HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 21:11:06 GMT

In a previous article, eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:
> 
>Guess what?  A simple majority of the people will be unevenly
>distributed between the various states and districts, and is extremely
>unlikely to succeed in electing two-thirds of the House and Senate and
>a majority of three-quarters of the State legislatures.

Or, a simple majority vote could be fairly evenly distributed between the 
states.  In that case, the 51% majority would fill the House and Senate with 
their own candidates, and the ammendment would pass.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: MURDER
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 15:28:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.
	And no tiresome thought processes, either.
	It's amazing.  Do this clueless geek actually think he's the
first person ever to jump in here and yell ABORTION IS MURDER in all caps?
Does he really expect anything aside from flames like this one?  Is there a
point to this sort of juvenile behavior?
	Pinkboy.

The_Doge


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: hypocrisy in action
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:30:23 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Hey, Adrienne, opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one, and they're
->all slightly different (and some of them really stink) -- but if you state 
->something as a FACT (as this slander was), and it's challenged, I expect you 
->to either substantiate it or retract it.

->Is this an unreasonable expectation?

are you willing to do that which you are asking
adrienne to do, kebbie?



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.181355.8049@advtech.uswest.com>  
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
> > = (Karl Rominger) writes:
> 
> >ABORTION IS MURDER
> >no elaboration required.
> 
> When you finally get around to taking a class, Karl baby, kindly tell
> every woman you can what you think of abortion.  Then come back and let
> us know how your love life isn't.
> 
> 
> -- 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> steven@advtech.USWest.Com

Well Steve, you guessed wrong, I'm involved in a steady relationship.  
The idea that all women are pro aboortion is wrong.

Karl
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52472 alt.abortion.inequity:6043 alt.dads-rights:3022
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 20 Dec 1992 00:23:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>those "social service" agencies will come and take a child from
>a >women< who does not or will not care for it.  However, should a >man<
>walk away from a child he should be thrown in jail for the same offense and 
>have his wages garnished for the next 20 years.

You're claiming that the "social service" agencies don't punish the woman
when the take her children away?  Not so!  She usually ends up indicted for
child abuse, etc.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Answer for Keven Darcy.
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:43:40 GMT

smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes ...
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>>The "patient" has a severe conflict of interests, and the doctor, well, there
>>are bad apples in every barrel. Unless there are legal TEETH to the medical
>>standards, sometimes transgressions just get swept under the rug. Maybe you
>>trust our fine medical profession more than I do...
>
>I doubt that I trust medical professionals more than you do.  My
>concern is with restrictions that apply only to women.  If doctors
>cannot be trusted, why single out a procedure that only affects women?

Why do you think any restriction that puts some limits of the method
of terminating a pregnancy affects only women?  Seems to me that
anything that explicitly permits women to end their pregnancies at any
time and for any reason, but protects the fetus from arbitrary injury,
is hardly something that affects only women.  Quite the contrary,
this is more likely to affect doctors and assailants more than it is 
pregnant women.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:32:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.001750.13308@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Since fetuses are children, abortion kills children. q.e.d.

Since fetuses aren't children, abortion does not kill children.

Now if you'd writen "babies", I would have had to grant that the
statement was literally true.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Will Steeves as literary critic.
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:07:19 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec16.152545.15451@zooid.guild.org>
goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes a question to CJ regarding
her Jane Austen quote.  It surely demonstrates that Will has never
read Jane Austen at all.  As an avid Jane Austen fan, I feel the need
to clarify: While it may be true that the quote taken out of context,
which it was, is offensive, placed in context, the only word to
describe it is humorous.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: It's time for a kill file...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:34:34 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->UNRETRACTED LIE
->---------------
->"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
-> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
->				    Susie Garvin
->				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
->				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52098 talk.religion.misc:23960 talk.philosophy.misc:2978
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 18 DEC 92 14:56:02 GMT

In a previous article, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) wrote:
>In article <14DEC92.20420711@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|I'm willing to sign a legal contract stating that I will not abort any 
>|unwanted pregnancies if you will agree to be fisted for nine months.  What's 
>|nine months of your time compared to the life of a cute little unborn baby?
>|
>|Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
>|resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>|Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.
> 
>I find this argument bizarre.
> 
>For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
>sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,
>and being willing to submit to the conditions imposed by someone else
>as a condition for their doing so. It is similar to the difference
>between being willing to risk your life to defend another, and giving
>in to terrorist demands.

I realize that there are big differences between the two situations.  For 
example, my carrying a pregnancy to term poses much greater health risks, and 
the health risks are much more likely to be long-term or permanent since I 
have a history of reproductive problems.  Loren demanded that I use my body to 
keep a fetus alive.  I asked him to agree to do the same.  Since he will never 
have to worry about being pregnant, it's as close as he'll get.

>I doubt whether such a "contract" would be enforced, by the way. I
>also hope that you are not the kind of person who would arrange for
>someone to be "fisted" for nine months just in order to make a
>debating point.

I was hoping that Loren would show us that he's not a mysogenistic hypocrite, 
forcing women to do things that he himself wasn't willing to do.  I had a 
feeling he would disappoint me.

>Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
>better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
>other to be bad characters, no?

I think that pointing out the hypocrisy and mysogeny in some pro-lifer's
arguements is quite relevant to the issue.

>Keith Ramsay

				.... Heather.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Meet Petie Nyikos, sensationalistic emotionalizer.
Keywords: late-term, third trimester, abnormalities, bi-parietal diameter
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:56:35 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.724375756@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual forced
pregnancy propaganda about how women and their doctors are conspiring
to murder all the viable /z/e/f/s in the Fatherland:

Much deletia about George Tiller ... Even if all of the information
Petie provided without cites is true, I feel compelled to quote the
pro-life Osmond Bros.: "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch,
girl ..."

>   Another interesting feature of the Tiller brochure is that it speaks
>of "developmental and genetic abnormalities" but does not use any such
>qualifying adjective as "severe".  Would a cleft lip qualify?  How about
>a sixth finger, such as Ann Boelyn, second wife of Henry VIII had?
>
>[Aside. I cannot help wondering how different world history would have been had
>Ann Boelyn been the victim of infanticide or abortion, or even if Henry
>VIII had noticed the sixth finger early on in his acquaintance with her,
>instead of being told about it on the day of the wedding, as actually
>happened.  
>After all, Ann Boelyn was the mother of Queen Elizabeth I of England.]

What an interesting bit of sensationalistic emotionalism!  Question:
If you really need to go back 500 years to establish the negative
implications of this plot to murder viable /z/e/f/s, why should I
care?

SJM
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp publicly reports hallucinations.
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:21:46 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

>In article <TODD.92Dec18123853@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
>todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes: 

>>You are a five-month old fetus.  You are semiconcious in the womb. 
>>You can hear voices outside.  One voice is saying 
>>
>>"Maybe I'll get rid of it.  Afterall, it will affect my career
>>for a while, and worse, it might leave stretch marks, and I won't
>>look so good in a bikini.  Yes, that's what I'll do."

This is almost as good as when Suzanne reported that /z/e/f/s were
swimming around in the womb like little Mark Spitzes.  The contempt
that Todd shows for the judgment of women is typical of the
misogynistic contempt for personal choice by the fairer sex shown by
those on the forced pregnancy side.

Let's take a vote about what Todd needs more: (a)  a straight jacket,
(b) a straight man for this comic routine about English speaking
/z/e/f/s.  (c) the complete scripts for both Look Who's Talking and
its sequel.  (d) all of the above.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Answer for Keven Darcy.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:10:54 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes ...
->>My
->>concern is with restrictions that apply only to women.  If doctors
->>cannot be trusted, why single out a procedure that only affects women?

->Why do you think any restriction that puts some limits of the method
->of terminating a pregnancy affects only women?  Seems to me that
->anything that explicitly permits women to end their pregnancies at any
->time and for any reason, but protects the fetus from arbitrary injury,
->is hardly something that affects only women.  Quite the contrary,
->this is more likely to affect doctors and assailants more than it is 
->pregnant women.

i'll just bet you think those "doctors and assailants"
will be pressuring women to let them rip fetuses from
their bodies unless you can impose your restrictions.
whatever did women do in all those centuries when there
were women but no ray?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: ANTICHOICE vs PROLIFE or whatever (was Re: Suzanne's abortion....)
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:06:46 GMT

the antichoice/antiabortion/prolife things......

yes that makes sense to me, the thing is that there are also so many 
"pro-choice" people out there who are not approving of abortion, but are 
approving of a womon's right to make her choice.....

i don't it's just a thought

-carrie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the opressor; it must be
demanded by the opressed"
                Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his book _Why We Can't Wait_
Be good to yourselves!                                 PRIDE=POWER
cjohnson@stolaf.edu                                    cjohnson@carleton.edu
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE IT!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:34:25 GMT

In article <1goj3iINN1ek@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>I have freely admitted to this net, and to Don, that I do not have the
>archive to repost what I claimed that Don said.  While this doesn't change
>my *opinion* about what Don said, (and therefore I don't retract it), I
>cannot prove it, and I've said so.  

Let me see if I've got this straight -- it's okay to slander someone as
long as you conveniently lack the archives to back up what you're claiming
about them?!!?!?!

Hey, Adrienne, opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one, and they're
all slightly different (and some of them really stink) -- but if you state 
something as a FACT (as this slander was), and it's challenged, I expect you 
to either substantiate it or retract it.

Is this an unreasonable expectation?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: *more hypocrisy in action*
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 13:37:28 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
->>ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) wrote:
->>> Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
->>> better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
->>> other to be bad characters, no?
->>
->>You're new here, aren't you?

        [about susan garvin]
	'The "original author" is a lying bitch who
	would say anything to try and salve her
	gargantuan bruised ego.'
		<1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>

too bad you don't hold yourself to the same rules you
want to impose on others, eh?

  "I guess we could end all of this controversy by
  appointing Kevin Darcy moderator-at-large.  Then he
  could decide what is proper on the net, and what should be
  confined to e-mail.  (Why do I have this sneaking
  suspicion that only posts by Darcy and his admiring
  band of homophobes would ever see the light of day?)"

  "Is it just me, or does Darcy sound just a bit like a
  net.cop here?"
  <1992Feb11.061925.199402@cs.cmu.edu>
From: lenox@hardy.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Summary: Loren doesn't know anything about the country he lives in.
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:05:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Deletions unmarked

In article <11DEC92.04315613@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
[Loren writes to Adrienne]
>No.  They would have the views of the majority forced upon them.  This is what 
>we call a democracy.  Can you say democracy?  It is happening right now.  
>Hundreds of thousands of people are forced to obey laws that were decided by 
>the majority, whether they believe the laws are just, or not.

Geesh, I'm so glad we don't live in a democracy.  I'm glad we live
in a country that protects the rights of the minorities against the 
tyranny of the majority.  The USA is a republic, Loren.  Check it
out.  We don't just pass laws because a majority wants it.  We don't
have a vote to see what the majority wants before a law is passed.
The majority cannot pass laws that take civil rights away from a
minority. 

>>Now, tell me this:
>>Do you think a majority should be able to vote away someone else's civil
>>rights?
>
>To answer your question, yes, I believe in the democratic system.  I may not be 
>happy about it, but I am not going to assume that I know better than the 
>majority.

See above, Loren. 

>
>Whether we like it or not, the majority will always have that kind of power.  
>At least as long as we live in a democracy.  Are you saying they shouldn't?  
>If so, then who makes the laws?  A king/queen, or dictator?  A president?  
>Oops.  Presidents are chosen by the majority, so never mind that one.  So, 
>who?

psst!  Presidents are not necessarily chosen by a majority, 
I wish that they were.  See above about living in a democracy.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How? 
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:59:59 GMT

OK. We will inscribe male choice in law. Now, just how do we go
about doing this?

	Prior to all sexual encounters a legal form *must* be signed
	by both parties.

	If the woman changes her mind and proceeds with the prgnancy
	she relieves the man of all responsibility.

Hmm? Guess we will have to ensure that all singles bars have copies of
these legal forms along with the bowl of condoms.

Now, as to the woman changing her mind, maybe she is just afraid of
doctors and hospitals, and being pregnant seems the easy or do
nothing way out.

Suppose she is incapable of supporting the child? Well, society will
simply have to force adoption. But, as a reasonably humane society,
we are unlikely to get such legislation. Aw, just add her and the
child to the AFDC rolls. Well, society (read taxpayers) aren't all
that humane. So we will just have to get another payroll tax to
cover the expected increase in spending.

Or maybe the woman did have a change of heart and decided to be a
mother? Hey, maybe she knew that all along - one woman once asked
me to impregnante her because she wanted children but not a husband
(she was probably legally blind, but that's another story). OK, as
long as she is financially independent, not every employer is like
Murphy Brown's.

Gosh, this is beginning to be more complicated than I thought.

The present law is maybe archaic, but was seemingly created to be
certain that children receive a level of support. It was most
certainly done the way it is to be certain that the taxpayer not
be the one providing support. And, I guess, it may well have been
written as it is because no one else could figure out how to
write it otherwise.

OK, lets just toss this one over the fence to soc.child-support.legal.

Life's a bitch, isn't it.

REB