HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:46:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.043340.25301@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[Lots of stuff deleted]

>Where's the disclaimer about just how limited your "knowledge" is, Larry?
>And what's this "we" bit? Is that a royal "we", or are you (both) turning 
>schizophrenic on me now?
>
Kevin, if you're accusing Larry of having multiple personalities, I'm
afraid I must again correct you. MPD and schizophrenia have
absolutely nothign to do with one another. MPD is a neurosis,
Schizophrenia is a psychosis. They are totally unrelated.

We now return to your regularly scheduled tirade.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 02:22:53 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 <1993Jan3.194606.2536@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>I should like to point out that almost nobody seriously proposes that
>there should be no restrictions whatever on the process of getting an
>abortion.

True, but many people *do* seriously argue that there should be no restrictions
beyond those associated with any other medical procedure.  I believe that's
generally abbreviated to "no restrictions" in discussion here.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 03:49:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.002219.29734@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.043412.8538@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <=-22d2b@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>->[Over 40 lines of Kebbin defending himself as a group deleted]
>>>
>>>->Good Ghad Kebbin, this must really get under your skin, if you're
>>>->going to post that much junk about it.
>>>->You can think of yourself as a group if you want, I don't care. Just
>>>->try to avoid the psych boys when you're doing so.
>>>
>>>i don't really believe kebbie thinks of himself as a
>>>group. he simply needed to convince people that he was
>>>a group once in order to slither away from admitting he
>>>fucked up yet again. in the global scheme of
>>>kebbie-dialogue, this was just more of the same.
>>>
>>I don't really think he considers himself a group either, but isn't it
>>fun to watch him squirm?
>
>Are you here for rational debate, Mr. Cochran, or for "squirming"?
>
Like virtually everybody, Kevin, I am here for a bit of both. I'll
deabte with those who debate, flame those who are rampant twits, and
watch the squirming of those who squirm when cornered.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 27 Dec 92 14:00:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec26.230428.11940@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>Your comments have nothing to do with the article which I posted.
>Feel free to wander off into some other subject, but don't expect
>me to follow.  

You posted that the fact that the dividing line was arbitrary, drove
your opposition to RvW.  All legal mandates are arbitrary.  You oppose
RvW not because it is arbitrary but because you disagree with it.

>If viability is an arbitrary dividing line, as Justice Blackmun 
>puts it, then why should the states be bound to follow this 'arbitrary'
>line?   What precedent is there for the Supreme Court to place 
>'arbitrary' restrictions on the state's power to enact legislation?

The Supreme Court can do whatever it wants.  All levels of government
as well as citizens must comply under force of law.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: about chasing people off the net
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:39:48 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to patrick:
[...]
|>Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
|>address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  Your old nemesis, Chaney,
|>once said she was flamed off the net by the politically correct
|>pro-choicers.

you poor silly twit. you again display your ignorance of the
net and of this newsgroup. and, to make yourself look even
more foolish, you believed airplane boy.

Siren was originally a group of four people who decided
to post in a specific style. when three of the four had
departed, the last of the original group tried to carry
on the personna. she failed. she wasn't up to it. she,
for one reason or other, never posted in her own personna,
whatever that was/is. Siren wasn`t chased from the net.
she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
her failures.

                                                     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:11:59 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 <1992Dec31.000140.4189@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <C03G0J.H94@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, by psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow):
>> In article <1992Dec28.065056.50307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
>> (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>> In <nyikos.725150678@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>> (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>> >Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
>>> >fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.
>
>>> This would be interesting to see you document this, since the dictionary
>>> says:
>>> fetus (n)
>>> DEFINITIONS:
>>>     an unborn or unhatched vertebrate esp.
>>>     after attaining the basic structural plan
>>>     of its kind; specif : a developing human
>>>     from usu. three months after conception
>>>     to birth
>>> (c) G. & C. Merriam
>
>Gosh, I hate to complicate matters, but I must take issue with this
>definition.  According to my human embryology text, the fetal period begins
>in the 9th week of gestation when, as the dictionary correctly reports, the
>criterion for fetushood has been met: attainment of the basic structural
>plan of a human.  I think you'll find that this is embryology's definition
>of fetus, and that the dictionary writers were influenced by the popular
>trimester system which is numerically convenient but is not based on
>developmental events.
>
>>> and the statistics I have show that more than 90% of all abortions in
>>> the USA are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
>
>It would be interesting to see how many abortions are performed before and
>after 9 weeks.

   50% of the 1.6 million abortions each year take place at 8 weeks or less
   from the last time the woman menstruated (LMP); 27% at 9-10 weeks LMP; and
   12% at 11-12 weeks LMP.  6% of abortions take place at 13-15 weeks LMP;
   4% at 16-20 weeks LMP; and less than 1% at 21 weeks LMP or more (0.6%).

   About 100 or 0.01% of abortions take place after 24 weeks.

I don't have any figures for exactly 9 weeks, but even if we go with your
textbook instead of the common definition, Petey is wrong about "most".
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:35:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.160614.23527@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}As I had misunderstood his point, Galen Hekhuis more clearly presented
}his position, as is appropriate.

*Whew*  You don't know how much I sweated the appropriateness of that posting!

}He suggests that if abortion and slavery were somewhat similar, one
}might expect to find the same kinds of exemptions in the anti-abortion
}legislation as is found in anti-slavery legislation.  Previously he
}pointed out that the typical anti-abortion position allows for
}exceptions, while slavery abolition did not.
}
}While one might expect a certain similarity between anti-abortion and
}anti-slavery rules, I fail to see why such uniformity in the codes
}must be required for any analogy to exist between slavery and
}abortion.
}
}As such I feel this distinction provides only meager support for Mr.
}Hekhuis claim, "Abortion and slavery are in no way similar."  I have
}already suggested certain similarities exist.  Adding a difference to
}the list does not remove the similarities.

I don't think I said that they were in no way similar.  I made quite
an error if I did so.  I meant to say that they were so fundamentally
dissimilar that valid conclusions could not be drawn from one to the
other.


Let's take this rather slowly:

Slavery is not possible without an enabling government or
enabling legislation.  Either there is someone to enforce slavery
or it doesn't exist.  Take for example someone who wished to
make someone much larger than them a slave.  It probably wouldn't
work, or it wouldn't last too long unless there was external 
help to make it happen.  Granted, without law slavery is
legal, but there is also no law enforcing involuntary servitude
nor is there any law mandating return of a "slave."

It is exactly the opposite in the case of abortion.  No enabling
legislation or government is necessary to make it happen.  In 
the absence of law abortion is legal, to be sure, in the absence
of law everything is.  It is the default state.  It requires a 
law to ban abortion, not enable it.

There is but one example of many that show that slavery and abortion
are rather different subjects.  There may be similarities, but
at their core they are quite different.  

There may be some similarities I might be able to find between a
whale and a jet aircraft.  The existence of some similarities does
not make the two things equivalent, nor does it lead us to 
believe that conclusions we draw about one to be valid about 
the other.  

It has been acknowledged that there are some similarities
between abortion and slavery.  There may be some others.  That 
some similarities exist does not enable us to use one to draw
conclusions about the other, however.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Every Pro-Lifer must condone Mother Enslavement
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:29:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <5897@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
#In article <nyikos.724977400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
##In <BzF13M.9Cx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
###***************************************************************
###* My mother CHOSE to have me. That's how I know she loves me. *
###*                              -Karen Uru                     *
###***************************************************************
#
##Karen Uru obviously was never told, "Be grateful I had you.  I could have
##aborted you, you know."  [To the accompaniment of a tale of woe of
##how much easier mom could have had it if she had remained childless.]
#
#I could never look my mom in the face and say, "Y'know, mom, I care so little
#about you that I would force you to bear me against your will.  So what's a
#little pain, bleeding and scarring for life?  I'm number one, babe, and don't
#you forget it."
#
#Every "pro-lifer" says it each time they affirm their creed.

Oh, yes.  I can just picture the lockets these people give to 
their mothers on Mother's Day, all gold and shiny, and engraved,
"My life is worth more than yours, mom."  

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:18:27 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 <1992Dec23.013411.7322@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.234506.23392@ncar.ucar.edu>
>kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>
>> *You're* the one who casually asserted that (see above)
>> "there is no difference between a late-term fetus and an infant".
>> Do you really believe there are no significant distinguishing
>> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?! <y,n>
>
>There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
>and a newborn infant, but I have not heard any arguments
>from pro-choicers which would give *moral* weight to these
>facts.  Thus I conclude that there is no moral difference
>between killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term
>fetus.

You're free to conclude that if you choose.  Most people *do* see
a moral difference.  However, I see no point in attempting to
convince *you* that a moral difference exists; you still haven't
admitted that Susan Garvin satisfactorily provided a crucial
difference between a late-term fetus and a neo-nate.

Note, however, that just because *you* believe there's no moral difference
doesn't give you cause to lie and claim that *others* see no moral
difference.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Does Susan Garvin support abortion legislation?
Summary: Does Reverend Holtsinger?
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:06:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec27.182324.6617@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1171@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## When people on talk.abortion discuss "legislation," they are 
## usually talking about legislation that affects abortion.
#
#Given your past statements on the FOCA, would it be 
#a fair statement to say that 'Susan Garvin supports 
#abortion legislation which Doug Holtsinger does not'?

Of course it would.  Of course, it would also be fair to
say "Reverend Doug Holtsinger supports constitutional
amendments to restrict women's rights which Susan Garvin
does not."

I support a woman's right to choose abortion or childbirth,
DODie.  Do you?

#Or would it be better to acknowledge that the term
#"legislation" usually implies "anti-abortion legislation"?

No, DODie, I don't share your belief that lies are better
than the truth.  I also don't share your inability to read -
I've seen people use the modifier "restrictive" for the
word "legislation" here repeatedly.  I know what they mean.
It's a pity, but not a shock, that you don't know what is
meant by the term "legislation."  I'd suggest a dictionary,
since context hasn't helped you.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: It's theoretical.
	<1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com>
	<1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1hv08cINNl9c@meaddata.meaddata.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:01:10 GMT

In article <1hv08cINNl9c@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

 In article <1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
 |> In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
 |> 
 |> >Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
 |> >dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
 |>
 |> If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
 |> I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
 |> certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
 |> You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
 |> difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
 |> *another persons* body.
 |> Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.

 If Patricia Ireland wants to abort her own body, I would not care, nor would
 I do anything to stop her. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
 certainly agree that she should be allowed to abort herself if she wishes.
 You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
 difference between what you do to your *own* body, and what is done to
 *another persons* body.

Well, let's see -- besides the fact that you've got the parrot act down
quite well, you seem to be having all sorts of trouble with the idea that
people already born aren't said to abort their own bodies.  There's already
a much handier term available for that act:  suicide.  You also seem to be
just the least bit unclear as to when a fetus becomes a person, which is
what generates this whole dust-up in the first place...where do you draw the
line, and why do you think the rest of us should be forced to accept your
definition? 

 Try not to post without engaging yoru brain,or at least your spelling checker.

A shame you couldn't heed your own advice, isn't it?

--PLH, someone had to say it...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:23:41 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes: 

>> What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?

> Self interest.  [...]  neither you nor I will be harmed by an abortion.

This is why pro-choicers must condone infanticide.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Any ProNapalm Fans out there?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:14:03 GMT

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
] In article <1992Dec30.092753.12246@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] |> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
] |> ] 
] |> ] What's the problem?  Most 
] |> ] would gladly accept that label.  Unless, of course, you're just a wee bit 
] |> ] uneasy with the concept of abortion.  A hint of concsience maybe?
] |>  
] |> Just thought I would ask,
] |> or is this too a matter of conscience?
] 
] I wouldn't use napalm myself, but I'm for the rights of others to use it.
] So I guess I'm pro-choice.  ;->
 
Is this an Awareness of MoralGuilt Creeping OUT?

Its Not that you want to Use Napalm, but you will 
allow others to use it......

Why Not come Right out and Admit that Latently You
are AntiMilitary, and Want to Dehumanize All Vets,
and deprive them of a Primary Defensive Mechanism....

{ did I get the right sort of DearOldDoug 273 degree
to port turn on that? }

ciao
drieux

ps: Paul, the ball is in your court....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:34:03 GMT
Organization: NRL


In article <34636@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
Mezias) writes:
> In article <1992Dec25.033234.4258@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
> (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:



You were doing great Kevin, until you bit the bait.  You went through a 
systematic point-for-point debunking of small subset of a long list of 
bogus arguments and then proceeded to get sucked into nit-picking.  This 
is exactly why these specious arguments are so insidius!  They distract 
people from the real issue - abortion kills children.

Giving SJM the benefit of the doubt, I would characterize him as being 
duped, as are millions in this country.  Rhetoric and techniques of 
persuasion are much more powerful dictators of public opinion than truth.  
SJM just passes along the rhetoric.  His feeble attempts to explain 
himself beg the question, "why are these specious arguments so rampant in 
the pro-abortion camp?"  The answer is simple - if you argue against them 
you legitimize them - raise them to the level worthy of reasoned debate.  
In other words Kevin, you've been had.


-Paul
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:00:05 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|>If you feel that the risk involved with driving is too great, you have 
|>a right to stop driving.  If a woman feels that her pregnancy is posing 
|>to great a risk to her life, she has a right to have an abortion and 
|>stop being pregnant.

|Do you think any of this stuff through before you post it?  I do NOT have
|the right to FORCE YOU to stop driving.  YOU might run me over when I'm walking
|down the street.  YOU might slam your care into my kitchen when I'm eating
|dinner.  YOU might kill my mother.  Hacking a baby into pieces amounts to the
|same thing. [...]

Meaning that you "do NOT have the right to FORCE [hsims] to stop"
obtaining an abortion.  Quite right!

By the way, no babies are involved in abortion.  Babies haven't
reached puberty, after all, and so can't possibly be pregnant.
And I also assume babies aren't capable of being doctors.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
Newsgroups: talk.abortion