HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:23:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

[follow-ups to talk.abortion and alt.abortion.inequity]

Beaver really should proofread his articles.  Soc.women
and soc.feminism aren't the same newsgroup.

Suzanne Forgach recently posted a similar article to
talk.abortion.  (She threatened to kill anyone who
tried to kill her (hypothetical) preemie.)  There
was a bit of a followup, because another poster had,
in the past, threatened to kill anyone who tried to
stop his (hypothetical) loved one from having an
abortion that she wanted.   Someone had objected
loudly to one article, and not the other.  People
pointed out the hypocrisy involved.

Unlike Beaver, most people involved in this
exchange understood that people were discussing
hypotheticals.   They also understood that in
both cases people were talking about protecting
someone they loved.  This seems to be the case
with the woman in soc.feminism, as well.

Steeves wasn't talking about forcing his ex (and
we're supposed to believe this is a real person)
to give birth, he was talking about killing her for not
informing him promptly.  Perhaps Beaver doesn't
understand the difference between killing to
protect, or killing to avenge, and killing 
because someone showed "disrespect."  

I think Beaver wishes that Steeves had posted that
he wanted to kill his ex for aborting the fetus.
Beaver would  have a basis for comparison if that
had been the case.   However, that's not what Steeves
said.  

Susan







Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4384 talk.abortion:42344 soc.men:17671 soc.women:17668
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.190237.113058@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <BvzoMB.HHI@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct11.191903.9648@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (K
>> >
>> >(If this is leading into the "but Will was just trying
>> >to protect the life of *HIS* child, I'd like to remind you that I don't
>> >consider it a child until it's born).
>>
>> Actually, it wasn't leading to that point, but as long as you mention it:
>>
>> Does your belief have anything to do with it?  That is, if a person believes
>> a fetus to be a child, is their "healthy parental instinct" (your words)
>> to protect their child supposed to change or be repressed based on
>> your beliefs?
>
>There's a difference between using violence to protect a child against
>harm, and using violence to get revenge for a past act.  Janis didn't
>say that if someone had hurt her child, she'd hunt them down and slit
>their throat; she was talking about an active threat.

This is not what I objected to in Keith Cochran's statement.
The point is:  his beliefs have nothing to do with someone else's
"healthy parental instinct."

Turning to your proposal, would you be overly surprised if she had
said she would kill anyone who killed her child?


>And Will wasn't talking about either.  He was talking about not showing
>respect by not telling him immediately.  

Don't forget mental cruelty ("salt in the wounds").


>If he was talking about a child
>rather than a fetus, then I think it would be a *very* sick statement.

I'm not sure I understand why it would be +sicker+ if he felt
that a child died rather than "just" a fetus?

Would it be a "*very* sick statement" if Janis Cortese had said she 
would kill her ex-husband after he drove into a tree with their child, 
pretended nothing was wrong for a month, and then told her not only 
that the child was dead but that he had done it intentionally?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:26:13 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <26371@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>On Earth, in the United States, and most certainly in my state,
>there are laws that say a non-custodial father (married or not)
>of a child is subject to pay child support.

I haven't seen a law that says that a teen-age boy that impregnates
a girl is automatically billed for child-support. Or that a man who
encountered a woman, had sex, got her pregnant but walked away without
so knowing is liable for child-support. There are many other cases,
also of where men are not liable for child-support. The only ones I
know of where they have been made liable are those in which there was
a marriage ending in divorce, and those in which there was a supporting
role played.

>On your planet, does the government give men the right
>not to pay child support?

Well, I also claim Earth, country of the US, state of Virginia as my
residence at the present, and your laws just don't seem to apply to
what I see, with the above noted exceptions.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: kwelch@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:00:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <42280027@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

>1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
>Yes                  [ ]
			Yes


>2.) Are you pro choice?

>No                   [ ]

2.5) Am I for choices other than abortion?
Yes.

>3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
>Yes                  [ ]


>4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
>rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?

>No                   [ ]


>5.) What sex are you?
>Male               [ ]


>6.) How old are you?

>19 to 65           [ ]

>7.) What religion are you?

>Catholic           [ ]



>8.) What political party are you affiliated with?

>Republican         [ ]


>9.) How many years of education have you completed?


>College            [ ]



--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch		      | Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | vniversitas pennsylvaniensis
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4397 talk.abortion:42426 soc.men:17682 soc.women:17677
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:21:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: devnull.2634
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Oct13.180622.106850@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In  <Bw2C9z.54I@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.184025.97821@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>>>In  <Bvzn2E.GAo@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct11.173632.97990@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
>>>>>In  <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):

I'm thinking of a new law of the net, something along the lines of the
Nazi Principle, which goes:

	The worth of an article is inversely proportional to the depth
	of the attributations, and directly proportional to the number of
	people involved in the discussion.

Don't you two think that this could be settled over e-mail, so the rest of
us wouldn't have to skip it?  Play nice, or at least play nasty somewhere
else.

Daniel Welch
----
You know, Homer, there are sometimes when even *I* would rather be watching
football on Sunday.  Tell me, does St. Louis still have a team?

			- God
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfr
X-To: WHARFIE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:27:00 GMT

wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes in soc.men...
WH> In article <BvDzou.7BH@world.std.com> apl@world.std.com (Anthony P Lawrence)
WH> tes:
WH> >Are we not men ?

WH>         We are devo.

What?  I thought that those folks broke up over half a decade ago!  :-)

Okay....getting serious for a moment....

I have received an e-mail note from Peter Nyikos, stating that his system's
newsfeed is down.  Since he was kind enough to provide me with some posts
while ZOOiD was down, I will be posting some of his future posts, should he
request it.

Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * send moneySUBLIMINALsend moneyTAGLINEsend money
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: waf9851@zeus.tamu.edu (FULLER, WALTER ANDREW III)
Subject: Re: Proof that not all abortion is murder.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:34:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.161325.9567@cs.ucf.edu>, long@next1.acme.ucf.edu 
(Richard Long) writes...

>We will prove that terminating pregancy after conception is not  
>necessarily murder.  The proof is by contradiction.

[... well reasoned rest of article cut]

Richard, you go to a lot of trouble to prove that which need not be proved.
No state or territory holds that abortion is murder. Furthermore, even the
tried and true anti-choice zealots do not hold it to be true because in
their model anti-abortion legislation only the doctor performing the abortion
is held to be the criminal. Furthermore, the penalties such legislation
would call down on this doctor are not tantamount to a murder conviction. If
an abortion were to be defined as murder by this legislation, then both the
doctor and the woman would be guilty and have to held accountable.

But, alas, such is the dilemma of those who would seek to legislate 
morals based on religion without a secular foundation.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women,soc.men
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About Amusing Sport....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:57:49 GMT

dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
] In article <1992Oct13.180622.106850@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
] >In  <Bw2C9z.54I@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] >>In article <1992Oct12.184025.97821@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
] >>>In  <Bvzn2E.GAo@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] >>>>In article <1992Oct11.173632.97990@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
] >>>>>In  <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] >>>>>> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
] 
] I'm thinking of a new law of the net, something along the lines of the
] Nazi Principle, which goes:
] 
] 	The worth of an article is inversely proportional to the depth
] 	of the attributations, and directly proportional to the number of
] 	people involved in the discussion.
] 
] Don't you two think that this could be settled over e-mail, so the rest of
] us wouldn't have to skip it?  Play nice, or at least play nasty somewhere
] else.

Daniel,

I think that at one level your comments are Amusing,
but I must say that they lack the Quality of Good Sport.

You have had a chance to watch the Veritable Struggle of
Good against Evil as it has been played out upon this
Noble Stage by these two Grand Champions of their Causes.

Of Course, as we both Know, it is NOT truly sporting
as we all Know that Good Must Triumph over Evil
and that thus Larry has been playing with a Hidden Advantage;
As surely God will NOT allow Evil to Triumph.

but None the Less it is Good Sport.....

ciao
drieux

ps: Let The Games Begin!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4399 talk.abortion:42434
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Minor Technical Clarification - Fornication
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:06:50 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

drieux writes:
> If you will actually look at your BIBLE,
> you will notice that one can lay with 
> one's concubines, and the handmaidens
> of one's WIVES.

I have a question. (Honest question.) So the question is:

Didn't the parts were men slept with their concubines and wives' 
handmaidens come before the 10 commandments were passed down? Those
are the only parts that I've read where that's happened. Everything 
else that I've read later, I don't remember that happening.

ag

> ps: Now When Will the Religious Right Restore our
> God Given Rights?

Are you trying to equate me with a religious right, or are you just
giving me a chance to have a good belly laugh?
From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <nyikos.719001771@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>The post to which this is a follow-up contains some good general advice.
>It is a pity that Mr. Hatcher, the poster, does not feel constrained to
>follow it, not even out of courtersy to an obvious "newbie", as I pointed
>out in a follow-up to his flaming response to Ms. Norris, which elicited
>the "Thanks for the `constructive' criticism." comment of hers, which
>then elicited the post to which I am following up.

Sorry, Peter, but you can't call this a "follow-up" unless it contains
part of *my* posting to which you object.  This is more a general attack
on my person.  The article to which you refer is long gone on my news
server so I can't pick out specifics.  But if I remember right the
original post contained a series of logical steps followed by a HUGE
leap of "faith" (with implicit assumptions that abortion is morally
wrong) that was then used to "prove" that it is wrong.  I pointed this
out.  Maybe a little harshly.  For that I appologize to the original
poster.  When she felt flamed, I replied again on what some of the
basic pitfalls in this group were.  In that I tried to be pretty neutral
and point out problems with both sides methods.  Maybe I was a little
harsh on her since it was pretty obvious that she was a newbie.  The
problem was that we (in the last week) HAD covered 90% of her "discussion"
and pointed out the flaws.  Maybe I was just tired and it was late and
I was pissed because the program I was running (netnews is just a side 
issue) wasn't working... In any case, I appologize for being harsh.
I hardly think I'm the only person in this group to ever overstate
their case.  You on the other hand don't have the courtesy of quoting
the points to which you object...you just make blatent assertions:
  >It is a pity that Mr. Hatcher, the poster, does not feel constrained to
  >follow it, not even out of courtersy to an obvious "newbie", ...
Hardly something I can respond to in specific...And again below.

>A pity, too, that so many pro-choicers violate these basic pieces of
>advice on talk.abortion just as egregiously, from time to time, as
>Mr. Hatcher did in that post of his.  This includes Mr. Humphrey,
>who played the gentleman to Ms. Norris but very often reveals the bad
>side of his redneck nature to people he takes a dislike to.
>
>Peter Nyikos

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:41:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bw460n.Ay2

In article <1992Oct14.063007.17215@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <Bw2D13.5r7@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct12.190237.113058@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
>>
>> Don't forget mental cruelty ("salt in the wounds").
>
>(In case you missed it burried in my response to Nyikos, sorry for assuming
>that the latter phrase was originated by you.)
>
>> >If he was talking about a child
>> >rather than a fetus, then I think it would be a *very* sick statement.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand why it would be +sicker+ if he felt
>> that a child died rather than "just" a fetus?
>>
>> Would it be a "*very* sick statement" if Janis Cortese had said she
>> would kill her ex-husband after he drove into a tree with their child,
>> pretended nothing was wrong for a month, and then told her not only
>> that the child was dead but that he had done it intentionally?
>
>Let me spell it out and you can decide for yourself whether or not you
>agree with my opinion.
>   If you had killed my child and told me about it beforehand or
>   immediately afterwards, I would have been angry but I could have
>   forgiven you, but if you showed me so little respect that you killed
>   my child and then didn't tell me about it for a year, then I'd get
>   *really* upset.

This is a very good analogy.  The one part that I think doesn't
apply too well is where it comes to "I could have forgiven you."

For this analogy to apply, we'd have to imagine a world where killing
a child is an arguable offense -- so that there would be no law against it,
although some people objected.  

Some reasonable objectors, accepting democratic society and accepting 
that others have different opinions (perhaps not believe that 
killing a child is murder), might reconcile this deep conflict and 
choose to "forgive" a person for child murder (especially considering
the murderer held other burdens because of the child).


The camel's back would almost break, but an objector might at least 
think that the murderer made a thoroughly considered, responsible 
decision based on alternate beliefs.

Add the straw of mental cruelty, and suddenly it is no longer
clear to the objector that the other members of society are indeed
responsible or respecting of the objector's beliefs.


Now, part of the agreement to participate in society and respect others'
rights and beliefs (including the murderer's) is that other members 
of society agree to participate under the same conditions.

There's no justification to drop out of society or actually become violent,
but there is a clear justification to be even more "upset."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:59:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.033407.22846@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <Bvzn2E.GAo@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>[About Will's "infamous" "Snap and kill" post...]
>>
>>That doesn't excuse the way he made his point -- I thought it was
>>not only a great lack of judgement to use such terms but a possible offense 
>>to women and men involved in such a situation (because of the possibility
>>of misinterpretation) -- but at the same time, IMNSHO, the conclusions and 
>>persistent misinterpretations by his "opponents" are hardly unbiased.
>
>Tell you what.  Find me a woman who posts something similar to "...and with
>the Goddess as my witness, if my husband fools around on me, and has the
>gall to not only not tell me immediatly, but to wait a year or more before
>mentioning it, I'd probably snap right there and kill him", and I'll suggest
>that she line up to talk to Will's therapist right after he's done...

I'd suggest she go to Texas first, where she can get pardoned
for the murder, if she attempts it.

And, I have a feeling the police, legislature and courts would laugh 
if you tried to suggest she was a violent person [or even just a man-hater]
for having made such a comment.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Evil Warren Wilson College Does it again...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:20:35 GMT

bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:

] 
] What would it take to convince one of the media bias against pro-life folk in
] western North Carolina?  What if you knew that less than a dozen pro-abort
] students from Warren Wilson College were rounded up, put on the sidewalk in
] front of a clinic, and shown in the Asheville Citizen as if a large cluster,
] while out of dozens upon dozens of pro-lifers across the street, only a single
] member of the group was captured by the camera and shown in juxtaposition as if
] a lone demonstrater?  


Hum.....

It is good to hear that the College That GrandFather, and Auntie B.
worked at is still in the forefront of the struggle....

Once upon a time it was becaus they Let NonWhitePersons in....


ciao
drieux

ps: or did I miss your point?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:37:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.041631.14787@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <nyikos.719008403@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>I don't know what Don's point was, but I am going to monitor you
>>VERY closely to see what more you say about Suzanne Forgach threatening to
>>unplug Andy and Ray in order to protect HER child.  You seemed to
>>be quite eager to dump on her a while ago for that.
>
>Beaver's point is fairly obvious.  He wants to compare two
>different statements (Steeves, who said that he wanted to kill his
>ex-wife for her disrespect for him, and a woman who said that she'd
>happily kill someone who threatened her child) and say they're equal,
>all the while assuring us of his neutrality.
>
>Sure.

Farthing's point is also obvious.  He wants to lie about Beaver's
point and to lie about Steeves' statement and even to lie about
Cortese's statement.  He wants to forget the hypocrisy of treating 
one violent statement as literal and another as not, according 
to one's personal agenda.

I am not neutral on this topic.  I found Janis Cortese's statement
and Will Steeves' statements to be exaggerations made for emphasis,
not as literal declarations.  If you are without agenda and want to
provide the benefit of the doubt to both, then:   Mr. Steeves' had 
abortion of his child and mental cruelty of the woman in mind; 
Ms. Cortese had the safety of her child in mind.

I don't see anything in Mr. Steeves' statement to indicate that 
he would literally kill a woman (or even to prove the issue was
simply "respect"), nor do I see anything in Ms. Cortese's statement 
to indicate that she would literally drink the blood of another 
human being with a smile on her face.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4428 talk.abortion:42569 soc.men:17707 soc.women:17698