HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 07:53:06 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep3.210055.14269@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
><24186@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> Thank you for finally showing your true compassionate side. You would
>> will suffering, pain, and torment on others rather than relieving them,
>
>By posting the phone numbers for agencies that will help any woman in the world
>with ANY need she has, so that she will not feel cornered by circumstances into
>aborting her baby?

My gawd, Suzanne!  Why haven't you called these agencies and told them
that their are children starving to death all over the world.  Children
are being born to people who can't afford them, can't feed them, can't
clothe them, can't educate them.  Or do these agencies only help women who
have access to a telephone and make an appointment?  Or perhaps only good
Christian women who need a little help?

Sent any free breastmilk to Samalya lately?  Adopted any crack babies, or
Downs-Syndrome children?  Offered to buy a woman out of an abortion and
adopt her child lately?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 10 Sep 1992 08:45:13 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <43640@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.152608.28360@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>
>>I don't see any necessary difference between the two, except that a
>>"pro-choice" activist might not wish to consider any legislation.
>
>Such an activist would consider using the Constitution as a means
>to stop legislation wouldn't they? And while the Constitution may not 
>technically be a "law", it is effective as one. No?
>
>So, in that sense, "pro-choicers" are not as neutral as at first they 
>undoubtedly appear to be.
>

From my point of view (non-activist, but pro-choice), I think that
most pro-choice people really are neutral, or perhaps even a bit
negative toward yet more legislation.

My support for the right to abortion being written into law stems
from my desire to prevent others from foisting their opinions of
how I should live my life onto me legally. I don't have a problem
with people believing that you have to cut your feet of and jog
a thousand mles in the name of God, just as long as they don't
insist (via legislation) that I join them.

I see pro-choice (or rather Anti-Pro-life) legislation as a final
"Shut up and go home." for pro-lifers.

Pro-lifers do have one positive effect, though...

They serve as a reminder that some people will try to take away
your rights and tell you how to live, if you are lazy enough to
let them.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------

	"If you are so damned pro-life, why don't you
	 go get a life... For yourself..."

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - Not my employer's
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: But. . . I don't want my organs ized!
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:12:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.054347.18076@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I don't know if this clue fairy wand is strong enough....

Surprise!  It wasn't a clue fairy wand. . . 

>Get a clue, John Stevens.  Here's one: abortion is the removal of a
>z/e/f from one's body.

Get a clue yourself.  You have a huge set of blinders on.  Here's
your clue:  Abortion is the killing of a mothers AND fathers
unborn child.

>E. Elizabeth Bartley

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:19:16 GMT

In <yarnwc#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>>I could tell you things about kangaroos that very few people, even
>>Aussies, know about.  Please hold off on your epithets until you get
>>a clearer picture of what I am getting at.

>I don't know about everyone else, but to me this is one of the most
>irritating things about your style of posting: you continually allude
>to facts, data, experiences, and the like, without ever backing them
>up.

This is false.  I do back them up, but people like you can always
nitpick about my backups.

>  I, for one, do not accept your mere word as evidence of anything.
>As far as I'm concerned, you don't know diddly about medical ethics,
>women, abortion, or 'roos and are just spouting off to look good.
		      ^^^^	
>Put up or shut up.

Gladly.  

Until recently the survival rate of orphaned joeys was abysmal because
people were unaware that, until they are big enough to leave the pouch,
they will not defecate unless licked repeatedly.  This is, if you will,
nature's way of keeping the pouch clean.  The mother 'roo takes the
joey out of the pouch periodically and licks it until it defecates.

Now there is a group, including a young woman whom I was privileged
to meet, whose hobby is taking care of orphaned joeys.  They carry them
around in canvas and leather pouches, take them out periodically, and
rub them with wet washcloths that simulate being licked by their 
mother.  The survival rate is now excellent.

I could tell you lots more, but I only have so much time on my hands.

It's easy to say, "put up or shut up", not so easy to put up.  

And it isn't easy to put up with born skeptics either.

>Ray Fischer

Peter Nyikos


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35272 alt.abortion.inequity:3565 soc.women:16212 soc.men:16021 alt.flame:12568
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:14:01 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.rissa
Organization: The Piranha Club

Unfortunately my KILL file expired, so I read Keegan's article.
Before I fix my KILL file, I'll answer his question.

In article <1992Sep5.152704.5421@crd.ge.com> 
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
# Adrienne demands the no choice-for-men but she is
# not willing to give the respect she demands.  She
# just knows that her moral values are so superior
# that it is perfectly fine to enforce them on other
# people.

>does salit know that you are reading other women's
>minds again?

Keegan dear, there no need to read Adrienne's mind, her
articles are clear enough.  Take this one for example:

#################################################################

From: regard@hpsdde.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Parents Rights
Date: 23 Jun 89 00:06:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: hp-sdd.2178
Posted: Thu Jun 22 20:06:08 1989
Reply-To: regard@hpsdde.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division

=======
We went round and round this one before, about two years ago.  Too bad we
didn't keep the files and simply repeat them -- but then, that wouldn't be
much fun.

The problems with parental responsibilities is that they link from the 
point of parenting -- begins with conception and is confirmed by birth.
Any guy who figures "I'm on the pill" absolves him from responsiblity
is an idiot.  Which is not to say that I haven't met a lot of idiots in my
time, but I usually don't invite them home.

The woman has the recourse of abortion, but she does not _create_ any
responsibility for a man if she chooses to reject that option.  He created
his responsibility in bed with her, just as she created her responsibility
at that time. That's a result of the fundamental imbalance in natures method
of creating more humans and our system of laws surrounding that method.

It's all very well and good to say that women who want support should get it
in writing, but frankly, they don't have to.  Its already a part of our law.
It's redundant to get it in writing.  Seems to me if a fellow doeesn't want
to get slapped with child support, he should insure he doesn't create any
children.  Then he's got no problem, right?

But I mean that HE should insure.  Not that he should "figure" that it's
"taken care of."  If the fellow's pocketbook is at risk, let him guard
his pocketbook.  Don't give it into the hands of a stranger, then expect
the stranger to give it back. . .

Adrienne

#################################################################

>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Go back to school -- learn to read -- do something -- but don't bother
responding to postings that are obviously over your head." -- Diane Holt
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:35:39 GMT

[talk.religion.misc deleted from newsgroups]

In article <1992Sep6.231834.17478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
#In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
## ... But you see, I feel discriminated against
## by not having the possibility of being pregnant.
## 
## 	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
## 				--Pro-abortion slogan
## 	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
## 				--Peter Nyikos
#
#I think I'm seeing a case of uterus envy that defies belief.  Someone
#pour cold water on me.

Okay.  Here.

You mean, you *don't* feel discriminated against because you
can't get pregnant?   Gosh, I look at pregnant women and 
think to myself, "I sure wish I could be nauseated and
have backaches and look forward to going through labor
by and by."  I thought everyone did.

Susan
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: What is this, a war movie? (Was: Fundie questions...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: abortion
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 00:33:42 GMT

[Note:  Deletions not marked]

In article <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Please! "Fetus, which is just tissues"?  Would you call a mammal, a
>reptile, a fish, or even a worm "just tissues"?

Actually, Peter, you *can* be described as a comlex series of mathmatical
equations.  So?

>On the contrary, public opinion polls which really go into depth regularly
>come up with at least 20% Yes responses to BOTH:
>
>"Do you agree that abortion is murder?"
>
>"Do you agree that every woman should be given the right to choose to
>have an abortion?"

Gee, "Dr" Nykios, I don't suppose you'd be willing to give some information
so that we can check out these "public opinion polls" ourselves, would you?

>All the salient issues which have been brought up on this net so far, you
>mean. I have not yet begun to fight.

No, but you've certainly learned to run away...

>As the old joke has it, "What do you mean we, paleface?"  The pro-choicers
>have claimed a big piece of turf which they generally label "personhood"
>and they get to make up the rules as they go along as to what 
>"personhood" encompasses.  The more they alter the rules, the more
>they remove the concept from the realm of science and into the realm
>of politics.

Are you now claiming to be pro-choice, "Dr. Golden 5-week limit"?

>I claim just the opposite is true, and you will be hearing a lot
>from me now that a pro-choicer, namely you, has finally uttered the
>words "philosophical system" in an approving way within my earshot.

Gee, Peter, aren't you already responsible for 92% of the articles posted to
talk.abortion over the last two weeks?  Seems like we're already "hearing a
lot" from you.  And it's all hot air.

>Count me out.  My present pro-life stance is based on an agnostic
>world-view, and I can run circles around most people when it comes to 
>science and philosophy.

What is it with you folks?  Chaney thinks he's an alien, and you think you're
a marathon runner...

>Yes. Pro-choicers have been largely successful in removing the rights
>of unborn people based on a set of beliefs which do not square with
>reality.

Let me guess:  You're now going to say that prior to RvW, the "WarmCuteFuzzy
UnbornBaby" was legally considered a person...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 15 Sep 1992 11:15:36 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: abortion

In article <1992Sep15.153328.661@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>Having said all that, I try to avoid saying that any issue as complex and
>emotional as abortion boils down to "simply" anything. But if there is *a*
>fundamental issue, it must involve the woman, not just the womb.
>-Kristy

What a wonderful post, Kristy!  I didn't include it *all*, as some silly
gits occasionally do, but here's the summary which bears repetition.  (Un-
fortunately.  Ain't is amazing how often this woman is overlooked?)

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 19:01:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>In article <vzlnjl-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Making abortion illegal would be expensive, both for enforcement and
>>in terms of lost lives and potential, and the added expense of caring

>You have this turned around.  Making abortion illegal would reduce the
>number of lost lives and potential.

You haven't supported your assertion to the contrary with any facts.

And yes, I know that abortion generally kills a e/f.  But the assumption
that this is a _net_ minus one life/potential has not been established.
It could well be that forcing a teenager to give birth will leave her
on welfare and her child in prison, while allowing her to postpone
motherhood will mean 2.4 healthy, productive children and a supportive
husband.

>And your perception that the pro-lifers want women to be made to suffer
>is wrong.  But it is a misperception that many people seem to have today.

How 'bout that.  I wonder why so many people would have that perception.

>When faced with a promise, vow, oath, commitment, what have you that is
>no longer convient to keep, many people scream about how they are being
>made to suffer by cruel, unfair, cold hearted fanatics.

What "promise, vow, oath, commitment"?  Sex?!?  Gee, I didn't realize
that sex equaled commitment.  I guess I'd better worry about paying
puppy support should Rover get overly close to on of the neighborhood
bitches.  He sure can't pay support (no pockets for his wallet).

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:57:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.044238.13097@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep7.200048.10650@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU w
> >That the priority system should be structured this
> >way (contract for those who expect sperm "rights"...) one can argue that since
> >the sperm provider only engages in a one "shot" act (so to speak) while
> >the egg provider also continues to provide other things, that the
> >majority provider (the woman) have overriding rights of determination.
>
> Sigh. . . Yet another person who thinks that 9 months of pregnancy is
> a much greater burden than the following 18 (minimum) years.

Yet another person who forgets that the "greater burden" is shared equally,
while the 9 months is not, which makes the woman the majority provider.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Nope, it looks like Nykios is going to be enrolling at PSU...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 02:54:25 GMT

In article <nyikos.716566976@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Son of a gun! Adrienne CAN be sensible if she wants to be. [I've known this

This from a thing that has been crawling the net for a month or so?  Here's a
*FREE* clue.  It's not that Adrienne "CAN be" sensible.  Adrienne *IS*
sensible.

>for some time, but this is the first real opportunity to say it on the net.]
>
>One factor she fails to mention.  These problems are greatly exacerbated
>by the fact that in every year since Roe v. Wade the USA "fertility level"
>has been WELL below ZPG, making our population more and more top-heavy as
>years go by.  

And your solution?  Force a large "population base" so that you don't lose
your standard of living when you get old.  You're a sorry excuse for a human,
Nykios.

>
>I wonder if Adrienne would care to comment on what the effect on
>the "population pyramid" would be if abortion were, say, only permitted
>(1) in the "hard cases" of threat to the life of the mother, rape, and
>incest and (2) under my more generous conditions.

Oh, yes.  Your "more generous conditions".  Five weeks worth of wonderful,
golden chances to have a "choice".  This seems especially sick considering
that most women don't even know that they're pregnant until after your "more
generous" time limit has expired.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject:  False, false, wrong, wrong, wrong.  (Was: TPPILH)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my delitions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 22:26:38 GMT

In article <Bu4FLt.EB5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>Well, if you are willing to take a pound of flesh, you may have a point.
>In real life, however, getting money does require labor from most people.  
>I don't know, my inheritances don't quite come in as fast and in as 
>"great" an amount as my salary.  

Maybe you should talk to Chaney about that...

>Moreover, the judge bases the support amount on the maximal return of 
>your LABOR (ie. imputed salary), not on your subsequent inheritances or 
>gifts.  It cannot be assumed that any given person has enough inheritance 
>to cover that amount, hence the use of that person's body, time, and labor 
>is required.  If breaking rocks makes you the maximum money, then you gotta 
>break rocks.

Wrong.  False.  Nope.  If you've got a PHD in CompSci, and currently make
$100,000/year, and you have to pay child support, you can always go work at
McDonald's for minimum wage, and the judge will _have_ to reduce/eliminate
your support payments.  A judge _cannot_ force you to work at a specific job.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why the 5 week sentience point?
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:12:46 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.716337853@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep12.001151.13966@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>Certainly they [reflexes] are not handled by the parts of the brain considered
>>the seats of sentient/sapient thought.

>Descartes thought the pineal gland was the seat of the "somebody home".
>Subsequent philosophers generally have been of the opinion
> that it was a mistake to 
>locate that "somebody" in too small a place.  I wonder how
>many so-called neuroscientists are really aware of what these
>old debates were all about.  

Nyikos, you ignorant slut.  :-)  Are you honestly trying to tell us that
the place where reflexes get routed could be the seat of sentience?  You
are too funny.  Evolution is a lie, too, I suppose.

It's interesting as well to see you lump philosophers (who conjured theories
of brain and mind out of pure supposition) and neuroscientists (who at least
base their theories on some physical evidence) together the way you do.  It
helps me to understand your contempt for evidence.


--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion