HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: To everyone: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:34:28 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


     Wow!  Such anger.  Yes, I'll admit I was angry when I wrote that post.
And I would like to apoligize for seeming so opressive; it was the end of the 
day and I was just ranting.  However, I posed my questions for you to think
about and to yes, contradict me.  I did not post for you to shoot me down!

     So, now that I have more time I will tell you what I believe.  I believe 
that we live in an imperfect society.  And in that society there are imperfect
people.  In the same line with my opposition to abortion, I am opposed to 
capital punishment.  That does not mean, however, that I have a solution to 
how society should punish convicted killers.  If we had the money and the space
to build rehabilitation centers for these people, then I would be able to stand
100% against capital punishment.  But we don't.  Likewise, we don't have the
government funding to educate women and men, boys and girls, about sex and
pregnancy.  And we don't have the money to house and support every single woman
who becomes pregnant in this country.  What I'm trying to say is that in my 
heart I believe that abortion is wrong.  But since our society cannot provide 
other solutions FOR ALL WOMEN then I can't see where it should intervene.  

     Not one of you told me when life begins.  I don't see your proof...You 
told me the legalities of when life begins, but that's just a piece of paper.
How do you explain when a woman is having an abortion that results in the 
live birth of that baby?  I am not being offensive now... I would just like
to know.  

     And I'd like to clear up the "choice" controversy.  If you have read
anything about birth control, which I'm sure you all have since you seem to
be so musch more informed than I,  then you know that the only form of birth
control that is 100% effective is abstinence.  Therefore, when a woman OR A MAN
decides to have sex, they are at risk for a pregnancy. (Not to mention STD'S)
Am I punishing women for having sex?  Hell, No!  Everything has consequences.  
When you were a teenager you snuck out late at night, but you knew that if you
were caught that you'd be grounded for  a week, (or whatever).  And you were 
prepared to face those consequences for just the sheer pleasure of sneaking
out.  But women and men think that they can have sex when ever they want and 
not have to face the consequences of their actions!  I am not punishing them 
for their acts, but I am holding them responsible.  

      About rape and incest... I have no doulbe standards.  I still believe 
that any abortion is wrong.  But how many abortions are performed because of 
those acts?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 22:31:16 GMT



I should think that if Reverend Holtsinger were worried about
keeping his posting privileges, or if those privileges were
in any way threatened by Larry's mail, then DODie would
not have continued posting his off-topic rants in the other
newsgroups.  Since he has continued to do so, I think that
he must just be whining for the pure joy of it.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I agree but ...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:37:58 GMT

In article <33080@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.011402.17739@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes to Jim as part of the chastity belt thread:
>
>>Oh, please. Consider the marginal cost/benefit of saving, on the one hand,
>>an able-bodied, educated, income-producing adult, at a cost of getting a
>>little wet, with, on the other hand, saving a small, blobby, unthinking,
>>uncommunicating, non-contributing human organism at the cost of 9 months
>>of pain, discomfort, lost economic productivity, serious medical costs, and
>>risks of continuing medical costs or even death for the mother? Doesn't it 
>>occur to you that the example is so wildly non-analogous from the point of 
>>view of economic efficiency, as to be totally worthless?
>
>I agree, but would like to point out that the legal system is designed
>to do much more than ensure economic efficiency; in fact, I would
>argue that the protection of rights broadly defined is its principal
>mission.  This includes economic and property rights, but many other
>rights as well.  Bodily autonomy and privacy are not commodities that
>can be exchanged in a market, and I am uncomfortable with any policy
>that forces the government to compensate for the preventable loss of
>rights.

Well, it's common when presenting a legal case (which is sort of what I
was trying to do above) to lead off with the STRONGEST argument, and follow
that up with weaker arguments later if necessary. To me, the economic
efficiency argument is the strongest reason to invalidate the analogy, but
I think that argument mirrors a lot of the non-economic arguments as well,
and certainly I wouldn't want to imply that the law is concerned ONLY with
economic efficiency (although it almost seems as though some of the 
contemporary legal scholars I've read actually believe that). 

For another strong argument, consider that, mankind being basically a social 
animal (though some of us are less social than others :-), for any given adult,
or to a comparable extent, even a child, to die unnecessarily is to cause a 
devastating psychological effect on those to whom the victim is close -- 
friends, associates, relatives, offspring, significant others -- and this is 
also a reason to forbid the killing of born persons. But the same rationale
does not apply to unwanted z/e/f's. This is another strong argument for 
invalidating the analogy, though I wouldn't say quite as strong as the 
economic efficiency argument.

A weak argument for invalidating the argument, on the other hand, would be
to point to the victim's mental anguish as he drowns.

A while back, I posted a semi-lengthly "treatise" on the social policy
aspects of murder. It's probably expired at your site by now, but if you
want to see a more detailed and exhaustive exposition of my views on the
subject, I could perhaps email you a copy.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life awful! 
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:32:19 GMT

gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes ...
>Don't blame your personal problems on Rush. Thats typical of liberals to find
>external excuses for their own problems. Society made me what I am, her 
>parents  [...]
>Of course, this may be hard for a liberal to do, sinse it means taking charge 
>of your own life, instead of finding someone else to blame for your problems. 

Like liberals?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE)
Subject: HELP! GF's parents are Fundamentalists!
Originator: delarocq@c00059-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:42:21 GMT




    I am in quite a bind now. My girlfriend's parents are fundamentalists, and
 she hasn't told them about me, or the fact that we might get married soon.
 I am really worried that her parents are going to force her to choose between
 me and keeping her family together. I don't know what to do.. Please, I would
 welcome any suggestions.. *sigh*
 Luckily, she is not a fundamentalist.. she is quite moderate!!! :)

 
-- 
delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu


      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------   
1988,1989,1990,1991 AFC East Division Champions
1991,1992 AFC Conference Champions

Hungry for some fish.. Monday Night Football, November 16, 1992..

If you are a Buffalo Bills fan, email me at delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu
so we can talk all about the games, insight, etc.
If you are a Packers fan, let me know. I am interested in any news
out of Green Bay...
A PROUD MEMBER OF THE BILLS COALITION TAKING THE BET II.
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Today's Quiz
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:14:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


In article <Bxnz26.2wG.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>Who has less character, Holtsinger or Nyikos?  (I tried
>to provide a comparison chart, but I can't seem to find
>any distinguishing characteristics.)  

>Holtsinger                             Nyikos
 
Denies his religious                   Admits to his religious 
convictions                            convictions
 
Hasn't made an issue of being           Has threatened Sexual Harassment
called Reverend or DOD                  charges for people calling him
                                        Petey Honey
 
Tries to (but does a pure job)          Freely admits to his agenda
hide his secret agenda
 
Thats about all I can come up with.  A fun comparison might be
to compare the Reverend to the departed DJR.  I know of at least
one difference between the two:
 
The Reverend                            DJR

Never posted any cool stories about      Posted a cool story about a
a trip to Paris                         trip to Paris
 
As Far as we know, has no bizarre       Had a fairly bizarre fantasy
fantasies about the Boston Marathon      about the Boston Marathon
 
>A prize will be awarded to the first person who can find a real
>difference in these two.  (Smaller prizes to people who can extend
>the list.)
 
That wasn't really fair to start the contest on a Friday night.
Keegster, who like totally lacks a life, got a chance to answer
it.  Those of us that do cool weekend things on the weekend
didn't get our chance until Monday morning.
 
>Susan
 
Dan King
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is not unrestricted abortion-on-demand
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:25:47 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov21.061148.123045@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The states can't enforce a law which is unconstitutional under
>> Roe v. Wade, because it would be challenged if the state attempted
>> to prosecute a doctor for performing a post-viability abortion:

> Note that the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989 has a number of
> third-trimester restrictions.  Some sections of the act were found to be
> unconstitutional (in PP V. Casey), but of course the third trimester
> restrictions weren't even challenged.

The 1989 Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act also prohibited 
sex selection abortions throughout pregnancy, and those sections  
of the law weren't challenged in PP v. Casey either.  I think
it's rather obvious that those provisions are unconstitutional
under Roe, and yet they went unchallenged, in addition to the
unchallenged third trimester restrictions.  

>> Sure you have, you just sent some threatening e-mail to my
>> system administrators today, and they sent me a copy of it.

> You're lying again, Dougie - there was nothing threatening.

In your opinion.

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48400 talk.religion.misc:21378
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Does Clifton Hold that Christianity is MEANINGLESS?
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:45:04 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Nov15.061450.14791@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
> 
> ] In article <1992Nov11.180112.8651@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> ] 
> ] >Besides, are you a christian?  I know you are not.  If you were you would
> ] >realize that true christianity has no doctrine.  We just go by what we see that
> ] >God tells us.  There is a difference between Religious people and Christians.
> ] 
> ] So, does she drop by and talk with you often? Sort of 'pop in' to the 
> ] local kaffee klatch, or what?
> 
> 
> Isn't it always amusing how some 'alledged christian' on
> the one hand wishes to set forth some heretical doctrine
> so that they can play at having 'god on their side' in
> their antiAbortion Fetal Idolatry, and then turn around
> and shoot themselves in the foot saying:

Jesus said follow me.  Paul said man is not saved by God's law alone.  Jesus
also said love God and your neighbor.  In one sense you could say that is our
'doctrine'.   Before, I was refering to the doctrines made by the church as to
praying, reading the word, and such.  But, you will object to this because you
aren't really looking for truth, but instead try to justify by degrading
otheres.

...Ken!
> 
> 'christianity has no doctrine...'
> 
> And expect me to follow his heretical doctrines....
> 
> 
> So, Nadja, what is it that the little lady could
> 'pop round' and talk about, as there is no doctrine....
> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux
> 
> 
> -- 
> Modern Day Problems:
> 
> Hi Diddle, Diddle, the Cat and the Fiddle,
> The Cow Blew Up on the Launching Pad
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48923 soc.men:19701 soc.women:20064 alt.politics.bush:13983 talk.politics.misc:61163 alt.activism:19059
From: hartman@informix.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Doug Holtsinger's dishonest tactics re: Roe v Wade.
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:19:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <32997@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>[name omitted], a well-known liar in talk.abortion, has an agenda of
>passing legislation to force all women to carry all pregnancies to
>term.  As part of this agenda he tirelessly repeats lies,
>misrepresentations, and misquotes about anyone or anything that deigns
>to allow women to control their own bodies.  Part of this pattern is
>represented in his latest thread on R v W and his tactics for
>disseminating it.  He posts his lies to:
>
>talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
>
>But then sets the follow-ups only to Talk.abortion.  In Talk.abortion,
>there are knowledgable people who have demonstrated that [name omitted]
>has lied, misrepresented, and misquoted in his characterizations of R
>v W.

You know, I read those arguments that RvW in combination with other
rulings allows untrammelled access to abortion whenever a doctor
agrees to do it.  And you know what?  I figured that if that's the
case then it really is a matter between a woman and her doctor.  

I have no objection to people vigorously opposing abortion, so long as
they put their money where their mouth is.  But I believe that only those
who have already adopted a child that would have otherwise been aborted
can claim any moral standing when arguing against it.  Anyone else,
especially men, who argue against it without ever having faced the
prospect of an unwanted pregnancy, simply cannot understand the issue.

So, if you're dead-set against abortion, that's fine with me.  You can
demonstrate your moral superiority and your compassion by rescuing the
child of an unwanted pregnancy from life as an unwanted child.  You can
provide for one such child.  If you do that, I'll listen to you.  If
you aren't willing to do that, why should I listen to you?  You'll only
be propagating the lies of a bunch of celibate old men who require that
the world remain as miserable as possible to maintain a growing "mass"
market for their "comforting" services.

-r
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:43:55 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->I don't recall talking about my debating skills.  I hope Mr. Butler
->documented what he said

why would you hope mr. butler does that which you
refuse to do?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:56:19 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>->>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>->>->I would not object to some restrictions on abortion.
>->>
>->>are you referring to just your access to abortion, ray,
>->>or to everyone's access to abortion?
>
>->Neither, twit.
>
>you seem upset, ray. are you upset because you never
>answered my question about whether you want to imprison
>women who have banned abortions?

I'm annoyed because you're a dishonest slimeball who can come up with
nothing better than lies and strawmen.  As an example note that I
never said anything about banning abortions.  And further, before you
go scurrying off to your archives, note carefully that "restrict" is
not synonymous with "ban" (see?  They're not even spelled the same
way!) as a quick perusal of any decent dictionary wuold reveal.  (If you
don't know how to use a dictionary, any librarian will be able to show
you)

>there's no need to be coy about what abortion
>restrictions you'd not object to, ray. it's ok for you
>to mention them. it is, really. but if you're
>embarassed to post what restrictions you'd not object
>to, well, that's ok too. just tell me that you're
>embarassed to comment and i won't ask you again.

And when will come forward with your comments about just what you
would allow?  Would you allow a woman giving birth to twist off the
head of the fetus/baby just before it is clear of the birth canal?  Or
do you also condone restrictions on abortion (sorry, in your
terminology that would be "are you also anti-choice?").

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:36:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.052121.2145@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) 
writes:

}What I would like to see are laws that allow a woman to terminate a 
}pregnancy at any time, but requires that an attempt be made to save 
}the life of the fetus when practical and when it does not place the 
}mother at great additional risk.  Granted, this may not always be
}possible, but when it is, it should be required.

Why would you like to see this?  Is it a problem?  Is it common?
Why do you think the legal system should handle this, anyway?
Who gets to pay for it?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Running away with his tail between his legs.
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:29:05 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov22.120346.21577@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
makes this stunning announcement:

>I am unsubscribing from talk.abortion.  Anyone who wants to continue a
>discussion with me can do so by email.
>
>Also -- it seems to me that the key to the whole controversy is the
>status of the unborn child, and scientific findings as to stages of
>fetal development are relevant to that issue.  I would be grateful for
>citations to literature regarding such findings.

The key to the whole controversy is whether state policy should compel
women to engage in bodily servitude to the /z/e/f/.  There is no other
situation in which the bodily autonomy of non-criminal legal persons
is circumscribed to save the life of some other, i.e. not itself,
entity.  This is true without reference to the stage of development of
the second entity.  Hence I fail to understand how developmental stage
is relevant. 

>Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
>"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
>sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)

Unfortunately for us, Jim will be back.  His false promise of a speedy
and permanent departure will only hold if he loses access to the net.
When he does return, he will demonstrate that this post was another in
the long tradition of posts stating: "You won't have this forced
pregnancy fetus fanatic to kick around any more!"  (Where is John
Stevens these days?)  I have to admit to enjoying these petulant
good-byes from people who try to disguise the fact that they share an
agenda with a bunch of scary, illogical bible-thumpers; I just wish
they did not subsequently break their promise never to return.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:40:28 CST
 <1e0kq7INN4br@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Nov13.170451.24505@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <9pw185p@rpi.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <9pw185p@rpi.edu>, cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> 
> (Not to mention that voluntary abstinence is NOT 100% effective.)

AMEN!  Someone agrees with me on this :)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 19 Nov 1992 14:58:08 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re The thoughts of a fetus

In article <Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu>,
hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) says:
>
>
>Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>the human fetus can actually dream!

I didn't realize that this "recent study" found the telepaths necessary to
ascertain whether a fetus dreams or not.

>"Think" about it.

Ever get the feeling that people who make blatant assertions (such as the one
above) shouldn't put quotes around the word "think"?

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48549 soc.men:19571 alt.dads-rights:2644