HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:03:06 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
-> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >->You mean the poet who actually had something _meaningful_ to say in all-
-> >->lowercase? As opposed to the Usenetter whose dearth of capitalization
-> >->accompanies an even greater dearth of content? Well, I've heard of both
-> >->of them. What, pray tell, do they have to do with each other?
-> 
-> [Several quotes, no original content from Keegan deleted]
-> 
-> Clever repartee, that.  

i thought so. here, for those who might have missed
it, is the material ray deleted and then commented
upon.

begin deleted segment:


	[from talk.abortion to susan garvin]
        "Who needs this inept play-by-play commentary? Please
        discuss ISSUES, Sue, or simply conserve bandwidth..."
		<1992Apr18.204403.20087@rotag.mi.org>

        "Even if this were true (MASSIVE hypothetical here), what
        possible relevance would all of this tomfoolery have to
        the abortion debate?"
		<1992Apr13.231749.16652@cfctech.cfc.com>

        "Okay, Keegan, please justify this posting. It has
        NOTHING to do with abortion.  It has NOTHING to do with
        "exposing a lie" (your blanket rationalization). As far
        as I can see, it qualifies as nothing but hateful noise.
        Go ahead, try and justify its existence in talk.abortion.
        Just try."
		<1992Apr14.002702.18298@cfctech.cfc.com>

        "Your lack of character is abundantly clear from your
        actions, Kevin.  They're the acts of a desperate and
        despicable little person.  They're nothing but
        uncalled-for noise and bluster, and were you not such an
        annoying little fuckwit, I'd almost feel sorry for the
        sort of mentality that has to bolster itself with such
        personally embarassing measures."
					-- Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
					   <16764@goofy.Apple.COM>


end deleted segment.

-> Rebut a comment about a lack of content with a
-> post containing none of your own content.

is that what i was doing ray? i can see why you've
been cornered as a hypocrite so often.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:06:35 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1k4lt3INN8kv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>Like people who get pregnant don't even realize that they could have a child.
>Makes sense, huh?

Well, women and girls may not be aware of the support mechanisms they can
get.  This is why San Jose Planned Parenthood offers information on women's
homes and how PP has sliding scale pre-natal care, and will often (if
the woman is young and seems undecided) ask the woman to talk with an older
woman in their family (like a trusted aunt or sister) before making a
decision.  They may reveal support where the pregnant woman thought there
wasn't any.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:38:42 GMT

In article <Jan.27.18.27.17.1993.11675@gandalf.rutgers.edu> 
shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:

> It seems to be a theme with "pro-life" advocates that people should 
> consider society's opinions to be more important than their own.  On
> the other hand, pro-choice advocates believe that ones own personal 
> philosophy is what a decision should be based on.

Pro-choice advocates also believe that it's acceptable to force
their personal philosophy onto certain human beings by killing 
them.  On the other hand, pro-life advocates believe that all
human beings should be allowed to develop their own personal 
philosophies, free from the threat of arbitrary execution. 

>Susan R. Hagan


Doug Holtsinger
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:52:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1993Jan08.064954.19911@watson.ibm.com>, by margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis):
>> In <1993Jan7.232142.6990@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>Gordon, all I did was state that you are missing quite alot by having aborted
>>>your child.   I am doing nothing but speaking from experience.
>> 
>> You've had an abortion?

>Not at all.  I'm raising my child, and therefore know what he is missing.

Whenever you decide between two options, you gain something and you loose
something.  Therefore you have to figure out which you want more, or which
you want now, etc.

Its all very personal.  Just because Gordon aborted a potential child now
doesn't mean he can't have one later, when he is ready.  He hasn't 
necessarily missed a thing.

It is awfully presumptuous of you to assume that you know the best way
for everyone to conduct their lives and affairs.

I am at the age where I am nearly ready to begin having children.  However,
had I found myself pregnant 10 years ago, I most certainly would have
aborted.  I wouldn't have missed the last 10 years of my childless life
for anything.  The life I've lived and the experiences I've had have made
me a better and more intelligent person, and that translates into a better
parent.

But I'm not going to tell you about all the things you've missed by having
children, because only you can decide what is best for you, and you may
not have missed a thing.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:38:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.132956.12917@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.200354.24658@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan21.130708.13203@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >In article <1993Jan18.213140.23135@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >> In article <1993Jan12.171943.27306@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >...I take this opportunity to point out that
>> >> >much of what the abortion debate is about is the matter of who
>> >> >is best able to determine what is best for the woman involved:
>> >> >the state by fiat or the individual woman (with the best advice
>> >> >she is able to obtain)?  There is a certain arrogance inherent
>> >> >in the belief that women are unable to make a correct decision
>> >> >for themselves when they are facing an unwanted pregnancy.
>> >> 
>> >> I have no doubt that most if not nearly all women can make the best 
>> >> decision for THEMSELVES, Dean. What is being questioned here, however, is 
>> >> whether what's best for an individual woman may or may not be necessarily 
>> >> best for the collective. After all, it's not just a decision that affects a 
>> >> woman's body, it's also a decision that affects whether or not the 
>> >> collective gets a new member. So shouldn't the collective at least get a 
>> >> voice in the decision?
>> >
>> >The logical consequences of your statement are very far-reaching,
>> >but to keep this as short as possible, the sister to your statement
>> >is that the collective should then also have a voice in whether
>> >people have children at all.  The collective, by your view,
>> >then can order pregnancies and enforce child-bearing, not
>> >simply prohibit abortion.
>> 
>> Er, where did I say "prohibit"? I said they should have a voice. I would go
>> so far as to say they may also offer incentives for socially "good" behavior,
>> and disincentives for socially "bad" behavior, as long as people's fundamental
>> rights are maintained.
>
>If that is the case, then you are talking about nothing at all and
>I apologize to myself for wasting my time.  

Must you blurt your self-apologies onto the Net?

>The "collective" already has such a voice.  

Not if the pro-choice Extremists get their way. That's the *point*, Dean. 
The pro-choice Extremists insist, in effect, that there is absolutely no way 
that the fetus can be assigned any positive value whatsoever. The reason I
spend so much time arguing against that position is because I think the 
collective should have leeway in certain instances to determine that value
for itself.

>By the way, is this Kevin Darcy the individual I am addressing
>or Kevin Darcy the group?

Grow up.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: What's the SAT deal?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:56:19 GMT

From article by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
> 
> All which is aside the point:  credentials do not assure correctness.
> Just because I happen to know a lot about computers and have decent
> credentials doesn't mean I never make mistakes.  Posting one's
> credentials (and SAT scores) as if that was going to prove anything 
> for me is a sign of someone who has gotten arrogant and lazy.


As I recall it, someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED him for his SAT's.
So no one can get off ridiculing him for consenting to answer such
a direct question.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Information on the Common Ground initiative
Keywords: Common Ground
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:24:21 GMT


	Someone (can't recall who, sorry) recently posted a request for 
information on attempts by pro-choice and pro-life groups to combine their
energies in dealing with problem areas that they both agree on, such as
improving access to pre-natal care, wider availability of birth control
and STD information, day-care, and so on.  I mentioned the Common Ground
initiative (which originated here in St. Louis, to the best of my knowledge)
and said I'd try to obtain more information on it.
	As it happens, Laura Cohen of Missouri NARAL was on a talk show at
the station where my own show appears, and I chatted with her about this
briefly.  Common Ground is a joint effort of Reproductive Health Services
(a local provider of abortion, family planning, and other gynecological
services such as pap smears and so on) and some members of Missouri Right
to Life (Loretta Wagner is the head of this organization, I believe).  If
you'd like more information on Common Ground and its activities, I'm told
that you can contact Jean Cavender at RHS here in St. Louis, 314-367-0300.
	Since the organization is cooperative rather than confrontational, it
doesn't generate much news.  There was a nice write-up about it in out local
"alternative" weekly paper a year or two back, however.
	I don't know how successful groups like this will be -- extremists on
both sides will disown them -- but I'm glad someone is at least making the
attempt.
The_Doge
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:12:10 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1jkgbvINNeai@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> 
>>In article <1jfjopINNdlt@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>But there's still a need to determine paternity.  Would you automatically
>>>do DNA testing on all children at birth and on all abortuses?  Who would
>>>pay for this (DNA testing is expensive). What about miscarriages?
> 
>>It would only be necessary to do testing in the cases where the putative
>>father was trying to avoid the Tax. Once he's "fingered" by the mother
>>(as the law would require), then let HIM pay for the tests if he fights it
>>and loses.
> 
> What if the mother "fingered" lots of men as possible fathers?  Would each
> man pay for his own test?  Would the biological father pay for all the tests?
> 
>>As for the expense of DNA testing, I'm no medical expert, but can't paternity
>>be established in most cases by relatively simple blood tests (blood type,
>>enzymes, etc.)? Seems to me the need to do full-blown DNA testing would be
>>rather rare...
> 
> Actually it doesn't work that way at all.  By relatively simple tests
> (eg, blood type) one can sometimes  rule out paternity.  By more complex
> tests (eg, DNA) one can rule out paternity most of the time.  However
> one can never prove that a given man *is* the father -- one can only say
> that the DNA matches and such a match is improbable (at some level of
> significance) unless he is the father.
> 
> -- 

In science, things are never considered absolutely proven.  But with DNA
testing, the match is considered in the 99.99% probability range.  That's
just about as close as anything can ever be.

Sue

> 
>                                                 --  Michal
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:32:06 GMT

In <1993Jan21.023127.26352@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) 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

>Loaded question. Let me rephrase that:

>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-life" against the right of
>an individual to study evolution in school?

>I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine...

     Let me first start by pointing out that the correlation between accidents
of war and being pro-life seems just as extreme to me as my example probabbly 
does to you.

There are two possible answers to your loaded question, I will give both.

1.  Because some people choose to view this theory as being in conflict with
    the biblical account of creation in Genesis.  The conflict is based mainly
    on the interpretation of the word day.  If you ignore that, there are 
    some striking similarities.

2.  Because the THEORY is not always taught as such and the scientific evidence
    (there are several different flavors of the theory of evolution, and some
    scientists who don't buy it at all) which goes counter to the THEORY often
    is ignored (ie: not taught).

Ok, I bit the bullet.  Your turn, and please when answering, remember the 
slogan that I often see on my TV, Abortion: safe, leagal and funded.
Someone stated that the position was logically consistant, it is not, even if
you don't favor the funded half of the above statement.  There is a case in 
court now where a football coach was fired for placing his son in a private
school rather than a public school.  When asked for the reason, the Coach
replied that he wanted his son to be taught from a christian perspective on
values.  His supervisor told him that was what his evenings were for.  How many people would be in favor of a christanity clinic at every school where a
counselor would discuss with each student if christanity was right for that 
student and would provide detailed information on where to go if the student
wanted to become a christian.  (Answer: its illegal in some states for a
teacher to have a closed bible on their desk).  I understand why we don't have
such clinics and agree that they are not needed.  But there is a difference in
the way we treat the seperation of the State and one Value, and the way that
we tread the seperation of the State and the other value.

                                 Craig

hey, whcha got that lighter fluid for?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: exutcol@exu.ericsson.se (Tina Coles,xt-de,6764)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Reply-To: exutcol@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:26:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article KJ4@hpchase.rose.hp.com, hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:
>
>  Just as a point of reference as to where my view come from. I am an
>  adoptee born in 1958 (thankfully before abortion was so common). My
>  mother was 17, in high school, and ask to leave her home by her step
>  mother. In todays climate, odds are I would not have been born.
>
>  I find that sobering.
>
>  Steve Hamilton
>  (hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com)

Many pro-choicers were also adopted at a time before RvW.  I cannot help
thinking about the 17-year-old girl thrown out of her home,  having to
carry her pregnancy full term and give birth without the support of her 
family.  I find that very sobering.  

Tina






Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it ever wrong?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:46:18 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

In article <1993Jan26.001645.22769@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:

[Article deleted]

Well David, now that you're back from hiding, are you ready yet to
document your claims regarding the morbidity rates for abortion?
You know, the one where you claim (amoung other idiotic thigns) a 27%
infection rate for abortions?

Bet you were hoping we'd forget huh?
No such luck....

--
                  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,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:19:15 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

In article <Jan26.010511.74729@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.093753.3864@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <lm1g5pINNegu@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>|> 
>|> >A _very_ admirable position.  As I've said before, religious arguments to
>|> >support U.S. code just wouldn't apply to anyone not in that religion but
>|> >still a U.S. citizen.  My stance, in that light, is non-religious (unless
>|> >someone can point out any flaws in my reason):  A fetus' liberty is as
>|> >equally valuable as that of anyone else, and furthermore, when one or
>|> >the other's liberty must be compromised, the law should choose the least
>|> >restrictive course.
>|> >
>|> 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?
>
>	The same thing could be said about paraplegics...
>	Lack of capacity to exercize rights does not imply no rights.
>
>Steve

Steve, Paraplegics, having lost the use of only two limbs, do not
generally have any significant difficulty exerting their rights,
especially since the ADA passed. They certainly don't have any
difficulty 'peaceably assembl[ing]', as long as you don't ask them to
meet while jogging or somethign silly like that. ;-)

--
                  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,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:08:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>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?

>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>will be taken as men.

	Bullshit. Women in other occupations still stay biologically
female.

>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>the natural differences between them.
>If a man can carry a baby to term, he is a woman and not a man.
>So, the church, as an institution, has posts which are for men and 
>posts which are for women. 

	But is it truly "separate but equal" or is it "separate and
unequal"? The latter is the case, since women are excluded from all
critical decision-making posts.

: 	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.
>
>So, because the Church does something which is wrong, you have the
>right to do the same thing to them
>Great!

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism