HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:08:25 GMT

In article <1go3dlINN2v5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>Thus, your position seems to be that any man who sleeps with a woman
>>should have the same legal rights as a sperm donor.
>
>He would be exempted if and only if a specific written agreement for the
>care of the child, existed (and was held valid by the state) prior to 
>conception.  You will note that this is currently required of sperm banks.

How is this "specific written agreement" any different, in legal terms, from 
the proposed "pre-sex contract" (except that it is more generous to the woman
by offering her a subsidy of her abortion costs if she should choose to 
exercise that option)? How are these "sperm bank withdrawal agreements"
enforceable, whereas, according to the Conventional Wisdom (?) of misc.legal,
"pre-sex contracts" are not?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:26:27 GMT

(Steve Shapiro) writes:
>
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.
>
>Here we go again, symbolism over substance!
>Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
>Substantiate your assertion. 
>How confident are you as to your assertion?
>Are you serious or just blowing air?
>Where I come from, the addage goes: 'Put up or shut up'.

Steve,

I don't participate in these discussion to bet and make money.
I expressed an opinion that Mr. Limbaugh will fade and I didn't
attack any poster. John Switzer took my opinion quite personally
and branded me and others of the same opinion as "idiots" and
challenged us to bet $100. My response to him was the above.

I have learned from experience that it is futile to engage
those who take these discussions personally. So, I have chosen
not to respond to John Switzer because we have enormous
impedance mismatch. The issue about betting on one's opinion
is childish and inane. Where I come from, we engage in dialectical
discourse without taking out our wallets.

Satya Prabhakar

--
______________________________________________________________
My daughter has a pimple on her chin. She is unhappy.
I have a pimple on my chine. I am happy.
It is called perspective.			-Anon
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Choices and burdens
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:39:12 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->He's one possibility:

->Require that a man be given two weeks (or even one week) in which to
->decline or accept paternity, the period starting from the moment of
->notification.

you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time,
fischer, trying to make rules for others.

do you, perhaps, dream of the military school
environment?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 00:25:14 GMT

<1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) said:
>
>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

And the twits just keep on coming...


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52406 talk.religion.misc:24225 alt.atheism:24008
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:19:58 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

>bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes: >
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >>
>>|>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
>
>No one believes you, Suzanne.  You lied.  Now you're going
>straight to H-E-L-L!

No, she can conveeeeniently go to confession and say a few Our Father's and
Hail Mary's and she's all set.

>>Maddi is killing unborn children! Wow! How did you find this out?
>>Is this true, Maddi!?! How many have you killed?
>
>Well, I had two eggs in an omelette on Sunday, does that count?
>I suppose a Christian would claim I've killed hundreds of
>unborn children because I've never been pregnant, and allowed
>all those potential lives to waste away every month.
Hardly all...I'm a Christian, an Evangelical to boot, anti-abortion, yet
pro-choice.  Strange eh?

 -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
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODIE does it again.
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:19:00 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec10.225519.3401@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes that he will
prove Susan Garvin is a liar.  Then he posts two quotes from her with
no material to refute their accuracy and asserts that they prove she
is a liar.  Does this fall into the category of things that make you
go "Hmmmmm?"

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:07:30 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Let me ask another question.  This is not pro-life, or pro-choice.  I just 
>thought of it, and am curious about the response from both groups.  I will 
>cross post the question to other relevant discussion that I am on.

>It is...

>If the government were to start requiring people to be blood donors, would 
>that be much different from requiring them to pay taxes, or be drafted (Yes, I 
>know the draft isn't around anymore)?

Some people can *not* give blood for medical reasons... low blood pressure
(I think), recent illness, any one of various blood disorders (I think?), not
to mention HIV and other blood-borne diseases.  It would be too easy for people
to come up with a medical reason *not* to give blood.  It could also happen
that someone who *is* forced to give blood could have health problems from it,
which is not possible with taxation.  (Being drafted could have an affect on
your health, which is one reason why people rejected it.  ;)

>				Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:00:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu>,
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Pro-choicers will often argue that even if the child is 
>considered to be a person, . . .

Funny thing, if this is "often" argued, how come this is the first time
I have ever seen it acknowledged, even though I have asserted it on the
net several times?

>This right of separation does not lead to an unrestricted 
>right to abortion, since most abortion procedures directly
>violate the child's "right to bodily autonomy". . . .
>One could justify it on the grounds that the child will die
>anyways after separation, but this rationale would also 
>justify intentional homicide in situations where a person 
>can choose between leaving someone to die, or helping them 
>to live.

Your first sentence is a non sequitur -- it does not following that
since defending one's bodily rights requires directly "violating" the
rights of another, it is wrong to do so.  For example, if a burglar
enters a person's home, does the homeowner not have a right to fight off
the burglar simply because that would directly "violate" the burglar's
bodily rights?  No, that is not the case.  The homeowner can even kill
the burglar if that is the only way to defend the home; the burglar does
not have a right to be free from attack, even lethal force, when
violating the home of another person.  Similarly, a fetus does not have
what you call a "right to bodily autonomy" when it is impinging on the
rights of another person.

Given this reasoning, your line of argument in the second sentence
quoted above is just silly.  The reason a burglar can be attacked is not
because they would die or be injured anyway, but because they are
already impinging on the rights of another person.  The reason a fetus
can be "directly attacked" is not because it would die anyway, but
because it is already impinging on the rights of another person.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A QUESTION FOR JJ PRICE.
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:50:49 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1992Dec8.233358.19784@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.013753.10978@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec6.221446.24524@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>[....]
>>>Technically, cancerous tumors are human as well.
>>>Just like the fetus, they are human cells going through an incredibly
>>>high rate of duplcation. Doesn't mean we're going to stop cutting them
>>>out of peoples bodies.
>>>
>>
>>Brilliant analogy, Mark.  Tell me, how many cancerous tumors do
>>you know of that have been born and live on their own? (calling
>>fetuses 'tumors' doesn't count)
>
>How many fetuses do you know that are living on their own?
>I can't think of any, off hand.
>
>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

The key word, Mark, is *born*, ie leave the host's body. And, yes,
I know a helluva lot of fetuses who have been born and are living
on their own.............
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What a Clown!  (WAS Pro-choicers must condone infanticide )
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:56:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.165126.16575@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
}> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}
}>Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
}>demand must argue that the child should not be considered
}>as a person.  
}
}Clear to you, oh Dishonest One.  

I think it was Bill Clinton who said that clowns make us laugh..

Our Most Reverend Holy Father does not make us laugh, unless
the reference is to laughing at as opposed to with.

On another note it should be painfully obvious to someone who 
speaks for the unborn that it is just as valid and worthwhile
to speak for the dead.  Only someone who is really confused by
reality would assert that they can speak for the unborn because
they once were one.  Furthermore, someone with such a narrow
view of life might also attempt to assert that there are no
"unborn" athiests, as there are no "unborn" Hindus, Jains, 
Baptists, animists, christians....

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: We can always count on Suzanne for a laugh (Was: Re: kebbin and sex)
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:53:11 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec11.191551.15092@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Hey, I can prove to you that a ham sandwich is better than nothing!
   
 I don't think this is that you meant.

>Nothing's better than heaven, right?
>And a ham sandwich is better than nothing, ain't it!

 Unless you're a pig.
 
                                                                      Mp
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:27:12 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:

>>What if the rapist is a mentally disabled person who doesn't realize that he 
>>is causing harm?  Would you still use lethal force if necessary to get him to 
>>stop using your body?
> 
>Makes no difference.  My life would still be in danger.  Whether they realize 
>they are causing harm, or not, they are still being violent, and endangering 
>my life.

So it makes no difference that a fetus doesn't know it is endangering a 
woman's life, right?  She can still use lethal force to end that danger.

>>>There is a definate, immediate threat to the victims health. 
>> 
>>As there is in pregnancy.  
> 
>The last time I looked, pregnancy was not considered a disease.  

Where exactly did you look?  I have in front of me the 9th Revision Third 
Edition version of the ICD-9-CM.  ICD stands for International Classification 
of Disease.  Pregnancy is listed in all its many forms right after Genito  
-urinary System Disorders and right before Diseases of the Skin and 
Subcutanoeous Tissue. 

>Pregnant 
>women can be considered to be in good health, so your statement is inaccurate. 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  It's interesting that if you went to a doctor and 
said "Doc, I'm throwing up constantly, feeling weak and dizzy, and having bad 
back pain", the doctor would probably prescribe something to cure you.  A 
pregnant woman with the same complaint will be told "That's normal, don't take 
anything for it".  I suppose that you too think women should just suffer 
through it all and shut up about it.  

>There is not a definate, immediate threat to the womans health when she is 
>pregnant.  (If you need to, you can get a dictionary, and lookup definate and 
>immediate.  It may help you understand)

Loren, don't even try to be condescending to me.  Unlike you, I did graduate 
from college on schedule, and unlike you, I have a working brain.


So are you willing to be fisted for nine months to save the life of a fetus?
Put your money (or your body) where your mouth is.  Prove to us that you are 
not a hypocrite.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Choices and burdens
X-To: DON BEAVER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:07:00 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
DB> By the way, were you in the army, and did you spend time enforcing
DB> the occupation of Gaza or the West Bank?  (I ask, because you were
DB> secretive about your sex and origin before, and your sentence doesn't
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DB> make it clear.)


Actually, I do not think that she has ever been secretive about her gender
(perhaps about her sex, I'd gather :-) , but *I* wouldn't talk about *that*
in public, either!).  Indeed, I have never seen a male named Michal.

Perhaps I could be wrong, but *I* have never seen a male Michal...?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Resolving abortion through legal and moral reasoning
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:23:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.061122.20407@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

>>> The abortion question has to be resolved through legal reasoning.
>>> In order to do that, we first have to think about what the purpose
>>> of the law is. There are three basic schools of thought on this:
>>>   * Laws should attempt to increase the level of happiness
>>> within a society, by providing "the greatest good for the
>>> greatest number".

>> The problem with this approach is that it often places 
>> societal interests above the rights of the individual.  
>> People can become enslaved, tortured, killed, etc. if 
>> that so happens to cause the level of happiness in society 
>> to increase as a whole. 

> This is excessively simplistic.  You are failing to account for the
> effects on general freedoms, perceived freedoms, and security.  While
> it may be true that arbitrarily killing one person could in the short
> term increase happiness, the effect on the general psyche could only
> be chilling, since everyone would have to consider the possibility of
> themselves being arbitrarily killed.  

But even this approach does not protect every individual 
in society from being killed; it only protects those persons
who are capable of fearing death.  For example, infants
could be killed, tortured, etc., if that happened to 
increase the level of happiness in society. 

>Ray Fischer                   


Doug Holtsinger
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:32:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <CORWIN+.92Dec11222408@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
#In article <519@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#   (1)  Not all laws are decided by a vote from 
#   the majority of the electorate.  Very few are.  Many decisions are
#   made by courts, and most of the rest by legislative bodies.  
#
#And the executive.  You forgot executive orders, like the gag rule.  

Hey, I was still two up on Finkelstein.  

I'm waiting for him to claim that he phrased his statement poorly -
that he didn't mean U.S. laws, he meant the laws in some country in
his imagination.

#Susan, you are being inaccurate.  I am shocked.  I am dismayed.  All
#my conceptions of a perfect universe based upon your infinite wisdom
#have been blown to smithereenz!  Oh whoa is me.  Whatever will I do?

I have a suggestion.

>Sutt/2

Sutt/2

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 DEC 92 18:18:17 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>>Are you aware that you just said that 100% of rape victims survive?
>>I think you wanted to say "can not consider that her life is in much 
>>jeopardy."
>> 
>>Maybe not statistically speaking, but since it is not expected that everyone 
>>know these statistics it is reasonable for someone being physically, and 
>>brutally attacked to believe that their life is in danger.
> 
>Are you aware that not 100% of pregnant women survive?  Isn't it equally 
>reasonable for an unwillingly pregnant woman to believe her life is in 
>danger?  After all, there is always some risk.  When it's all over, the 
>probablity of death for each woman is either 0 (she's alive) or 1 (she's 
>dead), but during every pregnancy the risk is somewhere greater than 0 but 
>less than 1.  It's impossible to determine for certain what the outcome will 
>be until it happens.  

By this reasoning, when I get into a car, there is some possability that 
someone will kill me in a car accident, and I am therefore justified in 
killing all other drivers to protect myself.

>Every pregnant woman faces some risk of death from her condition, whether it's 
>0.0001 or 0.9999.  Why would you not allow them to use lethal force to protect 
>their lives?  Especially when you admitted in a previous post that you would 
>use whatever force necessary to prevent a man from using your body against 
>your will.

I never admitted any such thing, and you know it.  I admitted I would use 
lethal force to protect myself against violent, forced sex.  You somehow 
twisted that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 22:21:40 GMT

In article <9DEC92.15043433@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
>>In article <8DEC92.22380658@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> 
>>[Rip and slash...]
>> 
>>>I also, as I have said before, don't think the organ donor argument is a valid 
>>>one.  There are too many differences.  Some of which are:
>>>	You can only donate most of your organs once, and you may want to save
>>>	them, in case someone in your family needs them.  (I know, this 
>>>	doesn't apply to blood donors)
>>>
>>>	Usually there are alternatives by which the needy person can live
>>>	(such as other donors, and artificial replacements)
>>>
>>How do I manage to miss this stuff? Are you telling me that somebody
>>went and invented some artificial organs and I didn't notice???
>>*WHAT* artificial replacements are you talking about?
>
>I was thinking specifically of the heart, and the kidneys.  Also, isn't there 
>such a thing as an Iron lung?  Or is that not a replacement? I don't know 
>about it, or what it does exactly.  Those are the ones that I know of.  I 
>also know of people with artificial joints, and bones.  I think it is a 
>reasonable assumption that in the future (Near or far) there will be others 
>as well.
>
Ah yes. The artificial heart. The little gizmo that can be used to
keep people alive for a short time while trying to find a human donor.
It is a short term palliative device, not an alternative.
And the kidneys... We have mechanical and peritoneal dialysis. Both of
which are fine, for the short term. Just don't get too far from your
local dialysis center...
And then we hear about the iron lung. A box the size of a phone booth
in which the patient is placed. It's certainly *not* a replacement
Loren. It was a precursor to the mechanical ventilators we use today.
The *only* thing you have correct is that artificial joints are
possible (not entire bones, just joints). I don't think you need to
think to hard to figure out that it is considerably easier to make a
replacement ball for the end of your femur then it is to build a
synthetic organ.
Do us a favor Loren? Try to have your posts based in reality...


--
                  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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51752 soc.men:21028 alt.dads-rights:2901 alt.abortion.inequity:5821