HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:07:08 GMT

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.

The underlying philosophy behind choice is the primacy of
freedom.  Not an absolute freedom for all things at all
times, but based on the notions of enlightened self-interest
and the freedom to swing my fist when nobody else's nose is in
evidence.  The notion that the decision to bear or not bear
children is a fundamental freedom not to be decided by fiat
or the will of the collective.  By what right does the
collective order that an individual bear children and thereby
take upon herself the responsibilities and risks associated
with child-bearing?  Certainly if there were a threat that
the human race might become extinct, the needs of the many
might outweigh the right of the one, but no such threat
exists.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57291 talk.politics.misc:69134 talk.religion.misc:27223 misc.legal:23088
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: 21 Jan 93 18:19:16 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan19.162031.25785@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.044007.19171@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
# #What if you can care for the child, but would rather not?  What would be the
# #mature choice then?
# 	What difference does it make?  I fail to see how it is the task of
# government to mandate "mature" behavior.
# 	It would certainly cut down on usenet volume if this were true...
# The_Doge

Odd.  But liberals seem to have an unlimited list of reasons for the
government to mandate other forms of "mature" behavior -- like
prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals.


-- 
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.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chris Lyman's failed reading comprehension (Was: Statistics)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:05:49 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.727639662@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.

>I don't apologize for things I don't do.

Scuse, please, but did you or did you not link my name with 
"forgery" in a public posting to this net?

Did you or did you not create the following heading?:

Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
Distribution: world

This is and remains the net.abuse in question.  You, through your own
stupidity, publicly named me a forger.  I don't appreciate it.  You were
wrong, and you owe me an apology.

You haven't had the character to do so, so far.  Gee, what *was* the date
of that heading, anyway?......

Twit.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:07:39 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Conan the Grammarian) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>  "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> 
>
>> I still don't agree with it, but suddenly Mark's suggestion doesn't seem
>> quite as severe, or as offensive.  
>
>I don't know why it sounds better to you.  I think both ideas
>are equally disgusting. 

Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58028 talk.politics.misc:69863 talk.religion.misc:27604 misc.legal:23341
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 26 Jan 1993 07:49:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Isn't it amazing how the same crowd that doesn't see a nine month
>fetus as human, thinks it's suddenly "real people" after the 
>umbilical chord is cut?

One has to draw the line somewhere.  Since there is no societal consensus
(in the USA), at this point one is free to draw the line where one wishes.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:43:07 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
>the pro-life position.  The label implies that pro-lifers are
>opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy", which is false.
>They are opposed to an action which results in the death of an
>innocent human being.  If it were possible to transfer the child
>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".

>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
>pro-choice position.  Pro-choicers not only want the right to
>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 

Hey hosehead.  Pro-choicers may or may not be opposed to abortions.  I
personally am opposed to them.  There are, as you say, other options.
My basis for this is my personal ethical and moral ideals.
At the same time, I do *not* think that my views should be imposed on
any other person just because I think I am right.  Just because I think 
that abortion is wrong does not make me an expert on the subject and
it sure as heck does not give me the right to tell someone that they 
can not have an abortion simply because of the fact that I think it
is wrong.
Pro-choicers want the woman to have the *choice* to terminate the
pregancy, to continue the pregnancy, or continue the pregnancy and
give the child up for adoption.
Pro-lifers, on the other hand, think that since Pat Robertson has told them
that abortion is wrong, then it must be wrong for everyone else, regardless
of religious or ethical beliefs.

Learn the differences, then try posting again.

-Mark

--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu

"Sure we should sell California to the Japanese.  It's going to fall into
the ocean anyway." - Car Talk (on NPR)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:58:01 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>
>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>
>>What did man B do that man A did not -- given that the woman's choice
>>was unilateral in each case?  What is the source of his obligation,
>>and is it something he caused?  If he caused it, then how -- if man A
>>did not?
>
>Lets try a little analogy here:  You earn $1M and do not report it to 
>the IRS.  Some beancounter at the IRS decides to audit you.  You end 
>in hock for back taxes + fines, etc.  John Doe also earns $1M and does 
>not report it. He does not get audited.  He gets off scott free.
>
>Are you exempt from paying just because John Doe didn't get caught?

No.  But consider your analogy.  John Doe is not immune from paying.
He is a criminal, and until the statute of limitations expires, he
can be fined and put in prison.

Man A and man B have acted identically.  But only man B can be "fined"
(and indeed possibly imprisoned).  Why the difference?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:54:05 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan25.221038.2150@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>Practice what you preach.  First of all, you are too quick make
>assumptions about my state of mind, and then of course it's unbecoming
>to accuse someone of racism when practicing your own brand of
>prejudice.

Aw, heck, Greg, I was just funnin' ya.  Just the Electronic Noogie Patrol
coming at ya.  I'll go tell the Patrol to go peddle their Noogies elsewhere.

(Darn it, some people are allergic to noogies.  I just can't go flinging
 them around.  I'll be more careful next time.  Apologies.)

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:59:31 GMT

In article <1k2qdfINN1m0@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>Isn't it amazing how the same crowd that doesn't see a nine month
>>fetus as human, thinks it's suddenly "real people" after the 
>>umbilical chord is cut?
>
>One has to draw the line somewhere.  

Why? Many of us feel that abortion rights can be defended on grounds other
than academic quibbles over fetal "personhood". The choice of where to draw
this line is essentially an arbitrary one.

>Since there is no societal consensus (in the USA), ...

A broad, sweeping, unsubstantiable assertion. Since no National Referendum
has been held on the issue, how in heavens name can you tell whether there 
is a "societal concensus" or not?

								- Kevin
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:05:50 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 <1993Jan25.232920.11654@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Liar Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <lm8rioINNgt7@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> 
>brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>
>> I admit, not a whole lot.  Embryo transplants.  "Metal mommas".  Better
>> contraceptives.  I fear our medical expert, Mark Cochran (who _still_
>> won't tell me what T.S.A.K.C. stands for), could knock most of my ideas
>> down as impractical, since he could argue circles around me when it
>> comes to the medical profession.
>
>Mark Cochran is no medical expert.  He _pretends_ to be one.
Can you produce any article in which I have stated that I am a medical
expert? No? I guess you're just lying again DODie.

>Just recently, he's been caught distorting the truth about 
>cancer patient pain.  
I did? Care to show where this happened DODie? No? I guess it's just
another of your bold faced lies.

>He's also manufactured a lie about the
>existence of organ donor recipients for Baby Theresa.  
No DODie, I simply refused to violate ethical codes to provide you
with the names of my sources of information.

>Nyikos documented his confusion over the meaning of digitalis. 
>
Oh bullshit DODie. Is PHoney still using digoxin and digitoxin
interchangably? Or is he still trying to figure out that they are
different drugd, both of which contain digitalis?

>> To be truthful, I subscribed to this newsgroup mainly
>> to sharpen my debating skills, but maybe I ought to look in this a bit
>> more.  
>
>You should also _question_ people more thoroughly about their
>alleged expertise in a field and the "facts" they present.  Don't
>accept anything at face value, even it appears to be common sense.
>
Especially when talking to you, DODie, since your only expertise is in
lying.

--
                  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
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chris Lyman's failed reading comprehension (Was: Statistics)
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:30:14 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1jn37dINN7jk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)

>Do you know what ? means?  Note that the string both begins and ends in
>it.

Do you know what "libel" is? Whether you phrase it as a question or
not does not take away from the implications.

>A bit later than your publicly naming me ignorant of attributions, as a

As appeared appropiate to your obtuseness. If you are now stating that
you had no problem with said attribution readings, then you intentionally
made the link, and are thus guilty of libel. (regardless of the fact
that you transparently phrased your insinuations as a question.)

>result of which thousands of lines of bandwidth have been wasted.  I told

Primarily due, from what I've seen, to your reluctance to delete anything
from a post you respond to.

>you, I am waiting for you to apologize for that.  If you do not, I will
>apologize after a fashion for linking your name with forgery, but you will
>like it a lot less than what I'd come up with if you do apologize.

Peter, get a life. You actually think that anyone here takes you seriously
enough to want an apology from you? Try again. It's more along the lines
of "every time this stuff is posted, the next group of newbies finds
out what a truly miniscule persona Peter Nyikos is."

Hope that body blow didn't hurt that overstuffed ego of yours too severely.
Floating egos are a terrible thing to sink.

Ron
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57286 talk.politics.misc:69127 talk.religion.misc:27219 misc.legal:23082
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: 19 Jan 93 19:56:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan18.165516.5248@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> The only immature choice I see is carrying a pregnancy to term, and then
> keeping a child you can't care for.

You don't see abortion as primary birth control as being a little
immature?

> As an aside, if so many of the right wing weren't adamantly opposed to
> birth control, too, this debate would be much less important.  Because
> there is a *direct* inverse correlation between the availability of
> birth control and the abortion rate.
> 
> David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 

Really?  Birth control was effectively unavailable in this country
to teenagers in the 1950s.  It was difficult or impossible for even
married couples to get, until the 1960s.  What happened to the abortion
rate after birth control became available?  It went up dramatically,
as did the illegitimacy rate.  Now, I won't claim that one caused
the other, because I'm quite sure that's not true.  But your claim,
that there is a "*direct* inverse correlation" is demonstrably
false.

Birth control education, pills, condoms, etc., are readily available
throughout the U.S. now.  When are we going to see the unwanted
pregnancy rate drop to the level it was at in 1960, when these
items were rare, or usually illegal?

-- 
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.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: helping kevin
Date: 23 Jan 93 13:51:26 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

after reading several posts by mark cochran and
larry margolis which illustrate how twisted darcy
is, i thought i'd clarify this debate before kebbie
turns it into another of the meta-discussions he
uses to cover-up his lack of credibility.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
-> >>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
-> >>>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >>>>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> >>>>>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

this is kevin asking a question about e.e. bartley.

-> >>>>>>>>Do you believe her informed claim that she is "pro-choice"?

i responded to that comment (in a separate thread)

	"i think anyone who would ask if someone who
	openly supports anti-choice legislation (and
	who would go as far as imprisoning women who
	have abortions) as ms. bartley does is
	pro-choice is a complete and utter fool."
                    James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
                    5 Jan 93 12:48:50 GMT
                    <1993Jan5.124850.10173@crd.ge.com>

to which kevin commented to mark cochran:

-> >>>>>>So now you're a "complete and utter fool", eh, Mark?

the rest of this, including a list of kebbie's
propositions is mercifully deleted.

since then, larry margolis has been explaining to
kebbie that it was he (kebbie) who asked the
question, not mark cochran.

kebbie knew that, of course.

kebbie also knows that e.e. bartley has been quite
open about her wish to legislate against some
abortions.

kebbie has also stated repeatedly that the litmus
test for the pro-choice position is whether or not a
person supports legislation to restrict or ban
abortion.

which makes one wonder: why would kebbie raise the
issue of ms. bartley's position with mark cochran in
the first place?

kebbie does raise the subject of vendettas fairly
often, doesn't he?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:00:23 GMT

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.

    Basically for the same reason that I oppose the "right" of individuals 
to use public money to pay for abortions. "Pro-choice" means that I support 
the right of people to have a choice, but it doesn't necessarily mean that 
I think that the government should have to pick up even part of the tab 
for whatever they choose.

    You want an abortion? You should have that choice. You want to send 
your kid to a private school? You should have that choice too. But if 
you want the government to pick up the tab for either of the above, 
sorry. At that point it's gone beyond your right to have a choice, and 
that's where I draw the line.

    So I suppose that the direct answer to your question is that so many 
people are both pro-choice and anti-voucher because the two positions are 
completely logical and consistent with each other.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:41:22 GMT

In article <C1C8JH.KK5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>
>>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>
>I think the argument is that the fetus is not "autonomous", and thus can not
>*have* "bodily autonomy".

Are you assuming that "autonomy" implies volition? I think it only denotes
freedom from outside interference (or if, like Larry Margolis, you have a 
problem with the term "interference", substitute "detrimental effects 
from an external source" instead).

							- Kevin
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne admits that she lied about her newsserver problems
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:24:27 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

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> >I never go away, you jerk.   I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you
-> >nuts.  And I'm glad.
-> 
-> Does anyone else remember Suzanne claiming that she didn't
-> see repeated requests for documentation?  She said each time
-> that her newsserver crashed.  Now she says she never goes
-> away.  Is she lying now, or just admitting that she perfected
-> Nyikos Excuse #1 a long time ago?

suzanne has been doing that for years and years.
basically, the length of time of her absences seems
to be determined by the level of the outrage she
generates. upon her return, she always claims not to
have seen whatever posts caused her the most
embarassment. she has been operating like this for a
long time, and much more smoothly than PHoney.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion