HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Summary: When will Darcy begin thinking??? 
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, 10 Nov 92 02:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.020030.4492@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[Snip.  Snip.  Oh hell, where's the chainsaw???]

>
>Can you read Cochran's mind, Larry? How do you know that what you and I
>may agree is "unnecessary" is not seen as "necessary" by Cochran, or vice
>versa? How do you know that he doesn't WANT to force women to sign "abortion 
>request forms" before they are permitted an abortion? How do you know that 
>he doesn't WANT to strictly forbid abortions on comatose women? Don't ASSUME 
>that Cochran wants no new laws, Larry. That MIGHT be a very mistaken 
>assumption. By his own admission, he used to be much more pro-life than he
>is currently.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  (Oh, geez.  After the election and #2 passing, I've
needed a laugh like this).

Well, gee, Darcy maybe it's because Larry takes the time to *ask*, instead
of just posting away with psychotic-nightmare-on-elm-street babble?

(For the record.  Darcy's comment about "he used to be much more pro-life
than he is currently" is wrong.  So before he starts masturbating over what
he thinks might be a net.factoid, let me explain.  I used to feel that the
current system of RvW was usable, and since it was something that protected
at least some of the rights of women, people could talk about trying to
change it all they wanted to, as long as they didn't try and impose any
more restrictions on it.  After reading my first Druiex post, I realized
the error of my ways...)

--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Protecting newborn infants as non-persons
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 14:52:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.212409.14253@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
	...a vague construction of this argument deleted ...
|> 
|> If we consider newborn infants as non-persons, then we
|> are not considering their interests, but we are considering
|> society's interests in protecting them.  Therefore, when
|> when society's interests are not served by protecting a
|> a particular newborn infant, then that infant may be killed. 
|> 

This is the same logic that permits war and capital punishment.
So what's your point?

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Who are the enemies to women?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:03:59 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert Scott Parker) writes:
->> Her answer is clearly, "yes".  Happy now?

->Well, no, because Ms. Birmingham didn't answer the question.

this statement is not correct.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47089 talk.politics.misc:58833
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Doodie Comes Out Against Bush Regime...
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:15:49 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
]
] Some pro-choicers have argued that the state can protect
] newborn infants from being killed, even though they might be
] considered as ``non-persons''.  A person, they argue, is an 
] entity which holds constitutional rights. 


Still do not believe the LAWS that have been 
clarified by George Bush's IRS.....

Besides that is not really news... 

You just haven't enjoyed the last 12 years of Liberals in the white house.


ciao
drieux

ps: why is Doodie Now trying to Create NonPerson amongst the BORN????
Are you planning some New Auto de Fe for the followers of Christianity?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:10:57 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>No Peter, I am stuck in the 1780's when some pretty intelligent people
>>wrote the Constitution, the whole concept of which is a free people.
>
>Now you are stuck in 1973, when Justice Blackmun claimed to find 
>something in the Constitution that those pretty intelligent people, to
>whom he cannot hold a candle, never intended.  

I find it more than a little presumptuous of you to be deciding what
the framers of the constitution did or did not intend.  Personally, I
find the opinion of a supreme court justice to be considerably more
credible than yours.

>>Not just free men, but free people (which I assume means women too).
>
>On the other hand, by your standards, unborn children, who were 
>protected by the British common law (which the colonies inherited)
>do not even have the right to life, much less any other freedom.

Of course unborn children have a right to life; they have as much
right to life as I have a right to walk around on the moon.  However,
I'll point out the obvious and note that an embryo's right to life is
similar to my right to walk on the moon in that neither I nor unborn
children are very able to take advantage of that right.

A more relevent question might be: do unborn children have any right
to steal the resources of the mother?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:06:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.011836.1992@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
)In article <s6ougqc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

)>I suggest you contact your company's human resources people &
)>ask them for some information about sexual harassment in the
)>workplace.
)
)What is this about? I can assure you that I have never sexually harassed 
)any men at work. Perhaps that is what is reprehensible about my attitude?
)
)Confused, out in the lobby -
)nadja

Rash assumption!  If you ever helped to do something that created a 'hostile
environment', you too could be a 'sexual harasser' and not even know it,
nder the modern definition of the term.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion (couldn't find original)
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 30 Oct 92 11:52:39 +0930
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1992Oct7.010135.4505@funlwb.enet.dec.com>, ollis@redbck.stl.dec.com (Stephen Ollis) writes:
> 
> 	What is the problem with you Christian dudes? It's fairly clear that
>>abortion is O.K. The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his
>>impending demise (and therefore doesn't suffer phsycologically). In fact the
>>same argument can be applied to justify "post-natal abortion", since a child
>>of
>>say less than 1 year of age can not understand that he is about to die
>>(provided the surgeon acts tactfully), and can be put to death in a painless
>>way.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: a reason to exist
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:18:10 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov8.022830.20646@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> If certain moderate pro-choicers didn't exist,
> what would Keegan do?  Play with himself all day?

Doug, if you've failed to learn anything else from USENET, you should at
least have learned that not everybody shares your particular predilections.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:50:54 GMT

One could argue that since Bush/Quale was the only choice for pro-life but
there were two choices for pro-choice, that the abortion issue would actually
*help* Bush.  Assuming that everyone felt strongly about abortion (which is
not correct) then everyone who was pro-life would vote for Bush while others
would be split between Clinton and Perot depending on other issues.

The fact that Bush did *not* win says that the number of people who feel
strongly enough against abortion to want to make it illegal altogether are
*not* a majority.

With careful tactics and the hypothetical situation of everyone feeling strongly
about abortion (one way or the other), Bush could have won with just over a
third of the population being truly "pro-life".  (Careful tactics, being as
important to the success as the situation.)  The minority of pro-life would
then be in control, due to the extra candidate.  One should ask:  would this
be a good thing?  (Of course, in reality, not everyone who voted for Bush was
pro-life, I expect, so that the number of "pro-life" people is lower than it
would seem from presidential votes alone.)

-Rob
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Logic vs. Rhetoric (was: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 10:38:42 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <13886@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

In his prefatory paragraph to a long article completely trashing Mr. Darcy's
arguments, Mr. Butler says:

(since he doesn't read talk.abortion...)
>I wasn't even aware of Ms Regard's "cheerleading" until I saw it at the end of
>your own article, it's silly for you to chastise me for not responding to it. 
>You seem to be "blathering" rather severly, in your attempt to impute
>something between Ms Regard and I, but if it makes you feel better Mr Darcy, I
>will gladly note to Ms Regard that, as far as I am concerned, it is quite safe
>to compliment me in talk.abortion where I will not see that compliment.

Therefore:

"Hear, Hear!

"What he said!"

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:57:07 GMT


I wrote on whether abortion laws constitute an "imposition of morality":

>>
>>OK:  consider laws prohibiting cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.  
>>Do you think these laws constitute an imposition of morality on those 
>>citizens who do not agree that cruel and inhumane treatment of animals 
>>is in any way morally significant or wrong?

In article <adams.721406520@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) replied: 

>
>The basic question comes down to whether or not the animals have rights
>that are being violated.  Do animals have a right to be free from cruel and
>inhumane treatment?  Our system of laws is designed to protect the rights
>of the members of our society.  "Animal rights" is an area that is outside
>the basic thrust.  

OK, then, what is it about abortion laws that makes them an "imposition
of morality" whereas animal rights laws are not? Couldn't it be argued
that laws prohibiting abortion  come down to a question of whether fetuses 
and embryos have rights that are being violated and which may therefore
override the right of the mother to bodily autonomy?

Roger Williams
roger@access.digex.com


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:28:20 GMT

In <1992Nov10.005056.24296@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu 
   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
In article <1992Nov9.210359.15292@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Nov07.061227.103583@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
   (Larry Margolis) writes: >>> 

>>>come in contact with (at least, where you *know* that they're users) 
>>>are *abusers* might have anything to do with the problems you seem to 
>>>have distinguishing the two?
>
>>I am not an addictions counselor.  I come into contact with 
>>many *users* and their families.  The distinction between "use" 
>>and "abuse" is quite *moot* if the impaired individual is un-
>>able to function in a supportive capacity for a spouse or a
>>child.  "I'm sorry, Sally, Daddy is wasted right now but I'm
>>sure he'll tuck you in some other night".
>
>Similarly, the distinction between use and non-use is moot of the
>individual in question simply fails to function in the capacity you
>describe. This seems to be a concept that Bill has serious trouble
>grasping.

The irrelevance of your statement is uncharacteristic of you.  I 
was (at the risk of stating the very obvious) not discussing the 
difference between use and non-use.  I was responding to Larry,
who questioned my understanding of use vs. abuse.  At any rate,
given your lack of real-life experience with such problems, you 
might be well advised to obtain some before questioning my under-
standing of the issue.  Until then, your speculations about the 
benign social consequences of recreational drug use have no real
credibility.  You don't seem at all interested in how your be-
havior might ultimately affect the lives of other people.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Telling Tales Out of School - an adendum
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:47:52 GMT


due to technical difficulties, I forgot to list

Komrade Kegaan: SexualDeviant, Moral Pervert, and Brutal
		WarMongerBabyKiller[tm] who has been a 
		victim of the EastCoastWimpLiberalPoliticalMachine,
		{no to mention purveyor of tech writing gigs
		to desperate Sickies who should be looking for real Jobs.}

We apologize for this oversight....

Next week, Why Nadja would make a good Nun in a Parochial School....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: *Some* battles have been won
Summary: One more may be...stay tuned.
Organization: Definitely not Dennissteve's favorite place, now
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.172458.23497@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>Eric Marsh made some interesting points.  Imo, he didn't hit the nail on the
>head, but he didn't hit his thumb either.  To be precise, *some* battles have
>been won but the war will rage on.  Bill Clinton's election should assure
>that the FOCA will be passed and that justices sympathetic to women's issues
>will be appointed to the Supreme Court.  The number of female members in both
>houses of Congress jumped and anti-abortion referendums in Arizona and
>Maryland were defeated.
>
>However, clinics will continue to be blockaded and doctors and patients will
>continue to be harassed.  (N.B. - the house of the judge who issued the
>restraining order against demonstrators at the Robbinsdale Women's Clinic
>is being picketed.)  And members of the Religious and/or Radical Right will
>continue to assure a high demand for abortion by opposing sex education and
>effective birth control.
>
>It ain't over yet, folks.

Not by a long shot, it isn't -- and we can't afford to become complacent
now.  Look at where that got His Majesty in the election -- 37% of the vote,
and a spot on the unemployment line in nine weeks from this coming
Wednesday.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, after all.

>On a lighter note, Chaneyhall should be more amusing than ever. :-)

Assuming he's around -- his caretakers at CSUS are *not* pleased with his
recent outburst at me in Fidonet mail, and have put him on notice that he is
either to straighten up, or the sponsorship of his nextnet account will
vanish.  I have a feeling he's going to a lot quieter than usual for a
while...

--PLH (I tried to tell him, but he wouldn't listen...)


--
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DOD: woman killer
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:48:14 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Nov8.012725.26923@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>While you [DOD] might prefer women to die from medical complications late in
>a pregnancy, most sane people would like to see doctors be able to
>save the lives of at least the women by performing a third trimester
>abortion.  For that reason alone, most of us think that the clause in
>RvW preventing the illegality of such abortions is a good thing.

Perhaps His Dougness is licking his lips at the prospect of Das Future,
brought to you by the lovely German folks who are pumping air and nutrients
into a dead pregnant woman so the fetus can keep on keepin' on.  WOW!
Now there's NO REASON for an abortion, even the threat of death!  And any
woman who wouldn't gladly slit her own throat and be Frankensteinized for
the sake of Der Fetus is an unnatural FREAK, Ja?

O Brave New World, that has such people in it...

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jay Stein stops insinuating, and starts posting claptrap
Date: 6 Nov 1992 12:25:40 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov5.202416.28786@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Gosh, Jay Stein says that a plurality of pro-lifers condone
>abortion clinic bombings.   He even asked a "huge" number of
>them to support his conclusion.  I'm really convinced now.
>
>Just yesterday I went out and asked a "huge" number of 
>pro-lifers what they thought of Jay Stein, and they all 
>thought he had no valid arguments to support abortion.  

What else would you expect from a bunch of extremists who condone clinic
bombings?  :-)

I notice that you couldn't say "huge number of pro-lifers" with conviction,
and had to use quotes on "huge".  I hope you're right.

>Doug Holtsinger

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47466 alt.flame:14568 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:576 misc.legal:19734
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Date: 10 Nov 1992 07:57:46 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.721348444@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

.Sounds about right.  A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
.bizarre when you read the fine print.  South Carolina has laws against
."adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
.cohabitation or habitual actions.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does cohabitation and habit make the illegalization of adultery or
fornication 'less bizarre'?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:14:00 GMT

From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
AR> Kellmeyer, don and me
AR> >Sorry, but who cares?  Anonymous sperm donors cannot be held for child
AR> >support.  Why does it make a difference if she knows the name?

AR> Oh, come on.  What you are really saying is to hell with the thousands
AR> of years of legal precident our western culture has relied upon.

But, you don't seem to object to "saying to hell" with the thousands of
years of legal precdents which are to the perceived disadvantage of women.

So why object to attempting to change legal precedents which are perceived to
be disadvantageous to men?

And after all, (allow me to take the Devil's Advocate once more...) if it is
apparently true (as many in the womrn's movement say) that fighting to right
the wrongs suffered by women, will not only not harm men, but *help* them,
then why should fighting the wrongs suffered by men be harmful to women?


> Steven Kellmeyer...
AR> >Given your intelligence level, I doubt anyone could.

AR> Ah, Steven, I knew you wouldn't disappoint us all.  Just one ad hominem to
AR> sweeten the pot.

Nothing personal, but you haven't exactly been immune to ad-hominem attacks,
either.  (neither am I, it seems, so we're *all* calling the kettle black!  <-:

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Wesley, have you ever seen any ... gladiator movies
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:11:10 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov06.231043.147510@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

> ( a bazillion line article all about how Peter's machine is down, he
    is very confused, he made an honest mistake and now he's talking to
    Larry about it.)  (Thank you, Larry, for taking what must have been
    a *lot* of time to explain things)

I find it *very* odd, if it was an honest mistake, and Peter can apparently
send e-mail out....
                   that he's sending mail to Larry.  Did I miss it and he
accused Larry of forgery, too?  Am I simply second on his list to explain
his error too?  Probably, I'm third, after Larry and after Susan Garvin.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

Adrienne Regard