HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Garvin forgets [Was:...fundamental question]
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:15:56 GMT

In article <nyikos.717800606@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep24.025132.20642@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep23.150451.23163@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Ch
> >is A Lyman) writes:
> >>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to Ron Bense:
> 
> >I think that Nyikos just figured out what a killfile is and
> >feels a need to talk about it.  (I think that Dennis showed
> >him his, and now Nyikos wants one that's BIGGER than Dennis'.)
> 
> Dennis who?  Oh, I get it, you are still repeating those 
> unsubstantiated rumors about Dennis Hall being Steve Chaney.

Since Peter wasn't around when the events in question took
place, he is among the least favorably placed to comment on
them.  As for his idiotic remark that the "rumors" are
"unsubstantiated," they were substantiated by the system
administrator in charge of the system in question at the
time.  To say that "Dennis Hall isn't Steve Chaney" is, of
course, the sort of semantical nonsense that a game-player
like Peter or little Steviedennis could run with for a long
time, so I simply note that Stephen Chaney was posting
from an account that was issued to him under the name
"Dennis Hall."

...
> BTW I did see the NY Times article, and asked Chaney about it, and
> he admitted he'd made a big mistake and had apologized for it.  He's
> also offering to apologize for the only other remark from him that
> smacks of anti-Semitism.  

He did after others had gone to the source and noted the
"error," and after weeks of defending his statement.  As
long as you're going to be Chahallney's apologist, you
ought to at least note the actual events.  But then you
weren't there for that one either, were you?  You just
have this thing for talking about things you don't know
about.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:16:58 GMT

In article <Oct05.202401.52295@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

>	Conception is the first time that a human individual is
>created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
>into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
>case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
>statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
>individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
>like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
>haven't seen any such thing.
>
I think it's a real stretch to apply the term 'individual' to 
an entity which is attatched to, residing within, and dependent
upon another.  Notwithstanding, there's another fallacy I'd like
to see you address:

Were _both_ my identical twin daughters present within the
zygote at conception?  How could it be an 'individual' and
still be two 'individuals'?

Is one of them not an individual now?

Just wondering.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Hope springs eternal (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:09:16 GMT

> = frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>You know, Brian, it strikes me that if an abortion was always 100%
>fatal for the mother, or for that matter the father, or equally a
>visitor at Disneyworld - then we would be having this discussion 
>about newborn babies, would we not?  How long, do you figure, before
>people would accept the idea of killing a newborn in _those_ circumstances?
>
>I'd give it three generations, myself.  At first people would laugh at
>the crazies who suggested it, but rest assured that in short order we 
>would have a new word for "newborn baby".  "Newbie" perhaps.  And soon 
>"newbie" would be the politically correct usage.  "It's only a newbie, 
>it can't even think" people would say.  The Ron Benses of this world would 
>come forward and tell you that "newbies ain't real".  Larry Margolis would 
>tell newbie jokes.  The Adrienne Regards of this world would tell you that
>what people get up to in the bedroom, or the nursery, was nobody's
>damn business but their own.   And people would soon realise the nuisance
>factor of newborn babies, and would console themselves with the notion that
>"a man and woman should not be _forced_ to raise newbies that they did
>not _want_ to have, and everyone knows that newbies are only _potentially_ 
>real people."

I find this a rather twisted view of the pro-choice position.
You suggest pro-choicer's don't care about whether they are killing a fetus
or a born baby.  This is bull shit.

o The born/unborn status of an f/e/z/born-child is of utmost importance.  
  Rather it is the pro-lifer's who think killing a fetus is fundamentally 
  the same as killing a child that fail to acknowledge and/or appreciate 
  the difference between a fetus being *inside* & dependant on a particular 
  woman, vs. a born baby being physically autonomous.  I suspect many women 
  will find this highly offensive. 

o For *many* pro-choicers, the physical (aside from "physical location") and 
  especially the mental differences between, say, a zygote and a born baby are 
  of the utmost improtance (for others, the 1st point overwhelms this point).
  And to recognize these differences is to recognize the similarities between 
  late-term fetus' and born children.  Rather it is the pro-lifer's who think 
  killing a zygote is fundamentally the same as aborting a late term fetus or 
  killing a child who fail to appreciate the physical & mental 
  similarities/differences of an n-month-old fetus vs. a born baby.  

-Brian
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:08:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.717900808@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <23SEP92.16072828@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

[text deleted]

##And even if these exceptions remain, plenty of rape/incest victims would be 
##denied abortions because they couldn't prove that was how they got pregnant.
#
#Welcome to the real world.  Do you seriously think every woman who
#says she got pregnant as a result of rape is telling the truth?

I suppose that I should thank you for proving Heather's point.

#Why, the defendant in _To Kill a Mockingbird_ was found guilty of rape
#on much flimsier grounds.

I doubt that you're willing to divulge the name of the rape
support network that you claim to belong to.  If you did,
believe me, I would warn every woman in South Carolina to
seek help elsewhere.  The last thing that the victim of 
a rape needs to hear is some idiotic man telling her that
she's probably lying and citing a work of fiction as proof.

I'm no longer surprised that you have chosen Suzanne and
Dennis as your net.idols.  

Susan
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... STUPIDITY!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:10:00 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
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 <6752@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I missed this the first time.  Nyikos thinks he's being sexually
>harassed?  I wonder if he's planning to file suit.  Since the

He's probably going to try and call the wrath of the "net censors" down
upon me.

>basic problem is that Keith is posting words that Nyikos doesn't
>want to see, maybe he should join a net.famous already pending
>suit.
>
>Or he could grow up and learn to use a real killfile.

I've been wondering about that.  Just what is a "de facto killfile"?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:36:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.013740.6022@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.222306.21720@dbsun.uucp> harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
>>In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
>>jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>>>> If she really could not afford (not monetarily speaking) to become
>>>>> pregnant, she shouldn't have risked pregnancy by having sex.
>
>>>> I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.
>
>>> No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.
>
>>Do you realize what you wrote?  You have equated a child and a
>>consequence.


Oh, more was done than just that -- what is basically being said is
that only men have the right to enjoy sex.    

>>All this time I've thought my two sons were small
>>people.  What a surprise to discover that they are punishment
>>for the dirty deeds in which my wife and I engaged 7 and 11
>>years ago. (I admit, we've done it more than twice. :-)

And here is the anti-choice paradox, how can you make having a 
child and giving life wonderful and an experience a women should 
want to have ecen fight to preserve, then in another breathe make
it the ultimate consequence.

How many times have you heard anti-choicers say that having a child,
out of wedlock, accelerates one down the road to hell, that it ruins
your entire life and makes one the target for distain?



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:29:54 GMT

In article <nyikos.717802546@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Is Keegan being intellectually honest himself?  Does not Elizabeth
>want to punish the abortionists, not the women?

No.  As I am of the opinion that women are intelligent, responsible
people who make their own opinions, I think that women who get illegal
abortions (which I think third-trimester abortions should be) should
be punished.  Admittedly, due to some mitigating factors universally
present in pregnancy, I don't think the punishment should be anywhere
close to that for murder, but I do think it should exist.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: I be Afraid that I agree with you....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:35:11 GMT

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
] In article <achmadsn.4.717752897@dhhalden.no> achmadsn@dhhalden.no (ACHMAD SUBHAN NASIR) writes:
] >From: achmadsn@dhhalden.no (ACHMAD SUBHAN NASIR)
] >Subject: Re: So You agree Women are Still Functionally Second Class...
] >Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:48:17 GMT
] 
] >In article <1992Sep23.201113.8638@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >>From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
] >>Subject: So You agree Women are Still Functionally Second Class...
] >>Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 20:11:13 GMT
] >>rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
] >>] 
] >>] Wait a second this cannot be a "well, if I want to and it is good for me
] >>] then I'll be in a combat situation (get paid more)"  It has to 
] >>] be an all or nothing.  Either women sign up for then selective service
] >>] like all men do or they cannot fight.  Why should women choose when
] >>] men cannot??   This would promote women into first class citzenship
] >>
] >>thank you for clarifying one of the minor pressing problems
] >>in the american way of doing things....
] >>
] >>Maybe when folks can understand that women are as good with
] >>an M-16 as males are with them... perchance we might actually
] >>think of them as real Persons deserving of Real Rights just
] >>like all the rest of the DraftBait out there....
] 
] Personally I find it rather ludicrous that one would judge one's equality
] with others on the basis of their ability or inability to wield an M 16.


In a Word: Yes.

But given as it is Richard Lee's contention that this
is the DivineArbitorOfEquality, then I thought it 
useful to point out the viability of "Women on FullAuto"[1]

Personally I have always felt that the true arbitor was
who could hold the peremiter with M-60's on tripods,
and claymore's selectively positioned to provide enhanced
killing fields... 

either that or something truly religious like DickSize...


ciao
drieux

[1] now that sounds like a dangerous hard rock radfem band....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:58:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:


[text deleted, before and after]

#Bullshit.  There is an enormous support network, of which I am a member,
#to help make it easy for women to report rapes.  Once a woman goes through
#the protocols, there will be a legal presumption, for purposes of 
#abortion, that she was raped.

It's put up or shut up time, Nyikos.

Can you cite one law for us with a rape/incest exception that 
provides any such thing?

I'll say this once.  If you are, in fact, involved in any
sort of rape counselling, support, or advocacy group, you
shouldn't have to be told this.  *The existence of a 
support network does not make it "easy" for a woman to
report a rape.*   It may make it easier, but in your
ignorance you have belittled the trauma of rape.

I strongly suggest that you leave the support of rape victims
to people with some compassion for them.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 15:36:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.151734.14352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:
 [her story]
>Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Karen, I feel rather ashamed that it's because of people like me that you
felt you had to explain yourself in this way.

If it's any small help, your post was not a waste of time, and at least I am
now beginning to realise how foolish I have been.  

We will soon be having a referendum on abortion in my country, too, and I
will now be voting whichever way protects a woman's choice, so that one day a
woman like you will not need to explain herself to an impertinent idiot like
me.

Still, don't judge us too harshly, either, eh?  

We are all fools, and all dangerous, but we are not all malicious.  Sometimes
all we need is to be taken aside and slapped about the head a bit.

So what should I do in t.a. now?  It's possible that I should just keep my
fool mouth shut.  If I do, you may remember me to the next simpleton who
comes along, and does not let compassion get in the way of a good argument.

-- 
Frank O'Dwyer,
who often engages his mouth before his brain is in gear,
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: The World Turn'd Upside-Down
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:42:42 GMT

[This week's entry in the George Orwell Memorial Sweepstakes]:
In article <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>
>I think pro-choicers are MORE likely not to trust women to make decisions
>than pro-lifers.  Why are they so afraid of laws that give women the 
>OPTION to view information on fetal development.
	Truly amazing.  Perhaps you've forgotten, Mr. N., that the chief point
of contention between the pro-choice and pro-life sides, at least in th
legislative arena, is the question of who's decision it should be to abort or
not.  The pro-choice side says it's up to the woman.  You say it's up to The
State.  How in the name of Dobbs can you twist this into a claim that pro-
choicers don't trust women to make decisions?  The whole point of the movement
is that women are the ones who *should* be making the decision, and that The 
State should just butt out!
	I assume your crack is a reference to the "informed consent" aspect
of the Pennsylvania law.  IMHO, if information is made available but the
woman is not required to view it, I have no problem with it.  In this case
it's truly optional.  I *do* have a problem with laws that *require* the
viewing of information of any sort.  I suspect most pro-choice folks would
agree with that, although I can only speak for myself on this issue.
>
>
>Peter Ny.
>
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

>


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mississippi Doctors want Supreme Court to end 24-hour delay
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:03:03 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

[This is not simply a transcription of a news article -- I have a
comment to make.]

As the subject line says, doctors in Mississippi are asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to reinstate a challenge to Mississippi's abortion
restriction law which contains restrictions very similar to the ones
enacted by Pennsylvania recently.  The following is the relevent
section from an Associated Press article reprinted in the
_San_Francisco_Chronicle_, October 3, 1992 (Page A6):

          The Mississippi Law originally was to take effect
          in September 1991, but a federal judge barred its
          enforcement pending a decision on the lawsuit.
          The New Orleans appeals court allowed the law to
          take effect when it dismissed the lawsuit in
          August.

          Since then, the appeal filed yesterday said,
          ``Mississippi abortion providers have seen the
          number of women obtaining abortions plummet by
          more than 50 percent.''

          The law creates an undue burden in Mississippi,
          even if it might not in Pennsylvania, the appeal
          said.  Mississippi has only three abortion
          clinics, and most residents -- many of them poor
          -- must travel long distances to get an abortion,
          it said.

          The mandatory delay has led to increased
          surveillance and harassment of women seeking
          abortions, the appeal said.  And anti-abortion
          advocates have used patients' license plate
          numbers to get their names and addresses and
          contact them during the waiting period.

I wonder -- assuming the appeal isn't rife with lies and half-truths,
how could the Supreme Court not decide that the waiting period does
not amount to an `undue burden?'

I would like to see the opinions of some of our regular anti-abortion
posters regarding the news clipping quoted above, and specifically, I
would like to see a defense of the charge that using license plate
numbers to get names and addresses of clinic patients and contacting
them during the mandatory waiting period is an immoral invasion of
privacy which amounts to harassment, and that such harassment is
essentially misogynistic in character.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:52:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.045323.20882@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.004716.7846@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne For
>ach) writes:
>>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:
>>> 
>>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this poi
>t
>>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>> of income in our relationship..  
>>
>>
>>Boy, you sure got it made in the shade, bub, don't you.   You're
>>gettin' her money and her sexual favors too, and you ain't even signed 
>>on the dotted line yet.  Let me guess, Mr. Sleeze Bucket.  You ain't
>>even set a date yet, right?   
>

Ditto, Suzanne. :)

>I must say I resent every one of your statements Suzanne.  The same
>facts about my relationship with Lisa are completely true as
>sparker stated above.  I resent the fact that you would presume that
>a man in this situation would not follow through with his
>comittment.  You don't even know the guy.  Lisa is my soul mate.
>We are inseparable.  Death shall not do us part (and no, we are not
>satanists).  You have never said anything so infuriating to me
>as this.  Sure, you weren't speaking to me, but you were speaking to a
>person who is in exactly my same position.

Get lost. 

=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:14:41 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  <1992Sep29.202254.27444@col.hp.com>  pml@col.hp.com (Patrick M Landry) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > In  <5638@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> > >
> > > Okay, to make it "fair," take 93% of 1.5M, removing the instances of
> > > rape, incest, mother's health, or even fetal health.
> >
> > What does that have to do with the fact that:
> >    Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
> Simple.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the above 'fact' is true,
> it means that even if it CAN be a responsible solution, it rarely is.
>
> 93% of the time it is an irresponsible 'solution' to irresponsible
> behaviour.

You're assuming here that abortion is *only* responsible in the case
of rape, incest, or health threats, and that engaging in protected coitus
is irresponsible behavior - both of which I disagree with.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion