HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Can some pro-lifer please answer this SIMPLE question?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:35:37 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep28.195701.9768@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
> My present view is formed by the notion that you cannot kill a human being
> (small 'h') unless in self-defence, and that a woman's right to bodily
> autonomy, which should obtain otherwise, should be nullified by her
> obligations as a parent ('proto' or otherwise), by the fact that her child's
> life is threatened, and by the fact that the threat presented to that child's
> life is down to the woman and her partner.

A woman's right to bodily autonomy wouldn't be nullified by any of those
factors if you were referring to a person, so it's not clear why it should
be nullified when you're referring to a fetus.

> In case of rape, including statutory rape, the mother is not
> responsible for the to the fetus, her rapist is (sometimes _excluding_
> statutory rape).  So her right to bodily autonomy should obtain -
> namely, the same principle that allows you to to give blood, though
> that would save a life.  It's selfish of you, sure, but you are not
> responsible for a given person's needing blood.  I believe the law
> should be (though it is not always) different when you are charged
> with the care of a human being, and further _responsible_ for them
> needing a transfusion, say.

"Should be"?  OK, that's your opinion; I happen to disagree.
"Not always"?  Try "not ever".  I know of no laws akin to what
you suggest.  (If you know of any, please educate me.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:00:09 GMT

In <6429@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >

> I'd suggest that you seek some real help instead of confessing
> your shortcomings in talk.abortion, Overpeck.  

That you (et al) consign those who don't share your particular 
set of values to the ranks of the mentally disordered is amazingly 
narcissistic. 

> I'm really
> not qualified to tell you why the "jokes" you feel compelled
> to repeat in this newsgroup all have sexist overtones.  

Try to understand.  What I posted seemed to have (IMO) rather 
unflattering implications for Keegan and *his* attitude toward 
women.  I did not author it, nor do I endorse the characterization 
of women as a "herd".  Now, here's the hard part:  the original 
poster *inferred* such an attitude on the part of Keegan.  Yet 
you ostensibly do/did not.  Try a little objectivity, Susan.  

> think you should see your therapist, and ask *him*.

And stop these ridiculous inanities.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:45:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.224506.26902@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.003312.4297@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>Actually, Naziism was the first place where abortion was legal. 
>>Historically, Rush's opponents are closer to Naziism than he is. 
>
>Actually, your forgot the early Soviet Union. Then the Nazis 'legalized'
>it - but only for 'non-Aryan' women.

Sounds like they were influenced by Margaret Sanger...     :-|

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:40:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.052346.3164@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>
>>>>Abortion treats our fellow humans, our own children in similar fashion.  
>>>>The value of those we abort becomes virtually set to zero.  Some would say,
>>>>the value of those we abort is actually negative.  Let us put human life in
>>>>a better position lest we ourselves become victims of those who look down
>>>>upon human life.
>>>
>>>"Us?"  I suggest you start with yourself.
>>
>>Us, as you might expect, means "you, I, and everybody in this place."
>>(Someone, is that the right PWEI quote?  I mean from the song "Can U Dig It?")
>>This means WE are working on this together, and not separately.
>
>Thus far the only evidence of your "caring" for other people is an
>insistence that women be forced to suffer unwanted pregnancies.  

The use of the term "unwanted pregnancies" suggests that the mother is
merely in a state, a state of pregnancy.  This dehumanizes the mother
as being a mere object of state.  The mother does more than carry.  She
takes care of the baby and safeguards it.  The mother should be a safeguarder
of life, not its destroyer.  

I just hope your solution to "unwanted pregnancies" is not killing that unborn
child.

>There
>are many ways of caring for and saving people that do not involve
>force of any kind.  Before you criticize others, look to yourself.
>

There is nothing wrong with an Alcoholic taking the keys away from a friend
who is drunk at a party to save him/her from putting himself/herself in
great danger.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: what's in a nom? (was Re: The fundamental question of abortion)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:14:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.210853.19318@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717270316@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>\In <19kokoINNgaq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Doofus) writes:
>
>\>I wonder how many women are forcibly held to the table while the doctor
>\>performs a live delivery, too.  After all, I've been there.  I've heard
>\>women yelling at the doctors, telling them to stop.....
>
>\I'm calling your bluff.  What would these women have done if the doctor
>\had stopped?  
>
>Bluff, Peter?   Like in poker, when you are trying to fool someone?
>Somehow I don't think "bluff" applies...

Doofus was bluffing that she has intelligence. Peter was trying to call her
bluff. Anything too hard to understand about that?


=============================================================================
           Professor at the MIR-V Brown School of Flame Warfare.
            (MIR-V as in Multiple Independent Reentry-Vehicle.)
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                    The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39083 talk.religion.misc:17341
From: gairns@ccrs.emr.ca (Jamie Gairns)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: About The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:58:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa


	<stuff deleted refuting the PRO-LIFE B.S.>
	Kudos!  I agree totally.

	I am a staunch PRO-CHOICE (the ONLY reality) advocate.  I believe,
	however, that if those FASCISTS who FORCE women to bring a foetus
	to term, MUST be willing to foot the bill for this breach of a 
	woman's privacy and worse, the breach of her OWN body.

	It's a FAIR trade ... you violate a woman's body and you take
	responsiblity for FORCING her to do something against her will.
	Wow, America the FREE ?!?!?!???

	Life is give and take people ... you can't take without expecting
	to balance that by giving.  I have had this argument with MANY	
	religious nuts and they NEVER think and they NEVER listen to
	reason.  The gospel strikes againg !!!

Mephistopheles' EVIL Twin! 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:50:08 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <6429@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> to repeat in this newsgroup all have sexist overtones.  I
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> think you should see your therapist, and ask *him*.
                                               ^^^^^

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmm" (or "Hrrrrr").
:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:30:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.212542.15227@ncsu.edu> 
  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
>or his vaccum cleaner.  

Could we *please* take this to some newsgroup where people give a shit?
I *don't* want to read about this in alt.sex.  I don't care how important
it is, how meaningful it is, or anything.  If I wanted to read about
this don't you think I would be subscribed to talk.abortion?

>Doug Holtsinger

Why do some people think their ramblings are *so* important that the
entire fucking net needs to hear them?????????

C Frog
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:13:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>> BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.

>>Just a small correction.  It can respond to stimuli, but "feel"
>>implies consciousness or awareness, which is lacking at that point.
>>Neuroscientists say not before 7 *months*.

>Bernstine gave evidence that there *could* be consciousness at 7 *weeks*.
>Nobody has given me reason to believe that your neuroscientists have
>any greater insight into these matters than Bernstine did.

Oh heavens yes!  Let us not accept the words of mere neuroscientists
when we have the word of the infinitely knowledgable and wise
Bernstine and his disciple Nyikos.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:41:37 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1992Sep25.153521.9824@wdl.loral.com>, by bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt):
>> If it passed (what are its chances of passing?  I bet it gets no more
>> than 25% of the vote), 
>
>Well, the chaces of it passing are extremely good, since it got
>SEVEN TIMES as many signatures as actually it needed to get on the
>ballot.

Which doesn't mean anything...HOW MANY signatures were required?  If it was
5,000 and you got 35,000 that's no big deal.  If it was 50,000 and you got
350,000 that's a bit more significant.

>> After Justice Blackmun retires...
>
>Even if he lives to see this come to his court, we will just
>bring it again when he is no longer on the court.

To a court where he has been replaced by President Clinton.  And Gov.
Clinton has already said that Roe v. Wade is pretty much a litmus test for
any apointment he might make.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:01:40 GMT

In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >

> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
> about a dead young woman?  

Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
crusade.  

> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  

I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...

> ("It can't have happened the way that her family and best friends 
> described it, that would ruin our argument that women don't resort 
> to desperate measures.  I know, let's call her a drug-addicted slut 
> and hire a teenager and a few pet doctors to make some more innuendos.  
> The suckers will believe us.  They believe everything.")

I don't know what happened with Becky Bell.  She may epitomize the 
kind of tragedy many pro-choicers want to avoid, and she may not.  
I do have an idea of what her parent's agenda is, though, and it 
seems to be based on some misguided sense of revenge.  Maybe if 
they weren't touring the country blaming their daughter's death 
on the right to life movement, no one would bother looking into 
the circumstances surrounding that death.  But that's not really
their fault.  Eleanor Smeal and the Fund for the Feminist Majority
proudly trot the Bells out in front of audience after audience to 
relive the pain of losing their daughter.  I'm sure they don't see
themselves as the victims of political expediency, but that's how
I see it. 

> You're disgusting, Nyikos.  

Save some of your disgust for Eleanor et al.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Wow, isn't MissBitch just *SO* caring???
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:07:39 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct2.023035.15605@cfctech.cfc.com>, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com
(Kevin Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-280992165521@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >
> >It wasn't a joke.  It was a quote taken out of context, and it should be
> >treated with contempt.
> 
> Oh, right, like no-one in TSAKC ever takes quotes out of context, uh-huh...
> 
> Your last sentence up there gets my vote for Most Hypocritical, 1992.

That's akin to getting David Duke's vote for Most Bigoted, 1992.  Who,
other than you, said anything about TSAKC, anyway?  Did you intend to post
this to alt.non-sequitur?

Suzanne Forgach expressed her opinion that "quotes taken out of context"
should be "treated with contempt".  I pointed out that her contempt was
conspicuously absent with regard to Doug Holtsinger's (mis)use of a quote
taken from Gov. Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention.  She
replied, essentially, "Yes, but that was _funny_!"  I'm trying to clarify
what her position actually is.

What part of this are you having difficulty with, Kevin?  Maybe I can
explain it to you using smaller words.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.223841.17563@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>"Let's ban all abortions sought for convenience, then; that would
>help."  Who's going to define convenience?  You?  Me?  Can we come up
>with a nice simple law that would apply to any case?  Where do we draw
>the line?
>
How about LIFE?
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: SAT wizard fails to give warning
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:22:17 GMT

In article <nyikos.717795214@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter Nyikos) writes:

}I had a problem with seeing no responses to my posts for over a month,
}and when the responses started coming in, a great many were from clowns
}like Margolis and Hekhuis, and I tailored my responses to them accordingly.

Sniff.  I didn't get a warning.  Larry did.  If I had only known...

(actually, I am rather flattered to be included with Larry.  I wear you
scorn like a badge of honor...)

}Even now I have the problem, that when I post something thoughtful,
}or informative, people often won't respond to it.  Look at all the
}un-followed-up posts at the end of your table of contents.  It's the
}zanier ones, like the hang-gliding one and the Mirror, that seem
}to get more attention.  Thinking I am a brainless twit because of that
}would be like judging authors by only their more lighthearted writings.

But Peter, we don't think you're a brainless twit based on your "more
lighthearted writings"...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:50:19 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->I was referring to your claim that I had contradicted myself.

yes. it was really funny when you included it to defend
yourself when what it did was demonstrate that you had
contradicted yourself. it is even funnier to see that you've
deleted it again.

why don't you reply to this by including it again?

have i mentioned how often you repeat yourself?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40148 talk.politics.misc:49216 alt.rush-limbaugh:6403
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:02:51 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Mark Wilson) writes:
|> Gordon Storga) writes:
|> 
|> >That's kind of silly.  Abortion solves the problem for the only person
|> >involved: the woman.  Since it solves the problem, and it only effects the
|> >person choosing to use this solution, it appears to be very responsible.
|> 
|> This only works if you do not consider the fetus to be a person.
|> I do, and so do a lot of others.  You are going to have to convince me
|> otherwise if you want me to support your position.
|> 
OK, Mark.  Try this.  Tomorrow you change religions.  It happens all the
time.  Your new religion tells you that although abortion is wrong, it
does not meddle in others' decisions about abortion.  It believes if others
want to have abortions, that is their decision and risk, and they will
end up in Hell.  Your new religion figures that's why there is a Hell
in the first place to give those people a place to go.

Now you still believe as you do about the fetus and the right thing to
do, but your religion says that others should have the choice.

The point of this is that your particular religious based beliefs about
this issue should not drive what I do.  You are welcome to your beliefs
and you may even be right.  But you may be wrong.  After all, God
thought the world was flat till Columbus messed things up.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's...
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (Cranius Sphinctus) writes:
# >I'm speechless, actually.  I'm stuck in 7:00-A.M.-no-stimulants-
# >in-the-bloodstream hamster wheel over this statement:
# >
# >Message-ID: <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu>
# ># Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice.
# >
# >He wrote that in a followup to a post by barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet which
# >presumed that *Larry Margolis* was pro-choice.  I was left with the
# >impression that Mr. Chaney was confused about his identity and thought
# >he was Larry Margolis for a moment.
# 
# No, you stupid shit - it was a response to ME. It was my attribution
# directly before his words.

What?  You think I didn't doublecheck before I posted?  You're
confused, Mr. Chaney.  It was Larry Margolis that
barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet was addressing, not you.

# You've got some major stepping to do, Cranius Sphinctus, to make this lie
# of yours stick. For instance, re-posting that article to show evidence.

Must I archive every post you make, Mr. Chaney?  It's been six days
since the post in question -- most articles expire within three days
at my site.  However, if I'm really, really, REALLY bored, Mr. Chaney,
I will make an effort to provide you with your precious documentation,
though I don't expect you or anyone else cares.

-----

# >It was all very bizarre.
#
# So is your stupidity, J H Woodyatt, Borg-designation Cranius Sphinctus.

*This* is extremely surreal.  What the hell planet are you on, man?
Why do you feel the need to give me a new name?  Do you have trouble
remembering the one I already have?  What have I done to provoke such
a childish insult?

Or is that your best attempt at adult invective?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (that's *Monsieur* Cranius Sphinctus to you, peckerhead...)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:17:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.001512.128290@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct6.191835.22191@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct6.170250.14130@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
>> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct6.053306.27
>> >>What is so wrong with the fact that a human life is dependent on its mother?
>> >
>> >Nothing, nothing at all!  What's _wrong_ is that you say that it's
>> >always unpermissible to kill the human life.  You're conveniently
>> >ignoring the fact that the mother may have a very good reason to not
>> >want to play host to the fetus.
>>
>> Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>> Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
>
>If you're talking about a person, no.  If you're talking about a zygote,
>yes.
>
Translate zygote -> human life (no more egg/sperm debate please).
If you're talking about a human life, then yes, social reasons take
precedence over destroying that human life.

>> >And I'm saddened by your position, too, but I can understand how some
>> >people want to try to compare my life to the life of a fertilized egg,
>> >and say that we're both equal (which is something of an insult to me),
>> >but that the fertilized egg is more important than the woman who
>> >carries it (which is an insult to the woman).
>>
>> The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
>> out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
>> whatever.
>
>Then how come I can see the forty year old musician without a microscope?
>Maybe there's at least a little bit of difference?
>
The stage of being in a human's life doesn't change the fact that that
being began his/her existence as a human from conception.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion