HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 1993 10:14:18 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

Another poster joins the thread...

3 >s - Adrienne Regard.
2 >s - myself, earlier this week.
1 >  - Amy Lenox.

>>...To me, it's possibly a human life.
>>From the evidence so far, to me, it's _probably_ a human life.  To be more
>>accurate, it's probably a human life entitled to protection under the law.
>
>Ummm, how do you argue the "entitled to protection under the law" in
>the US?  I don't think you can.  So far, it is just your opinion.

Fair enough.

>Not only that, once you establish some sort of rights or state interest,
>then one argues conflicting rights - something you fail to address.

Now we're starting to move from emphasis on civil rights/liberties to a
more legal-wise discussion.  Unfortunately, I'm not extremely familiar with
legal terms or processes, in that I am not a law major.

I was up until now under the impression that any human life _was_ a state
interest, from what I know of it.  If you could specify exactly what a
state interest entails, I would be happy to try to address it.

>>>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
>>>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.  
>>>
>>>The answer, Paul, is "no".
>
>>I hope this is not intended as a threat.
>
>Could you explain why you might think of this as a threat?  

The statement is similar to one used by some women as a firm indication of
their position on the issue.  Over time, it often become a statement of
belligerence and defiance, and has the effect of raising emotions over the
boiling point.

I hope my reply didn't aggravate the condition, and I don't want to accuse
Adrienne of anything.  I won't bring this part of my post up again unless
asked.

>Amy Lenox
>standard disclaimer

(Hey, that's the same sig muriel uses...)

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57990 talk.politics.misc:69819 talk.religion.misc:27578 misc.legal:23318
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:10:08 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan23.231931.29900@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> ] In article <14017@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) says:
# ] #So, when are we going to see the dramatic decline in physical
# ] #abuse and neglect of children, now that abortion is legal?
# 
# When we Start seeing folks having children
# because it is their Choice, and NOT out
# of Fear of their Churches....

Do you know ANYONE in that category?  I don't.  I doubt that you do
either.

# When We start seeing folks treating children
# as real people, and not as Toys that are cute
# and cuddly, and sort of a Zowie Neato concept
# that like everyone is having one....

You mean, the way that a lot of unwed teenaged mothers see children?
Isn't it amazing how the same crowd that doesn't see a nine month
fetus as human, thinks it's suddenly "real people" after the 
umbilical chord is cut?

# drieux
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:56:36 GMT

forgach@noao.edu  writes:

> From article by trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre):
> > 
> > Actually, you won't find Christ condemning either homosexuality
> >      or abortion (even though this act was somewhat prevalent at
> >      the time-- funny, isn't it?).  Most of the condemnation 
> >      comes from the Apostles, esp. Paul (who, it has been 
> >      hypothesized, may have been gay himself.)  
> 
> This is absurd.  Since Paul freely admitted to having been a mass
> murderer before his conversion, why on earth would he have concealed
> something like his past sex-life?

Maybe he didn't conceal it.  Maybe he just didn't write about
     it (do you think, if Jimmy Swaggart were never caught,
     that he would have just come out and say that he was playing
     with some girls outside of his marriage.  He wouldn't be
     concealing the fact; he just wouldn't be mentioning it.)

> SEF

SRM
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:59:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.015926.4173@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.042845.19695@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>In yet another example of hypocrisy, Kevin "keep government out of women's
>bodies" Darcy proposes laws which would require every man, woman, doctor,
>and hospital to report any sexual intercourse which resulted in pregnancy.

Births are already recorded, as are abortions, and many miscarriages. How
much "reporting" do you think the proposal would mandate that couldn't be
obtained from medical records right now?

>He then goes on to propose that mandatory paternity tests be performed on
>every live birth.

How does this affect a woman's body?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- keeping my keyboard crossed)
Subject: What They Said! -- a Post for Peter
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:52:10 GMT

"I believe in a woman's freedom of choice, and a woman's choice is
 when she spreads her legs."

 -- an O.R. member, outside Hillcrest Clinic in S.E. DC, 1/23/93

I have heard more or less these exact words before, but yesterday was the
first time I was lucky enough to get it on tape.  When I asked him to
repeat it, and he saw me recording him, he refused to do it.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: international opinions on abortion
From: mscs240@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:02:19 -0600
Organization: Mankato State University

My name is Mike. I am a student at Mankato State University.  I am interested
in the opinions of people that do not live in the United States on abortion. 
It seems to raise much controversy in the U.S. but I do not here much on
abotion in other countries. Please enlighten me! My userid is mscs240.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58244 can.politics:11738
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Question for Paul Brinkley.
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:01:43 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <lme140INNb0t@sahara.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
(Paul Brinkley) writes to Adrienne:

>Are you saying that I _am_ treating anyone's rights as unimportant?  Namely
>women's?  I thought I had made the opposite clear.  If not, I shall try
>again.  Do you understand that I am forced to make what appears to me to
>be a choice between two fundamental rights?  If you were forced to choose
>between two fundamental rights, what would you do?

I would examine the situation and think about which rights should take
precedence.  In the case of abortion, I see two entities: a woman and
a /z/e/f/ which is inside her body.  Both are alive.  The second
entity will only remain alive as long as it can use the bodily
resources of the woman.  In general I believe that people are entitled
to decide whether their bodies will be used to support another life.
This is why I believe that blood, tissue, and organ donations should
be voluntary.  I believe that even a criminal whose crime injured
someone should not be compelled to donate bodily resources to save
that person's life.  Similarly, I don't believe that a father should
be compelled to donate tissue, blood, or organs to save the life of
his child.  Why is it you want to compel non-criminal women to donate
their bodily resources to support /z/e/f/s they do not wish to
support?
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mario Cuomo on the "wrongness" of abortion
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:17:58 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan24.024437.1316@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>People like Teddi, who bashed religion with their little .sig's
>and then claim to be religiously tolerant, and who would snap like
>some beast if someone printed a "Do the Jewish Rag" like the hypocrite
>Teddi is, are the ones who really fuck up America. 

Oh, PUH-LEEZ, are you still on about that?  What he's frothing about,
Ladies and Gentlemen, is that I posted some lyrics from Tom Lehrer's
_Vatican Rag_ (as in Ragtime, get it?  Not like "rag on" someone).  
Lehrer, who is Catholic, wrote a fun, loving spoof of
the changes wrought by Vatican II and their attempt to "pep up" the
Church.  This song is considered so benign (and witty, I might add) by
so many honest-to-Gosh Catholics that it is commonly sung at
Catholic Retreats.

So, Chaney, get that HUGE arachnid yanked out of your posterior already.
Sheesh!

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Re:Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: NRL 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:40:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.170801.26322@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A
Lyman) writes:
>lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>> [...] For me, this whole abortion debate is interesting and thought
>> provoking, but I care mainly about one thing, stopping abortion.  If
>> you think the success of the pro-abortion side in this country is due
>> to reasoned debate and clearly thought through conclusions, you are
>> quite mistaken.  Unborn children continue to be killed, not because of
>> the reasonableness of abortion, but because of the superior public
>> relations skills of its proponents.
>
>I remember that during the 80's, pro-lifers made gains because of their
>ability to "get out the vote."  Now that the tide has turned the other
>way, it's because of "superior public relations skills"???

Yes.

>
>[--semantic strawman deleted--]


Gee - your timidiy makes me think you meant scarecrow not "strawman":-)

>Chris Lyman  ...

  
But my words were directed toward pro-lifers who unwittingly spread the lie.

- Paul

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Down the Margolis memory hole (Was:...True Pro-lifer)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:55:16 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C1859B.Js@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>See above, where Simmonds stated:
>>   Larry's documentation stated that 50% of abortion occur after 8 weeks
>>   LMP.  I have documented that this is considered the fetal stage.
>>   Therefore, Larry is full of it.
>
>I hereby wholly admit to making this erroneous statement.  It was a function
>of negligence (not paying attention), not ignorance.  My sincerest apologies
>for the ensuing mayhem.

Accepted.  Thank you.  It's a refreshing change (in this arena) to see people
own up to their errors.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 13:43:23 GMT


In article <vhl3s2a@rpi.edu>, 
cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) said:

> And I've often wondered -
>
> If God actually did consider one thing to be THE MAJOR SIN, do you
> suppose it would be a sin of hate, or a sin of love?

Hmmm.  I've always had the impression that God considered insufficient
loyalty to God to be THE MAJOR SIN.  After all, look at how much of the
Ten Commandments he dedicated to that topic...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:58:36 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>the opportunity to set one's house in order.

After all, a fetus has so many things to get settled before it dies.  (?)

>We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
>AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
>confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
>ignore ours at our own peril.

That may be the *smartest* thing I've ever heard her say (seen her write)...
(which doesn't say much)

>S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Something for Everyone, Something for No One: Report from Washington
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:57:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.141440.12099@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- pro-whatever) writes:

[Typical OpRisk-Lives stories deleted]

>I would very much like to share my tape with people on t.a, on both sides
>of this debate.  Email me if you're interested.  I am especially interested
>in Suzanne Forgach and Peter Nyikos seeing it, and commenting on the
>Christian nature of the "witnesses."

I vote for transcribing the tape and posting it here. If it's too big
for that, at least mail me a copy after you get it on disk.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Gee, I Wonder Where Suzanne Is?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:14:51 GMT

In <1993Jan20.195032.8073@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1993Jan14.155308.8679@advtech.uswest.com>, by  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>:
>> After Suzanne's latest amazing hate spew against Humphrey's wife, you'll
>> notice the screeching wretch has disappeared again.  She'll return with a
>> red face, a nominal non-reply (or, "lie") about the furor she's caused,
>> then she'll quickly pretend that nothing happened and start anew.

>I never go away, you jerk.   I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you
>nuts.  And I'm glad.					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^

Why should he be driven to a place where he's already been for a long 
time? :-)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Waiting for Susan B. Anthony
Organization: NRL 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:24:45 GMT

 Recently a poster, Mr. The_Doge claimed:

In article <1993Jan26.034450.28010@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazi@nyx.cs.du.edu
(The_Doge) writes:
>In article <C1Fon5.8rA@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>[...]
>
>>Its ironic that the Democrats and main-stream feminists have taken up the
>>pro-abortion banner.  The Democrats are the self-defined party of
'compassion'.
>>Many of the pivotal early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, were ardently
>>anti-abortion.  So what's going on?!
>>
>	One possibility: deliberate distortion of the historical record by
>one Mr. Lebow...


I am still waiting for a response from anyone to my request:

"How so? Show me sources where Susan B. Anthony qualifies her anti-abortion
sentiment as being only due to the dangers to the mother."

Come on, there must be someone versed in the early feminist who can set me
straight on this one.


- Paul

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The Closing of the Margolis Mind, Part 3
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:18:52 GMT

In <1993Jan16.052244.10215@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <C0x792.461@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>If anyone is interested on the physical and/or psychological effects that
>>abortion has on women, please skip the arguments about the physical and/or
>>psychological effects that carrying the baby to term would have on women,
>>contact WEBA, spelled out, I didn't make this up, Women Exploited By Abortion.

>WEBA is an organization of women who blame their emotional problems on abortion.
>If you look at the general population, you will see that abortion is not the
>cause of these problems.  The facts were posted within the past couple of days;
>if you missed them, I'd be happy to post them again.

talk.abortion has lots of women who blame a lot of awful physical problems
on pregnancy and childbirth.  If you look at the general population, you
will see...

just how twisted Larry Margolis's logic is up there.

>(Did you know that a guy named Reardon wrote a book, and he polled members of
>WEBA, and he found that 90% of them felt that they were Women Exploited By
>Abortion?  And did you know that some people quote these figures as though
>they are representative of the general population?  Really - I didn't make
>this up.  There really are people this naive and foolish out there.)

Did you know that there is a person named Larry Margolis, who asked me
to mail him the foreword to _Aborted Women, Silent No More_ featuring
NancyJo Mann living a hellish existence for years because of a saline abortion,
and still posts crap like the above?

How about sending me back the photocopy, Larry,
 so that I can send it to someone
who takes the trouble to read it?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: What's behind these Keegan-Garvin-Adrienne "forgery" posts
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:50:40 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.727656324@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Having once been burned by the old SAT trap, I am not about to
>fall into an infinitely worse one.

You've already fallen into the "trap" of making an unconscionable stand.

>Actually, I am so naive that I only figured this out a month after
>all these bandwidth-wasting repetitions were going full blast.  What
>saved me from the trap was my basic sense of honesty and fair play.
>I know I am innocent of charging Adrienne with forgery.  I *am*
>guilty of having suggested the possibility that Adrienne was guilty
>of it.  But that is all.

So why not apologize for what you admit you're guilty of.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:33:29 GMT

In <1993Jan26.090905.26462@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <lm8oeeINNgrg@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.093753.3864@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>How can the fetus' liberty be valuable?  Of necessity, it is 
>>>on a very short leash.  It is in the nature of a fetus to
>>>have very little liberty.  Whenever I see the argument that
>>>fetuses should have the same rights/liberties as anyone else,
>>>I always wonder, how are you going to go about allowing them
>>>to peaceably assemble?
>>
>>You've got a good point.  I could say, "Well, if they WANT to, LET them
>>assemble!"  :)  Of course, that would be ludicrous.
>>
>Yes.  It might be worth exploring _why_ it's ludicrous.
>Even if fetuses had such desires and were capable of
>communicating them, it would be imposssible to grant 
>them such a right without removing the rights of the
>women involved to move about as they please.

>>(And then that Simpsons episode, where Maggie restored all those pacifiers
>>to the babies in the day-care center, comes to mind.  All those babies just
>>sucking...spooky.)
>>
>>Perhaps what I should have said is that they should have the same
>>protection under the law as everyone else, rather than the same liberties/
>>rights.
>>
>>If you see a problem in THAT statement, let me know.  I'm struggling with
>>this issue the same as the rest of you...
>>
>I do see a problem.  Give fetuses the same protections
>as 'everyone else', and you automatically place pregnant
>women in a category where they enjoy fewer rights than
>all other born persons, and they have _less_ protection
>under the law than 'everyone else'.  

No; their exercise of their rights is circumscribed by their (self-imposed)
situation. The mother's right to bodily autonomy ends where the z/e/f's
right to life begins.

>That's unacceptable.

>>Thanks for spotting that flaw in the wording.
>>
>Why, you're welcome.

>muriel
>standard disclaimer

Mark Pundurs
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:40:42 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <30121@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  Ron Bense
>>>agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  Documentation

>What's your point, Ron?  Read my words again.
> I "accused" you of agreeing with me, not
>with agreeing with Susan.  Are you deficient in reading comprehension?

You implied that I agreed that Susan altered an attribution line. I
did no such thing. Perhaps, if you meant something else, a remedial
writing course would be in order?

Ron - still shaking his head at the concept of there being a more dense
object in the universe than a black hole....

Newsgroups: talk.abortion