HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 09:57:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.050758.1772@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>Again, there's a difference between a right and a reason for exercising that
>right.  Her *right* is to control how her body is used.

I am not disputing that right.  I am pointing out that men do not have
any rights in this situation, despite having a reason for exercising
those rights, namely, that they are financially unable to support a
child if it's born.

If you say, "well, he should have kept his pants zipped", I could make
the same argument that a woman in that situation, knowing full well
that she could not financially support a child, should not have had
sex either.

If the woman decides to carry the fetus to term, I believe she should
be able to get financial support from the father.  However, I believe
he also should have some child support rights, which he does not have,
either.  (I realize that some men do not want to have anything to do
with the child, which I think is wrong, but I believe it's equally as
wrong for women to deny child support rights to fathers willing and
able to provide it.)

>It has been said many times previously in this newsgroup (t.a) that the
>woman has the right of removal, not the right of destruction.  That the
>fetus is not capable of surviving on its own at the time of practically
>all abortions is just too bad for the fetus.

If fetuses could be safely removed, do you agree that the mother and
father have equal responsibilities to support the fetus/child?  I
wonder if the women who currently abort because they are unable (or
unwilling) to financially support children would agree with you.

>(I'm directing followups to talk.abortion only.)

Followups not reset.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:00:20 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.724963465@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I could tell you a really juicy example due to Nadja Adolf
>but when I asked her if I had her permission to post it to talk.abortion
>she replied that I do not.  I, on the other hand, hereby give her
>permission to post it, or email it to a certain Mark Cochran
>so that he may see what it takes to be a true member of the inner
>circle.

Peter, you wimp -
would you like to explain to the nice people that you attacked my character
on a private forum on a totally different subject with 'Big Lie' type 
references to what I had posted here?
 
>
>Mark, your unhelpful response is not bad for a beginner, but you
>have a long way to go before you have scaled the heights which
>Ms. Adolf has mastered.  On the other hand, she could learn a lot
>from your mastery of the Big Lie technique, so well displayed in
>Cycle 3.

Of course, you have to remember that to be part of the anti-choice inner
circle, you have to bring up talk.abortion on every forum you are a part
of, and to always remember to attack others' character there. A lobotomy
helps, too.

Remember, fear or smear is absolutely permissible for the anti-choice side.

>  Could you at least tell
>me what entry to look for in the index?  "Miscarriages, rate
>of"?  "Spontaneous abortion, rate of?"  "Ova, fertilized, failure
>to implant, rate of?"  "Zygotes, failure to implant, rate of"
>"Blastocysts, failure to implant, rate of?"  

Sounds like a good place to start. But WHY do you expect us to do your
bibliographic research?

>	Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage
>	rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5%
>	rate in a non-aborted group.
>		Richarson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination
>	  on Subsequent Pregnancy," _British Med. Jour., vol. 1,
>	  1976, pp. 1303-04.

Evaluating illegal abortions versus a non-aborted group doesn't work.
For real fun, check out the data on women who've had one pregnancy versus
women who've had one abortion.

>Ah, but you pre-emptively told me to read any text on obstetrics, so
>you are under no obligation to provide anyone in talk.abortion with
>any of this information.  (Actually, you get this privilege just by
>being pro-choice.  When we pro-lifers are challenged, we have to come
>up with statistics.)

OK. Try William's Obstetrics. I suggested it last time, too. But you're 
into finessing and the big lie today, aren't you?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 30 DEC 92 16:37:19 GMT

In a previous article, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) wrote:
>In article <1992Dec29.175100.20873@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
>Yes Dean I can support my assertion, I will provide you with excerpts from 
>a Planned Parenthood official, census data,  a gynological journal.  I 
>don't have them here,  but I at least want to reply.  I feel very safe in 
>assuming that no matter what statistic I have, you and a host of others in 
>this group can cast a negative spin.  
> 
>Even if you can come up with a conflicting set of statistics (and by THEN 
>I mean, prior to Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton), it still wouldn't change 
>the fact the the 'coat hanger/back alley ' ploy is a red herring.  If I'm 
>wrong, I 'm not off by much, not enough to warrent the slaughter of 
>millions of children to spare the life of a relatively low number of women 
>who would choose to break the law.  This is the REAL issue.  The sad part 
>is that the pro-aborts present as fact that thousands of women will surely 
>die if abortion is outlawed.  There is nothing to support this whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence to support this.  Ever hear of Romania?  Check 
out the October 1992 issue of the American Journal of Public Health (volume 
82, issue number 10).  An article titled "The Public Health Consequences of 
Restricted Induced Abortion - Lessons From Romania" begins on page 1328.  

Some of the findings:

 	"In the 23 years of its enforcement, the antiabortion law in Romania 
	resulted in over 10,000 deaths of women from unsafe abortion". 

	"For the decade 1980 to 1989, the average Romanian maternal mortality 
	rate was 150 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.  Many women 
	obtained abortion illegally, and every year approximately 500 
	otherwise-healthy women of childbearing age died from postabortion 
	hemorrhage, sepsis, abdominal poisoning, and trauma".

And in response to your comment about "... not enough to warrent the slaughter 
of millions of children to spare the life of a relatively low number of women 
who would choose to break the law":  Notice that many of the women who died 
did not break the law.  Antiabortion laws resulted in the deaths of many 
law-abiding women from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

And the children that these women were forced against their will to give birth 
to did not have a happy ending.  According to the article:

	"Although the number of children institutionalized before the	
	overthrow of the Ceaucescu government is unknown, shortly after the 
	revolution approximately 150,000 to 200,000 children were in 
	institutional care.  Warehousing children in institutions overwhelmed 
	the health care system and reduced the standard of care. ...several 
	thousand severely retarded and handicapped children are likely to 
	remain in institutions for the rest of their lives".
	
>- Paul
				
				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: You ARE killing
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: Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:57:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.173600.14785@fuug.fi> an4149@anon.penet.fi writes:

[Mass of gibberish deleted]

If you're so feeble that you hide behind an anonymous posting host,
don't expect anybody to take you seriously.

--
                  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: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: DODie defends Operation Rescue
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: liars and terrorists
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:17:55 GMT

>##Susan Garvin (I think)
>#Doug Holtsinger
>Susan Garvin

[...]
>## Be aware that the name "Operation Rescue" is rarely used any
>## longer.  The national organization was fined tens of thousands
>## of dollars for violating an injunction in NYC, 
>#
>#The fact that they've broken the law is not indicative
>#that their activities are wrong -- the phrase ``civil 
>#disobedience'' quickly comes to mind.
>
>The fact that apologists for this group of terrorists describe
>their criminal acts as "civil disobedience" is fairly meaningless
>to those of us who live in the real world, DODie.  
>
>Of course, I didn't say that illegal means wrong - that's
>your own invention.  It's not even responsive to the fragment
>that you quoted.  Why didn't you just forge something?
>
	The *really* interesting thing is that DOD apparently regards
firebombs, death threath, vandalism, and couragous acts such as pouring
gasoline into the ceiling of a clinic and dropping in a match as acts of
"civil disobedience".  I had no idea he was such a late-sixties-style
radical firebrand!  I mean, I took part in the occasional protest back then
myself, but I always drew the line at firebombing the ROTC building and so
on.
	I'm impressed.  The boy's a true radical leftist!  >:-)>
	But I guess when God(tm) is on your side everything is excused in
advance, eh?

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"The aim of the liar is simply to charm, to delight, to give
		pleasure.  He is the very basis of civilized society."
				-- Oscar Wilde


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:05:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.020456.16807@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
>>Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
>>said that.  
>Not when it's embedded in someone's name. Then it's obviously a nickname

No, dear, "get yer fat black ass down here" is not a nickname,
not by any stretch of the imagination.  Susan is right -- it is
meant to imply an actual quote.

>E.g. Susie "the floozy" Garvin.

Or, Kebbin "stupid twit" Darcy.

---------------
"pedantic (adj) Reading news on a system which expires kebbin's articles
slower than kebbin can contradict them."

While we're consulting the dictionary,

"hypocrite (n) One who has caught kebbin lying through his teeth."

				  -- John Woods
				  <1992Jan16.020302.29135@jfwhome.FUNHOUSE.COM>
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: xmas Operation Rescue news from Louisiana
Keywords: liars and hypocrites
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:14:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec27.175316.5641@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Bzw2xC.440@wpg.com> 
#russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
#
## AP - Baton Rouge.  A state district judge has ordered Kim Carmouche, 
## an anti-abortion leader and unsuccessful Baton Rouge mayoral 
## candidate, to pay more than $13,000 in child support or face three 
## months in jail.  
[article edited by the Reverend Holtsinger]
#
#Is this a case where he was unwilling or unable to pay child support?

Oh, of course, Reverend Holtsinger, it's quite reasonable to
believe that a man has sufficient funds to mount a political
campaign but lacks the money to support his children, isn't
it?  This upset you, no doubt, since it disproves your theory
that people who avoid supporting their children all endorse
legal abortion.  Poor little DODie - you should take some
time off to sulk.

#And if the former, will we see Stephen Mezias post an article
#entitled "the one bad apple theory of Operation Rescue"?

No, DODie, that theory depends on the existence of some "good
apples."  There's no evidence that there are any such in O.R.

Susan,
who'd really like to see Kellmeyer's reaction to this story
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:06:14 GMT

As I had misunderstood his point, Galen Hekhuis more clearly presented
his position, as is appropriate.

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.



                                   Gregg Skinner


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53368 can.politics:11088 soc.culture.canada:9665 talk.politics.animals:10589
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics,soc.culture.canada,talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:58:32 GMT

Mark A. Cochran (mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>In article <schuck.725651129@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

>>I understand perfectly well that within the womb the *functions* of
>>breathing etc. are different.
>>
>No Bruce, the function is not different, the *structure* is different.
>Thanks to the patent ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale, the
>structure and function of the heart are completly different.
>Continue to deny the differences if you choose, but they do exist.

Without getting involved in the abortion issue itself, I was wondering if
you could explain in lay terms (i.e., forget phrases like "foramen ovale")
how the actual structure of the heart could change due to birth. This seems
rather counter-intuitive.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:11:53 CST

In article <1992Dec23.232420.10091@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.103815.21024@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>> Gee, Doug.  When are we going to see some evidence
>> from you that a fetus is _capable_ of bodily autonomy?
>
>When are we going to see a definition of "bodily autonomy"
>which successfully manages to distinguish between the born 
>and the not-yet born? 

You did, Doug. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Autonomy (was Re: Abortion and Infanticide)
 <1992Jul22.014836.6377@ncsu.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:43:02 CDT

In article <1992Jul22.014836.6377@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wr
ites:

>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy?

autonomy, n.

1. The quality or state of being self-governing
2. A self-governing state
3. Self-directing freedom esp. moral independence

source: Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary

In the first place, it is difficult to imagine a
self-governing or self-directing state for an entity
which is completely contained within the body of
another.

In the second place, it's impossible for the woman
and the fetus to have 'the same right to bodily
autonomy'.  If you start awarding any rights whatever
to fetuses, you do so only by removing rights from
the woman who must defer to it.  Since a fetus is
generally incapable of enjoying or expressing such
things as 'self-directing freedom', removing the
autonomy rights of the woman in favor of the fetus
seems ludicrous.

muriel
standard disclaimer

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just in case anyone thinks that I have not troubled
to answer this request before.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:03:33 GMT

Iikka Paavolainen (iikkap@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgac
h) writes:
: >From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
: >> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
: >>
: >>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
: >>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's questio
n:
: >>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
: >>>someone who prefers suicide.
: >>
: >> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
: >> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
: >
: >
: >Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
:
: If one is not alive, one cannot be killed.

Ah, but the fetus is alive.  Just like tadpoles, bacteria and pancreatic cells
are alive.  The question is, is the fetus a person?  I, personally, say no.
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | Let the raucous sleigh bells ringle   
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | Hail our dear old fried Chris Kringle |Tom
The Truth is still the Truth	 | Driving his reindeer across the sky   |Lehrer
Even if you choose to ignore it. | Don't stand underneath when they fly by.
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A child's guide to lying with statistics
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 04:05:19 GMT

In article <1296@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>Reverend, your stupidity act is becoming more convincing.
>
>Obviously, I wasn't claiming to provide promised sources in that
>quote.  I can verify everything that I said.  I already have
>verified it in this forum, and you've replied to it.  
>
>Maybe your therapist could explain why your regression may be
>dangerous.
>
Did you notice that if you delete all quotations from that article, it
is as empty as DODies head?
Kind of sums up his total contributions here doesn't it?

--
                  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: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:33:13 CST

In article <1992Dec31.010805.20244@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
>think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
>no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.
>As I have little experience either pregnancy or abortion is there anyone
>who has been in such a circumstance who thought that this was slavery?  
>Is there anyone who thought that this reminds them of slavery?  Not in a 
>frivolous sense, but a serious enough sense that would allow one to frame 
>legislation.  Is there anyone who was reminded of anything, fried chicken, 
>perhaps?
>
For pregnancy:
I was reminded of food poisoning, influenza, and a basketball.
For birth: 
For some reason, I was reminded of climbing out of the Grand
Canyon with a full pack and a sprained knee.
For a threatened spontaneous abortion:
I was reminded of house arrest.

I don't think any of these things makes for a good analogy.
You are right about that one, Galen.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:12:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.141244.9494@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>Darcy certainly doesn't dispute that he made
>the accusation, he just claims now that it was a joke.  

I _always_ said it presented as a joke. In typical TSAKC smear-fashion, Dean
is trying to attribute to me a change in position I never actually made.

>He did spend several weeks trying to justify his accusation
>before he apologized, 

Justify? Perhaps not the best choice of term. I did spend weeks EXPLAINING
why I made the mistake I did. During that same time interval, I also did my
best to try and put out of its misery a ton of puffed-up instant-self-
righteous bullshit, and uncontrollable, mindless flaming, such as the
infamous multiple streams of obscenities issuing from the Wicked Witch of the 
North, aka Linda Birmingham. I was engaged in some serious t.a pollution 
control, with certain morons insisting on escalating the muck-throwing with 
inappropriate crossposts OUT of alt.flame into t.a. It was a goddamned circus 
of idiocy, malice, and TSAKC vendetta-indulgence. Only my overriding sense of 
moral enabled me to choke back my disgust long enough to post the apology I 
did.

Note, however, that no apology or admission of wrongdoing EVER came forth
from those who inflicted this flamewar on talk.abortion. My conscience is
clear. Can the guilty parties in TSAKC say the same?

>and it wasn't until much later that he claimed it was a joke.  

I claimed it was presented as a joke from the very beginning. Stop being 
such a lying little fuck, Kaflowitz.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion