HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Questions of Proof and Proveablity
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:31:17 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
] stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
] >To illustrate, I believe that abortion is murder.  What can I do to persuade
] >you to believe that?
] 
] Present evidence that the zygote, embryo, and/or fetus is a person and
] should have the same protections as does any other child.  Convince me 
] that what you propose will benefit me, society, and/or my descendent.
] 
] Writing off my arguments as being mere beliefs contrary to your own is
] a dead end.

There is the Wee Minor Problem that we have two 
sets of problems here:

1. is the assertion 'abortion is murder' 
a demonstratably 'true' or 'false' proposition in itself.

2. does the notion of 'persuading to believe' a propositon
something that should be limited to reasoning, or is force
of arms a viable social alternative.

To the former notion, I say that the best I have seen
so far is that Persons HOLD that the proposition is
true on reasons that have more to do with faith in
the viability of the proposition, than in the substance
of the proposition.

point in fact: an ectopic pregnancy can be aborted under
roman canon, but does this then mean that roman canon
now supports murder?????

The problem remains quite simple: John Steven holds an
abhorent notion at odds with the status quo ante of law
in the united states, and hence it is incumbant upon him
to resolve the onus of proof needed to establish his
proposition. 

That Mr. Stevens, is also the resolution to the second point,
short of the use of force of arms.

ciao
drieux


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What if???
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 15:46:03 GMT

In <kt1yj9c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:


>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <ywxyd5c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>>j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

>>>>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>>>>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?

>>>It would be even that incredibly MORE difficult to be pregnant.
>>>Also, the fetus would be vulnerable to the slightest bumps,
>>>temperature changes, and infection, and it's not likely we'd
>>>GET many newborns.

>>Not necessarily.  Kangaroos do develop outside their mothers
>>(mostly in the pouch, true, but still visible) starting
>>at a stage where humans are still called embryos, rather than fetuses, 
>>and they've been around many millions of years longer than humans.

>This is idiotic. 

I could tell you things about kangaroos that very few people, even
Aussies, know about.  Please hold off on your epithets until you get
a clearer picture of what I am getting at.

> One free clue, Nyikos:  When the joey is in the
>pouch, can you SEE the eyes, ears, etc, as the original poster
>specified?

True, the mother kangaroo is unlikely to let you open up her pouch for
a good look, but humans are not so governed by instinct as 'roos.

And btw some marsupials, like a pretty little endangered species called
the numbat, don't even have pouches; the young simply hangs on to the
teat so strongly that there is no danger of falling off.

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Question for Larry Margolis
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:51:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.173922.6747@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#Why should anyone accept your pro-abortion sources, like the Alan
#Guttmacher Institute and the National Abortion Federation, if
#you're unwilling to accept unbiased sources from anyone who
#disagrees with you?  
#

How do you know that they're pro-abortion, DOD?

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:31:21 GMT

In article <Bu70vG.Ax3.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>[talk.religion.misc deleted from newsgroups]
>
>In article <1992Sep6.231834.17478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>#In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>## ... But you see, I feel discriminated against
>## by not having the possibility of being pregnant.
>## 
>## 	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
>## 				--Pro-abortion slogan
>## 	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
>## 				--Peter Nyikos
>#
>#I think I'm seeing a case of uterus envy that defies belief.  Someone
>#pour cold water on me.
>
>Okay.  Here.
>
>You mean, you *don't* feel discriminated against because you
>can't get pregnant?   Gosh, I look at pregnant women and 
>think to myself, "I sure wish I could be nauseated and
>have backaches and look forward to going through labor
>by and by."  I thought everyone did.
>
	BTW, the least PN could do is credit the first quote; it comes from
Florynce Kennedy.  Here's a similar one from Nora Ephron:
"If pregnancy were a book they would cut the last two chapters."
>Susan

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:43:47 GMT

I don't know if this clue fairy wand is strong enough....

In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.204031.20902@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>>>The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
>>>who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.

>>That is a highly rhetorical and simply incorrect response.

>It isn't an incorrect response if you admit (and you don't) that abortion
>affects men.  I've heard this before, always from people who seem to
>think that a father is a second class parent.

Abortion affects men.  Abortion also affects z/e/fs.  Neither are
forced to have abortions, as in the context of the talk.abortion
Newsgroup, to have an abortion means to have a z/e/fs removed from
your body.

>>Men aren't forced to have abortions.

>Yes, they are.  They cannot legally prevent it from occurring, so if they
>don't want their baby aborted, but the mother does it anyway, the abortion
>is forced on the man.

The man is forced to know that the woman is having an abortion.  He
himself is not forced to have an abortion, as there is not a z/e/f in
his body for an abortion to remove.

>It is extremely short sighted (almost blind) to say that only the person
>who is physically involved is affected by an abortion.  This is akin in
>my mind to saying that only the woman is affected when her wedding ring
>is stolen off of her finger.  Both the wife AND the husband are ripped
>off.  The same with abortion.

Who has said that only women are involved in abortions?  All we've
been saying is that only women *have* abortions, as only women have
z/e/fs in their bodies for abortions to remove.

Is there some sort of rule saying that only the person having the
abortion is affected by the abortion?  That one's news to me.

Get a clue, John Stevens.  Here's one: abortion is the removal of a
z/e/f from one's body.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 19:46:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
>In article <d2wnh!=.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> What makes you think he or I are being any less serious than are you?
>> You make up some arbitrary point for the beginning of humanity then 
>> expect everyone else to accept without question that you decision is 
>> correct?

>You will not be able to find any serious scientist who thinks that another
>human being exists before the moment that human being is conceived.  That's not
>an arbitrary point, Ray, that's simple biology. 

So then, what makes a single fertilized egg a human being?  It isn't biology.
Isn't philosophy.  It isn't even the Bible.

>I gave my reasons for what *I* believe.  You incorrectly read into it that I
>expected everyone elso to accept it.  This is a discussion...don't get so 
>uptight when someone disagrees with your belief that killing babies is ok.

Kind of like your belief that killing women and forcing them into servitude
is OK?  And by the way, I _don't_ think killing babies it OK.

>>>If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is 
>>>killing (by torture) an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter.

>> It isn't torture (in part, because torture implies pain)
>Provide your proof that there is no pain.  Make sure you're right because, if
>you're wrong, you're torturing a lot of babies to death.

A fertilized egg has no brain, no nervous system, no pain receptors.
It cannot feel pain.  By some reckoning, the brain cannot interpret
pain until after the 20th week.

>> It isn't innocent
>An unborn baby who didn't have anything to do with being there isn't innocent?!?

Innocence is irrelevent.  You imply that it is not OK to kill that which
is innocent.  By this reasoning one could argue that killing plants for
food is immoral and killing you is moral.

>> It isn't a human being.
>A molecule of water is still water.

A molecule of a person is still a person.

Hmmm.  Doesn't sound quite right, somehow.

>> It cannot make a choice.
>Neither can a baby born in July 1992.  Do you want to kill them too?

Try feeding a newborn when it doesn't want to be fed, or seeing if it'd
rather have milk or lemon juice.

Looks like choice to me.

>> Well then, since Nature is to be the Ultimate Arbiter of Human Endeavour,
>> perhaps we should all eschew clothes, cars, houses, computers, and Bibles
>> and go back to a hunter/gatherer existance?  After all, all of the above
>> are clearly contrary to the wishes of Nature or else they would have been
>> supplied for us.
>> 
>They were.  I've got them, and I bet you do too.  Of course, it took time to
>acquire them.  Good things take time, Ray, even the unborn.

Even abortion?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:36:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.144423.29467@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>db>In article <Bu8or2.2MK@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>dk>In article <1992Sep8.014945.6036@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>Spousal support is gender nuetral.  Judges may grant it to the woman
>more often than the man, but that is not a problem with the 
>legislation, but rather a problem with the way judges may or may
>not handle each case.  

Gender neutral language permits a wide variety of gender-biased
effects having nothing to do with the judicial system.  Gender neutral
language is often used to cover up specific gender-biased intent
for political purposes.

For example, a gender neutral custody law might award custody 
immediately to the parent who had had the child the longer; 
then any woman could file for custody an hour after birth and 
there would be no hope for the man, regardless of social bias 
or judicial bias.  But it would be a gender neutral law.



>A really couldn't care less about +traditional+ view of marriage.  
>My concen is that all partys are treated as fairly as possible.  

Mine, too.  I wouldn't personally disregard the traditional view as completely
as you seem to, but I am +all+ +for+ permitting flexible marriage structures.
The state doesn't need to predefine marriage.

>When
>ever people bring up traditional as an argument, I know they have no
>real valid arguments anymore.  Its much like bringing religious 
>tennents into the argument.  As far as I'm concerned, they are both 
>useless arguments.

My point is that the current legal system imposes +tradition+,
so if the legal definition of marriage is based on +tradition+,
then the rights and liabilities must be measured and balanced 
with that in mind, not hypocritically and non-uniformly or 
politically enforced.


>How about we just stop forcing archaic regulations on married couples.

Great!  Back to my point about freely entered-into contracts.

It is less distance within the system, which is already +tradition+ based,
to change things by relying on established principles and precedent, 
than it is to suggest a complete revamping.

I'd rather have a complete revamping: marriage contracts should be
as flexible as any other contract. 

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: South Carolina's legal presumption of viability.
Keywords: viability, presumption
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 22:37:17 GMT

In South Carolina state law, there is a provision that reads:

"a legal presumption is hereby created that viability occurs no
sooner than the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy."[par. 44-41-10 SC Code]

Questions: 

1. How many other states have similar presumptions built into their
laws?  (In light of Webster, I imagine Missouri does not; and from
what I've seen elsewhere in talk.abortion, neither does Pennsylvania.)

2. If FOCA became law, would such legal presumptions result in 
abortion on demand up to the time stated (in this case, the 24th week)?
 
Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:47:36 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <24865@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> We're waiting for responses to other posts, Erik, let's get with it,
> eh? :)
> 
> In talk.abortion, ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
>>1.  The woman with limited financial resources should have spent them on
>>contraception.  A condom costs 25 cents, maybe 50 at an expensive gas
>>station.

Or maybe she was staying in res at BU, and all she had was 50 cents
American, but found out the condom dispenser here only accepted
one Canadian dollar coin for each condom (ooooooo dilemma!!!)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35589 talk.religion.misc:15863
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:45:56 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote (in article <15SEP92.20033010@vax.clarku.edu>):
>Besides, women are already allowed to abort for rape and incest. 

I always wondered about this.  What, are fetuses that result from rape
or incest somehow not "people" as much as legitimately-conceived fetuses?

>Marilyn Quayle, a total pro-lifer, had her fetus removed early so that she 
>could take the bar exam.  Why shouldn't other women be allowed to do the same 
>thing, for that or any other reasons they might have?

Eek, I _completely_ forgot about Marylin Quayle inducing pregnancy
before her bar exam... what a hypocrite!

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Legal Definition of "Abortion" (SC law)
Keywords: abortion, pregnant, intent, known
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 22:31:04 GMT

In <1992Sep3.204743.26854@tc.fluke.COM> eris@tc.fluke.COM (Chris Beckmeyer) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715275438@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>3. The words "known to be pregnant" rule out all the usual uses of IUD's
>>and "morning after pills."  They also seem to introduce a bizarre loophole:
>>If a clinic does not do a pregnancy test, or does a test that comes out a false
>>negative and then proceeds with a D&C, it is not doing an abortion in the
>>legal sense until the presence of a fetus is discovered.  And if by then
>>the fetus has been killed, the "other than...to remove a dead fetus" 
>>protects the clinic from prosecution.
>>
>>Now some of this may be legitimate, but you can imagine an unscrupulous
>>clinc bending the rules.  For example, employee A might tell the patient
>>she is not pregnant, but is in need of a D&C, all the while knowing that 
>>the test came out positive.  Then employee B, an abort/gynecologist,
>>might be told simply that the patient needs a D&C...
>>

>these types of clinics were very common prior to the availability of legal
>abortions in the US.  government regulatory agencies being what they are now,
>i think it would be difficult to operate one again.

Abortion is one of the most unregulated activities in this state.  Not a
single one of the abortion clinics is licensed, and they do not have to
submit to regular inspections the way restaurants, beauty parlors, etc. do.
Nor do the abortionists have to carry any malpractice insurance.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Message to Ron Graham (Was: Hey, Susan Garvin!)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:16:35 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)

Hey Ron Graham,
 
Doesn't this kind of post just make you proud as all hell that
the Inturdgent is a member of FFL?  

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Hey, Mr. Chaney!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:02:25 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >You are overusing the violence metaphor.  In a major way.
# >Stop it.  Now.
# 
# Plan to MAKE me stop it? 

No.  I do not.

# >I mean it.
# 
# Whoopity do, asshole. What you mean, doesn't mean a thing. 
# Now, do something about it. 

*I* will do nothing.  I would never EVER do anything to force you to
do anything against your will, Mr. Chaney.  *I* wouldn't even attempt
to use coercion.  Not *me*, Mr. Chaney.  I prefer non-violence.

You don't have anything to fear from *me*, Mr. Chaney.  After all, I
may know a whole lot of perfectly legal, non-violent ways to make your
life a living hell, but *I* wouldn't do anything that could even be
construed as an indication that I was even thinking about backing up
the implicit threat in the command that you `cut it with the violence
metaphor.'

I repeat:  You have nothing to fear from *me*, Mr. Chaney.  I won't
harm you.  Not at all.  Go on with your vile rhetoric of hate and
psychotic delusions couched in cheap war-toy imagery -- don't
entertain the idea that someone, somewhere, might take an interest in
you having more pressing things than Usenet to occupy your time --
someone with fewer scruples and a violent nature to match yours.
Someone with less self-restraint than me, who might, say, drive out to
Sacto and take an almost sexual pleasure in torturing your psyche
until what remains of your functionality is nothing more than a whispy
memory overshadowed by the day-to-day pressure to keep the lid shut.

*I* certainly wouldn't want you to feel like I was threatening you.

Far from it.

(This is *not* a veiled threat, Mr. Chaney.  I am not being sarcastic,
sardonic or coy, except to suggest to you that the man behind the
curtain can be located and identified, and that hate breeds hate and
violence begets violence.  Use what grey matter you have, man.)

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36482 alt.abortion.inequity:3724
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:31:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloodly likely!

In article <Bu7rGC.LE1@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.033921.8119@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com>
>>>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>>In  <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>
>>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>
>I don't think a father-consent law is very practical, and it introduces
>many real-life problems,

Agreed.  Which is why I keep saying that banning abortion is the more
realistic approach to solving the problems of inequity.

>>Child support contracts are unenforcible, which creates an
>>infringement on men's rights, so instead of changing this you want to
>>destroy women's rights to control their bodies?!!
>>
>>Excuse me if I think this shows total disregard for women's rights.
>
>Actually, I think Mr. Steven's position is equitable for all genders,
>and it represents the "hard-line" view that if you unzip your pants,
>you should be prepared to pay (via dollars, pregnancy, care, time, etc.).

Got it right on the button.  Especially the "hard-line" part.  It is
how I've always regulated my sex life, in other words, I won't sleep
with a woman I'm not willing to marry and raise children with.

This has restricted my sex life, but I believe that I am happier for it.

>This isn't necessarily misanthropic or anti anyone's rights, it is 
>just a belief about which rights supercede conflicting rights, and 
>how to assure an equitable balance of rights.

Again, right on the button.  You seem to be the only one who understands
what I've been saying.

>Don
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Next: Mark Kaufman
Date: 8 Sep 1992 19:41:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


You're right.  I'm sorry.  I'll never do it again.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion