HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
X-To: TIMOTHY W. LYNCH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:01:00 GMT

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...

TWL> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
TWL> >judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein) writes...
TWL> >JA> When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

TWL> >Hmmm... perhaps so.  But that is ALSO quite one-sided.  Now try...

TWL> >When a woman loves a man, she respects his feelings and doesn't destroy a
TWL> >wanted child without even letting him into the discussion process.

TWL> Agreed.  I think that, given "typical" circumstances, a woman would hopeful
TWL> talk to her partner about it.  But there's a difference between "I'd like
TWL> everyone to behave this way and care" and "I'm going to force everyone to
TWL> behave this way whether they care or not."

TWL> I realize that what happened has got to hurt, and I sympathize (as best I
TWL> can, not having gone through it myself).  But if you're using this to
TWL> justify spousal notification laws, I'm forced to jump in and say that the
TWL> law is not intended to let you dictate others' behavior, particularly when
TWL> it's solely to avoid emotional pain.

Well...my only belief is that I support father-NOTIFICATION-ONLY laws.  (I
say "father" as opposed to "husband," because I do not think that being
unmarried should make a difference) I state only that I think that a father
should have the right to KNOW whether he is going to lose a child.

I am still a civil libertarian at heart, so I do not know whether I could
support a father-*permission* law, however.

There is a big difference between father-notification and father-CONSENT
requirements.  I am not currently convinced that giving the father the right
to KNOW will allow him to dictate the woman's behavior.  That would only
apply if there were a law in place that required consent.


TWL> Good luck starting up the support group, though; it sounds like a great ide
TWL> if difficult.

It is.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Shampoo - no thanks, I'll use real poo.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 15:20:18 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


I'll just point out that as well as repeating false claims about
the health and safety requirements which can legally be imposed
upon freestanding abortion clinics, Kellmeyer has also repeated
a great deal of anecdotal evidence from anti-abortion physicians.
The so-called scientific evidence that some of these people cite
is not accepted by most.  The CDC disputed Hilgers' statistical 
methods, for example.  

The study of psychological aftereffects in members of Women
Exploited by Abortion (the Reardon study) is not worth refuting
again.  (Can you say biased sample?)

The evidence which supports the safety of legal abortion is
overwhelming.  Unscrupulous anti-abortion people attempt to
fabricate evidence to refute it, but these attempts have been
exposed as frauds over and over again.  

Susan
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Preservation of Ones Species
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:23:09 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

I remember Suzanne Forgach arguing that all (at least mammalian) species
do not kill their young, and that as humans this should be natural to us
as well. All as an argument against any abortion.

Well last night I saw the National Geographic Special on PBS, which was
an expose on the domestic cat. I got the warm-fuzzies for most of the show,
for I'm a true cat lover. But during a section in which they compared the
behaviour of cats which live in barnyard communities with their only
cousins which live in groups in the wild, the lions, the similarities ranged
from intriguing to shocking.

Apparently, the male pecking order in lion prides is so competitive that
when the honcho dies or leaves the pride, the second-in-command male kills
all of the newborn cubs of the former leader. Last night's program showed
some of the gruesome footage. Then they showed the parallel behavior of
the male domestic cat. The critter killed six of nine of the ex-leaders
mates' kittens, all in the name of forcing the females to be ready for
mating sooner so that the new leader could sow his wild kitty-chow.

My little snugglebuns, cold hearted killers.

Then again, this was only male behaviour, just like crime seems to be
in the human world.

It's ironic, isn't it, that we use the animal world so indiscriminately
to prove our point about the naturalness of our behaviour, and when
behaviour disagrees with moral theory, we suddenly say that we have to
"rise above mere animal behaviour".

And when we attempt to rise above in search of a moral code, we get
conflicting signals. Most Christian churches still teach that abortion
is wrong, but their holy book says that God commands abortions in the
adulterous (Num 5:12-31).

Brian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: csulaima@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Cynthia Renee Sulaiman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:50:09 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Jul31.004235.92102@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>RCAR
>100 Maryland Avenue, NE
>Washington, DC 20002
>(202)-543-7032

>Susan


Thanks   :-)

Cynthia


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:17:27 GMT

jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:

>I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
>Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  These supposed 
>"Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.  To me, the
>ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of abortion are the ones
>that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights are more important 
>than human's.  I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders
>Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this country's
>last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.  If this country
>is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, and it will not be pretty.

What if we don't believe in the wrath of God?  What if King George is only
Pro-Life because he thought it would get him elected?  What if you're
putting words in my mouth about the death penalty and animal rights?  Are
you implying that the gays and the liberals are seperate parties?  Are you
implying that we don't have the right to hold our own opinions and act on
them?   

Assignment one: be specific. Answer one opinion at a time. That's a very
wide brush you're wielding there, pardner. 

Assignment two: rent "The Silence of the Lambs" or buy the book.  Watch or
read it three times.  Come back and tell me if that's really the kind of
world you want to live in. 

Class dismissed.

Alden
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Summary: Well, some of 'em are pro-dementia, at least...
Organization: Late Night with Willy!
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 08:22:26 GMT

In article <16wxtt-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>From article by heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath):
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> "Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
>>> 			-Joseph Beam_
>
>
>>Yeah, that oughta wipe themselves out _real_ efficiently.
>>Just give it the timespan of one generation.
>
>Teeeee heeeeeeeeee!!  :-)  :-)  :-)
>
>Suzanne, please don't ever stop posting these gems.  Just when I think
>I might be actually annoyed by t.a, I come across one of these priceless
>bits of humor.
>
>This is on a par with your statement that pro-choicers will wipe them-
>selves out within a generation.  (OH NO, I've already _started_ the 
>next generation of pro-choicers!  Whoooooooops, guess it won't be THIS
>generation.....!)

That one had me wondering, briefly.  I should have pointed out to her that,
if her assertion was right, I shouldn't be here -- my mother was just the
least bit pro-choice, and here I am...and now, my wife's daughter is
pro-choice, too, which makes *two* subsequent generations of pro-choicers.
(Isn't it amazing what you can deduce when you "do science" for a living?
:-)

>But on the dark and ugly side, Suzanne, why this apparent wish to see
>black men wiped out?

Might as well ask her why she thinks she knows more about my marriage than
either Dale Ann or I do, too...(and in case she's wondering, the anniversary
is sixteen days and counting :)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:21:02 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <BrpuyA.A5M@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>In <q0cm=rj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.

>The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
>recorded. 

Good.  If we can work a little harder, than we'll have eliminated the
"botched abortion" problem.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

The government - it's not just your Big Brother, it's that kid down the block
who likes to beat you up and take your lunch money.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: And Fischer's Down! (was Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:17:13 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <l8gmtvj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>> = Susan Garvin writes:
>>>>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
>
>>Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
>>gave it to you guys on the chin. 
>
>Who here is surprised that borg-for-brains refuses to admit his error?
>Nobody?  Didn't think so.  His credo seems to be "Lie, and if caught, 
>come up with another lie."

Planned Parenthood DID run an advertisement with the statement that
Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion. 

Maybe THEY misprinted, but no one around HERE misread what we saw. 

Maybe YOU need to go fish, Ray. Say hi to Jaws. But don't worry; he
won't eat you because he's scared it might make him stupid like you. 

>Given that he keeps shooting himself in the foot again, and again, 
>and again, you'd think he'd just give it up since his credibility is 
>by now worthless.

And now... 

<POOF!> You're awake again and there's a great, big bullet hole in
your foot, Ray! 

>>>Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
>>>of your ass like Holtsinger does?
>>
>>Well, we would first have to learn the skill from you and Garvin, undoubtedly
>>masters at the art. The art of blowing smoke out of your ass...  
>
>Whoops, there went the smoke alarm.  'Scuse me for a minute ...

Yeah, put out that fire in your brain. You're thinking too hard and
it's causing shortouts in your head. 

>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
>ray@netcom.com


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Susan B. Anthony: More evidence  
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 17:51:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul20.183026.14839@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney) writes:

[much deleted]
>Premise 2: The March for Women's Lives in 1992 was partially dedicated to
>suffragists such as Susan B. Anthony.
>

>Premise 1 and 2 are linked in that both are falsities, but also the
>disproval of these premises are chief exhibits to prove the following
>logical point:
>

Did anyone else notice that Chaney refers to his Premise 2 as a
falsity?  

If he's telling the truth in the second paragraph I quoted, then
he's lying in Premise 2, and the March wasn't dedicated to
suffragists.  If the March was dedicated to suffragists, then
Premise 2 is not a falsity.

I guess this is one of the problems with killfiles.  So many
people miss Dennis's more ridiculous flights of fancy.

(Figured out how an 83 year old woman had an abortion yet,
Dennis?)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 01:51:03 GMT

jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:


>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.
>A lot of these people are also against the use of fetal tissue for
>experimentation to save people's lives.  And many of these people are
>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>spread.  These people are obviously Pro-Death.

What about the much more simple solution to the entire problem?
What ever happened to abstinence?  That is a fool-proof solution 
after all.

--
				In His name,
				Darwin Reiswig

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:10:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.020454.1839@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
}GJH> In article <1992Jul3.234153.21850@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
}GJH> <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
}GJH> }judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein) writes...
}GJH> }JA> When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

Uh, terminal analysis has determined that I didn't write the following:

*}GJH> }Hmmm... perhaps so.  But that is ALSO quite one-sided.  Now try...
*}GJH> }
*}GJH> }When a woman loves a man, she respects his feelings and doesn't destroy 
        a
*}GJH> }wanted child without even letting him into the discussion process.

But I did go on and rattle as follows:

}GJH> Nope, it doesn't fit on one line, and doesn't have quite the same ring.  Tr
}GJH> "Whether or not a man loves a woman, he considers her capable of choice."
}GJH> 'Course, that may not fit your agenda...
}
}'Course, that depends on what you think my agenda is...  :-)

True.  I think it involves changing the legal status of abortion.   I
think it also involves engaging those who express themselves as being
"pro-choice" in controversy over various things.  For example, I always
think of James Brown when I read "When a man loves a women..." but up 
until now I hadn't mentioned it.  

[stuff about making it illegal not to join a support group.]

}Hmmm.....  I'll give it a try, Galen.  :-)

Didn't mean to trivialize your comment with that response, sorry if it
appears that I did.  What I wish to point out is that if men are in 
denial about something, they won't willingly join a support group
for that something, no will they?  They deny it.  You'd have to 
make it illegal and possibly get them to join at the point of a gun.

}GJH> That should appeal to both your lack of membership and your notion of
}GJH> the purpose of the law!

}That almost sounds a lot like Woody Allen saying "I wouldn't join any club
}that would have me as a member".

True.  It is a contradiction.  The purpose of the law is not to force
people to do something they wouldn't do normally, nor is it to prevent
people from doing something they find morally acceptable.  Though the
law is often used to attempt to do this, I'm not sure you can bring
any proof that it has been successful.  Oh, and I believe Groucho
(you know, the guy that invented communism) inspired Woody.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. "Dennis who?" Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Organization: Patrick speaks for himself, especially on his lunch hour.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:16:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.171711.26324@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Jul23.162222.2854@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
>>===============================================================================
>>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>>===============================================================================
>
>Care to support this contention?

Airplane Boy, support an assertion?  Isn't that one of the signs of the
Apocalypse?  (I can't remember if it's immediately before or after Wavy Davy
the MuffinThang's admitting error in anuthing, though...:-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 527-4989 at Rice, 981-5952 at home, 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
  (This .sig is costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.  Your
             share is approximately $1.87.  Please pay promptly.) 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: seth@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Seth Buffington)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:48:15 GMT

>
>My position is that there is no, zero, nada, zippity evidence that a god
>exists.  In the absence of actual proof or testable theories the default
>is *no god*.
>

I am not sure what kind of evidence you need, but even if we
defined 'god' only as a 'higher power', there are certainly
supernatural things in this earth that go beyond any human
conception. How about a little set theory: draw a circle
representing all knowledge, now draw a small circle within it to
represent your knowledge. Obviously, outside of your circle the
possibilty of a god exists. You may not have the evidence of him
in your circle of knowledge, but there is a lot of knowledge out
there outside of your circle of knowledge. 

---- misc. deleted -----

>>
>>Because the created are subject to (not equal to) the creator.
>
>Excellent!  Therefore the fetus is subject to the woman (creator).
>

I have never met a woman yet that can get pregnant by herself: a
woman is not a creator of a child. And to say that two people
causing the conception of a child is an act of creation, is not
valid since child bearing has occured since life has been--this
is nothing new in the universe; it is a natural process, not a
creative one. Of course, someone (or something :-() had to set up
the process in the first place. :-|


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:55:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes ...
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>#abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
>#
>#And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
>#big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
>#illegal abortion. 
>#
>#Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
>
>Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  

Too funny for words.

Just to spare the poor little borg-brain the strain of doing the arithmetic, 
this makes Ms. Sanger about 84 years old at her death.  And as an added bit
of info, human females can't have children when they're in their 80's, which
means they can't get abortions.

>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.

That's something I _would_ like to see.  It should be enormously entertaining.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: how to play MishMash with Xtianity
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:10:33 GMT

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
] 
] I believe the argument goes
] that if one is to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," that it is
] meant to apply to innocent human life. 

how does noe define 'innocent' ????

As with dearOldDoug, in that the entity must be 
incapable of making a moral choice.

{ not all that 'complex' a notion given certain
manifestations of the notion of 'original sin'
and hence that all have sinned, and hence that all are guilty....

But Hold it, that way leads to the notion that there are
no 'innocent human lifes' so....

}

] I know the Catholic Church years ago
] logically concluded even a newly formed embryo to be innocent human life, and
] so concluded that abortion was wrong. 

Ok, how does you get there, without running into the
same very set of problems that lead them towards the
matter of limbo....

Be Very Careful NOT to repeat the same mistakes....

] This discussion
] could go on forever - basically, the "line is drawn" at the point where a
] person no longer has control over what happens. 

Ok, I bite, it the matter of 'no control'
one of putting forward an idea, which if
carried through, as stated, leads to a reductio ad absurdum,
or is it the matter of dealing with ethical choices....


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Mary Joe & Saddam (!)
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:15:11 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>You see, ck, every child has a purpose in the world, if you care to
>look close enough.

Including those who starve to death in Africa???  What purpose could they
possibly serve??

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion