then they both be
charged in a manner analogous to that for a paid assasination.  I'm
not sure, is the assasin and 'employer' both charged with murder to
the same degree, or what?

4.  A woman caught try to have an abortion be charged with conspiracy
to commit a murder.

5.  There may be others, but I can't think of them now.

Do all those who believe that abortion is murder agree with the
conclusions above?  If not, why not?

Thanks,
- Rick

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Harris 		| 	Information & Decision Systems/Computer Science
Senior.  Finally.	|	Social & Decision Sciences Department
rh0i+@andrew.cmu.edu	|	Carnegie Mellon (so hire me)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	"I not only want a car that is built in accordance with the basic 
	principles of physics and in light of an empirically verified, 
	well-winnowed tradition of automobile design, but I also want it 
	screwed together right."

		- Edward W. Constant II, "The Social Locus of Technological 
		      Practice:  Community, System, or Organization?"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.195148.3935@sdd.hp.com>
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <gds9sNe00Uh_M5DY4Z@andrew.cmu.edu>
>kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:

>>    I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think the abortion
>>argument is one of competing rights - where the right of a woman to
>>decide what happens with her body is balanced against the right of the
>>fetus to live to birth. 

>Well, (a) no one here has successfully established that a fetus HAS
>a 'right' to 'live to birth', therefore (b) you can hardly argue competing
>rights until you have accomplished (a).

You can fit that into the argument....  You can balance two rights
even where the value you assign to one of the two rights is "zero".

--
"Let us first of all follow reason, it is the surest guide.  It warns us itself
of its feebleness and informs us of its own limitations."      - Anatole France

Pro-Choice        Anti-Roe                               - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:11:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.163220.1710@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <18117@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>>In talk.abortion, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
>>Larry, Keegan, and Susan were right about you. In three sentences, you've
>>managed to show that you are completely clueless.
>   Actually - no, he's not clueless... maybe tactless and unwise
>in your mind, but nottclueless. You see, he is right. THe property
>of email is personal. By sending someone mail you are relinquishing
>your right to private property. If you send me mail (snail mail) I can
>show it to whomever I like friend...
Show yes. Reproduce, No.
Posting is clearly reproduction.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.003632.4809@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
>ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's, 
>abortions, or any concerns about that missed period. 

Wow, what a great Idea.  I'm just going to scurry on home and tell my partner
of 9 years that from now on, it's abstinence for us!  I'm sure he'll 
thank you for the wonderful tip.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:42:06 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>   No, you're WRONG. No discussion about it. The Catholic church
>tells us how precious it is to have children, and that every one (almost)
>should nottbe deprived of this opportunity. A priest just can't handle the
>two properly in our opinion. Sorry, don't judge what you don't know.

I'm sure the pope will be happy to know that he shares your opinion.
I'm sure your priest will be happy to know that you think him incapable
of handling any other task. Should give him the warm fuzzies that if
another member wanted to join his congregation, he would have to seriously
consider whether it would tax him too much.

>   You're so wrong. You know why? People like me can't be beaten as
>easily as you think. And our charisma and knowledge spreads. The
>concept of pro-life can never be banished as long as we can show any
>adverse effects of abortion that could otherwise be avoided.

Steve, if the reaction in this news group is any indication of the charisma
of pro-lifers, we'll get sucked into a black hole before the population
will ever even consider embracing your views.

What adverse effects? In what context?
What about all those adverse effects from birth, such as massive pain,
risk of death, bleeding, tearing of tissue, and a life-long commitment
(you hope) of supporting another human being (which we call servitude
or slavery, if its against the woman's will)

>Right now we're fighting a pretty superficial group of
>individuals. Given a little time for people to realize "hey, our
>population is sinking" and we'll win... Don't get your hopes up,
>and don't put too much faith in the ru-486 pill. It's not as magic
>as you think...

Superficial? I'd say you were. You don't consider anything but that
HOLY FETUS, damn the rest of mankind for wanting a life, but that HOLY
FETUS must live.

Sinking, really? Last report I heard, the birth rate was still at least
twice the death rate....or are you talking only about the white population?
That I would believe.

Oh, Steve, while you might believe in magic, miracles, and all that
baloney, I don't.

As Adrienne said, your religion doen't mean shit to me. I personally
don't like having shit forced on me, although you appear to wallow in
it. IMHO.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Distribution: na
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:40:47 CDT

In article <1992Apr9.161522.29452@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.032309.6122@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
>> <1992Apr8.221628.6418@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >Don't know about that, but I thought women ate the placenta
>> >after the birth.  Could someone who has given birth let me
>> >know if this is true?
>> 
>> Gee, they must have left that part out of the "My Mom's Having
>> a Baby" after-school special.
>> 
>> Many mammals do eat the placenta after birth.  I just saw a monkey
>
>Don, as I mentioned to Muriel, I was just kidding.  I guess
>I'll have to relent sometimes and use one of those insipid
>smiley things.
>
Dean, it's OK to be curious about these things. Let this
be a learning experience for you. I would have probably given you
a serious answer, even if you'd used a smiley. Moral to this
story: there is NO question that is TOO disgusting for someone
to answer it for you in t.a.

Next week: Umbilical macrame...

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:09:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.151018.19614@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.051045.14314@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar30.232632.26244@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <ktf5coINN2b2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Mar30.200846.15452@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>Because her body is being put to FURTHER use that she does not consent to.
>>>>>It hasn't anything to do with the fetus per se but it has everything to do
>>>>>with being pregnant when one does not wish to be pregnant.  Since the man 
>>>>>isn't pregnant, he is uninvolved.
>>>>    Are you not forcing the man to work without his consent?  Example:
>>>
>>>"you are telling him" happens to be excruciatingly inaccurate.  I am not
>>>telling him diddly, and I have not stated my opinion (so far in this text)
>>>on the current state of affairs.  Don't leap to conclusions so quickly, ktf.
>>>It gets your feed muddy.
>>
>>If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then we call it "a duck",
>>Adrienne. Your insistence that the man is "uninvolved" in pregnancy speaks
>>volumes about your attitude towards us "invisible" men...
>
>Only to those who have a heck of a hard time telling apples from oranges.
>
>The man *is* uninvolved in the physical aspects of pregnancy, Kevin, his
>best wishes and sympathy create no rights stream.

You seem to conveniently forget that conception is ALSO a physical aspect of 
pregnancy. And as long as we are going to look beyond conception for a
"rights stream" (for the woman), then parity demands we also look beyond
conception for any "responsibility stream" (for the man). To do less would
be to hold a double-standard.

>>>b) can we command specific performance of a contract (even assuming a
>>>binding contract existed, which it doesn't)?  No.
>>
>>Who's talking about specific performance? We're talking about child support
>>liability here (read: $$$) not specific performance....
>
>WRT child support liability, BOTH parents have it.

I assume from the non sequitur that you have dropped your line of reasoning
wrt "specific performance" then??

								- Kevin
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: I'm right, you're wrong (I'd explain why but ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:40:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncar.1992Apr8.204003.13964
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO

There seems to be a pattern emerging here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
}  = rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
}> = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...

}>Chapter & verse please.  Identify for me where the Bible says that
}>human life begins at conception, that abortion is wrong, or that
}>a fetus has the same rights as an adult?
} I dont' have the time or the memory to quote the bible. Go read
}it yourself...
}[...]

}>You claim that I made errors without specifically identifying them.
}>What were my mistakes?  Or are you mistaken (or lying) in claiming
}>that my references were incorrect?
} I try not to lie... In any case, I dunno which references you are talking
}about. Sorry, too many articles to dig through to find the
}article you refer to.
}[...]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

}  = margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
}> = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

}>> You know what? You can't...
}>..and even if you could, it couldn't answer.  It has no mind.
}Ooooh, here's a man who knows what he's talking about. Larry, I could
}spew about how a baby responds to touch after 4 weeks, blah blah bla,
}but I won't. 
}[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't provide specifics, we can only assume you are unable to.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion