HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:58:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: jetsun.1992Nov9.195848.8967
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov9.063039.4395@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.041844.13267@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes in alt.abortion.inequity...

>>NA> If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

>>Well, excuse me!  If I am not mistaken, you read that from a *MUG* entitled
>>"Women," which was full of wonderful remarks basically declaring the glorious
>>intellectual and moral superiority of the female of the species...  (Oh boy,
>[off on tangent of supposed sex harassment from stupid saying on a coffee
>mug.  I've done no editing here except to cut ts short.  Non sequitor comes
>to mind here, since I don't see the relationship between the two topics.
>Who cares whether the catchy little phase was on a stupid mug; maybe the
>phase was put on the mug as it became popular.  Argue your point.]

Dear illiterate one. I read it from a speech a woman named Emma Goldman
gave back at the turn of the century. Unlike you, I don't study political
theory in the Hallmark shops. Why don't you go read her speech? It makes
the point beautifully, and a summary would not do her argument justice.

>>And BY THE WAY, to start off this little survey...  (and to disprove your
>>outrageous claim that men would choose abortion en-masse if they could get
>>pregnant)...  I don't consider it unreasonable for myself to represent not

[more illiterate and pointless irrelevant blather deleted]

If you want to get pregnant, go out and lobby for sex change procedures.
Quit trying to make other people fulfil your fantasies. Just because you
want to have a baby, doesn't mean anyone else cares to.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 04:56:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.201124.28385@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>[--deletions, including congratulations for Clinton--]
>
>> The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait for
>> another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
>> but hopefully Bill [Clinton] will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant
>> with a few morals again.
>
>You mean one that won't trade arms for hostages?
>
>You know, it's heartwarming to see people like yourself hope for failure
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>in the attempt to rebuild our Republic, just so you can have another crack
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>at advancing your agenda.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I agree that the war is not over.  It looks as though pro-choicers will have
>to devise strategies for dealing with right-to-lifers who threaten and harass
>patients and medical personnel, and with members of the Religious and/or
>Radical Right who increase the demand for abortion by opposing sex education
>and effective birth control.
>
>-- 
>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
> "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
>           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison

I am so glad you said that and  hear, hear.  Hello rocker!!!!!


Caryn


--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:17:47 GMT

In article <SCOTTS.92Nov4160323@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <nyikos.720418431@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>   The American public has consistently supported a ban on abortions after
>   the first trimester (except to save the mother's life) in poll after poll.
>
>Except in Arizona, where a measure which would have forbad abortions
>except to save the life of the mother was defeated, and in Maryland
>where a referendum similar to FOCA was passed.
>
>I guess Arizona and Maryland are not part of Nyikos's America.  Heck,
>he thinks Pittsburgher's talk like Kentuckians!


Read the original post again.  Americans tend to not support abortions after
the first trimester.  The proposals of which you speak would have banned
abortions in the first trimester.  When faced with a choice of abortion
on demand or no abortion at all, Americans choose the former.  The real
battle will continue to be fought in the middle, not at the extremes.

Roger Shouse
U of Chicago
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:47:01 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov2.224040.8360@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
> The problem is not women's rights.  Under current law women can do all that men
> can.  

Men can't be forced to carry pregnancies to term, though, can they?

> The problem is not the death of unborn children(they are not cats or dogs, you
> know).  It is the lack of respect for life.  

You're talking about the "pro-life" position I presume?

>The counter for this is the
> lifestyle of the mother.  Ok!  Let's work on that.  Let's make it so that
> women's lifestyles are good enough to have children(sorry birth control use of
> abortion is still out).

Who are *you* to say that a woman's lifestyle is not good if she can't have
children or if she isn't "suitable" to be a mother?  I suppose all women are
good for are making babies, and if they aren't doing that then their life
needs improving.
 
> The real problem in the world is the debates of people not really looking for
> the answer.  

Right.

>The answer in my opinion(you may have others) is Jesus for he can
> help with the bad times and give us more of the good times.

Will Jesus help a poor single mother feed an extra mouth?  Please explain
how He would.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46666 alt.abortion.inequity:4852
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 5 Nov 1992 10:22:38 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov5.022416.3257@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>AR> Oh, come on.  What you are really saying is to hell with the thousands
>AR> of years of legal precident our western culture has relied upon.
>
>But, you don't seem to object to "saying to hell" with the thousands of
>years of legal precdents which are to the perceived disadvantage of women.
>
>So why object to attempting to change legal precedents which are perceived to
>be disadvantageous to men?

Ah, the big question.  The $64,000 question.

WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?

The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and I'm
not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for ALL
the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money for
that.

>And after all, (allow me to take the Devil's Advocate once more...) if it is
>apparently true (as many in the womrn's movement say) that fighting to right
>the wrongs suffered by women, will not only not harm men, but *help* them,
>then why should fighting the wrongs suffered by men be harmful to women?

Because of the cost to the TAXPAYER, Will.  It can (and has) been argued
that allowing women into the workplace results in a broader tax base and
a redistribution of wealth without significant charges to the taxpayer,
and, argued probably less successfully, but there are many factors to
consider, that women in the workforce has upped our productivity, made
better use of the US's overall talent and kept us from falling even deeper
into recession than we have.

You will also notice, I presume, that the 'feminist' bills that in fact
will *cost* the taxpayer money are pretty regularly defeated.  See, the
taxpayers of this country figure they are doing enough, and don't particu-
larly care to do any more, even if they feel it rights a wrong, or is
justified.  (Not that I personally feel the justification behind male-
choice does either of these things, but certainly there are those who 
argue from that stance.)  To the taxpayer, the question is not "is it
right?  Is it good?"  Rather the question is "DOES IT COST ME ANY MONEY???"

Think about it.

Adrienne Regard
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MARK IRA KAUFMAN CAUGHT LYING (was Re: JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:36:19 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov07.054339.148768@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Other than that, I have not yet taken a position
>> on legislation that would further restrict abortion beyond the
>> permissible restrictions set forth in Roe.

> You have not taken a position publicly, or have not thought about 
> it at all?

I've thought about it, and I've come to the conclusion that
there can be no right to an abortion.  The main consideration
in formulating abortion policy should be the protection of
the health of women and their children.  I don't think you
can be pro-life without giving consideration to both. 

> Nice to see you acknowledge that Roe *does* restrict abortion.

Sure, it allows the states to require doctors to perform the
abortion, for example.  But the states are not permitted to
prohibit any abortion, during any part of the pregnancy. 


>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Interesting Argument Point...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:32:47 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

] The following scary excerpt from an article that appeared here (and
] had followups set to soc.men) just chilled my spine.  I repost it here
] in case some of you are still confused about the motivations behind
] this whole spousal notification silliness.
] 
] In article <2759@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
]   [...]
] # Knowledge is the issue. Trust is the issue. Indications of the depth of 
] # the relationship with the spouse is the issue. And respect of fatherhood,
] # even potential fatherhood, is the issue.
] # 
] # I wouldn't have a funeral, but then I wouldn't make love to that woman again,
] # were I someone who wanted children. Why waste time attempting to make
] # one woman pregnant when all she'll do is abort it without telling me.
]   [...]
] 
] Surfs up!


Gee, I sure hope this guy is not one of those
lunatics who thinks that only Male Persons should
be allowed into combat areas, as we need to preserve
the BreedingStock for Economic Recovery after the war.


MR has time and again reminded us that Fathers
are really irrelevant, as we only are needed at
the insemination, and therefore are best for Combat....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE 5-WEEK LIMIT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:40:05 GMT

In <1992Nov5.003830.25563@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

>Oh, please.  Nyikos commented briefly that there is no consensus
>on the safety of menstrual extraction, and then proceded to
>rant about it as if it is completely safe.

GrotesqueGarvinesqueDistillation.  I gave data to show it could be very safe
in the proper hands: data from the 1960's and early 1970's, with a
mortality rate much better than the average for 1st trimester abortions.
It can be unsafe in the wrong hands, like women inducing abortion on themselves
with equipment bought at a Tupperware-style party.  {The equipment is the
right kind, but the user is untrained.}

>  (Of course, Nyikos
>would decrease its safety by requiring the use of other 
>instruments in the procedure, so he's not even superficially
>convincing that safety is his motivation.)

Garvin, you may not be lying by your own twisted standards, but you're
so close, you leave me with no alternative but to repost my whole post.
Let readers decide, afterwards, how true your asinine statement is.

Look for it tomorrow, or the day after, at the latest.

>RU-486 has an excellent safety record, but Nyikos has not
>stated his support for its use.  

The second statement is true, and the reason is that the first statement
is false.  See _RU 486 Misconceptions, Myths and Morals_ by three pro-choice
feminists: Renate Klein, Janice Raymond, and Lynette Dumble.  Published
in Australia, 1991, Spinifex Press.

BTW I met Prof. Raymond earlier this year.  She said some eye-opening
things about how women are being exploited worldwide by the technocrats
of reproduction, with RU-486 only one of many ingredients.

Look on pp. 98-99 of that book to see how feminists were silenced and
ignored on the dangers of Prostaglandins.  The same is true of RU-486.
One of the authors wanted to tell people about the dangers of RU-486
for women at a conference of pharmacologists, and the moderator said,
"Will someone take that microphone away from that woman?" before she
could even begin on her long list.

BTW these pro-choice feminists are very supportive of menstrual
extraction.

One free clue: RU-486 is no longer given to habitual smokers in France
because of one who died from the drug.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 03:07:15 GMT

In article <nyikos.721342490@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.022212.15949@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <Bx0DHJ.8vC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>Wait.  Wait.  Wait.  Re-read the original article. You've gotten my
>>position completly confused.
>
>Not hard to do where Keith is concerned.  I originally took his offer
>to be "doer" to my body as a simple gross-out, the way I always took
>such harassments in high school and college.  It wasn't until Sarah
>McCabe made it very clear to me that it was an offer, to be taken at
>face value, that I realized what a serious case of sexual harassment
>it was.

You'd had people offer to fist you before?  You must hang out with some
very strange people, Nyikos.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:59:04 GMT

In <1dem7jINN6pa@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
In article <1992Nov6.150607.26064@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
 
>>Do you have any idea how broadly mental health/illness is 
>>defined,
>
>Hell, yes.  Sure he does.  Why, mental health/illness is broadly
>defined on this net DAILY!!!
>
>(Of course, we also notice that *you*, Bill, usually object to
>such broad definitions, and now you are implying that these broad
>definitions will be AOK for other doctors.  Is that the left or
>the right side of your mouth???)

Huh?  I wasn't implying any such thing.  I'm in favor of greater
precision in the definition and classification of mental disorders.  
It's the broadness of the current definitions that permit an appeal 
to "mental health risks" for unwanted pregnancies.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.190926.26364@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.174512.27932@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> I think a "person" should be defined as an entity which possesses
>>> rights under the Constitution.  
>
>> Then a fetus isn't a "person" since currently it possesses no rights under 
>> the Constitution. Agreed?
>
>The developing child is not a legal person today, but that's 
>simply a legal definition which is subject to change.  

Should it be changed, Doug? Why? And, even if it was, what difference would
this change of definition make to the abortion issue, do you suppose, once the 
Bodily Autonomy position has been fully understood and generally accepted by 
our legal system, our legislators, and their constituents?

								- Kevin
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Froggy PolyGonality
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:18:34 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


hold on a moment here folks....

what is this concern with trying to tell
the difference between frogs and persons?

Did someone BLOW an 'of mice and men' joke somewhere?

It is simple to tell the differences:

1. people have souls.

2. frogs know that circles are two sided.

lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
] In article <1992Nov4.170452.15265@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
] >In article <1992Nov4.152704.17296@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com 
] >(Brian Kendig) writes:
] > 
] >}Those same words could be used to argue that frogs are people too.
] >}How would you distinguish between frogs and humans?
] > 
] >Easy.  Frogs croak every night.  A human croaks but once.
] 
] Tisk, what untruths get unleashed in this newsgroup.  Female frogs don't 
] croak, only males do.  And males do it only certain times of the year.
] 
] Besides, frogs are people too.  Ask a herpetologist 
] (zlraa@marlin.jcu.edu.au for one).
] 
] This message has been brought to you courtesy of the frogophile association 
] of nowhere. Membership in the association is 2 and we are growing fast.  
] Join now, and be introduced to the wonderful world of frogs.
] 
] Lynn
]   _____      The Darwin fish
] \/     \
] /\_____/
]   bb bb
] I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?


Well maybe it went the way of some of my
spaces... one Moment they are present,
and then POOF.....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Duality of wave/particle, human/divine [Was:... or chavinism?]
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:41:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>As far as the EXPLANATION about the particle/wave nature of matter, that would
>involve a lot more time and effort to describe than the fact that it *has* been
>explained.  If you haven't seen the explanation and are really interested in
>knowing about it, get a Quantum Mechanics textbook and/or take a course.

How about giving us a brief layperson's explanation?

>>Peter Nyikos

Eric

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:04:12 GMT

In article <nyikos.720825491@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[text deleted, before and after the following]

#My foolishness consisted of using the "Lady..." term TO PROTECT YOUR
#REPUTATION, IN LIEU OF CHARGING YOU WITH FORGERY.  See if I ever act
#so foolishly again.

Petey Honey, your foolishness is seemingly without bounds.

You did accuse Adrienne of forgery.  You accused her of
this falsely, and you have neither withdrawn your accusation
nor apologized for it.  Many, many people have tried to
explain attibution lines to you, but you are either incapable
of understanding the obvious, or incapable of apologizing
for your error.  

If this really is a group of grad students trying to defame
their boss, they're doing an excellent job.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- apply to inconspicuous area first)
Subject: "All" vs "Many" (formerly: Michael Bray and Insinuations...)
Originator: judi@rac2.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:39:55 GMT

What: <1992Oct27.030049.15770@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>> = Susan Garvin [to Doug]

>> I had thought that most people did not condone clinic bombings.
>> Most people have no problem saying so.  You seem to be
>> incapable of saying, "I do not approve of clinic bombings."
>
>I do not approve of clinic bombings. 

That wasn't so hard was it?  Why didn't you just say that in the first place,
instead of jumping on me wrongly?

>And I also do not approve
>of Jay Stein's insinuations that prolifers condone these bombings. 

Ah, but prolifers *do* condone these bombings.  Not *all* prolifers, but
a plurality of pro-lifers.  How do I know this?  'cause I've asked a huge
number of them, and a disturbing percentage of them think it's okay.

Two additional notes, Doug:

(1) I think it's extremely dishonest to quote only the subject line of an
    article, and then post on opinion based only on that subject line
    without including any text.  There was no implication in the article
    proper that I was accusing all pro-lifers of condoning bombing.

(2) I see no reason to continue this discussion -- unlesss *any* other
    pro-lifer agrees with your [incorrect] assertion.
--
--Jay T Stein

I don't envy Bill Clinton - but I wish him, and the country, well.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion