HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 07:12:18 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    an anti-choice post


In article <1992Nov2.182216.11675@midway.uchicago.edu> e elizabeth bartley says
>In article <92303.180905ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article<1992Oct25.013118.24469@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>e elizabeth bartley says
>
>>>Keegan's after me even worse than the last time I looked.
>
>>Really Ms. Bartley?  How would you know?
>>If you had read this thread you would have discovered
>>that the post in question referred to Darcy and had
>>nothing to do with you.  It was Rescorla who mentioned
>>your name.
>
><yawn>

You really should get more sleep it improves awareness.

>I've seen enough of Keegan's stuff quoted by Doug Holtsinger

Holtsinger?  The self-appointed king of the Creative Edit?
Are you honestly telling me you would base an objective
opinion on that man's posts?  Would anyone be wise to judge
Susan Garvin's behaviour on one of that man's posts?

>when I go "wait a minute, I don't remember reading that article" and
>use the cap N or the cap P command to see the article even though it's
>been "read" to know Keegan's after me worse than he used to be.

As I said I don't think you can base an objective
opinion on what is found in edited posts.

>>I think your assessment of Mr. Keegan's position is about
>>as valid as your comments above.
>
>>>Ah, KILLfiles do *wonders* for helping your blood pressure stay level.
>
>>They also make you look like a fool when you comment
>>on a post you haven't read.
>
>I wasn't commenting on a single post; I was commenting on Keegan's
>general behavior -- and I've inadvertantly seen enough to that to
>comment on it.

And you inadvertantly replied to a post that
Keegan never mentioned you.  I wonder how many
other times you thought Keegan was referring to
you personally because some other poster invoked
your name along with his?

>>>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                   - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>
>>Little wonder you are anti-Roe. It doesn't mandate jail
>>terms for women.
>
>Trying to get my blood pressure to rise since Keegan can't manage it,
>dear?

Hardly "dear".  Are you suggesting people should censor their
posts by keeping someone's blood pressure in mind?

>As I've said before, I rather like Roe's position; it forbids a lot of
>stuff I disapprove of and doesn't forbid anything I want.

Well it doesn't mandate jail terms for one and it
permits many of the women who would be disallowed
abortions under your desired legislation.

btw does your fetal right protectionism include
forcing women to abstain from activities that may
cause harm to the fetus?



Linda
--
Polls show that the majority of Canadians believe that
abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor
and are, therefore, pro-choice.
  Abortion In Law and History: The Pro-choice Perspective, 1990
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The life expectancy of mothers
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:45:43 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

> In a recent article someone brought up the fact that they like to
> see people live to a ripe old age of 80.I agreed with them and stated
> I hoped I lived that long as it is.

Me too.  What would make me especially happy is to live in a retirement
community on the moon (less gravity weighing on my old bones) and to
spend my last moments surrounded by my children and college graduate
grandchildren. :-)

> I have gotten many replies stating that a child birth and the 9 months
> of strain on the body while carring a z/e/f (sounds dumb I thought she
> was carring a baby) shortens her life span.

It's certainly possible.

> I was wondering how come females have a longer lifespan than males.
> This point seems irrelevant.I do realize that a pregnancy does decrease
> the life span but it seems as though nature has compensated and given
> women a longer lifespan.

This might explain it, Jeff.  Women are in the Reproductive Mode only 2-3
days out of every 28-29 days.  Men are in the Reproductive Mode ALL THE
TIME.  Hence, men are under the influnence of Raging Hormones all the time
and are subject to higher blood pressure, higher metabolic rates, etc.

Hope this helps. :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Today's Quiz
Date: 13 Nov 1992 18:24:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   The answer is obvious.  The winner is Nyikos.  He uses 'Peter'
instead of 'Pete.'  Whereas Holtsinger uses 'Doug' instead of the
more dignified 'Douglas.'
   And you thought there was no meaningful difference between the
two!
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:27:10 GMT

poor DODie, while trying to flame me, he makes my point
when he writes:

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->>>Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
->>>>> Of course, since you and the other Extremists consider us neutrals
->>>>> disqualified from the label "pro-choice",

->>>> Please post where I have ever disqualified anyone Mr. Darcy
->>>> from assuming any label they chose.

->>> You told Ms. Bartley that her views were in "conflict" with all pro-choice
->>> organizations of which you were aware, did you not? 

->> ms. birmingham asked you to support your allegation
->> that she had ever disqualified anyone from assuming any
->> label they chose, kevin. 

i'll guess that DODie left this part in because he 
think's it's entertaining to see text repeated when 
that text shows how kebbie fails to support yet another 
false statement.

->Here's one example of the "other Extremists" that Mr. Darcy was
->talking about, who disqualifies others from using the label "pro-choice". 

->     "that is why i thought it important to point out
->      that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
->      legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
->      third trimester."
->           <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

(pssst dodie -- the quote you used above was written to
siren, not ms. bartley, heh)

great quote DODie! where does it disqualify anyone from
using any label they want to use? it looks to me like
the quote refers to positions, not labels.

you might be interested in another quote where we do
discuss labels though (and this one was written to ms.
bartley):

   "i don't see how you could gracefully bail out now.
   so, if you wish to call yourself pro-choice while
   supporting legislation to restrict abortion, do so.
   i think you should tell every person you tell you're
   pro-choice that you support legislation to restrict
   abortion."
      <1992May28.004322.12977@crd.ge.com>

heck dodie, if you're so interested in labels for ms.
bartley, why don't you take her at her word?

   "My position wrt abortion is in between the 'pure'
   pro-life position and the 'pure' pro-choice position
   and as such shares many problems with both of those
   positions."
      <1992Jun2.170437.13057@midway.uchicago.edu>

given ms. bartley's statement and her support for
anti-choice legislation as well as prison terms for the
women who have abortions, i think ms. bartley's stance
is quite clear. don't you?

you go right ahead though and keep discussing her
position if you want. i know she asked you not to do so
but, heck, you're helping her out, right? and i can see
why you ignore her judgement.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:12:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.052628.136644@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <Bx3JFo.948@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:
>>Hmmmm, so what you're saying is
>>Conception           Pregnancy           Birth
>>----------           ---------           -----
>>Man-------|                             |-------
>>Woman-------------------------------------------
>>
>>If a man helped make the baby, why does he suddenly have no say over it at
>>all, and then suddenly get back responisibility after 9 months?
>
>Well, as the name implies, child-support refers to support for the child,
>so it clearly can't begin before the child is born.

This statement is incorrect. In Michigan, at least:

	MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents

		Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock
		are liable for the necessary support and education of the
		child. They are also liable for the child's funeral 
		expenses. The FATHER is liable to pay such expenses in
		connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its discretion
		may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).

Keep your day job, Larry. A lawyer, you ain't.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: DOD and RvW yet again
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:07:28 GMT

---
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
|ray@netcom.com  (Ray Fischer) writes: >
|dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu  (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >> 
|>>Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
|>>provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
|>>on-demand?
|>Because it quite clearly isn't.
|That isn't so obvious, given the current classification of
|mental disorders.  Are you familiar with the DSM-III-R?

|>Are you proposing that women should be denied abortions regardless 
|>of medical necessity?  
|Is the possibility of "psychological harm" included under the
|rubric of "medical necessity"?  

How nice to see a professional counsellor belittling
"psychological harm" by linking it with the knee-jerk-provoker
phrase "on demand".  Perhaps it's just that, as a professional,
Overpeck thinks women can convince counsellors to diagnose
"psychological harm" "on demand".

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Sorry, word Generate Broken
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:54:11 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

] In article <BxJ017.FMy.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] >In article <nyikos.721424594@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] >[text deleted, before and after]
] >#Let me jump in here before you set the sarcasm to "off":
] >#
] >#Adrienne: "Peter, get your attributions right.  I did not say the above.
] >#Will did."
] >#
] >##/* set sarcasm off */
] >
] >Is there a word for someone this stupid?  
] 
] I've heard rumors that druiex is going to release it very soon...


I was within about 4000 charcters when the Cray
went Tits to the wind, Memory Address error,
or some such trivia....

Why I'd stopped all the useless processes save
init, swapper, the kernel itself and a couple of
minor things needed....

Ok, ok, so I wanted to borrow a little bit of the
unused portion of the process table... 

details, details, details...

But I guess 2 gigabytes just ain't what it use to be.


ciao
drieux

ps: Probably would have made B news sites all over
the world GAG anyway.... 

wimpy software woofs at anything over 909 characters....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47503 alt.abortion.inequity:4997 soc.men:18999 alt.child-support:3633
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:36:17 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Nov7.140743.24042@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com writes:
|(raising my hand) Uhm, I don't get it either.  Aren't they
|both covered under freedom of speech?
|confused in the back row,
|Rich Soyack

I suggest you contact your company's human resources people &
ask them for some information about sexual harassment in the
workplace.

It really is pathetic that so few people understand it, even
after all the publicity the issue got last year.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"A moment's thought would have shown him, but a moment is a long 
time and thought is a painful process." -- A E Housman
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:47:37 GMT

In <1992Nov5.133158.8441@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>>The answer in my opinion(you may have others) is Jesus for he can
>>>help with the bad times and give us more of the good times.
>> 
>>   the answer may very well be jesus. but lets define the question
>>   before we propose the answer. q: who is causing the problems, and
>>   how? a: christians. by using what they think is god's word. by doing
>>   what they think jesus wants them to do. by prohibiting freedom.
>> 
>>   just an example of "jesus" being part of the problem. not the man,
>>   but those who misapply his meanings.
>> 
>Mark,
>If you agree what is with the flames?  God owns the world and is the CREATOR 
>or all life.  Don't you think he had a reason for a baby.  We only go through
>the process, but God gives the life.  The world needs Jesus.  That is a given. 
>It is a seperate subject, true, but the world needs Jesus.  We, his
>ambassadors, should stand up for him.  I don't know about you but I don't want
>Him ashamed of me for not doing something.  Remember in Rev. when he flamed the
>church for allowing evil to come in among them.  Why don't we learn a lesson. 
>If our 'freedom' as we define it goes against God's creative power, We DO have
>a problem.  Don't you agree?

of course we have a problem with playing god. 
everyone does. but those who pull lines from the bible, totally out
of context, seem to be the biggest offenders to me.

maybe destroying a fetus is taking god out of the loop. but is it really?
my all-powerful god seems to allow abortions to be performed. 
if he did not allow it, it would not happen. right?
or maybe satan has jurisdiction in areas of a family planning center.

and using god's creation as if it were our own?
yes, that sounds bad. and it is. so i think you should sell all of
your earthly possessions and give the cash to the church.
especially real estate property. how dare we buy and sell the land
as if it were our own. his land.

it all comes down to this. the unborn are not alive.
should it be up to god entirely? sure. but believe me, it ultimately
is his decision. entirely.

this is a religious issue. freedom of religion, therefore
freedom of choice on this issue.

mark.

"my god could beat up your god."
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Quote from John Calvin (1509-1564)
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:45:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already
a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the
life which it has not yet begun to enjoy.  If it seems more
horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because
a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely
to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before
it has come to light."


 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keegan hates and despises women who support abortion restrictions
Followup-To: alt.fascist.control.freaks
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:10:43 GMT

In article <a7h11h#@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

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

>> A moderated talk.abortion newsgroup, independent from this newsgroup, 
>> would help to deal with some of these questions.  Care to volunteer 
>> as a moderator?  

> ms. bartley volunteered the last
> time you asked this question. i don't believe i ever
> saw a reply from you on her kind offer.

Since you oppose the creation of a moderated abortion newsgroup,
which would not allow you to harass Ms. Bartley or any other
woman, what do you care?  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:01:15 GMT

In article <1dm3mmINNju7@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxCntB.5JD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1defqoINN4ue@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>But as a *general* rule, they do not do this.  Because as a *general* rule,
>>>there is no presupposition within the relationship that the man should for
>>>some reason shoulder these costs.
>>The "GENERAL RULE" is not relevant, though.  The question is whether
>>an unmarried man is liable or not, for expenses before birth and/or
>>related to the woman herself.

>>If the police only check the parking meters once a day,
>>you won't be excused by telling a judge that the GENERAL RULE
>>is that you can park there free.  You are liable.
>
>Nah.  You are talking about exploiting the practical application of a law,
>rather than talking about the law.  I'm talking about the law.  And the
>GENERAL rule I refer to above is me talking about the law, not some ex-
>ploitation of the realities of police enforcement.

What you were talking about sounded like the exploitation of
the realities of judicial enforcement.  If I may recall, you said:

>>>Judges get that kind of latitude.  It's part of being a judge.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:43:46 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1d8s48INNobg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Why need there be some 'magical transformation' in the fetus?  WHAT ABOUT
>THE WOMAN?!?!?  The whole basic premis of abortions rights is that a WOMAN
>has a right to have an abortion BECAUSE of her ownership of her body.  And
>you blithely ignore the woman after birth and go examining the baby for
>some magical transformation.

>TAKE A LOOK AT THE WOMAN.  As far as she is concerned some pretty goddamned
>magical thing transformed her at birth.

>I'll never understand how males on this planet can function to adulthood
>with all the women in their lives somehow invisible to them.

>Adrienne Regard

Don't lose hope, Adrienne, some of us consider our wives, or SOs, to
be pretty magical beings. Some, alas, consider their wives to be
their proudest possession (and can't seem to grasp the insult in it).

However, if some of the young puppies in this group manage to age and
mature, there is still some hope. :-)

REB
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46984 alt.abortion.inequity:4921 soc.men:18810 alt.child-support:3607
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:48:09 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

> 
> |The point which makes pin-ups a negative is their degradation of
> |the female. A magazine which outrightly describes demeaning of a
> |gender is guilty of the self-same negativity.
> 
> I think you misread me-- I don't disagree that a pin-up calendar
> is probably inappropriate to the workplace.  I disagree that the
> mug he described was "sexual harassment".  Steeves seemed to me
> to utterly misunderstand sexual harassment in the workplace, to
> the point of trivializing it.
> 

I see what you're saying. I think Mr. Steeves *may* have, but then
we have to remember that this type of discussion lends itself to
incomplete thoughts, and what's in the mind of the writer may be
left out --which places the readers in the precarious position of
having to guess at the real meaning. (-:

The unsaid element here is whether or not the magazines (mugs) 
were placed with the knowledge that they offended. If a complaint
was made --and none was mentioned-- and the magazines weren't
removed, it could be construed as harassment; but it strikes me
as a weaker case than a posted pin-up. This due to access. A
pin-up doesn't need to be read to offend, a glance will do it.
However, on the whole, a magazine with negative content must be
read to offend, which makes the offended a party to the problem.

I've been annoyed by magazines I've scanned in professional offices,
but it never occurred to me that it was harassment. Instead, I just
figured that the office people were attempting to cater to the di-
verse tastes of their clientelle.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:58:17 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov5.211833.2926@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com
(Ray Fischer):

> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>>You're a science fundie then - why do you believe the brain to be related to
>>sentience/consciousness/awareness/intelligence?
> 
> Strong correlation between brain function and intelligence.  A damaged
> brain with few exceptions leads to an impaired/altered intellect.
> 

Ack.  <cough>  Um, if we could define "brain function" and "intelligence"
we could begin to dissect the first statement, which is at present
hopelessly vague.  The second is a very clearly and confidently stated
falsehood.  In fact, the brain (especially the young brain) can withstand
tremendous amounts of "damage" before any function is detectably lost,
and even then can recover or compensate in astonishing ways.  Even
the devastation of Alzheimer's leads only to "impaired intellect" at
advanced stages.  The damage has been ongoing for years at that point.

As you know, many brain-damaged patients are left incapacitated in
various ways but with the intellect intact.  Consider the stroke
victim who can think but cannot speak.  Remember "Awakenings"?
 
>>  All the outward signs are
>>that 49% of the population think with the tip of their penis.
> 
> Sexist bigotry.
> 

Yeah.  But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
fluffy stuff.

> -- 
> Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
> ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion