HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pookie.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:11:25 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
-> >I've always felt that a man who gets a woman pregnant should
-> >be responsible for alimony (for the child, AND the mother if
-> >she was employed and is unable to work for any period of her
-> >pregnancy...)
-> >   Basically, whether you are married or not, sex should be a
-> >legal AND moral responsibility for us all. If you are going
-> >to have sex, it can't be a one sided ride. Men must be
-> >responsible for the child, just as much as the woman. It
-> >should not be right that a woman is FORCED to have an
-> >abortion because the man is not there to support her
-> >financially through the problem (or emotionally...)
-> 
-> In what sense is anyone being "FORCED" [sic] to abort, Steve?
-> Certainly we're not talking about guns and chains and
-> incarceration here, so in what way shape or form is she being
-> "FORCED"???

she is being "FORCED," kevin, through fear and economic pressure.
you know, the kind of fear and economic pressure you want to
impose but are always uncomfortable about being called on.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: SNOOPER IN THE NET
Organization: That little old school on Sunset Boulevard
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:03:58 GMT

In article <73985@netnews.upenn.edu>, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
|> Pat
|> >Kevin W.
|> 
|> >>No, Patrick.  I am the one who apologized to Susan *for* myself.
|> 
|> >No, Kevin...you did that well *after* you sent your little whine to Conrad
|> >so HE could mail it to Susan.  (Why are you responding to something I
|> >aimed at him, anyway?  Thanks for doing your part to prove my point...)
|> 
|> What is it with you, Pat?  I was asked not to mail Susan so I apologized
|> the only way I could.  Then when I got mail that I thought was from Susan,
|> I apologized directly to her then.

You obviously didn't worry about being asked not to send her mail then, did
you?  That's something that might have worked better if you'd done it in the
first place -- and somehow, I suspect you didn't bother with explaining any
of *that* detail to the CETS folks.

|> I did not whine to Conrad.  I simply asked him to do something for me.
|> I'm not defending his thread here; I'm refuting your statement.

Or trying to, anyway.

|> Why do continually insist on being an ass?  I've brought myself out into
|> the open and apologized.  Now you keep kicking me while I'm down.

Well, since you seem to have the same benighted attitude as you did when this
whole thing blew up in your face, it looks to me like you haven't really
apologized much, and I'm just pointing out that it sure looks that way to me.
I could be wrong, of course -- but you sure haven't given me (or anyone else
involved in this mess) much of a reason to believe I am.
If you think I'm kicking you, boy, do you have a lot to learn about life.
Try doing that a little this summer.  (Learning, that is.)

|> Nice philosophy.

It does for me.  You made your bed, after all.

|> >Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
|> >    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
|> >             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
|> 						^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> evident

Back to Remedial Logic for you, son.  Have a nice summer.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
   (It couldn't have been Welch.  He's still figuring out the Sholes layout.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Summary: Suzanne needs to find something else to do with her free time
Organization: The International Pro-Choice Conspiracy
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:36:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.200014.9275@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty):
>>
>> When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>
>When a man and woman love each other, they don't kill the child they've
>made together.

That may be fine and dandy for you and Ted -- if it works for you, great.
Don't presume that what's right for you two is right for everyone else,
though.  (Be sure and tell Dale Ann to her face that she doesn't love me and
I don't love her because we're both pro-choice, too.  She'd appreciate the
belly laugh she'd get from your little pronouncement.)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
                       THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH!
                 (if that's all right with the rest of you...)
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doing the Right Thing
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:56:10 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> ...if you insist on trying to smear me with charges that I
-> >-> "defended Kellmeyer's posting of private email" you'd
-> >-> better get a RELEVANT quote, Jimmy. The one you're relying
-> >-> on right now has *NO* mention of email in it, nor
-> >-> reference to the privacy thereof. It doesn't help your
-> >-> "case" one iota. It just makes you look like you're
-> >-> desperately trying to get the "goods" on me, and you'll
-> >-> stoop to twisting ANYTHING for that purpose.
-> >
-> >"*NO* mention of email in it" you say? let's just examine the
-> >facts, shall we.
-> >
-> >in response to one of my posts entitled, "Subject: kellmeyer
-> >posts private email! (Re: To T.S.A.K.C. (or whatever the hell
-> >it is))," you replied with a defense of kellmeyer.  the full
-> >text of your post is appended. perhaps, in your desperation
-> >to find something to flame me for, you erred in making this
-> >post.  whatever the case, defended kellmeyer and later flamed
-> >garvin for posting email, although in garvin's case, this
-> >newsgroup has clearly indicated overwhelming support of her
-> >actions. in fact, i can't recall that another poster, other
-> >than you and welch, posted anything but support of garvin.
-> 
-> Actually, you are wrong on TWO counts:
-> 
-> 	1) I did not defend Kellmeyer except inasmuch as he might have
-> 	   _potentially_ been included in my generic pronoun "we". 
-> 	   Certainly I never mentioned him by name, or by third-person 
-> 	   pronoun.
-> 
-> 	2) My alleged "defense" had absolutely *NOTHING* to do with
-> 	   the public posting of private email.

kevin, this newsgroup has seen what you wrote several times. with
the exception of you and, perhaps, a few others, anyone who is
interested in what you wrote has read it and formed an opinion as
to what you said. certainly, it would be uncharacteristic of you
to refrain from denying and backpedaling and re-explaining what
you said. some people even have opinions, i'll bet, as to why.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15187 soc.men:8438
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Steve Franklin's "good trade" (Was Re: You want to win.)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:31:04 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Apr14.125259.22918@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>Kurt - I can tell you now. If abortions are made illegal, there will be 
>a hell of a lot fewer. Sure we will have to deal with the coathangers and
>[back alleys, but there will be thousands and thousands and thousands 
>of alive babies to show for it.
>   SOunds like a good trade to me

Steve, have you ever talked (not shout, talk) with a woman who had an
abortion?  Have you ever talked with a woman who had an illegal abortion?
Do you care about their horrors?

Please read the following article, it will not change your mind but
at least you will *know* what your "good trade" really means.

######################################################################
From duke!mcnc!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!pyramid!oliveb!amdahl!apple!xanadu!STella Thu Jul  6 10:28:36 EDT 1989
Article 7163 of talk.abortion:
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:04:33 GMT

I've mentioned Lechi in other contexts; you must have missed it.
The term "Stern Gang" isn't really accurate, because they were
founded after Stern was killed. What do you want me to say? They
were a small fanatical band of terrorists who were formed largely
because they thought that Irgun, which was already pretty hard-line,
wasn't going far enough. They managed one jailbreak, a few assassinations,
and tried to get a plane to buzz London dropping flyers on the lawns
telling people not to let their children enlist in the Royal Army
forces in Palestine because they might get hurt. It didn't go through,
for the same reason most of Lechi's plans didn't go through -- they
were woefully disorganized and couldn't manage to do much beyond
killing some individual people. One of their members is the current
Prime Minister; we're working to get rid of him as quickly as possible,
he's an idiot. Will that do, Steven?

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SNOOPER IN THE NET
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:42:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr8.202536.21326@hubcap.clemson.edu>  conradv@euler.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
>
> If you spend more time arguing sense in t.a instead of snooping around
>  things that dont concern you and taking part in mud slinging feativals ,
> perhaps we can make something out of you afterall-though I strongly doubt it
>                Conrad C Vincent

Thank you for this well thought out article that contributes so much
to the abortion debate.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Isn't Adoption an escape from responsibility?
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:01:16 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr9.173213.2134@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

>I have a question that I have asked before and still have not seen a
>pro-lifer in this forum answer it.  I see we seem to have a new batch
>of pro-lifers so I guess it's time to ask again.

>I have seen it stated by many pro-lifers that believe the act of coitus
>sex makes the couple responsible for the life created.  This obligation
>requires the woman to continue with a pregnancy, since it was her act
>that created the life.  My question then is why would it then be
>permissible for the woman to escape her responsibility to this life
>after birth?  Doesn't this allow her to then escape the consequences
>of her action?  It would appear to me that if you wanted to ensure
>the woman does the responsible thing to this life you would then not
>allow her to give the infant up to the state after birth.  To remain
>consistent, she would be required to locate people that meet specific
>qualifications and are willing to care for this life before she can
>escape responsibility.  I have trouble understanding why you would
>allow women to use this escape from the responsibility they created
>from the action of coitus sex.


	I think it's only fair to say that maybe the Pro-Lifers feel that
it's better to save the "life they created" instead of denying it potential
life. By giving the baby to a adoption agency they can at least make sure
the baby will have a chance to grow up. It's not exactly an escape from
her actions because she will make sure that the baby will be cared for. Well,
at least in the eyes of some Pro-Lifers, I think. Personally I think ideally
there shouldn't be any abortions or adoptions, but we all know reality. 
To sum it up simply, I believe that they see adoption as a lesser form of
evil than abortion. This of course IMHO.  :-)


							Mikeey
					    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
					       (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION) 


Advice for today : Never wear red underwear.   

Reason : When there's a fire alarm, you have no time to get dressed, so...

	(If I find out who pulled that fire alarm I'll kill him)

						
>Dan King
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:27:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.025936.2578@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
>> In article franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>>>So, I ask you again, (not that you'll answer because you probably don't 
>>>>understand the question and therefore won't "bother")....What equivalent
>>>>responsibility do you propose for the male who got the woman pregnant?

>>>[...] So, the closest thing a man can give a woman
>>>is support, love, and time. If this isn't enough for you, then I feel
>>>sorry for you, and wonder what kind of guys you attract.

>> Stevie, this is very telling. There is something you missed, something
>> that should come before the support, love, and time. 

>> What you missed is respect.
>>                    ~~~~~~~

>What you missed, Eric, is that respect is SPELLED "support, love, and
>time".   Your little word game is pitiful, and any woman would be very
>lucky whose boyfriend had Steve Franklin's attitude and was anxious to
>give her support, love, and time.   (Eric, respect is NOT spelled paying
>a doctor to suction her womb out for you.)

Suzanne, it is quite possible to love, support, etc. someone without
respecting that person. What you seem unable to comprehend is that 
respect means listening to that person and respecting the wishes
of that person even if they conflict with your own. That means that
if that person is not ready for parenthood, then supporting his/her
decision.

>> But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a 
>> woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like 
>> yourself are fighting against it.

>Men like Steve Franklin are willing to take responsibility for what
>participating in the act of sex results in, and so don't participate
>when such results are not desired, or at the least do not run away
>like cowards when the results of participating become evident.

No, there are many men including myself who are willing to take 
responsiblity for our own actions. Men like Steve (and women like
yourself) are not fighing for responsiblity, they are fighting to
remove the basic human freedom of self determination.

>Suzanne.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:38:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: noose.1992Apr9.023825.22758
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr8.195453.3999@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.171707.24069@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>  [long discussion between Jennifer and Mikeey on sex education and
>   condom distribution that was deleted frankly because I couldn't
>   really follow what Mikeey was trying to argue for and against.]

Mikeey, I am a little confused here.  I can't really follow your reasoning,
allow me to restate it in clearer (at least to me) terms.

1.  Teenagers should not be having sex.
2.  Teenagers (over 15) should have access to both sex education and free
    or low cost condoms so that if they do have sex, they will be responsible.
3.  Teenagers (under 15)  should have access to sex education because 
    obviously some of them are having sex now and they should act more 
    responsibly.
4.  Teenagers (under 15) should not have access to free or low cost condoms
    because this will only encourage those who wouldn't have sex anyway
    to do so.  Those who need condoms (who know they need them because they
    had the sex ed classes) can go to the store and buy them.

Is this a fair statement of your views?  Does this really make sense to you?
You acknowledge that some young teenagers are having sex now and will have
sex even with education, but we should deny them easy access to condoms
in order to remove the temptation from others?  Do you truly believe that 
a pre-teenager who has no interest in having sex at this point in his or
her life, will suddenly, upon seeing a condom machine in a restroom, 
decide that now is the time to start experimenting?  Even if this were true,
I am sure against teenagers (especially young ones) going out and humping
like bunnies, but for God's sake, we are not talking about some abstract
moral theory here.  We are talking about preventing children from having
babies and from dying of AIDS!  If freely available contraceptives saves
one life from AIDS or prevents one unwanted teen pregnancy (and subsquently
avoids one more abortion) I really can't see how any one can object,
especially anyone who identifies himself as "pro-life".

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:01:13 GMT

<1992Apr06.222515.21583@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>What you seem to be forgetting is that "pro-choice" really means pro-*choice*,
>not "pro-abortion".  A person can be totally opposed to abortion, believe
                                                                   ^^^^^^^
>it's a sin, etc., and still realize that it's immoral to attempt to force
                             ^^^^^^^
>their views on someone else.

I'm confused.  Why is it that the wrongness of abortion is something
we can only "believe" or not, but the wrongness of imposing views
is something we can "realize" ?

Is abortion really wrong, or not?

Is legislating against abortion really wrong, or not?

Does either question really have an answer, or are they both
just a matter of sentiment?  

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:45:52 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18125@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>->In article <1992Apr13.184118.14440@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca
>->(Steve Fran klin) writes: 
>->>In <18061@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
>->>writes:


>>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HIV/AIDS is *NOT* just a "gay
>>disease".  Anybody can get it.

>Steve probably thinks it is. But then, he probably doesn't know that
      ^^^^^^^^^^
>in Kenya(I think) 60%-80% of the population has AIDS, and it is primarily
>heterosexual. (Yes, Steve, you can look those figures up, they're fairly
>accurrate, in the sense they were obtained from a sample of the population)

   Hey Ron, what gives you the right to insinuate what I may or may
not PROBABLY think? As it turns out of course, you are wRONg. I am
well aware of the percentages responsible for the transmission of the
AIDS virus. But, if I could label the cause of AIDS to one single
group, I would blame it on the promiscuous. Not the gay, bi, or hetero 
community, but the irresponsible.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 08:30:59 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr7.014500.21989@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
> I take an awful lot of crap because of my views.

No, you take an awful lot of crap because you post an awful lot of crap.

> Anything I say or post seems to be "ignorant"
> "dweeb[ish]" or whatever to you.

Why not try posting something intelligent for a change?

> I can't seem to post anythin with logic.

We've noticed that, which is why we point it out to you.

If you posted with logic, instead of blatant assertions, there'd be
something to discuss.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 07:22:02 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>to answer:

>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?

>And people wonder why I have little respect for pro-"life" males.

>                           -rocker


The reason for so little response would be self-evident to the rational
person.  In preparing for this "debate" you force the respondent to 
automatically take up the defensive position.  Hardly an intelligent way
to start any argument or debate.  So if you are so proud (haughtily) of
the ammo you wish to annihilate the respondent with ... you answered the
question first with some proposals and we'll go from there.  If you have
posted some of these ideas before then please reiterate as I have not
seen any.  And people wonder why I have so little respect for pro-death,
over-emotional, gullible females.

Kevin Brawley (not afraid to use my real name)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion