HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:06:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.014947.174@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>> 
>> ....And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:
>> 
>> "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
>>  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"
>
>I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
>likely counselling and rehab.
	Rather a light sentence for contract murder, wouldn't you say?
	Unless, of course, you're willing to concede that an embryo really
*isn't* legally identical to a born child......
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

(Yes, I know it's a complete waste of time, but I'm just killing a few
minutes until "Star Trek"...)

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:28:56 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep10.182550.27113@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes: 
>In  <29674@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>  smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen
J. Mezias) writes: 
>> Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>> American.
>
>Nobody on the net did describe anyone that way.

I was unclear.  I would not say fat black ass to an African American
(nor would I say African American ass).  I would not say Jewish ass to
a Jew, nor would I say Oriental ass to an East Asian.  Personally, if I 
had said it, I would have apologized long ago to end all of this
posting about it, despite the obvious despicable nature of the object
of the insult.

>The term was used to refer to a portion of anatomy.  That some people
>are unable to distinguish between "Get your ass over here" and "Get
>over here, you ass" is unfortunate, but should not reflect on the
>speaker.

Our disagreement is minor, but proof positive that those of us on the
pro-choice side do occasionally disagree.  

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:09:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not likely, as I wouldn't know where to find it.

In article <gzlnb8_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>In article <1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>>they think we should be doing.
>
>First, I am NOT "pro abortion".  I would object to anyone forcing an abortion
>just as strongly as I would object to anyone forcing pregnancy.

Then, I would think that you would support me.  After all, having a woman
abort your baby is forcing you to get an abortion, whether you want one or
not.

>The term
>of preference is pro-choice (as in given women the _choice_ whether to 
>continue with the pregnancy).

The least ambigous term might be pro-female-choice-NONE-for-the-father.

>Second, I'm not trying to force you to do anything except respect the
>privacy of other people.

You are trying to tie my hands.  Which is forcing me NOT to do anything.

>You insistance on being able to force a woman to give birth to your child
>strikes me as being rather like the chicken deciding for the pig whether
>you should be allowed to eat ham & eggs for breakfast.

If this is the best analogy you can come up with, you must be re-examing
your belief systems about now.

1)	A pig and a chicken are not even of the same species.  Are you claiming
	that men and women are of different species?

2)	Eating, and what you eat is a personal decision.  Abortion is not.

>While the legal system is rather biased towards mothers in this area, the
>solution might be to modify child support & custody laws and rulings, 
>rather than to attempt to spread the misery.  Whether I, my fiancee,
>or my friends have, are having, or will have and abortion is none of
>your business, and I intend to keep it that way.

You can try to enforce your belief system.  And so can I.

>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Sex Sacrifices and MultiProcessing Computers
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:21:19 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.025606.2817@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi) writes:
> In article <1992Sep03.204616.16372@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
> writes:
> >
> >And watch out for that late-night snacking.  And I keep telling you,
> >don't eat them in bed - it leaves such a mess.
>
> Women offended by this attitude are welcome to contact me.
> And _I_ own a washing machine. ;-)

That's what I keep telling *drieux*.  "Do as I say, not as I do".  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: negligent homicide and God
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:28:14 GMT

orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
] 
] It really is impossible to describe murder as the killing of a newly
] conceived human being.  Yes, you are killing a human being (which has
] many moral ramifications and should be limited) but the essence of 
] what we know as a human being or "person" are not present yet.  If we
] wanted to bring God into it one might say that one's soul is not 
] present until brain activity starts.  That, at least, is what I believe.
] I cannot and will not try to prove the existence of a soul.        

1. to assert the proposition of 'murder' one needs to
have an alive 'Born Person' that can be murdered. 
Note if you will that one can NOT  'murder the dead' ....

2. to make your notion work, you merely need to say that
one can murder the NotYetBorn_BornPersonWhoIsAliveFromConception -
which, as has been shown, also includes those PersonInThePetriDish.

3. This then also Requires that we deal with 'miscarriages'
in terms of dealing with Negligent Homicide. There are so many
fun filled facts coming to the forefront about what the 
Gestator's Behavior may well do to the gestatee.... And hence
that really it is the Fault of Women when they have miscarriages.
Which, since we can show fault, means that there is a 'wrongful 
death' that has occurred.

It is Important that we remind folks that they NEED to be
held responsible for their Actions.....

4. And IF we were to introduce 'God' into the discussion,
then we would NOT get confused, as we would KNOW that it
is not until BIRTH that we have an entity worth discussing
moral implications about....


] Obviously the best option is to prevent the conception from ever occurring.
] That is what I support first.

Here we agree....

the Problem with this, like so many other
fundamental problems of life, is what to
do after best intentions have failed....

ciao
drieux


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:15:43 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Sep14.175120.69767@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.223712.29505@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larr
> |> In  <Sep12.080031.56284@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
> |> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> |> > In article <fzmnh9k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> |> > >
> |> > >Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking
> |> > >talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
> |> > >a slave.
> |> >
> |> >      In short: one is, in your arbitrary opinion, a human being sufficientl
> |> > like you to deserve a right to life, while the other (again in your arbitra
> |> > opinion) is a human being not sufficiently like you to deserve a right to l
> |>
> |> One is a human being; the other is not.  (Using the normal meaning of the
> |> term "human being".)
>
>      This is a factual error.

No, since I specified using the *normal* meaning of "human being".

> Medically, a human being begins at conception
> and ends at death.

By the same definition you're using, a spermatozoa is a human being.

> |> >      Prove, if you will, that walking and talking and thinking are
> |> > prerequisistes to personhood.
> |>
> |> Why are you asking him to prove something he didn't claim?  A fetus can't
> |> walk, can't talk, can't think (certainly not in the first two trimesters),
> |> and is not a person (ditto).  There was no claim that the first three are
> |> prerequisites for the fourth.
>
>      Fair enough.  What, then, are the prerequisites for personhood, in your
> opinion?  Explain.

Ability to think.  (Note that a sleeping or comatose person has the
*ability*, even if they're not exercising it at the moment.  A fetus
(prior to 24 months for sure) doesn't have the hardware; it lacks the
physical capability to think.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:49:22 GMT

In <Bu17J5.2B5@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <j1moody-010992232532@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu> j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
>>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?
>>
>>I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.

>Well, based on the Neilssonn (sp?) fetal pictures I've seen, I'm sure 
>most people would come to think of the 1-6 week old fetus as anything 
>but human.

If you use the embryological definitions, there is no such thing as
a 1-6 week old fetus.

>>We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.

>Again, the early fetus looks like an alien from a bad sci-fi show.

An 8 week fetus looks like an alien from _Close Encounters of the third
kind_ or _Coccoon_, and I wouldn't class either of these as bad sci-fi.

>I'm afraid your suggestion would result in more early term abortions 
>and less late term abortions.  Is that what you wanted?  Oh, you 
>wanted no abortions...  

Not me, anyway.  I'm quite happy with the suggestion.

>>How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.

>Oh, so you think those of the future will see things your way?   I think  
>that they'll applaud our ZPG efforts.

They go well beyond ZPG, at least in the USA and western europe (Ireland
is the only exception, and who knows how long even Ireland will hold out?)


Peter Ny.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Steven Arnold - your back!
Date: 12 Sep 1992 15:16:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <Sep12.065353.40464@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

[deleted]

Steven,

    So nice to see you back. I noticed that you disappeared just about
when you were getting backed into a corner on our discussion of what
attributes we value enough to bestow "rights". I also got your leaflet.
So are you ready to continue?

Eric
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 10 Sep 92 11:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Sep9.152608.28360@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <43549@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>
>}All things being equal, I will not vote for a candidate who is a "pro-choice"
>}activist.
>}I will vote, all things being equal, for a candidate who regards abortion
>}as a moral evil, and who is willing to consider further legislative 
>}restrictions.
>
>I don't see any necessary difference between the two, except that a
>"pro-choice" activist might not wish to consider any legislation.

Such an activist would consider using the Constitution as a means
to stop legislation wouldn't they? And while the Constitution may not 
technically be a "law", it is effective as one. No?

So, in that sense, "pro-choicers" are not as neutral as at first they 
undoubtedly appear to be.

>Your differentation boils down to whether or not someone would consider
>legislation, regardless of its necessity or effectiveness.  Kind of a 
>"pro-legislation" stance, don't you think?

To a certain extent, yes.  But as I say above, I don't think that
the "pro-choice" group can claim to be neutral where legislation is concerned.

If one supports the prevention of a certain type of legislation (e.g aspects
of the US constitution) - then one is effectively supporting a form of 
legislation.

Also, of course I am concerned with the effect, necessity or lack thereof
of laws.  But I believe that some laws restricting abortion could work.

Such laws should, in my opinion, focus on a responsibility for offspring
laid upon parents by a democratic state.

Such responsibility is in the interests of the state for two reasons:

	1. It protects *valuable* humans - foetuses.
	2. It protects society from having to care for such valuable humans
	   where the original parents would otherwise ignore such care.

Such laws exist already to protect neo-nates and babies.  They could be
extended to protect foetuses.

>You, on the other hand, would base your judgement on whether or not
>the candidate supported legislation, regardless of their principles.

Not regardless of their principles.  I said "all else being equal".

I consider abortion one important issue.  But it is not the only issue
worth considering.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: SOUTH CAROLINA INCEST-ABORTION LAW
Keywords: incest, consent, emancipated, abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 21:50:33 GMT

In <1992Sep9.015606.4937@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>[Note:  Deletions.  Deletions.  Deletions...]

A pity you did not read the things you deleted.

>In article <nyikos.715968465@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>	One bottom line to the South Carolina law on abortion is: it is
>>perfectly legal for an uncle who has gotten his underage niece pregnant
>>to bring her in to an abortionist and have an abortion done on her
>>without the consent of her parents and WITHOUT HER OWN CONSENT.

>Stop lying, Peter.

>>
>>	In 1990, South Carolina enacted a law, Section 44-41-31,

>Section (1) says it all, liar.  You have to get the consent of the PREGNANT
>MINOR AND...

These laws are formulated in a screwball way, and I can't blame you for
being misled.  I should have put in my description of just how 
counter-intuitive the readings of these laws are at the very beginnin
of my post.  Sorry.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:34:16 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:
  ^^^^^^
>> cj@sgi.com (CJ Silverio) writes:

>>> Gosh, Nyikos, why don't you name for me a contraceptive
>>> that's 100% effective?  That is, a contraceptive that will
>>> prevent pregnancy for sexually active het women 100% of the
>>> time.  Can you name one?

>> Pants ( for both ).

> Listen, shithead: I personally know a woman who had an abortion
> following a pregnancy which was the result of a rape. Try telling
> her that wearing pants is 100% effective.

I was a little taken aback by your response, Eric, but then I looked
at the attribution line.  Talk about ikky-gross:  Kevin Welch is back!

So Kevin, have you harassed any pregnant women lately? >:-|

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:23:46 GMT

In <1992Sep10.114521.21248@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Sep9.231533.14559@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
   (Stephen A Chaney) writes: >>

>> I proved my case and presented all the facts needed to prove it beyond
>> a reasonable doubt. 
>
> Perhaps in the dimly lit theater of your mind you did.
>
> This boy is one funny little feller.  Keeps declaring victory
> for himself no matter how stupid the posting he presents.
> 
> And Overpeck doesn't think this little feller needs a therapist?

Hmm.  Well, to me, it doesn't sound substantively different than 
the following, which was written after I'd asked Keegan to defend 
his diagnostic impressions by providing a list of symptoms that
seem applicable to Holtsinger or Chaney (he didn't, though I 
suppose he could still be at the library).

   In <1992Sep10.020726.6021@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
     (James G Keegan Jr) writes: 

   "perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point you've 
    already lost."

:-)

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: .
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <SCOTTS.92Sep5142954@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>, by scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier):
>> In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>    From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>>    > 
>>    > Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>>    > they won't have sex with them".
>> 
>> 
>>    What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
>> 
>> Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>> are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
>
>
>Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to respect
>for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful to them), a case
>can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.    There is only the
>occasional exception.

Since so many pro-lifers are pro-birth, and since birth is so harmful
physically to women and mothers (even more harmful than abortion),
a case can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.

After all, other than hatred of women, what could be the motivation for
statements such as "women who have sex outside of marriage are less than
prostitutes, because at least prostitutes get paid" and "if she doesn't
want to become pregnant, she should keep her legs together"?

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:33:34 GMT

In <1992Sep11.114313.8039@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep10.211853.17123@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep10.020726.6021@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>>>> after you read them, i wonder if you might not
>>>>> want to amend your statement.
> 
>>>> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
>>>> immaturity with mental illness.
>
>>> i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad,
>>> really, that you don't think therapy might help.
> 
>> Therapy "might help" anyone who's interested in it
>> as a vehicle for effecting positive life changes.  I
>> don't recall having seen Doug express such an
>> interest.  That aside, though, why is it "too bad"?
>
> it's "too bad" because it displays a callousness on
> your part which i hadn't previously observed. most
> posters to t.a., imo, wouldn't mind at all if someone
> sought therapy to effect a positive life change.

I see.  Where did I indicate that I was opposed to anyone
seeking therapy?  The misattribution of motives seems to
be characteristic of your posts these days, Jim.  

>>> perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point
>>> you've already lost.
> 
>> If you'd simply list the symptoms that you've
>> identified as clinically significant, it would
>> markedly enhance your credibility in this area.
>
> i doubt it. i'm not expressing a professional
> diagnonis. i'm expressing an opinion, one which is
> shared by many.

Well, certainly you must base this opinion on something
fairly specific.  After all, to make a judgement about
the mental health of another is a pretty serious claim.
What characteristics concern you most?

>> Until you do that, you don't even have an argument.
>
> you're the only one arguing as to DODie's and
> chaneyhall's mental health, bill.

Oh no.  That's not what I'm doing at all, Jim.  I'm
arguing that the content of their respective posts
is inadequate to derive any sort of inference regard-
ing their mental health.  

I'm also arguing that your commentary was designed to
insult, rather than help.  And I still contend that
such remarks are prejudicial toward those that truly
suffer from such problems.  Or perhaps you believe that
the intellectually impaired are not derogated when terms
like "retardo" are employed as locker room jokes?  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion