HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 1 Jan 93 02:04:50 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Dec30.202557.22636@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec30.095751.1789@cs.ucla.edu> gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.050758.1772@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>Again, there's a difference between a right and a reason for exercising that
>>>right.  Her *right* is to control how her body is used.
>>
>>I am not disputing that right.  I am pointing out that men do not have
>>any rights in this situation,
>
>Men have the same rights as do women regarding bodily autonomy.  Since the
>fetus isn't growing in the man's body, though, this doesn't help him much.

The woman who aborts, or chooses not to, also exercises an ECONOMIC right,
Larry. No male-choicer is asking for men to have the same BIOLOGICAL rights
as women; we're just asking for the same ECONOMIC rights that women currently 
have thrown in as a bonus with their biological rights.

								- Kevin
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Every Pro-Lifer must condone Mother Enslavement
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:09:04 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.724977400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <BzF13M.9Cx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>>***************************************************************
>>* My mother CHOSE to have me. That's how I know she loves me. *
>>*                              -Karen Uru                     *
>>***************************************************************

>Karen Uru obviously was never told, "Be grateful I had you.  I could have
>aborted you, you know."  [To the accompaniment of a tale of woe of
>how much easier mom could have had it if she had remained childless.]

I could never look my mom in the face and say, "Y'know, mom, I care so little
about you that I would force you to bear me against your will.  So what's a
little pain, bleeding and scarring for life?  I'm number one, babe, and don't
you forget it."

Every "pro-lifer" says it each time they affirm their creed.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?!
Date: 26 Dec 92 21:10:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: It was here but a minute ago...

In article <725385149.14040@minster.york.ac.uk> cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

   Peter Nyikos (nyikos@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
   : In <1992Dec17.184619.2900@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
   : 
   : [I've added talk.religion.misc and alt.atheism]

   And I have deleted them.

   A request to all who are for whatever reason choosing to debate with
   Peter Nyikos. Peter tends to add news groups in the middle of your
   abortion debates. This is never appreciated; it is poor nettiquette;
   it is bad manners.

...and it's pretty much standard procedure for Petey, apparently.  He's done
it time and again in every discussion he's participated in that I've seen in
this newsgroup.

   It would be very much appreciated if more mature contributors out
   there if you would delete such cross posting in your follow-ups.

By all means -- I routinely hack out his attempts at cross-posting.

   I am also asking Peter to stop it, but I do not expect much
   consideration, given past experience.

I sympathize with you -- you may have also noticed his habit of barging into
discussions in the middle and making pronouncements, even though he admits
he doesn't necessarily know what's going on.  I have a hard time believing
he's around for any other purpose than to push his propaganda on as many
people as possible, myself.  (Your mileage, of course, may and probably does
vary. :-)

--PLH, killing time on an extremely slow Saturday afternoon

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
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.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:19:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.180548.22049@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.202908.11125@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.170536.18455@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>... ask yourself "Does 
>>>the term 'Kellmeyer and Darcy' denote a group, or an individual?". Assuming 
>>>you pick the correct answer, then the ignorance dissipates, and all is well 
>>>again.
>>>
>>I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
>>one Darcy. 
>
[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]

Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
going to post that much junk about it.
You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. Just
try to avoid the psych boys when you're doing so.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:42:53 -0500

In article <724473867@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>Let's say that we have a situation where the father had notified the 
>mother in week four of the pregnancy that he does not want the child,
>but she decided to have it, and now she sues the father.

IF he would, and could, legally give up all rights to visit the child,
etc, then I'd say if he did this, then the choice, and hence the
responsability, should fall upon the woman whether to carry the
pregnancy to term and to have and raise a child. 

>There are (at least) two options:
>1) An unmarried mother and an angry father and a bitter fight 
>   to force him to *pay*.
>
>2) A forced adoption by a pre-screened couple.
>
>Michal, like most feminists, just loves option 1) and she fights 
>hard against option 2).

I'd fight hard against it as well.  You can't be screaming that men
shouldn't be forced to X and then turn around and force a woman to do
something to "fix" it. 

>So I have just one questions for her (and every one who is against 
>choice for men): what, in your opinion, is better for the *child*,
>option 1) or option 2)?

Neither.

>Please try to give a clear answer.

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: the one bad apple theory of pregnancy.
Keywords: pointless posts from the Reverend
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:03:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec23.005514.6333@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1089@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
## Dr. Tiller?  
#
#I haven't seen any refutation of his claims thus far.

That's nice, DODie.  Do you believe Nyikos' claims?

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.191937.5513@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.180548.22049@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.202908.11125@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.170536.18455@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>
>>>>... ask yourself "Does 
>>>>the term 'Kellmeyer and Darcy' denote a group, or an individual?". Assuming 
>>>>you pick the correct answer, then the ignorance dissipates, and all is well 
>>>>again.
>>>>
>>>I would say that it denotes two individuals. One named Kellmeyer and
>>>one Darcy. 
>>
>[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
                                    ^^^^^^^ substitute "Kellmeyer and Darcy"

>Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
>going to post that much junk about it.

Intentional ignorance blared forth for several months does tend to get just
a _little_ irritating, Mark.

>You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. 

Fine linguistic distinction went right over your flat head, huh? Pearls before
swine...

								- Kevin
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:54:24 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I'm just curious - how many people believe Nyikos' claims about
Dr. Tiller?  

Susan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Equal rights
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:08:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
[deletions]
>BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
>willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?

I just wanted to see this again.  I think it's the best response
I've seen yet (closely followed by those who support a man's
right to have an abortion) to those who would ignore biology
in their quest for absolute equality.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:13:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.041610.42537@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> In <1992Dec21.012812.8797@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> |> >Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me, but if your fighting
|> |> >for the right for people to have abortions, aren't you pro-abortion?
|> |> 
|> |> No, because you're not fighting for people to *have* abortions, but for them
|> |> to have the *right* to *choose* abortion, if that's what they feel is best
|> |> in their particular situation.
|> |> 
|> |> >Who cares whether or not you would use that right yourself, if you are
|> |> >pro-abortion-rights, you are pro-abortion.
|> |> 
|> |> Not only are you wrong, but by referring to them as pro-abortion, you're
|> |> insulting many pro-choicers who are against abortion, but nevertheless
|> |> feel that forcing their moral beliefs on others through laws would be
|> |> a greater evil.

It just occured to me as I was reading my response to you that this seems
rather strange and anarchical.  I am against murder and stealing, but I
have no problem supporting passage of laws preventing these acts.  In
other words, I am forcing my morals on others in regards to these acts. Do
these pro-choicers whom you mention object to "forcing their moral beliefs
on others through laws" in *all* cases or only on abortion.  If only on
abortion, then what makes this issue so different that one cannot "force
one's morals" on another, while it is OK to "force one's morals" on another
when it comes to stealing.  And if they support it on all issues, why are
they not mobilizing to repeal any other laws that impose morals.

What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?

Also, why should the federal government have jurisdiction here.  What is
the precedent for the federal government to become involved in what
clearly seems to be a state issue to me.  There are no federal laws
against murder or stealing (unless it involves state borders or government
property).  Why is abortion special in this respect?

These are honest questions.  I expect some flames, but I would love for
someone to calmly present a few answers, for indeed, I am no expert and
am new to this forum.

-Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Garvin, Holtsinger, Pot, Kettle(?) Milk(?)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:43:25 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->In other words, does Doug also often set follow-ups to misc.test AND NOTHING
->ELSE, or does he never set them to misc. test, or does he sometimes set
->them to misc.test in addition to the other news groups?

dodie appears to set the Follow-up: to misc.test and no
other newsgroup when he is incapable of responding 
rationally to the poster he is following-up. so, he 
sets the follow-up to misc.test with some frequency. i
don't believe that setting follow-ups to misc.test is
something dodie has been criticized for. in fact,
setting follow-ups to misc.test is a time-honored
net.treat for newbie twits. i think dodie
has been criticized for setting follow-ups to misc.test
while whining that others did the same to him. it seems
to me that you're not capable of grasping the hypocrisy
in this situation so you'll probably be more
comfortable considering it a matter of bad form.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 06:52:54 GMT

In article <nyikos.724976453@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <BzEy8s.7x8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>
>>ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:
>
>>>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Dec-92 Pro-choicers must condone
>>>i.. by Doug Holtsinger@csl36h.c 
>>>> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>>>> demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>>>> as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
>>>> are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>>>> late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>>>> must condone infanticide.
>
>In another post along this thread, Steve Adams made a big deal about the 
>"no difference", pointing out
>that there is a big difference in location.  Only he went on to make
>a bigger fool of himself than Doug did, by ignoring the fact that one
>could induce early labor, or do a C-section, to evict this "unwanted
>intruder" without killing it, once viability is past.
>
>Mark Cochran, in a fascinating display of the Big Lie technique, told
>me in an e-mail message which he did not mind being made public, that
>this is the way pregnancies are ALWAYS terminated after the 26 week 
>point, with a living neonate as the intended result--and after seeing my 
>first GEORGE TILLER post, too! Some people's audacity still can take 
>my breath away.
>
Speaking of audacity....
Can you produce any evidence that anybody is performing post-26 week
terminations and *not* attempting to salvage the fetus? So far, you've
completly failed to do this. 

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:44:55 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>> since defending one's bodily rights requires directly "violating" the
>> rights of another, it is wrong to do so.  
>
>So if a pregnant woman drinks alcohol and takes drugs,
>thus 'attacking' her child and violating the child's
>right to bodily autonomy, does it follow that the child
>should have the right to 'abort' the woman? 

Early evidence indicates that in at least some species (and probably
humans) the fetus initiates the labor that will lead to its birth.  A
fetus apparently already gets to end the pregnancy anytime it wants
to.

>> For example, if a burglar
>> enters a person's home, does the homeowner not have a right to fight off
>> the burglar simply because that would directly "violate" the burglar's
>> bodily rights?  
>
>Yes, the homeowner has the right to fight off the burglar,
>because the burglar committed an immoral and illegal act.   
>The mere existence of an innocent child in the woman's womb
>is neither immoral nor illegal.  

Trespassing. Assault (felony). Theft. 

That's what you'd be charged with if you did to a woman what a fetus
does.  Probably also some sex-related crimes and possibly special
circumstances for torture.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Forced pregnancy love fest, 1992.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:38:25 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 <1189@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <34641@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>[DODie-PHoney lovefest deleted]
>
>#I'm so glad to see you two getting along ...
>
>It may not last - DOD has put PHoney in an awkward position.  PHoney
>whined a lot about me setting follow-ups to misc.test - I believe
>he called it "dishonest."  He'll either have to chastise his little
>buddie DODie, or he'll have provided that much more proof that
>he's a hypocrite.

It's always possible that his news server will go down, and he won't
ever see the problem post.  It's a very convenient way to get out of
awkward positions.  See how it has prevented him from apologizing to
Adrienne?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 19:03:47 GMT


In article <1992Dec23.053750.21468@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com writes:
|Quite possibly.  But between newspapers and stories posted by readers
|of these newsgroups, I've seen 10 or so examples of men getting their
|rights trampled, and none of women getting similar treatment.

Self-selected sample.  What do you expect to find in
alt.dads-rights?  You might get different results by asking
about the topic in soc.women.  

|Granted, women get their share of hardships.  But is the issue merely
|a matter of getting even?  Is child support primarily punishment?

The embittered men in soc.men and alt.dads-rights apparently
perceive it as punishment from the woman, instead of as
something they owe to their children.  Sounds to me like it's
just fallout from nasty breakups-- the child is used as a tool
by each to hurt the other.

What this has to do with abortion I'll never know, unless some
foolish men want to take away abortion rights.  Cut off your
noses to spite your faces, idiots-- making abortion illegal will
sure prevent those nasty women from carrying an unwanted
pregnancy to term & presenting you with a child you don't want
to support.  Oh yeah!

If any fool wants to make that argument, I'd love to slice him
to shreds in t.a.  If wiser men want to discuss non-abortion-
related solutions, I'd appreciate it if they discussed them
somewhere other than talk.abortion.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good communication 
skills, it is a trap for losers, because it deprives them of any natural 
way out of the pointless debate loops which they fall into so easily."
-- Michael Rigler, in talk.bizarre
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:47:17 GMT

In article <34472@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.000435.21114@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>
>>_Hernandez v. New York_ was not concerned with housing discrimination,
>>Stephen. Did you read the quote at all?
>
>You claimed that equal pay for identical pay claims presumed
>discrimination.  

I don't recognize that gibberish. It's certainly not anything _I_ claimed.

>I state you were incorrect; you still are.  Since the
>case you cited was not about equal pay for identical work, I did not
>any more closely than I had to in order to determine that the
>statement I subsequently posted was correct.  

It was about discrimination, Stephen. You should have read it more
closely.

>>>I think the non-responsiveness of this is obvious.
>>
>>It was very responsive. In the first place, the cite I made from
>_Hernandez v.  
>>New York_ contained at least one statement of law which applied
>generically to  
>>_all_ forms of discrimination, not just racial discrimination. In the second 
>>place, in the scale of Equal Protection claims, race is much more recognized 
>>as a basis of discrimination than gender is. The ERA *FAILED*, remember, 
>>Stephen? It was in all the papers. If racial discrimination requires a showing>of discriminatory intent, it's a fairly safe assumption that the burden of 
>>proof in gender discrimination is at least as high. Lastly, I note that while 
>>I have provided legal cites which may or may not be 100% on point, Stephen has>declined to present any legal cites whatsoever in support of his side of this 
>>argument about law. He has done scarcely more than blither vaguenesses about 
>>"critical legal theory", and attempt to pick little crawly nits in my 
>>arguments. I leave neutral observers to make their judgments based on the
>>facts and reasoning presented.
>
>You are making an ass of yourself, Kevin.  

And you're starting to sound really shrill, Stephen.

>Equal pay for identical
>work cases do not require showing discriminatory intent.  

Perhaps not, due probably to conscious efforts to write the laws in such a
way as to relieve the claimants' burden of proof, but most discrimination
claims DO require a showing of discriminatory intent. Since you are the one 
attempting to generalize from "equal pay for equal work" to other forms of 
discrimination, the burden is on you to show that the generalization is
valid, i.e. that the intent-neutrality of "equal pay for equal work" is
the rule, rather than the exception. I have given counter-examples where 
discrimination claims DO require a showing of intent. I have put the ball
back in your court. Now it's up to you to go the distance with your claim.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion