HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
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: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:56:54 GMT

In article <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>
>>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> 
>>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.
>
>I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
>instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.
>
>This started by talking about the united states government, and the way 
>democracy works.  I seem to remember saying that if 51% of the population 
>voted that way, then it would be law (but you seem to have deleted that).
>I was considering the population of the United States.  If really want to make 
>this bet, I demand a more impartial population representing a better cross 
>section of the United States.  Most likely, people who have never heard of 
>either of us.  Not to mention a much more impartial ballot counter.
	In all fairness, the point Adrienne was trying to make was that our
form of government places limitations on pure majority rule, and those
limitations are codified in our Constitution.  The founders of this nation
did this in order to assure that minorities could not be deprived of rights
which, in their view, they posessed by virtue of their status as human beings.
	A simple majority can't, for example, pass a law censoring all forms
of expression which oppose government policy.  Such a law would clearly
violate the first amendment and would be declared unconstitutional.  Alas,
not all constitutional issues are so clear-cut.  Abortion is one of them.  But
the fact remains that simple majority opinion is neither a necessary nor a
sufficient condition for legislation in this country.
	To return to the bet:  even if an impartially-counted representative
corss-section of the USA *did* vote to keep you in your chair for three weeks,
it would still be an unconstitutional imposition on your natural rights.
That's the point.

The_Doge
        ObQuote:  "Remember, Abraham Lincoln didn't die in vain.
                   He died in Washington, DC!"
                                -- Firesign Theatre



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 20:29:01 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:

>>If anyone really wants to find out if I am a hypocrite, you would have a 
>>better chance of learning the truth from any of my friends, rather than from 
>>Heather who, obviously, has something personal against me.  (Which, has 
>>nothing to do with this discussion)
> 
>You obviously have something against me, since you would force me to use my 
>body to support a fetus when you will not do the same.  As for your friends,
>they call you Captain Clueless to your face.  I think this says it all.

Just for public information.  The above line is a lie.  Try to get your facts 
straight.  My online friends used to call me Captain Fink.  One of my 
fraternity nicknames used to be Clueless (Which I chose for myself).  It was 
an inside joke with a specific reference.   And, while my friends may say I am 
many things (including Clueless at times) that doesn't make me a hypocrite.  
Or, is the concept of friends having nicknames for eachother also alien to 
you, Buttercup.  We used to have another friend (I still have him) whose 
nickname was "The Lucky Bastard".  Guess what?  He wasn't necessarily any 
luckier than anyone else, and he has a father.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:09:37 GMT
Summary: And today's "duh?" award goes to...

In article <16DEC92.14435521@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> If you people are so sure (as you seem to be) that the government can not make 
> laws, or ammendments to the constitution, that violate a persons rights, as 
> you have put it, then why do you care if a candidate is pro life?  Why all the 

Who said this?  I know that I explained that the government can
make laws that oppose the will of the majority of the electorate.
Amendments are difficult to pass, but can be passed.  And any idiot
who has been paying attention might have noticed that despite
the Roe v Wade decision many states have passed laws restricting
abortion in ways that many of those who support choice do not
agree with, and that the Supreme Court has backed up some of
these restrictions.  So, what are you talking about?

> protests?  You are implying that is is impossible for abortion to become 
> illegal in this country, nomatter what, because that would violate the womans 
> right to not have someone use her body without her permission.  So, according 

First of all, since there is not a solid consensus of opinion among
pro-choice supporters, I have no idea to whom you refer when you
say "you people."  In the second place, and I must admit you look
awfully stupid when something this basic has to be explained to
you, the right to privacy is an implied right that was found by
the Supreme Court and, depending as it does on interpretation,
can be abrogated by a hostile Court.  It is by no means safe,
and I am mystified as to who you think has been saying that this
right cannot be taken away.

> to you, even if every person elected in this country wanted abortion to be 
> illegal, it still couldn't happen.  If this is not a valid interpretation of 
> your agruments, then please tell me why not?


I just did.  Also, I don't think you understand the arguments in
any event, and I suspect you don't understand the ones I
just presented.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - The Reverend Doug Holtsinger
 



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Summary: <sigh> The DarcyTwit *never* learns, does he?
Organization: If you have to ask, you'l never know.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:48:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.173425.11297@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>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?!!?!?!

No, that's what YOU would say.  That's not what Adrienne said, regardless of
how much you want to believe it is.

>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.

Would you point out to me exactly where she said her opinion was equal to a
fact?   She just pointed out that she can't document it as fact, but she can
make clear it's still her opinion.  Maybe you should ask her to restate it
in terms even the ethically-challenged can understand.

>Is this an unreasonable expectation?

Most of us are still waiting for the day when you make your first reasonable
demand in this, or any other, newsgroup...

--PLH (what else could we expect from a perpetrator who still insists he's a
victim?  As usual, not bloody much...)



-- 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:29:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <15DEC92.13393418@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu show us yet again that he
>does not know the difference between his fantasies and reality:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>
>>No.  If I were entertaining thoughts of sex with you (which I am not) then I
>>would refrain for the same reason I did last time.  You didn't want me to wear
>>a condom, and I didn't think that was safe.
>
>Loren, you are not a teenage boy any more.  Don't you think it's time to put
>your fantasies about older women behind you and try to have a real life?

A:  I think I want to make love to Elizabeth Taylor again.
B:  You've made love with Elizabeth Taylor before?!?
A:  No, but I've *wanted* to before...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:25:38 GMT

In article <1h0f1hINN232@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1gtcprINNbds@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>>Men do not, however, have the same post-conception options for controlling 
>>>>their child-support liability as women do. And THAT is the inequity.
>
>>How many times must I say this before it sinks in, Michal? In a state of
>>nature, there is no such thing as involuntary child support.
>
>You want to talk about nature?  
>
>In the "natural" state, when conception occurs the woman is pregnant.
>No elective abortion -- there ain't no such thing in "nature".
>If that's not "involuntary child support" then what is?

Well, there's no "child" until birth, so if the woman, given a State of 
Nature, doesn't wish to support the child after birth, she just walks away
from it. *POOF*! No child support.

>In "nature" the man can get off scott free.

Precisely my point. It is you and your ilk who are proposing legislative
solutions to the "problem". Therefore, when _your_ precious legislation comes
under heavy attack, throwing up your hands and saying "it's just biology" 
doesn't help your cause a bit. If you want a legislative solution to your 
"problem", then make damn sure it's a fair one. Or we'll just start over again
from scratch.

>Some of us think that we humans have improved upon "nature".

And some of us want to improve on the improvements. I'm arguing for change;
are you?

>>The man indisputably has a (qualified) right to property; it's guaranteed in 
>>the Constitution. However, I am far from convinced that a child has an
>>inalienable "right" to be supported by its natural parents. In fact, every 
>>case of adoption seems to be a counter-example. Can you back up your claim 
>>that such a right exists in the first place, Michal?
>
>Support of children is a fundemental tenent of common law.

Please substantiate this. My sources indicate that a "bastard" generally had
NO rights to support under Common Law. There were scattered attempts to
introduce Writs of Bastardy, but I have no evidence that those were widely
recognized.

>A society that does not put children first deserves the future that it
>creates for itself.

Empty platitudes are a poor substitute for reasoned arguments.

								- Kevin
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: abortion
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:06:32 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <2+m270j@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>egard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) describes
>Phoney:
>
>->Of course, he apologizes very poorly.....
>
>"very poorly?" i hadn't realized that he apologized at
>all for lying about you. did he?

No, he didn't apologize to me at all.

But he did (very poorly) apologize to someone else while defiantly
proclaiming his ability to not-apologize to me.

And he *did* say he was trying to save me from my own errors (not 
that he had any clue of what these might be, but you can give him
credit for being both clueless and a patronizing twit in one fell
swoop) which is a pretty poor excuse for his behavior after all.

Anyway, not that I've seen so far.

Adrienne Regard
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:47:18 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>> 
>>>>If, somehow, I became pregnant, would I have an abortion.  The answer is no.  
>>>>Not unless having an abortion was the only way to save my life.
>>> 
>>>Must be really easy for you to say that, knowing that in reality you will 
>>>never be faced with such a decision.
>> 
>>Granted that we can not know what we will do in a situation until it actually 
>>happens, 
> 
>Loren, this situation will NEVER actually happen.  

Jeust because a situation will never happen doesn't mean that I can't imagine 
what I would do if such a situation were to happen.

I know that you would like to think that I am a hypocrite.  You probably 
assume that all pro-lifers would turn to pro-choice if they became pregnant, 
but that is not the case.  Some of us really believe in what we are saying.

>>>Let's try something new here.  You say that you believe that killing fetuses 
>>>is murder.  If a friend of yours had an abortion, would you remain friends 
>>>with this murderer?
>> 
>>I would support my friend.  I am not saying that I would believe that they 
>>were right.  But, I would accept that they did what they believed they had to 
>>do.  I don't base friendship on whether or not someone follows my own personal 
>>rules.  I have friends who do things that I disagree with all the time.  This 
>>includes people who break the law by taking drugs.  I don't believe that they 
>>are right, but I am still their friend.  Do you stop being friends with people 
>>who do things thet you consider wrong?  Would you stop being friends with 
>>someone who made a mistake?
> 
>But you had implied that having an abortion is more than a mistake.  In fact, 
>you called it murder.  I find it interesting that you would chose to remain 
>friends with murderers.  Would you stay friends with someone who opened fire 
>on a crowd of bystanders, claiming it was a "mistake"?  

Do you have any idea what it means to be a friend?  If my friend claimed that 
something was a mistake, I would believe him/her.  It is something called 
trust.  All of my friendships are based on it.
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 07:19:57 GMT

In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:



>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>basis for legislation.

You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
Here are a few

"Thou shalt not kill"
"Thou shalt not steal"
In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
In some states adultery is illegal.

All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
good laws.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 DEC 92 08:17:34 EST


In article <1992Dec14.180838.838@news2.cis.umn.edu>, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) writes...

>>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.

>You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?
> 
>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.

Here we go again, symbolism over substance!

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Substantiate your assertion. 

How confident are you as to your assertion?

Are you serious or just blowing air?

Where I come from, the addage goes: 'Put up or shut up'.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52350 alt.abortion.inequity:6008 misc.legal:21501
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:05:43 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <17DEC199221573926@oregon.uoregon.edu>, 
dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
> This is beginning to look more and more like the problem with surrogacy
> contracts.  See In the Matter of Baby M, __ N.J. ___, ___ A.2d ___ (19__)
> (ruled illegal).  Sorry, no digest available, and I'm not in the law 
> library.

In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396; 537 A.2d 1227; 77 A.L.R.4th 1 (1988).

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:02:11 GMT

In article <11DEC92.04315613@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:

>>Don't go tapdancing around this one, Loren.  Let's just say for the sake
>>of argument that I CAN indeed get 51 % of the population to vote to have
>>you strapped to a chair for 3 weeks.  

>>Is that OK?

>>Is that a proper subject of legislation?

>>Is that the kind of thing you'd propose for our country?

>Actually, that is the kind of thing we have in our country.  If a
>presidential candidate based his/her campaign on the sole fact that he
>would make a law saying I should be tied up for 3 weeks, and then the
>president got elected, and the population also voted in all the
>congress members, etc. who would back up the president, then it would
>happen.  This is not some fictional country.  in the United States of
>America, the majority has that kind of power.

Yo, twit!

Try reading the Constitution.  That law is unconstitutional on two
grounds that I can think of offhand: it's involuntarily servitude
(forbidden by I think the thirteenth amendment) and it's an ex post
facto law (means that it's a law aimed at a specific individual; the
power to pass said laws was explicitly *denied* to Congress by the
Constitution even before the bill of rights was passed).

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52424 talk.religion.misc:24234 alt.atheism:24015
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Dec 92 03:02:36 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>|> From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
>|> > forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
>|> > 
>|> >>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>|> >>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>|> >>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>|> >>someone who prefers suicide.
>|> > 
>|> > Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>|> > on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
>|> 
>|> 
>|> Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
>
>First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
>pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
>are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?

(I subscribe to alt.atheism, and won't see any replies on the other
 groups, but I don't know if Suzanne tracks a.a so I'm leaving the
 others in as a courtesy)

The trouble is that TV preachers and others tell their flocks that anybody
who disagrees is an atheist. I've heard one (I forget which) say that
pro-choicers kill unborn children because they're atheists because they
don't obey god. I've also heard them say that evolutionists are atheists
because they don't believe the word of god as revealed in the bible.

So they equate pro-choice and evolution with atheism.
Remember Mark Barry's questionnaire? He didn't know what an atheist was,
and I doubt if Suzanne does either.

>
>-Mike Noonan

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Reverend Holtsinger's obsession with Patrick (Was: Re: Patrick Humphrey finds humor in mass rape? (was Re: Rape After Rape After Rape)
Organization: William's Marsh
	<1992Dec19.194016.2346@ncsu.edu> <1016@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<#ar2g+r@rpi.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:52:24 GMT

In article <#ar2g+r@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>->dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>->#Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

>->Putting quotation marks around the phrase implies that
>->Holtsinger is quoting Patrick.  I'd like to see the cite
>->for the post where Patrick used those exact words.

>oh i don't think patrick wrote those words. DODie has
>fudged quotes before, you know. i don't think it's a
>good idea to distrust any quote or reference which DODie
>posts until you check it against the original.

I mentioned that I'd like to see DOD's cite, too, for one reason -- I said
something to that effect, as I've freely admitted, but I didn't use quite
those words.  Therefore, Reverend Doug is making things up again.  No
surprises there.

--PLH, what am I doing up this late?


--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion