HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Always Grabbing For More Rights
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:49:28 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
] stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
] 
] >I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
] >the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
] 
] You do realize, of course, that this gives my lover (possibly my
] rapist) control over my body equal to mine?
] 
] Hopefully that phrasing makes clear my objection to this proposal.


So let me see if I have your RadFemThink correct:

women should always have more rights over their body than rapists....


But What about a Man's need to PROVE that 
he really Has a Big Penis!!!!

Without a Child How is a Man going to be
able to PROVE that he has a Big Penis!!!!

That's the Problem with You RadFems!!!!

You never take into account MaleEgoNeeds.

I bet if You had a Penis You'd Understand how important
it is to Prove that it is not only a Penis, But that
it is a BIG PENIS!!!!!


ciao
drieux


ps: by the way beth, how is life up there in the windy
city and all of that????




-- 
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: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:31:18 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <nyikos.714854358@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:

> In <92238.230642ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
> >What is a rare sight is prolifers admonishing
> >the homophobic misogynist prolife loon,
> 
> I haven't seen any so far.  Give some examples.
> 
> > but
> >then you're all one big happy family, no
> >disent, no disagreements, no individuality.
> 
> Do you classify "Jammer Jim" Miller as a pro-lifer?  Earlier today,
> along the THIRD TRIMESTER thread, I sadly concluded that he and
> "Killer Tiller" of Wichita aren't as far apart as I thought.  (They
> are still very far apart, though.  And I sure hope what Jammer Jim
> is morally opposed to is very different than what he's support legal
> restrictions against.)

  Well, I am pretty peculiar.  While I dislike being compared to this Tiller
person, whose views I expect are light-years from mine, the truth of the 
matter is I cannot condone forcing a birth on someone who is dead-set against
it -- *except* when it is so late in the game that the chances of the child-to
be are very good.  That doesn't mean I *condone* an abortion at any time -- just
that I cannot forbid it (or support forbidding it) without coming into con-
flict with some other values I hold dear.

  It is a difficult path to walk, but it is the only one I can.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:28:28 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.130339.2146@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
>From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
>Date: 21 Aug 92 13:03:39 CST

>In article <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>  
>> What do people think of the idea?

>It couldn't work (imo)...  Abortion is quite a personal subject and will
>undoubtedly cause emotions to erupt.  Sure, plenty of times someone
>will bring up an interesting point, but being it is on the topic of
>abortion, someone else will usually have a disagreement which is
>based upon their own very personal beliefs.  You have to put up with
>rage and fury if you want to hear people talk about abortion.

>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca


Uhmm. Here's a (hopefully) dispassionate suggestion about abortion. No 
federal legislation. Leave it to the lower courts to decide each case on its 
own merits, just as we now let courts decide cases of other kinds of 
killing.  We let courts decide whether a specific instance of killing was 
manslaughter, murder, etc.  Since both parties to the abortion debate 
concede that not all abortions are murders but may sometimes be killings, 
why not let the trial courts handle them case by case?  Why should acts of 
abortion be treated any different from other acts of killing? 

  If this suggestion is largely acceptable, then the abortion debate can 
then come to center almost exclusively on the question of whether abortions 
are [at least] prima facia killings. Since not all killings are unjustified 
killings (i.e. murders,etc), it should then be left to juries to decide 
whether, e.g., a woman is having or had an abortion in the third timester 
just to avoid having to postpone a trip to Europe or in the interest of 
her own life or health.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:30:09 GMT

smccabe@longfellow.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>>> Doug Holtsinger

>>>>>    "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>>>>> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>>>>> we want to be precise)..."
>>>>> -- Gloria Feldt,
>>>>>     chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>>>>> "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>>>>>   -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
>>>>>   -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
>>>>>   -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
>>>>    -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
>>>     -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
>>      -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)
>       -- smccabe@mn.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah McCabe)


>>>> What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?

>> Yeah!  What Chris said!

> Ditto

To give credit where it's due, kids, Susan Garvin asked that question
first. I simply restored it after Doug deleted it.  So... what Susan said!

I like Steve's contribution...

>> And why do you love christianity so, Meester Atheist?

And here's a question of my own.  How come you have nothing
to say about the GHWB quote in my .sig, Meester Atheist?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: What organization. . Oops. Now how do I get this off of my shoe?
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:27:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.192451.29311@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep1.171633.11940@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug31.213647.22693@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>> Taking statements out of context makes you look like you didn't understand
>> what I wrote, so excuse me if I talk down to you. . .
>
>You're excused, but try not to let it happen again.

It's entirely up to you, and depends on whether you read what I wrote or
not.

>Actually, I do understand what "limited" means; I just don't understand
>why it's limited to those cases of which *you* approve.

It isn't, right now.

Why should it be absolute?  Especially when it isn't, now.  I noticed that
nobody so far has bothered to comment on my examples. . .

But I'm sure that will change.

>> Here is where we have different beliefs.  It does, but she AGREED
>> to give up a portion of her right to bodily autonomy when she consented
>> to sex.  When she consented to sex, she indicated her willingness to take
>> the risk of a pregnancy.
>
>And when she used the Pill, a condom, and two different spermicides, she
>indicated her unwillingness to conceive.

And when I wear a parachute and a backup chute when I jump out of an
airplane, I indicate my HOPE that I will survive.  But there are no
guarantees, and only an immature idiot would think it unfair if gravity
got 'im any way.

If you aren't willing to suffer the consequences, don't do it.

>> >Why do I smell a hypocrite?
>>
>> Uhhhh. . . because you haven't bathed recently?
>
>:-)
>
>Forgive me for talking down to you, but I was pointing out that it
>seemed hypocritical for you to say that you didn't like insults, and
>yet you referred to pro-choicers as "pro-aborts".

You mean, you aren't pro abortion?  Then what is your stance.

>Since you didn't
>do so in this post, perhaps my pointing this out made you change, and
>you're *not* a hypocrite.  We shall see...

If you consider it an insult, tell me why.  I don't like insults, yes,
but you have to remember, just because YOU think it was an insult,
doesn't MAKE it one.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: OH, DOUG...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:16:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.220411.26057@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

> We now know ABSOLUTELY what you think of abortion in the third
> trimester of pregnancy.  

No, you don't. 

> What the question is still waiting to be
> answered.  Is there ANY elective abortion to which a woman should
> have unfettered access?  

As I had stated before in a previous post, I have not yet taken a
position on specific legislation.  I don't recall hearing about
any net.laws which required any poster to take a position on 
abortion legislation.  

Why does that upset you, Mark ``IRA'' Kaufman?


 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 20:30:20 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


jm>In article <1992Sep1.164017.18711@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
dk>In <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:

dk>>And the only 100% reliable way to ensure this is with the option of abortion.
dk>Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
dk>pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
jm>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
dk>reliable.   

jm>  Ahhhhh, Dan?  Could you maybe elaborate on this?  If abstinence = no inter-
jm>course, and there's no technological or religious miracles involved, how is
jm>this possible?  I mean, if the sperm and the egg don't get together...how
jm>do they get together?
 
I guess if we accept the bible as non-fiction, then even completely avoiding
coitus sex is less that 100% reliable.  However, that is not what I'm referring
to.  When you mentioned "abstinence = no intercourse", I began to think about
my apology for using the term abstinence.  But then much to my pleasure, I
look up abstinence in the dictionary (Actually used xwebster) and there in
the first definition is "voluntary forbearance".  So even with practicing
100% abstinence, a woman can still end up pregnant by someone who ignored
her wishes not to participate in coitus sex.  
 
Dan King

Drop kick me Jesus 
Through the Goal Post of life
End over end
Neither to the left or the right
Right through the Heart 
of them Righteous Uprights
Drop kick me Jesus
Through the Goal Posts of life
  --Bobby Bare
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:38:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.000709.29640@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>
>But in any case, rights have always been specifically held to apply only to
>born people, not to blastocysts, zygotes, embryos or fetuses, and to not
>apply fully to born people who are under the age of majority.

Those rights have not always been held to all "born" people - take
African Americans or Indians, for instance. 

They were "born," as you put it, but they weren't recognized as
persons. 

The PRO-LIFE point is that just as the color distinction was a wrong
and unworkable form of discrimination, neither is the "born" and
"unborn" distinction a workable form of discrimination. Our POINT, is
that discrimination is unworkable in any form. 

Which is why you find it so hard for pro-lifers to accept legalized
abortion: it is discrimination against the unborn, where even "under
the age of majority" people (as you mentioned) do not have to die at
someone's will. 

The day the unborn child's right to live is given higher priority than
their mother's "choice," we will have a fully consistent and workable
civil rights law. 

Which means we need the Human Life Amendment.. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
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.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Chaney attempts parody?!?
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:22:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>Steve Adams wrote a one-line insult: 
>"Liar." 
>
>So I added 
>"Liar liar pants on fire." 
>As a PARODY. 

Don't try parody, Chaney.  Your "serious" postings are so ridiculous and
absurd that it's nearly impossible to tell when you're trying to be even
more so.  And your usual insults are already so childish that "Liar liar 
pants on fire." fits right in.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 15:51:46 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


js>In article <1992Sep3.153405.26663@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
dk>In article <1992Sep1.210729.22561@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

dk>If
dk>the fetus's father has the right to deny the woman an abortion, doesn't
dk>that give him the say in when the woman gives birth?

js>Nope.  Let me ask you to work this out for yourself.  How does a woman
js>control when she is going to give birth?
 
I see the woman having two ways to control when she gives birth.  First
she can take control over activity prior to conception.  These could 
include birth control or abstinence.  None of these methods are 100%
reliable, so in reality the woman has no real control here.  The other
method is after conception.  The woman can control when she gives birth
by using abortion.  You want to remove the woman's control post-conception
and only leave her the pre-conception, less than 100% reliable method, 
to control when she gives birth. You give the man control over the 100%
reliable method.
 
Luckily for the woman of the world, there is not enough misogynists 
that this will ever fly.  

js>John
 
Dan King
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:54:54 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.195638.27981@Cadence.COM> 
>phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>>> right to kill a member of the human species.  

>> Note that Congress has the power to declare war, which give Congress the 
>> power to allow members of the human species to be killed.  

>Governments don't have rights, people do. 

The people have ceded certain rights to the Governemnt via the Constitution.
It's a contract, eh?

 -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
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Selfishness (was  Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be...)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:36:58 GMT

From article by katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago):
> 
> In article <1992Aug27.194956.10215@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
>>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>>more beautiful way to go."
> 
> Sounds pretty selfish to me. If she kept having children knowing that
> childbirth could kill her, then she willingly risked leaving the   
> children she already had without a mother, and someone else would
> be taking on the full responsibility of raising those children.
> Once she's dead, that's it. It's not going to matter to *her*
> what happens to the people left behind. (Does god forgive willful
> selfishness? If so, then she would go to heaven. If there's no suffering
> in heaven, then I suppose she would be spared having to see the suffering
> she caused with her stubbornness. If god does not forgive willfull
> selfishness, then her children--assuming they *do* get to heaven--would
> be without a mother on earth and in heaven. Thanks a lot Ma!)
> 
> Family Values. Right.


All I can say, Vickie, is that this is twisted twisted twisted.

There's nothing in you that even understands family love at all.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Clinton == !Choice
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:13:53 GMT

In article <l9ni49INNorq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
	Eh?
>kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.
	Eh?  Something is very odd here.  I live in the same country as you
do, and yet the State doesn't tell *me* what doctor to use.  And the last time
I looked my goddaughter was attending a private school that she and her
parents ahd chosed jointly.  Could this be some sort of odd local ordinance
in your area?  If so, it's clearly unconstitutional.
	Or are you just deliberately engaging in obfuscation and rhetorical
gesture?
>
>
>Bryon Lape
>-- 

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:02:03 GMT

In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:


>In article <nyikos.714506449@milo.math.scarolina.edu nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>	This item, for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong, appeared
>>in the _Jackson Herald_, September 30, 1989.  It appears between the 
>>two rows of asterisks.

>[Item about a Dr. Chepko who is an abortionist and child pornographer]
> 
>So what is the point in this article?  I'm kind of curious if you see
>some link here or what?  Does it matter that this doctor performed 
>abortions? 

Sure does.  Note the item about his house and clinic being picketed
by pro-lifers.  Can we agree that sometimes the pro-lifers are 
justified in doing this?  [As maybe, just maybe, in Dr. Chepko's case.]

> Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
>discredit the pro-choice movement?

Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
pro-life movement.

>>QUOTE OF THE DAY:

>>   	Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this?
>>				--Stephen A Chaney

>As a pro-choicer I'd have to say no, not at all. 

"This" could refer to lots of things.  I didn't want you to take it
only in Mr. Chaney's original sense of the word, and I'm glad to see
you agree that Dr. Chepko did some bad things, if he was guilty as
charged.  [er, you do agree, don't you???]

>Dan King

Newsgroups: talk.abortion