HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:34:01 CST

[Note: this exchange was getting very long, and I've deleted
much, while attempting to retain context.]
In article <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.111932.26271@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>>>
>>Uhhhhh.  Do you think parturition is always an 'operation'?
>
>As far as I know, the procedures which both
>	A) Assert the woman's BA prior to the "natural" way of regaining it,
>	   i.e. birth,
>		and
>	B) Maximize the survival chances of both patients 
>all involve some sort of "operation". Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
An induced early labor would fit both in some instances.
There are natural substances which would accomplish
induction, but I won't mention them here.
In most instances, the fetus has better chances if 
parturition is delayed until full-term.

[deletia. time to clarify definitions]

>>You are living in a fantasy world, Kevin.  How can its
>>rights be 'essentially independent of the woman's'  when
>>her physical form prevents its motility?  
>
>Because motility is not a prerequisite for bodily autonomy. 
>
autonomy, n.

1. The quality or state of being self-governing
2. A self-governing state
3. Self-directing freedom esp. moral independence

source: Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary

One of the things that animal bodies do is MOVE.
Inability to move about as one pleases leaves
little freedom to govern oneself.

[more deletia. Kevin has asked why fetuses should differ
from newborns in terms of the recognition of autonomy rights.]

>As I speculated, you seem to have subjugated your BA argument to some other
>belief system -- something which gives emphasis to "membership in society".
>All that matters to pure Bodily Autonomy is whether the organism is human
>or not -- "membership in society" is seen as a mundane, bureaucratic 
>classification.

So 'dead' would make no difference either?  As long as
the organism is human?  I think membership in society
goes a long way towards defining the recognition of rights.

[more deletions]

>>There is _no_ sense of the word 'autonomy' that I can see applying
>>to a fetus in utero.  
>
>BODILY autonomy. The right to not have one's biological functions affected
>to one's detriment, by the deliberate actions of another.
>
Where does this definition of bodily autonomy come from?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 01:28:11 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan2.224341.9574@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.035011.4843@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan1.001959.29643@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.200825.22596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
>>>>is the most descriptive I've seen yet.
>>>
>>>I don't argue for abortion restrictions. I argue only against certain
>>>absolutist positions. Learn the difference.
>>
>>What's the difference?
>
>The difference is that I dislike absolutes, whether they are pro-choice
>absolutes, or pro-life absolutes.

Just because you dislike them doesn't mean they're wrong...

>when a misguided pro-CHOICER starts spouting absolutes

Someone whose viewpoint differs from yours is "misguided"?

>>It *sounds* the same as someone arguing for them.
>
>Then don't just "listen", Larry -- try actually READING what I'm saying.

I do.

>Carefully. If you do, I think you'll find that I argue against absolutes, and
>certain kinds of just plain old illogic, but _not_ inherently _against_ any
>(more-or-less relativistic) position on pro-choice.

In other words, you argue for some restrictions.  (No wait, although it seems
that way, you say you don't really want any restrictions.  How about, you
present arguments in favor of abortion restrictions.  That captures the
essence of it, without the implication that you want those restrictions
(although that's a natural conclusion based on seeing your arguments in
favor of them that people are going to continue to make.))

>"Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to describe the way I see what I
>do, Larry. Maybe that's a little too whimsical, though, perhaps even bordering
>on presumptuous...

Definitely presumptuous, since it implies that any position other than yours
is of poor quality.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:11:53 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>It might be helpful to distinguish between moral and legal
>positions on abortion.  They don't necessarily have to be
>the same.  I'll assume you're talking about moral positions. 

Given your past record in this newsgroup and others, you are hardly in
any position to discuss _moral_ issues, since morality is a trait that
cannot be generally applied to your contributions.

>> I assume in the case of harm to the mother you treat
>> the fetus as an aggressor that can be killed to save the mother's life?
>
>I don't think the term 'aggressor' is accurate, since the child
>is innocent.  See my remarks above.  

Crap.  This is an assertion I've seen many times with little to back
it up.  The effects a fetus imposes on the mother are hardly trivial.
Any person who did similar things to your body would rightly expect
your vigorous attempts to stop such liberties.  This hardly qualifies
the fetus as being "innocent" if, in fact, the concept is even
relevent and not merely another buzzword designed solely to induce
sympathy.

>These people must also condone infanticide in all cases in order 
>to be consistent.  What's the moral difference between killing a 
>child one minute before it's about to be born, and one minute 
>after?  (Note that I said moral, not legal difference).

More crap.  Supporting a woman's right to end her pregnancy at any
time neither implies killing a fetus one minute after birth or one
minute before birth.  "Infanticide" is nothing more than another
buzzword.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:05:25 GMT

In article <adams.725552866@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Ya know, for a guy with a PhD, you don't know very much, do you?  The word
>'Catholic' means 'universal.'  All persons who are members of the one,
>universal church are catholic.  Lutherans are catholic.  So are Orthodox
>(both Greek & Russian), Episcopalians, etc.  You're being far to
>provincial, Dr.  The Roman church has no valid claim on sole catholicity.

   Except that all the abovementioned denominations broke off from the
"Roman church."  If Christ really did give His authority to what is
now called the Catholic Church, then it seems to me that anyone who
rejects that authority has left the Church to some degree.  And if the
Catholic Church does in fact have this authority, then the Church can
also say who can be called Catholic.

   How catholic, how universal is it, really, to break off into schism
from the main body of the Church into a separate group?  That sounds
the opposite of catholic to me.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:27:46 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec20.021358.18235@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>The point here
>is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that
>doesn't exist right now.

No he didn't, that's your misinterpretation.

>and his pigheaded refusal to clarify tends to give more credence to
>that interpretation than to yours and Larry's.

He *has* clarified, and your interpretation is incorrect.  I don't
understand your pigheaded refusal to accept that.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:16:10 GMT

In <1992Dec16.161647.17734@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>LM> Note that Adrienne Regard was falsely accused of forgery not that long ago,
>LM> by Peter Nyikos.  Peter edited a post he made in response to Adrienne, and
>LM> got confused by his own editing.  I don't think it unreasonable to point
>LM> out that Adrienne did not, in fact, write all the lines that some idiotic
>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>LM> piece of software flagged with her initials.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Confused, eh?  I take it even my *second* attempted apology did not make
it to the boards.  My netserver has finally recovered some of its hearing,
but my table of contents, aka index [despite lack of alphabetical order]
does not show it.  It does, however display Part 2 in the MEET GEORGE
TILLER series, but that's neither here nor there, because it has falsely
displayed many things as having been posted before, while often failing
to display things that have been posted.

Note that Larry Margolis does not say wherein my "confusion" lay.  He is
quite willing to let the net go on believing that I still "don't know how
attributions work," whereas I figured *that* out a week after stumbling
across USENET.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: like the GROUP kevin darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:43:55 GMT

in an item that might be of interest to mark cochran,

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
->>Er, you expressed some idea about what happens in hospitals, and 
->>to what degree risk can be established, etc.  

->I expressed no ABSOLUTE degrees, Galen.

see the word in uppercase, mark?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Waiting for an appology from Peter Ny
Organization: We'll be back later *this* year.
	<1993Jan01.095853.29086@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:29:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan01.095853.29086@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

 Larry Margolis (margoli@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
 : In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark
 A. Cochran) writes:
 : >Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
 : >this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
 : >Adrienne waiting.
 :
 : Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
 : some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
 : he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.
 :
 : >I hope your newsserver is stable...
 :
 : Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

 On alt.atheism Peter Nyikos also insulted me without justification.  I too am 
 waiting for an appology.
 
<sigh> Looks like you'll have to take a number and stand in queue.  The
number waiting to be served is 1, and your number is...106. :-)

--PLH, where's the express line?

--
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:03:01 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Dec28.061605.15824@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <BzL9Jq.18y@ddsw1.mcs.com>
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>If you are currently the underdog you can achieve equality two ways:
>
>>1)	Gain rights for yourself.
>>2)	Take them from the advantaged group until you are equal.
>
>Congratulations on convincing this member of talk.abortion that you
>would *prefer* the latter, but would reluctantly take the former
>instead if you can get more help that way and so get it easier.

Wrong Elizabeth.  I would prefer the former.  I begrudgingly accept that the
former >explicitly< and >implicitly< includes the latter (specifically: the
right of women today to attach a man's earnings for 18 years) and therefore
the realities of the situation are that women, particularly feminists, will
not support the granting of equal rights in this area to men.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: TSAKC: Some guesses (Warning: may contain humor)
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:04:22 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Like most outsiders, I'm dying to know the significance of TSAKC.  But
I don't even know what it stands for.  So, here are some attempts to
break the code, with little or no knowledge of (or regard for) the
context in which it has been used:


Tough S**t, Abortion Kills Children
	(I suspect that this hits closest to the mark, but I press on...)

Tell Santa About the Kid's Cantankerousness

Try Saying A Kind Comment

Top Secret: Anglican Knights of Columbus

The Sluts in Arkansas Know Clinton

'Tis the Season to Avoid Kansas City

Talk.Soc.Art.Kludge.Comp

Tired Students will Accept Kentucky (fried) Chicken

Too Scared to Ask the Knowledgeable Chaps (but I don't think they'll tell)

These Silly Attempts are Killer Comedy (NOT!)


	OK, so I'll stop.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Keywords: Garvin, pro-killing
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:10:22 GMT

In article <1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I think what Mr. Kendig is trying to say is that he's
>> seen too many biased accounts of Operation Rescue's
>> activities to gain an impartial opinion of the group. 

> I think that Mr. Kendig expressed himself quite well.  

I agree, but I think you misunderstood what he was
saying.  He wanted an unbiased account of Operation
Rescue's activities, not an explanation of their
activities from someone who is so obviously biased
against them.

>>> The book that Holtsinger got his bloody fetus descption from,
>>> _Caught in the Crossfire_ by Sue Hertz, is a good report
>>> of a year's worth of O.R. blockades in Boston.  

>> The book that you describe is radically pro-abortion in
>> nature.  Mr. Kendig wants an unbiased account, not propaganda.  

> The book that you have quoted repeatedly is an unbiased account.
> Hertz was not a participant in the blockades in Boston, she
> was a reporter.

When a reporter writes a book, they are under no professional 
obligation to give an unbiased account.  Even when they do
write for a paper, there's no guarantee that the story won't
be biased, especially on such a emotionally-charged issue. 

>>> Be aware that the name "Operation Rescue" is rarely used any
>>> longer.  The national organization was fined tens of thousands
>>> of dollars for violating an injunction in NYC, 

>> The fact that they've broken the law is not indicative
>> that their activities are wrong -- the phrase ``civil 
>> disobedience'' quickly comes to mind.

> The fact that apologists for this group of terrorists describe
> their criminal acts as "civil disobedience" 

Can you name one single act of 'terrorism' which the
group has condoned or endorsed (with references)?  

As far as being an 'apologist', I am neither a supporter
nor an opponent of the group.  I just want people to
receive unbiased information about the group.

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 17:36:04 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan1.023433.25814@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.131942.20519@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.725744605@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> In <1992Dec29.033620.8746@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>> >In article <nyikos.725582371@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> >>In <1188@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>> >>
>>> >>>In article <1992Dec28.011822.12450@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>> >>>#In article <nyikos.725128086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> >>>##In <1992Dec22.063007.50924@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>> >>>##
>>> >>>#
>>> >>>#[Riiiip]
>>> >>>#
>>> >>>##Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist,"
>>> >>>##along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
>>> >>>##by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
>>> >>>##that certain illegal abortions never took place.
>>>
>>> Mark, get your attributions right.  Larry Margolis did not say the above.
>>> I did.
>>
>>Peter, why do you love so much to show us that you don't understand
>>how attributions work?

Peter's position is that he does know how attributions work.  Mark - note
that you did the same thing Peter did previously:  You deleted what I wrote,
but left in my attribution.  What Peter said about getting attributions right
is essentially what Adrienne said to him.  (Of course, he accused Adrienne of
forgery, which is a libelous canard, while you and Dean have simply accused
him of stupidity, which has amply been proven in other areas.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:22:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Your answer about the safety of RU-486 was unresponsive the first
time, PHoney.  Why are you repeating it?

There has been one death.  The known risks of prostaglandins and
smokers more than likely account for it.  You keep referring to
some article but never producing any thoughts.  (Of course, you
also seem to think that the authors are credible simply because
you refer to them as "pro-choice feminists."  You don't seem to
think the rest of us are smart enough to catch on the you label
most women that way when they support your arguments - the label
doesn't seem to have anything to do with their stance on abortion
rights nor on women's rights.)  

RU-486 has been available in France (and other countries) for 
several years now.  There are statistics available about its
safety.  I know why you don't post them, of course.  You'll
wait until someone fabricates a study that reflects your fantasy.
I suggest asking Rev. Holtsinger to do it for you.

There have been more deaths associated with menstrual extraction
than with RU-486.  Your attempts to claim that one is clearly
safer than the other do not reflect reality.  No one is surprised,
since little you say reflects reality, but we'll keep pointing
it out.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?!
Summary: When do DODie's ethics kick in???
Organization: Kentucky Colonels of 77036-2409, Ltd. 
	<1992Dec27.202804.10035@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:01:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.202804.10035@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <725385149.14040@minster.york.ac.uk> 
   cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
   >Peter Nyikos (nyikos@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:

   >> [I've added talk.religion.misc and alt.atheism]

   > And I have deleted them.
   >  [...]
   > It would be very much appreciated if more mature contributors out
   > there if you would delete such cross posting in your follow-ups.
   > 
   > I am also asking Peter to stop it, but I do not expect much
   > consideration, given past experience.

   On my newsserver, there are 35 articles from pro-choicers
   who have cross-posted to alt.atheism and talk.religion.misc;
   seven of these have come from Gordon Storga.  Mr. Nyikos has 
   cross-posted eight times. Why don't you also ask Gordon Storga
   to stop cross-posting?  

Why don't *you* ask him, or is whining about it all you're capable of?
(Of course, you seem to have a knack for cross-posting, yourself -- are you
saying that because someone else does it, it's okay for you to do it?
It figures you'd take *that* lesson to heart from your teacher Steve
Chaney...) 

--PLH, two wrongs *still* don't make a right.  (Three lefts may, though.)

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:54:14 GMT

Analogies are not equalities.  An apple is analogous to an orange in
that both are round.  If we are considering what will happen to each
when they are placed on an inclined plane, the analogy is proper.  If
we are considering taste, then the analogy certainly fails.  It is
important to note that pointing out that apples and oranges differ in
color does not preclude reaching conclusions based on their analogous
shapes.

We see that simply pointing out differences is not enough to make an
argument against an analogy.  One must also argue that the differences
are relevant to the point being made.  (Hsims) has pointed out a
difference which is probably relevant, but she hasn't made the
connection explicit.  I hope that she will do so.

Contrary to what Ms. Garvin implies, I do think the drain of the fetus
on the woman is worth noting.  (Two strikes, Ms. Garvin; one more
false implication and you're out.)

>If you're of average intelligence, you should be able to
>understand that no argument in favor of slavery hinged on
>bodily autonomy.  

Intellectual bullying will not win people to your position, Ms.
Garvin.  In fact, it will probably drive them away.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc