HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Summary: Around and around the mulberry bush... 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 00:54:12 GMT

In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>In article <14DEC92.20420711@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|I'm willing to sign a legal contract stating that I will not abort any 
>|unwanted pregnancies if you will agree to be fisted for nine months.  What's 
>|nine months of your time compared to the life of a cute little unborn baby?
>|
>|Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
>|resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>|Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.
>
>I find this argument bizarre.

Why?  Let me guess.  It's because you're a man, and men don't suffer through
pregnancies?

>
>For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
>sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,
>and being willing to submit to the conditions imposed by someone else
>as a condition for their doing so. It is similar to the difference

Sortof like the condition of wanting to carry a z/e/f to term and being forced
to do it because the pro-lifers have made abortions illegal?  Is that what the
point you're trying to make?

>between being willing to risk your life to defend another, and giving
>in to terrorist demands.

Again, like being willing to risk your life to carry a pregnancy to term
because you have diabetes and being forced to do so because abortion is
illegal and diabetes isn't considered "life threatening" to the woman?

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

Well, there's an awful lot of pro-lifers who are willing to arrange nine
months of pain and suffering, not to mention quite a few deaths just in
order to make a "debating point".

--
=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???=
=This .signature file will be in Chicago, Illinois, USA From 12/25/92 until   =
=01/03/92.  Have you given *YOUR* .signature a vacation from the net lately???=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Doug - Apologist Twist (WAS about chasing people off the net)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:14:18 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = James Keegan:
>>> = Nyikos, alleged Math Whiz:

>>> Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
>>> address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  

No, you're just a clueless idiot.

>> Siren wasn`t chased from the net.
>> she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
>> her failures.

>You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
>could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 

You mean, like your constant lies and flames of Becky Bell?

You should talk, Liar.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:02:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.213513.22430@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

|> 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."

You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a small man cannot
enslave a bigger man, or a minority cannot enslave a majority.

|> 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.

You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a developed
person can stop the beating heart of a lesser developed person.

What's the difference?  In both cases, the stronger can impose will
upon the weaker or underrepresented?

|> 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...

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:10:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.174213.2484@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

> In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
writes:

> >In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com 
(Muriel 
> >Nelson) writes:
> >
> >....

> >
> >> 
> >
> >Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then 
than 
> >now -

> Care to provide evidence to support this? Here, try this:
> Total morbidity for D&C and Suction abortions: 8.8 complications per
> 1000 abortions, or 0.88%.
> Total mortality for D&C and suction abortions: 4.0 per 100,000
> abortions, or 0.004%.
> Compare that to complication rates as high as 20% from illegal
> abortions.
> (Source: _Maternal Child Care_ 14th edition,
> Reeder/Mastroianni/Martin)
> 
> >try a different line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, "back alley, 
coat 
> >hanger" image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keeps 
those 
> >undecided folks shaking in their shoes. 
...

>                   Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Gee Mark why don't you also provide me with statistics on the average 
number of pimples on a baboons butt? Its nice to see that abortionists are 
so good that the number of mothers spared per child executed is high.  
Unfortunately, as you so deftly ignore, the total number of women killed 
is greater now that abortion is so ubiquitous.  But I know, its not the 
women you care about, its the amazing effeciency and precision of todays 
techniques.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53694 talk.politics.misc:65881 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11059
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:23:05 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Dec31.120002.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
by cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:
> In article <1992Dec31.042143.2459@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>> 	Now please explain why it's morally acceptable for actual, undoubted
>> human persons to die in the interest of reducing the crime rate, but morally
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> unacceptable for zygotes or fetii to die in the interest of reducing the
>                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> rates of mental and physical distress and/or illness among women.  

>      "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
> appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
> of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
> considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).

I hope you're prepared to back this "definition" up, preferably with a
quotation from a reputable dictionary.  While you're at it, look up
"fetus"; 4 to 1 you'll find an inaccurate definition.

[deletia]

>      "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are simply labels that apply to abortion;
> we realize they mean "anti-abortion rights" and "pro-abortion rights"
> respectively.  The pro-life/pro-capital punishment position is also
> logically consistent.  It assumes that there is a right-to-life, but, along
> with this right, there is a responsibility not to murder (i.e. to unlawfully
> cease another's right-to-life).  If one acts irresponsibly, then he is 
> no longer necessarily entitled to his right.

I'm no legal expert, so I must query: Is that really the philosophy behind
capital punishment?  It seems to be your philosophy, but is it a prevalent
legal doctrine?  I ask because I note that the Declaration of Independence
asserts the existence of "inalienable rights" and, according to the (oh no!)
dictionary, "inalienable" means "that may not be taken away or transferred".


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Patrick's ideas of what makes right (Was: Bare-Fased [sic])
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:31:00 GMT
Distribution: na
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 <nyikos.725739272@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?

Because she's dead, you ignoramus.

>Your old nemesis, Chaney, once said she was flamed off the net
>by the politically correct pro-choicers.

He lied.  She sent a post asking him to stop.  He continued to lie.

   Mr. Chaney:

        Please stop throwing my name at people as I have been told
   that you are doing.  I have enjoyed most of my stay, even though some
   of it is less than savory.  To most people who have any impression of
   me, I am sure they will be perfectly capable of judging my virtues and
   shortcomings without your constant harping about it.
        I have disagreed with people, sometimes even vituperic and
   acrimonious people, during my year-long fling with t.a., but I try to
   forgive and forget, and assume that other people will of their own
   benevolence-- as James Steerforth said to David Copperfield:

   "Remember me at my best."

        There are honorable adversaries and friends that I will not
   forget, and bitter enemies who I have yet to forgive or forget, but I
   sincerely hope that I have provided an example of someone who is not
   afraid to be true to her own self and fostered some decent discussion
   in my time.  Using my name the way I think you are serves no
   constructive purpose and violates what I think I stood for, and I
   beseech you to stop doing so.

        And to the rest of the people, may I offer some very humble
   opinion with trepidation:

        The problem of abortion choice is so complex and intricately
   related to many other facets of the society that it is possible that a
   "correct" answer may never be arrived at, and will never be as long as
   people stick to the absolutist approach of "this is the supreme and
   immovable truth regardless of circumstances".

        Don't try to argue absolutes.  It is like arguing infinities--
   it simply will never hang together logically.  It is also, oh, so
   flame-inducing, all the time!

   --- --- ---

"Remember me at my best."     Rest in peace, Siren.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 06:37:56 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 <1993Jan3.023825.10611@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I *know* you've done nothing to me but make me
>>emotionally more hostile to father's rights.  (I still support the
>>same things, but now I do it grudgingly.)
>
>Grudging support is still support. If Karl has stimulated some of the
>undecideds or the borderliners into thinking through the issue, and
>realizing how unfair the current system is, then maybe it has been worth
>the risk, don't you think?

No.  See where she said "*still* support"?  I.e., she hasn't changed her mind
about supporting it (but *is* "more hostile" because of Karl's threats).
I think that Karl's approach will lose more support than it gains.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:27:49 GMT

dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->> ->Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
->> 
->> i'm afraid i've decided not to provide you with that
->> information.

->No, you've just decided to waste bandwidth riding his ass. 

boy! am i glad that you came along, dan. you know,
sometimes i'd really like to respond to a post but just
don't have the time. now that you're here, and now that
we know you're perfectly willing to state what i think,
perhaps you'd be willing to post replies to the posts i
don't get to. i don't even have to tell you which
posts since, you can read my mind for them too, can't
you? 

there is one thing though. i don't think the entire net
is aware of your bandwidth wasting rules. perhaps you'd
post them for everyone to see?

ps. are there others whose minds you can read too?
    would you be willing to post for them?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:03:09 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Dec23.065254.17977@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>
>>Can you produce any evidence that anybody is performing post-26 week
>>terminations and *not* attempting to salvage the fetus? So far, you've
>>completly failed to do this. 

>Okay, Mark, if a 28-week pregnant woman asked for a D&E abortion, and there 
>were NO unusual medical conditions diagnosed, do you think, from the viewpoint
>of medical ethics, she should be allowed to get her D&E? After that, please
>answer the same question from your own personal moral viewpoint. If the two 
>answers differ, will you finally admit that the pseudo-proposal to "handle
>abortion as strictly a medical matter" is naive and unworkable, since medical
>ethics alone can't address the vast tapestry of legal/historical/sociological/
>economic factors that legislation can?

Hmmm?  "medical ethics" must be handled on a case-by-case basis since it deals
with decisions in individual cases.  In better words, whether it is medically
ethical to perform an abortion for a particular case *can* depend on the "vast
tapestry" of legal/sociological/economic factors.  On the other hand,
legislation inherently ignores the details of the individual case and tries to
assign a partition of right and wrong based on a few details that were forseen
at the time the laws were writen.  In other words, whether it is legal to
perform an abortion for a particular case does *not* depend on the entire "vast
tapestry" of legal/sociological/economic factors.

Please explain how your interpretation of the addressibility (?) of ethics and
legislation is better or more valid than mine.

>								- Kevin

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:14:06 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
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Dec24.011956.12699@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>I've seen the apology; Nyikos sent it to me by email

Wow - did Nyikos libel you, too?  :-)

>I don't understand why you doubt his sad story about
>the server; your accusations of lying seem to me to be distributed
>rather haphazardly.

Seems to me that if he *wanted* to apologize then he could ask someone
whose news server *wasn't* sick to post the apology for him.  Or even
(gasp!) email the apology to the person to whom he's apologizing.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Getting the Slavery Analogy back on track
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:55:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


The slavery analogy fails to show that "If you don't like
abortion, don't have one" is an invalid argument for the
same reason that it fails as a general abortion analogy.

People who believe otherwise are ignoring the intrusion on
the rights of the pregnant woman that an abortion ban
entails.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 23:42:13 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 <C074o6.IL4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>
>The problem is, there is a bit of a difference between "pro-choice" and
>"pro-abortion".  "pro-abortion" holds that abortion is not wrong.  "pro-choice"
>holds that abortion is wrong, but not so wrong that people should not be
>allowed to do it.

Not really.  "Pro-abortion" means that you'd push that choice; "pro-choice"
means you're in favor of the person affected being able to make whatever
choice is best in her situation, including the choice to abort.  It says
nothing about your personal feelings regarding abortion.

>There is also a slight difference between "anti-abortion" and "pro-life".
>Maybe someone from that side of the fence could describe it better, but here's
>my attempt:  "pro-life" holds that abortion is wrong.  "anti-abortion" holds
>that abortion is so wrong it should be absolutely illegal.

Actually, "pro-life" generally means "anti-abortion", since most of the
so-called pro-lifers have no problems with killings in various other
circumstances.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: We'll let you know.
	<1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com>
	<1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:26:31 GMT

In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

   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.

   Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
   body.

No kidding.  Of course, you fail to consider that it's not a baby that's
being talked about in this case, but I digress.

   >                  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.

   Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance

If you truly were, I'd think you'd start a little closer to home...

--PLH, *real* subtle userid, there -- "vengeanc"...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:24:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.103815.21024@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.174359.23172@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.180606.27847@cbnews.cb.att.com> 
>>jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>>
>>> I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation
>>> to provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
>>> personhood.
>>
>>During most abortions, the child's right to bodily autonomy is 
>>violated.  If the child is a person, then you cannot support 
>>unrestricted abortion-on-demand using the notion of bodily 
>>autonomy. 

Yes, the fetus'es (not "child"s) right to bodily autonomy is violated, but the 
violation of the fetus is a LESSER violation, in terms of human suffering, 
than the alternative 9-month violation of the pregnant woman. So, where we 
HAVE to choose between the two, i.e. before the point of viability, it is 
valid to choose violation of the fetus'es BA.

>Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
>from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?

Does it need to fill out a form, or what?

No, Muriel, any human organism which _could_ function outside of the womb
is by definition "capable" of bodily autonomy. This is, in fact, why 
viability is such an all-important dividing line.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion