HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:13:41 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <C1Bzsq.HJJ@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:
|Is it legally permissable for men to have abortions?  If not, men don't have
|"equal rights."

Is it legally permissable for women to have vasectomies?
If not, women don't have "equal rights".

Trim that newsgroups line.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Perhaps my favorite moment was when a pro-lifer threatened to 
kill me.  Or maybe it was when a pro-lifer said I should have been 
aborted.  Nah, the best moment was when the one who said I 
should be killed claimed to respect all life."  --Jay Stein, in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:58:04 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.164351.24570@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#In article <C19Gyv.5tx.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
>#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#
>### +##The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the 
>### +##ruling in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this 
>### +##vast time is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
>##
>### +#Actually, it has something to do with it.  Unlike you, Blackmun researched
>### +#the issue before stating his opinion.  You might try learning something
>### +#about the issue.
>###
>###       <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu#
>###        garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
>###
>### And now we see Ms. Garvin furiously back-pedaling from that suggestion.
>#
>## No, I've yet to backpedal from the suggestion that Justice
>## Blackmun did research into the abortion issue.  
>#
>#That's not the suggestion I'm referring to, Garvin.  You made
>#the suggestion that the *incidence* of illegal abortion in 1860 
>#has "something to do with" the ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
>#Just what is the exact relationship, Garvin?   

>I stated it above.  You even managed to preserve the context this
>time.  Maybe you can now manage to read the text that you quoted.

>#Remember, we're 
>#not talking about the dangers of illegal abortion, as Kaflowitz
>#has suggested, but rather the *incidence* of illegal abortion. 
>#Look at the subject line if you forget.

>I guess reading the net is really confusing for you, huh, DODie?
>I mean, if you still think that the contents of a particular
>article are always limited to the topic given in a subject line,
>then you must believe that most people, including yourself,
>are insane.  Perhaps this explains why you so frequently
>assume that other people share your particular fantasies
>and logical lapses.

>I quoted estimates of death rates in the original article.
>You deleted them from your reply, as is your habit, so
>perhaps you have forgotten that they were there.  Thanks
>for giving me another laugh - I love it when your selective
>editing makes you look like a fool.


Susan, I'll be quite honest with you.  I do not remember your making
any substantial progress in refuting my claims on the death rates due to
illegal abortion in any of your posts.  It may be that I am incorrect,
and I lack the knowledge of this news stuff to go look it up, but
this is what I remember.



>Susan



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:49:45 GMT

In <1k469aINN522@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <81867@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>>Or is drawing the line "somewhere" like a hunter going hunting and
>>shooting at anything that moves in the trees, even though he can't
>>make out what it is?

>Uh, not really.

>>As far as a societal consensus goes, I think most people believe that
>>the unborn is a person.  However, they are willing to let SOMEONE ELSE (not
>>themselves) decide to terminate a pregancy for some supposed goal
>>or achievment that is "needed" or required as seen by the other person.

>Yeah, because the "other" person *IS* a person.  No doubt about it.

>The incredible misogyny of deciding a person vs. a perhaps-we-aren't-sure-
>and-anyway-it's-harming-it's-host not-person in favor of the latter 
>boggles the mind.

>The incredible mysogyny of reducing a woman to a breeding animal because of
>*your* *personal* values also boggles the mind.

>It isn't a simple either/or scenario.  What abortion restriction entails is
>returning women to the status of chattel, and nothing less.

Rubbish. Nobody wants to require any woman to BECOME pregnant.

>Not too surprising that there's a level of outcry, is it?

>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:06:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.211348.18894@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <C19po4.87y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.213023.24642@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>: The pope, 
>>...
>:  continues
>: to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.
>
>>   How?
>
>	By not allowing women to have the opportunity to have
>leadership positions. Will a woman ever be a priest? Bishop?
>Archbishop? Cardinal? Pope?
>
>	I don't think I'd want to bother the Church about this sort of
>thing if I could possibly avoid it, but if they meddle in others'
>lives, then I think that they are fair game. As the saying goes, your
>rights end where my nose begins.
>
Heh heh heh.....

How well do you know Catholicism?  Not too well, I take it.  Who do you think
handles the books, writes the checks, teaches the children, etc.  The Pope? 
The bishops?  Not hardly.  They're too busy saving souls (so to speak).  The
nuns do much of what I described above.  When it comes to running the behind
the scenes part of the Church, the sisters do it all, and wield the big stick.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:00:11 GMT

In article <v31kmic@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <nyikos.727394039@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
>|Oh, I have been assured that Darcy has made a bad joke about someone
>|being a child molester, and that he later made a feeble apology for it,
>|but having seen neither the joke nor the apology, I continue to withhold
>|judgment.  [...]
>
>I saw both.  You can feel free to judge Darcy as a squirming
>slug who would rather lie & compound an error than admit he was
>wrong.  Perhaps, though, knowing this will help you identify
>with Darcy.  After all, I've seen the same behavior from you
>here, though not on any issues as personally painful to others
>as Darcy's.  Darcy, after all, accused a victim of sexual abuse
>of being a child molester, ...

Based on a mistaken impression that the victim was in fact a child molester.
Given the same mistaken impression, I think most people would have acted the
same way.

Note also that my "accusation" was posted exclusively to alt.flame, where such 
things are commonplace, and rarely taken to heart.

>...and then refused to apologize.  

Correction: I _did_ apologize.

							- Kevin
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mario Cuomo on the "wrongness" of abortion
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:49:32 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

the chaneyhall creature posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>Suzanne Forgach, in my opinion, is
|>also a real Christian. 

of course she is. heh.
                                                                        
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58238 talk.politics.misc:70089 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13981 alt.rush-limbaugh:15288
From: jj6707@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan
Subject: Re:Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:35:28 GMT
Organization: CCSO College of Engineering Workstations

In article <1993Jan26.152124.8182@seachg.uucp>, chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask) writes:
|> In article <V13sXB6w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
|> >del@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (denise.e.long) writes:
|> >
|> >> Excuse me?  I really don't see the connection. Pro-choice (in the 
|> >> connotation that it is used in this newsgroup) refers solely to
|> >> allowing a woman (and/or her partner) to choose whether a pregnancy
|> >> is carried to term. Not to choosing schools, clothes, pets, etc.
|> >
    Excuse, me.  I always thought that it was SOLELY the woman's choice.
Feminists don't want the father to have ANY say in the matter of
abortion.

|> No one is "pro-abortion".  No one wants there to be lots and lots of
|> abortions.  Abortion is a large personal decision, needing to be balanced
|> against many factors, all - but the developement of the fetus - being private
|> factors which are not anyone else's business.
|> 

    Militant feminists are indeed pro-abortion.  Abortion is the ultimate
symbol of freedom of so-called oppression from men.  
    About the development of the fetus--ie. unborn child:  that is exactly
what pro-lifers are fighting for.  You admit the development of the fetus
is not a private factor.  No one else will speak for that unborn child--pro-
lifers--and others opposed to abortion (I won't get into debating titles)--
MUST speak for them.

|> The difference is that the "pro-life" people tend to be religiously biased,
|> which really means they are going to inflict their religious beliefs on
|> everyone else.  They want to tell others what to do.  Most of the "pro-life"
|> people allow no exceptions - they are basically extremtists.

     I don't know if this is accurate.  There are plenty of people on the 
pro-choice side who at least claim to be religious.  
     Not allowing exceptions is merely consistent, it's not extremist.  Those
opposed to abortion believe all human life is sacred.  To allow exceptions
contradicts thier principles (which may or may not be rooted in religion).
The only "exception" I would make is in the case when the mother's life is
endangered by the pregnancy.  And this is NOT inconsistent.  It is choosing 
between two evils.  Neither choice--killing the child or allowing both
child and mother to die--is desirable, but you must choose the lesser
of the two evils.

|> On a strictly grammatical basis, "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are much
|> more accurately descriptive than "pro-life" and "anti-life".

How about we stop arguing about what we call ourselves and concentrate on
the real issue--abortion.  I can live with Pro-life and Pro-choice.
  Any complaints?

----John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Logical claims about Kevin Darcy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:12:20 GMT

In article <1k4baqINN23m@ub.d.umn.edu> serickso@ub.d.umn.edu (Scott Erickson) writes:
>
>Previously kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) wrote: 
>[obviously confused logic deleted]

Yes, Larry was rather confused. That's why most of the conclusions he cited 
didn't follow logically, and have been refuted. The key conclusion, however,
Conclusion 2a, does logically follow.

>>Q.E.D.

>The only conclusion that can be reached from the above agrument is that you
>are a complete and utter moron.  

Nah, there's hope for Larry yet...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: AT&T Looney Bin
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:08:58 GMT

From article <1993Jan23.070715.3794@noao.edu>, by forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach):
> 
>> Bishops give orders to priests, archbishops to bishops,
>> Cardinals to archbishops, and the Pope to Cardinals.
> 
> All of these are priests, and priests, in following the Good Shepherd's
> example, are the servants of the flock.   (Point of fact, the Pope is
> chosen by the Cardinals.)


	Servants?  When was the last time that you kissed the maid's
ring?  Shouldn't the servant be carrying the throne (or whatever it's
called) instead of being carried on it? 

terry
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:49:06 GMT

In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>Tit for Tat,
>
>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>private or public of their choice.
>
>                                Craig

Because, Craig, many pro-choice people are intelligent enough to distinguish
between an issue of personal autonomy and an issue of government subsidies
for the rich.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57287 talk.politics.misc:69129 talk.religion.misc:27220 misc.legal:23083
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: So is Blockading a Bad Thing?
Date: 19 Jan 93 23:45:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan18.200813.13028@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ] Even those of us who are pro-choice are pleased at the Supreme Court's
# ] decision.  There are actions which some pro-life extremists have
# ] taken that might be fairly compared to the activities of the Klan --
# ] say, bombing an abortion clinic, or engaging in harrassment of abortion
# ] clinic employees at their homes.  But demonstrations, picketing, and
# ] prayer, are hardly equivalent to burning crosses, lynching blacks,
# ] and using organized bodies of armed men to intimidate voters.
# ] 
# ] The application of this statute towards peaceful pro-life demonstrators
# ] is just another reminder that liberals believe in free speech only
# ] when it suits their purposes.
# 
# Let me see if I get your point....
# 
# Its 'Freedom of Speach' to keep everyone from getting
# into a 'clinic' and that allowing this 'freedom of speach'
# is a good thing?????

The problem is that the courts have shown a rather wide definition
of what constitutes behavior that justifies bringing the federal
government into the matter.  When the ACLU starts to file RICO
statutes, it should make you worry a little.

# I Believe Clayton You have Missed the BOAT.
# 
# The point of Discussion is NOT that of Limiting
# OpResKrew from standing Peacefully and Protesting
# that Others will do what they will not allow themselves
# to do. But that OpResKrew Actively Engages in Denying
# Access to Facilities that are engaging in Legal Activities.

Rather like antiwar protesters.  Some of us were disturbed by
the Federal Gorilla pulling the stunts they did in the early
1970s -- having grand juries indicting the same activists all
over the country, thus tying them up in court in many different
places.

# Likewise, there is the minor Matter of whether or not
# it is a Federal Obligation to defend the CIVIL LIBERTIES
# of the Citizenry from the Fanatical Lunatics who wish to
# Deny the Free Access to engage in LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
# 
# drieux

Hmmm.  Your argument is nearly identical to that advanced in
the late 1850s by slave owners to justify the Fugitive Slave
Law's application to the Rescuers of Oberlin.  I'm not in
agreement with the equation of slavery and abortion that the
pro-life groups use, but it certainly should make some of the
fanatics (like you) think just a bit, and consider the possibility
that you MIGHT be wrong.
-- 
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: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Context Master Strikes Again (formerly: ...sterilization program?)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 03:44:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.114913.15012@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Conan the Grammarian) writes:
>What: <1993Jan20.021749.3583@ncsu.edu>
>Who:  dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>When I saw this Subject line, I was taken aback:
>
>> Subject: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
>
>When I saw that Doug Holtsinger had written the article, I wondered about
>the context...
>
>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>   steralized to enter school."
>>
>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>
>The implication in the Subject is that Mark Cochran supports forced
>sterilization of the permanent, irreversible variety.  The actual quote
>is not nearly as severe as Doug (deliberately?) leads the casual observer
>to believe.
>
>Note also that Mr. Holtsinger deleted important context from Mark Cochran's
>original quote, which was (paraphrased): "Then when two people decide they
>are ready to have kids, they can have the procedure reversed and go for it."
>
>I still don't agree with it, but suddenly Mark's suggestion doesn't seem
>quite as severe, or as offensive.  Doug's careful deletion of context,
>however, seems more offensive and severe as ever.

Actually, that was my post.  If you look through the thread, you'll see
it was in response to the tragic story of the 8 year old girl in Mexico
who had just given birth.

That lead me to thinking that if we had some sort of 100% reversible
steralization procedure, we wouldn't have things like this happen.

--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58499 talk.politics.misc:70459 talk.religion.misc:27810 misc.legal:23506
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:21:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan26.062325.29644@tessi.com>, allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <22JAN199316264320@oregon.uoregon.edu>, dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
# ## I know I shouldn't say this, but why should gays need apologists?  As far as
# ## I'm concerned, it's none of my business what consenting adults do behind closed
# ## doors.
# ## 
# ## 							Daniel Reitman
# 
# #It's a shame that homosexuals don't believe that.  Instead, they want
# #the government to tell consenting adults what they can do behind
# #closed doors -- like employment, rental of housing, etc.
# 
# You are incorrect in the above statement.  What homosexuals want is
# to not be descriminated against simply because of their sexual 
# orientation.  I'm all for not giving special rights to homosexuals,
# such as allowing them a classification as such, but I'm against the
# descrimination of a homosexual simply because a person is homosexual.

You mean, you want the government to tell a private employer that he
MUST hire a homosexual who applies for a job, regardless of the
employer's feelings.  So you DO support telling consenting adults
what they can do behind closed doors.

# More plainly, don't lump a homosexual into a quota pool as a 
# minority, but in the same breath, don't disclude a known homosexual
# from employment simply because of the same homosexuality.
# 
# allen

Persuade all you want.  But antidiscrimination laws FORCE an
employer to hire against his moral objections to homosexuality.


-- 
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: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:14:48 GMT

In <1993Jan16.174531.13279@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <markp.726942638@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>The fundamental postulate is something like, "Entities ought to be
>>treated in accord with their natures." The question is: what is
>>any given entities' nature, and what treatment accords with that
>>nature.

>The "nature" of a conscious, volitional human being is to exercise its
>Free Will, as long as that exercise does not unfairly impinge on the
>Free Will of other conscious, volitional human beings.

>The "nature" of a non-viable, non-conscious, non-volitional fetus is the same 
>as the "nature" of other objects -- to exist, or to be destroyed, at the 
>discretion of conscious, volitional entities.

1. Goldfish have consciousness and viability, but no rights.
2. A newborn is non-volitional, but killing her is (I hope we agree) 
   unethical.

>Case closed.

Not hardly.

>								- Kevin

Mark Pundurs