HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:24:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.192410.6448
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <703350773@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.203829.19036@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu 
>(susan larsen) writes:
>
>>For the sake of argument, assume that Suzanne here is 
>>correct in her assumption that abortions will become 
>>illegal.  Let us leave the exceptions to be cases of 
>>rape, incest, and overt threat to maternal health.
>
>>How would the picture change?  How should it change?
>>Or would it?
>
>My idea is to have choice for men if and only if abortion
>is legal in the state where the future mother lives.
>
>The idea is that if it is *her* choice not to have an abortion 
>then she should be the one who pays for that choice (or gives
>the newborn up to adoption).
>
>Fair enough?

Hillel's post hints at a more likely future scenario than 
my first post; that being if RvW is overturned then we shall 
see a patchwork of laws at the state level ranging from 
abortion almost at will in some states to abortion being 
treated as murder in other states.

So, I ask again, how could, would and should reproductive 
rights be apportioned given a nation with a smorgasbord of 
abortion and reproductive legislation?

Just to get folks thinking:  How would the situation be 
treated when a woman maintains residency in a pro-life 
state, the man who impregnates her resides in a pro-
abortion state and they are both going to school in a 
pro-abortion state? Or in a pro-life state?

How would we reconcile, through the equal protection laws, 
a class of men in one state being held liable for any 
and all children they sire and not in another?  Or a class 
of children in one state who legally are denied the support 
of two parents vis-a-vis children of a state in which 
fathers and/or mothers are aggressively pursued for support?

Should residents of a given state fund, through 
federal dollars, the children of welfare mothers whose 
fathers legally opted out of support obligations in 
another state?

Any thoughts on this?  Other scenarios?  Feedback?


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:32:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr15.173229.21904
Distribution: na
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

> You should really obtain a copy of the Silent Scream.  Anyone describing
> this battle for life as a "reflex" hasn't an objective bone left in their
> body.

If abortion is indeed murder, as you assert so often Kevin, then "The Silent
Scream" is nothing more than snuff porn.  How could the makers of that movie
stand idly by, their cameras grinding away, while a murder was taking place?
How can you endorse viewing a film actually depicting a murder?

Of course, the other option is that you and the rest of the pro-lifers don't
take your 'abortion is murder' argument all that seriously, and that "The
Silent Scream" is simply a propaganda flick with 'B-movie' production values.

A little reminder:  I asked you about this in that other abortion newsgroup
about a month ago.  You never replied.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14665 alt.flame:6579
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:58:32 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the possibility
-> exists that the potential father, and/or the state, might get
-> an abortion veto-power, then certainly the LESS RADICAL
-> possibility of giving this power to a neutral adjudicator is
-> far more likely, as a compromise position.

this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak like you
kevin. now you seem to want so badly to lessen women's control of
their bodies that you want to give that control to a "neutral
adjudicator."

seek help for your problems with women, kevin. really.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: On Sinning and Being Roman Cathooic
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:38:18 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au


In article <1992Apr5.223812.4297@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just  drieux) writes:
-> 1. you are aware that the same edict that starts the notion
-> that abortion is immoral also resolved that the unborn do not
-> have souls.....

In <1992Apr7.050757.19814@cs.rose-hulman.edu> sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.EduChuck writes:
>The Church does not believe that the unborn has no soul.

I understand that the situations is that the church has stated that
beyond a certain point ("quickening") in development the unborn definitely
do have a soul and has left the question undetermined before that point.

The church also argues that for the most part abortions
are aimed not at the unborn in its present state, but at the child that
will result, so that from a moral viewpoint the act is infanticide.
The abortionist simply looks to create some technical
loophole of "personhood" or "viability" or whatever which allows him/her
to believe that the act is not infanticide.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:31:19 GMT

rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>People who support both:
>>            * legalized abortion
>>	              and
>>            * weakening current child support law:
>>
>>                  Eric Rescorla
>>                  Gordon Storga
>>                  Kevin Darcy
>>                  Larry Margolis
>>                  Jennifer Brown
>>                  E.E. Bartley
>>                  Nora Rivkis

>NO, STEVEN!!!!!

>I've repeated about seven times now that I do not favor "weakening"
>current child support law, I favor ALTERING it. This will in some
>weird instances make it weaker, in a lot of instances make it stronger,
>and be basically dedicated to clearing up some of the inconsistencies
>present in an outdated law. Get it right.

NO, NORA!!! YOU get it right.  Creating situations  in which the man
does not have to pay child support, and claiming that this makes
it stronger because there are "fewer violations" is nonsensical.
It's like permitting people to kill other people as long as they
use a handgun (nothing else, just a handgun is legal) and then
claiming that you've really reduced the number of murders in the 
country.  

The law is only "outdated" because abortion is legal and nobody thought 
through the really nasty consequences that might have on society.

>I'm also not yet decided about favoring legalized abortion, either;
>I'm just accepting it until I make up my mind, because I don't want
>to legislate prohibiting *anything* until I'm absolutely positive
>it has to be done.

You know that's a crock.  A lot of people "just accepted" a lot of things
throughout history, because they weren't sure if it was all that wrong.
Saying you personally oppose abortion, but wouldn't do a thing to stop
anyone from indulging in it is, in practice, indistinguishable from
supporting it.  Like the old saying goes, if you ain't a part of the
solution, you're part of the problem.


>>	          Hillel Gazit
>>
>>Eight so far.  How many more want to join the list?
>>Write and let me know.

>Seven, if even that. You have so consistently ignored what people
>tell you about their own positions that you have singlehandedly
>made me accept Dean's term for you and other net.nitwits who pull
>such garbage -- willfully ignorant. You're free to be so on your
>own time, but don't do it with my life or my opinions.

Nora, you're the one who told me that you were leaning toward the
pro-abort side.  God knows you're not pro-life.  And the rest of
them clearly support both positions.  You're waffling because you
don't like the implications I've pointed out in those two positions.
Too bad.  They are there.

>>SK

>	-Nora

SK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: darcy's hypocrisy (was Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 03:53:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.141345.27358@crd.ge.com> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>-> >This hit me too hard to just flame Dennis Hall.
>-> 
>-> Time for some quick distancing, I assume? Whadda hypocrite.
>
>[darcy goes on to flame susan for posting unsolicited,
>threatening email from welch and criticizing dennis hall for
>posting email from suzanne, the content of which was similar to
>that which suzanne has been posting for years.]

Well, according to the "conventional wisdom" (ha!) of the pro-choice 
stormtrooper contingent, Welch public declarations revealed him as a 
misogynist and a rapist anyway, right, so how was his email to Susan any 
more out of character than Suzanne's email to Dennis Hall???

Get your story straight.

>talk about hypocrisy. aren't you the same kevin darcy why
>defended kellmeyer for posting my email? in you've conveniently
>forgotten, take a peek at <1992Mar5.023356.23991@cfctech.cfc.com>.

My "defense" [sic] of Kellmeyer in that post had nothing to do with his 
posting of email.

>i think you're just flaming susan because she's female.

As Larry has already noted, isn't this at odds with the official TSAKC party 
line that I'm flaming Susan as part of some "net.vendetta"???

Get your story straight.

								- Kevin
From: keegan@calyx.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: "Drieux has gills?????" (was Re: The Voices of Women)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:53:38 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
-> In article <1992Apr10.062848.283452@cs.cmu.edu>, Susan Garvin writes:
-> |I haven't been lucky enough to see C.J., but I'm willing to
-> |bet that she looks nothing like a first trimester fetus.
-> |From what I've heard, her head is proportionate to her body,
-> |and she's fully developed.  I sincerely doubt that she has
-> |gills.
-> 
-> Well, gosh, I could always repost that gif.  I have one of
-> Keegan, too.

as should everyone.

-> Drieux has gills, though.

and a walking stick, and a tweed sportcoat, and a very neat
bathroom and a hand grenade.  this is -all- true.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Nazi Comparisons (was Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:42:59 GMT

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.080138.5399@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>> Just to make sure everyone understands *my* position on this, the reason
>I agree that Mr. Kellmeyer should be condemned for comparing pro-choicers
>to Nazis, but I feel that the references he posted were appropriate  
>for this forum. Without the inflammatory Nazi to pro-choice comparisons,
>his post appeared to contain factual and informative historical
>information. If he had not made his Nazi comparisons, then how could
>anyone object to the posting of (apparently) accurate historical
>information? Is it now inappropriate to post facts to USENET?  
>His motive for posting the material should be condemned, but I can't 
>condemn the facts (are they the facts? can anyone refute them?). 

If anyone had bothered to read the original post, I was RESPONDING to
someone who attempted, yet again, to label pro-lifers Nazis.  In fact,
the article which I supplied as a reply was created specifically because
this charge was so common from the supporters of legal abortion.
Since I've begun posting it in reply to every attempt to equate
the pro-life position to some sort of Nazism, the incidence of these
attempts have been greatly reduced.  Unfortunately, there are still
some abortion supporters who try to use the label.  Every time they use
it, I will reply with the facts on the Nazi creation of legal abortion
in Germany.  If anyone doesn't like it, that's just too damn bad.

>I think it's possible to read the material without automatically
>creating a connection between the atrocities that the Nazis committed
>and the facts about the Nazi's abortion laws. I cannot object to
>the posting simply because some people are unable to read it without 
>making that connection in their minds. We should not prevent people
>from thinking for themselves, even if their thoughts stem strictly
>from their emotions. 

>I think people should be allowed to read the material. They should
>be allowed to decide for themselves whether it should influence their 
>opinion or not. 

>Doug Holtsinger
>Undecided

I should note, however, that the book review post was not made in response
to any particular blast.  It is, instead, a rather indirect reply to 
Nora Rivkis.  However, since we don't see eye to eye on anything I'm 
aware of (except that neither of us likes to see the Holocaust repeated),
I doubt that she'll appreciate it much.

SK
From: amy young <alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Posting private email.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:37:53 -0500


Of course, right on schedule, I received the monthly
I'm-just-a-freshman-and-don't-realize-who-else-is-on-this-computer
idiot mail.  Kinda like viewer mail but different.  =)  So, here is
what is going to become a canned response... I just typed it away, and
then thought... "Hmmm... that sounds like a good idea..."  (Wisecracks
in reguard to the cleaverness of his post removed for your viewing
pleasure. )

"Here's your warning, I don't support harassing email.  You're message
and/or/including name will be posted if it happens again.  

(I understand that there is a slight possability that this is from a 
bogus account and/or the illegal use of an account by someone who doesn't 
own it.  If so, no problem, just ignore this.)  

amy"


amy
-- 
******************************************************************************
"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
	       		Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
              						--Neil Peart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ses3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Steven Schwartz)
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Summary: When argument fails, try truth by blatant assertion
Reply-To: ses3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Society Getting Sick And Tired of Having To Repeat Itself.
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 07:49:20 GMT

   Matthew:  Trying to use truth by blatant assertion when logic fails
does not work.
   (i.e. Nazis): id est:  That is, Nazis.  No, Matthew.  This point is this:
we are still arguing your use of the term, and trying to use i.e. to
get around it is not going to work.
   Matthew:  Let me make this clear.  I've done more than a small quantity
of research into Nazi Germany. I have been assaulted by neo-nazi skinheads.
I know what makes a Nazi, and being pro-life ain't it.  It's much more likely
to indicate Catholicism than Naziism.
   Now, while I don't like Catholic theocratic leanings much, they aren't
Naziism.
   Kindly use the accurate term.  Calling people Nazis who are not is simply
debasing the term, kind of like "star" in the movie world.  It used to
be, when the term was first used, that only a few people were thus designated,
and it meant something.  Now, appear in anything like a major role in anything
like a major picture and you are a star.
   Don't debase the word the same way.

Steven Schwartz, ses3@midway.uchicago.edu
"Exactitude of language is very important.  Knowledge is power, and we
-- 
Steven Schwartz  ses3@midway.uchicago.edu B5 f- w+ g- K+ m  r- p!
UCBU President:  No Power, No Authority, Lots of Scutwork.
"Never say never - especially in 'I'll never sleep with x'.  You're bound
to if you do that, unless, of course, you say it with that in mind." - D.P.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:55:47 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

*sigh* so much for me slowing down my posts... I was FORCED to
follow up to this one... Sorry...

In <1992Apr15.145301.18813@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>> Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>> But she didn't, much to all our benefit.    She made-the-choice to say Yes!
>> Had she said no, God would have sent his angel to ask somebody else.
   Good point. 

>Where _did_ you get this shining revelation, Suzanne?  Has Our Lady of
>Perpetual Responsiblity been visiting Tucson, again? :-)  I don't recall
>any of the Gospels showing that Mary was _asked_ if she would bear Jesus.
>Seems to me she got her orders and didn't ask questions.
*knock*knock* Helooooooo... DORKHEAD! 8) You're wrong...
YOu see, in The book of St. Luke, 1:38 it says :

      "And Mary said, "behold the handmaid of the Lord..."

(she herein shows us that she completely understands the task that
 has been set before her...)

      "be it unto me according to thy word."

(voila - she accepts her calling. She concedes to the request
 Gabriel has put before her...)


>Of course, the Good Lord made sure to pick the right woman for the job.
>(I can imagine getting flamed for this.  If you're really offended, dear
>reader, don't hold back. :-) )
   I'm not offended. YOu're just plain ol' wrong.

>> Obviously, somebody who says no to pregnancy now-a-days, via abstinence,
>> will remain non-pregnant.

>Another blatent assertion.  For better or worse, love still makes the world
>go 'round, Roman Catholic Church notwithstanding.
  Funny... Looks like our last "blatent (blatant?) assertion " was right.
Maybe this one is too? 

   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:32:20 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18117@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>Larry, Keegan, and Susan were right about you. In three sentences, you've
>managed to show that you are completely clueless.
   Actually - no, he's not clueless... maybe tactless and unwise
in your mind, but nottclueless. You see, he is right. THe property
of email is personal. By sending someone mail you are relinquishing
your right to private property. If you send me mail (snail mail) I can
show it to whomever I like friend...
   Please, let's end this thread. Or, let us move it to alt.dull?
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:15:44 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   Well... Ron, I suppose I am a juvenile clueless as well, but I must
>point out that the ME generation sucks most heinously, and is likely

How kind of you to come out and admit what we all already knew, except
you left out twit....

The ME generation can work off of a conscience, you know. You definitely
have to look out for yourself first, but I give to worthy charities
such as the muscular dystrophy collection run every year by Jerry Lewis.
Looking out for yourself doesn't mean you can't give to others.

>responsible for the majority of the flaws that you call progress.
>   that is another flaw of society that we must silence our paranoias
>by always looking over our backs. Our friends should do that for us.
>But, being the 90's and all, humanity feels it must have sole concerns
>for itself, not it's fellow man/woman. Said isn't it?

I don't know what kind of friends you have, few if they knew what kind
of value system you have, but mine do look out for my back, as I do
their's.

Ron
From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 16:28:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.145725.17627@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
[previous discussion deleted]
>Made no mistake, make no mistake laws do force beliefs.  Do you think congress
>doesn't have a belief in the laws that they pass?  

Gaylord, do you really think congress doesn't believe in the law *until* it
is passed?  Or that those who think that a bill is wrong suddenly change
their minds when it becomes law?

I think you should get in touch with your representatives and find out if
anyone suddenly believes in something after a law is passed when that
person didn't believe it before.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer