HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:53:23 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.024809.22609@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu writes:
|So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
|in a way that women aren't?   Most people do accept the unequal
|burden placed on men by child support laws, without any second
|thoughts. 

What unequal burden on men?  What is it that I am alleged to be
"accepting"?  Consider the following:

[] From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
[] Message-ID: <1i7thaINN7ik@gap.caltech.edu>
[]
[] Quoting from the Economist, 12/26/92, p.39:
[]
[] "    Divorce also affects living standards.  Men may actually see their
[] disposable incomes rise, especially if they pay little or no child support.
[] Official American figures for 1989 found that 41% of all divorced and
[] seperated women living with children under 21 received nothing from their
[] former husbands; the rest received on average just over $3000 a year.
[]    The predictable upshot is that women and children are poorer.  A study
[] of American families who have been interviewed each year since 1968 finds 
[] that separated and divorced women suffer an average fall of about 30% in
[] their incomes in the year after their marriage breaks up.  The worst hurt
[] are middle-class wives who have stayed at home.  But 31% of all wives 
[] whose incomes were above average when they were married found that their
[] living standards fell by more than half in the first year after their 
[] marriages collapsed."

Looks to me like there's an unequal burden on *women*.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and 
history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the 
preborn." --Edward Simmons, a "pro-lifer", in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:52:21 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55256 alt.magick:6747 alt.pagan:15263 alt.drugs:20849
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
Subject: OK, it time to put your money where your mouth is (was: Abortifacients)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:59:07 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1993Jan11.202344.15457@netcom.com> cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton) writes:
>  I have given my opinion/advice in private email, and would just
>like to add one comment:

>  I was amazed at the number of jokers who jumped at the chance to
>score rhetorical points off a couple of people in a very serious 
>situation.  A couple who are apparently sincere, apparently both 
>very young and poor, and apparently in a life or death situation are no 
>fit target for public cheap shots or debating points in my book.

I had not noticed those cheap shots, but in principle I would second
what you said.

>  My already jaundiced and cynical view of humanity in general and the
>Net in particular has dropped several notches.  You know who you are;
>think it over a bit.  Followups to misc.misc.

OK, so I tend to be a bit cynical myself. However I'm going to toss
an idea out to the net just to see if it sinks or swims.

For those who have not been following this thread, a young couple
asked for information on herbal abortifacients. It seems that she is
pregnant and they do not have the money for an abortion. Several people
have indicated that herbal remedys can be dangerous, and advised
against it.

Here we have a chance to do something worth while: if they follow
the course of using a herbal abortifacient, the consiquences could
be severe. However, they have decided that they can not take this
pregnancy to term. I would propose that those on this net who take a
pro-choice stance, and can afford to make a monitary commitment to 
help pay for the abortion. $10, $20, $50, $100 - whatever you can
afford.

I realize that money is tight these days, but there are a lot of
well paid professionals on this net to whom such sums are nothing.
Here's your chance to do a little good in this world, and help someone
out who's in trouble.

I'll start out by matching the first person who will make a contribution
of $20-$50. Any takers?

>  -- Clifton

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:17:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.204007.15559@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>Really?  _Why_ would they do that?  Is it perhaps because their arguments
>are so bankrupt they have resort to shock tactics?

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why is that a shock tactic?  Would
anyone be shocked to see a cow heart in a jar.  Some have weaker stomachs that
others, but personally, seeing a cow heart does nothing to me.  But seeing
a real dead human body in a jar with hands and feet that was killed in
accordance with the laws of this country does do something to me.  It shocks 
me-that's right.  The clips from Nazi concentration camps are graphic.

Is that a valid
>debating technique?

Is showing the footage of dead Jews from the concetration camps
not a valid debating technique.  Maybe those who think the holocoast was 
wrong would show these films because they lack strong arguments?

Is defacing church property a valid debating
>technique?

I didnt say it was right to deface church property.  I have problems with the
idea of bombing abortion clinics, too.  Or even blockading clinics.  I think
I would have to hear from God to practice civil disobedience except in 
regard to practicing the Christian faith.  But I can't condemn others who
do.  They may be obeying God.

>Others have explained RvW to you; I suggest you get a copy of the decision
>and read it yourself.

I don't claim to be a lawyer.  I heard that from a lawyer who takes cases
to the Supreme Court (he has his own tv show.)  But I think the original
descision is up to the last month of pregnancy.

>> One
>> Baptist minister who ran an orphanage recounts how God told him that his
>> life was an abomination in His sight.
>
>What was the context of his statement?  Perhaps he was trying to encourage
>the faithful to keep trying, knowing that even a Baptist minister could
>fall short wrt having pure motives.  Yet this business of being condemned
>by God disturbs me.  What about the doctrine of "the Grace of God through
>Jesus Christ?"  Shouldn't that hold out some hope?

The context of the book which tells this story is that this man was shot,
and cried out to God in while he was in a coma.  He had a vision (I think it
would be a vision) in which he saw many things, and when the appeared before
God, he was told that his life was an abomination.  The book is "Placebo."
I have only read parts of it, so I don't know the whole story. What I read
was very interesting, and a friend of mine told me that the book shook him
to his core.  It sounds like a good book to read.

>What forms of killing are murder? 

It is murder for us to kill the innocent.

Link Hudson.


Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:00:28 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0EHs2.169@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1icftuINNopf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

I'll repeat, in this particular instance of your...hmm...original editing, Don.

>>Are you looking for an answer, or just a brangle?

>>>1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
>>>receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.
>>
>>No. ...

Of course, you DELETED the the part where I said that I was in favor of 50%
of all future awards being made in favor of fathers.

But that wouldn't be *dishonest* editing, now would it?

I also note that you deleted your own "AND/OR"s that appeared between
the three questions which would seem to imply that one or all could be
answered and would thus satisfy your query.  I wonder why you did that?
Hmmmm.

>>>2.  Fines against judges whose record continues to show bias against
>>>fathers (eg. 40% or less).
>>Sure. ...

>>>3.  Insert your definition here, Adrienne.  (Either you meant to claim 
>>>you support AA or you evaded it, using "equitable standards" intentionally.)
>You gave no response to THIS question.  Instead, you explained a bit
>of your "equitable standards" line.  Who cares?  Karl wrote about,
>you flamed him about, and I asked you about, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

Hmmmm.  First, I *did* answer your first two questions, and you *did*
originally frame them with AND/OR inbetween.  Maybe you don't know what
that means.  Maybe a presumption of such ignorance is giving you too much
credit, too.

However, since my definition of equitable standards could quite sensibly
in this context be presumed to fit as a definition of affirmative action,
I don't quite see what your problem is.

>In what way is your position on "equitable standards" any support of 
>AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for men in custody decisions, in any sense whatsoever?

Dear me.  Since you have failed to provide any definition of affirmative
action that argues with my 'equitable standards', I'm at a bit of a loss
to figure out just what the heck you want to fight about, Don.

Care to provide a *definition*, as was originally requested?

>Put your money where your mouth is, Adrienne.  *You* claimed to be
>a feminist whose views contradicted Karl's statements about feminist
>positions on affirmative action.  Support *your* claim and your flame.


Hmm.  KARL has yet to provide a definition, either.  So, since I'm the 
only one who has (though of course, I'm perfectly able to understand that
it fails to meet your UNSPECIFIED definition, thus your harrangue), I am
again unsure about what your problem is.

But then, the cause of your particular problem isn't much my concern is it.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: We're still looking...
	<1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1993Jan1.055325.1509@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:00:19 GMT

In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

   mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

   >In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
   >>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
   >>
   >>>In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
   >>
   >>>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
   >>>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
   >>>>
   >>>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
   >>>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
   >>>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
   >>>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
   >>>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
   >>>*another persons* body.
   >>
   >>Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
   >>body.
   >>
   >I agree 100%! But what does this have to do with abortion? The issue
   >was Jeff D. hacking and eating his *own* body, not some baby.
   >Oh, let me guess... You're one of those who claims without any
   >evidence to support it, that a z/e/f is actually a person?
   >How sad...

   I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
   as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
   defined as such has been beat to death already.  

It has?  Kinda hard to do, since no such evidence has been presented that
I'm aware of...perhaps you have some actual sources on which you base this
assertion of yours?

   >>Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance

   >Good, I hope you're getting cured of it then.

   Yep.  Every time I don't know if something you pro-aborters claim is true, 
   I look it up to cure my ignorance, and to prove yours.

There are only two "pro-aborters" I've seen in this newsgroup, kid.
Assuming we all are does wonders for proving YOUR ignorance.

   P. S. How come nobody hazes Mr. Cochran for his userid Merlin?

I dunno -- maybe because he's not a clueless twit?

--PLH, who'd just as rather be "kcolonel@is.rice.edu", but at least it comes
from an actual title I hold...

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: Sun, 10 Jan 93 00:07:58 GMT

In article <adams.726592808@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[Deletions]

>>Well, first let my point out that lots of folks who are pro-life,
>>are pro-life for purely NON-religious reasons.   There are plenty of
>>non-religious reasons available for being pro-life, so that no one need
>>lean on any mystic, unseen, unexplainable, religious idea to be so.
>>I'd say most prominent would be all the photographic, videographic, and
>>sonographic images now available to anyone brave enough to look.  What
>>they all show us is a child of great beauty and grace, the future of
>>the human race, something of of great value.
>No problem.  Now, look at the liberty interest of the woman.  There *is* a
>conflict here.  Between the liberty interest of both the unborn child and
>the woman.  Before the fetus is viable, the liberty interest *must* remain
>with the woman.  Why?  Because it is her body, mind, etc, that are involved,
>just as much as the unborn.  When the decision has to be made, it is not
>for the government to decide who can and cannot exert bodily autonomy, and
>for what reasons.  The governemt should not be able to force carrying to
>term any more than force organ donation.
>
Don't expect rationality from Suzzie wrt organ donations... She thinks
it is necessary to go into the thoracic cavity to remove a kidney
(thus, according to her, making donating a kidney more dangerous then
receiving one). I mentioned this to a local nephrologist (and head of
our transplant team) who laughed hysterically, and said (paraphrased):
Any surgeon who gets to a kidney through the chest probably does
tonselectomies through the anus.
Suzzie, of course, clings to her belief despite the realities of the
situation.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:00:41 GMT

In <1992Dec29.235055.18645@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

>2) Those who are against abortion in general, but for it in some cases
>   (rape, incest, probable death to mother).

>Why is abortion wrong in only some cases?  Is the fetus a person?  If
>it is, why is it ok to kill an innocent person to comfort a victim of
>rape or incest.  I assume in the case of harm to the mother you treat
>the fetus as an aggressor that can be killed to save the mother's life?

>Perhaps someone can do a little
>tweaking for me, eh?

Tweak, tweak!

In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
right to choose avoiding pregnancy. As for probable death to the mother: when
her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)


Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:51:17 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <C0Cv0I.7BG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
wrote:
> 
> Oh, by the way, you may not have noticed but this is talk.abortion not
> talk.imbecile.

Quite right.

So, what are _you_ doing here?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54605 alt.dads-rights:3226 alt.feminism:6927
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:04:28 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1if1h7INNb5g@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>><C0FtDD.1oE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>><1idavcINN5dp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>2.  My definition of AA is the equitable standards I've used so far in
>>answering these questions.  I know you've deleted those portions, but I
>>trust you can go back and find it again.
>>
>>Done.

>Thank you for making this explicit.  It's too bad it came out
>after such resistance.  Otherwise, the conversation could have
>ended simply on my side with:

>As a native English speaker, I do not find "equitable standards"
>to be a synonym for "affirmative action."

The "usual" definition of AA, as I have met it, is along the
lines of:

        If there has been systematic discrimination in filling
        certain positions, on a basis that was not relevant to
        suitability for those positions; and if this led to
        underrepresentation of an underprivileged group; then
        when there is a choice in filling future positions,
        among those people of the necessary standard, there
        should be a preference for those people of the
        underrepresented group.

There are many variations on this, that depend on styles of
implementation (e.g. quotas or not) and definitions of "necessary
standard" (e.g. when/if a lesser-qualified person should be chosen
over a better-qualified person, if they satisfy minimal standards).
Adrienne's response was with regard to the latter variation, or
so I interpreted it.  So she was *already* well-past the point
you were apparently looking for.

>I disagree that ensuring equality is the same as AFFIRMATIVE action.
>Ensuring that new hires are in the right "proportions" is nowhere
>near as active or affirmative as declaring that companies must have
>the given "proportions" overall.  You propose the former but reject
>affirmatively hiring disproportionately more minorities/women until
>an overall balance is reached.

Of course, another problem arises in that it's possible some people
who hire are *still* discriminating, even without realizing it.
Then, in order to achieve the right proportions, even including
time delays, an additional layer of "active" discrimination is
needed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:40:59 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 7-Jan-93 Questions for Pro-Choice
ad.. by Michael Updike@bug.cat.c 
> If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
> fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
> and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
> OK to terminate before but not after ?)

    I have no moral objection to infanticide.  The human infant has not
yet attained a level of awareness that morally obligates society to give
it a right to life.  However, society must draw line somewhere after
which it is inappropriate to kill babies, because I believe a moral
society is one in a which no child lives in fear.

    Thus, I find acceptable laws which forbid the killing of typical
neonates.  Birth is very good line legally because it is a quite
distinct and irreversible event.  Additionally, a mother should be able
to make up her mind whether she wishes to have a child in her nine
months of pregnancy.  Though birth makes an excellent line for legal
purposes, I would find acceptable other laws like no abortion after 8
months of pregnancy or no infanticide one month after birth.

    I think it quite silly for "pro-choice" people to talk of birth in
the same manner that "pro-life" people talk of conception.  Perhaps we
should term these "pro-choicers" pro-lifers+9months.  Both pro-lifers
and pro-lifers+9 seem to feel that there exists a clear rule about what
has a right-to-life and what does not.  I am quite content to live
without such rules in an ambigious universe.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Fetal tissue research (was Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:27:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.182534.8944@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:

> I havn't been following this threat, so I am not sure who stands were on
> the issue of abortion.  But, I was curious as to the pro-life stance on
> fetal tissue research.  The common arguement follows along the lines that
> fetal tissue reseach will up the number of abortions.  In addition, the
> use of fetal tissue gets into the ethics of human research.  

I think there's the possibility that fetal tissue research
could contribute to an increase in the number of elective 
abortions.  Women who face a difficult abortion decision
might be persuaded to abort instead of carry to term by the
belief that the fetal remains could be used to help other
people.  I don't think the existence of FTR would influence 
women who have strong moral convictions against abortion.

I would have no objection to fetal tissue research which 
uses the remains from spontaneous abortions or tubal pregnancies.  
Despite some claims, I have seen no evidence that there would not 
be a sufficient amount of fetal tissue to carry out this research.   
My feeling is that these unsupported claims are made by people 
who wish to legitimize elective abortion, and by a few powerful
researchers who are hungry for federal research dollars (the
program at Yale immediately comes to mind). 

I have heard of proposed laws which would prevent directed
donations of fetal tissue, and laws which would separate the 
decision to donate tissue and the decision to abort.  I feel
that these laws will not address my objection above.  Many women
will be aware of the fact that their abortion could help other
people, regardless of the existence of any law which regulates
FTR.  The recent case in Florida, for example, of parents who 
wished to kill their anencephalic infant so that her organs could 
be donated, highlights the fact that some people will be partially 
motivated by altruism to kill their offspring.  And no law can prevent 
a family member or an unscrupulous doctor from pressuring a woman 
into aborting for "someone else's sake". 


>Greg Popken


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion