HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Choices and burdens
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:03:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
MLP> >For the sarcasm-impaired, the above paragraph is to illustrate that the
MLP> >notion of pregnancy being only the woman's burden is a slap in the face to
MLP> >every man who has ever stepped and fetched for a pregnant woman.

MLP> Oh yes!  But of course!  It is *so* much more trying to hold someone's
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> hand and be sympathetic than it is to be sick and throw up!  And we
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> all know how much *harder* it is to drive to the hospital than to go
MLP> through labour.  And we all know that women just get pregnant in order
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> stick it to the poor *martyred* men.  But thank you *so* *much*
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MLP> for making it all *so* clear with your *skillful* examples!


Michal, why do you have such bitterness against men?

You might have had some bad experience where a man wasn't there to give you
emotional support, (I don't know the exact circumstances because you never
discussed it in public), but this does *not* mean that *all* men think that
women who get pregnant, are trying to "stiff" them, nor does it mean that men
are generally unwilling to help women through pregnancy.

I really don't what put this chip on your shoulder, but I really think that you
ought to examine the reason why you have your particular attitudes about men.
I know whereof I speak, because I admit that I had similar negative feelings
about women after all of what happened, two years ago, not to mention the
threats on my life.

*I* got over it, which basically means that *anyone* can.  :-)

---
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 * Captain, spare me your inspirational anecdote, dammit!
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:33:55 GMT
Organization: Clark University

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

Like I said, if the womans life is in danger (as decided by a doctor) then an 
abortion would be allowable.

> 
>>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.

Gee.  Now there is something we haven't seen before.  Heather reverting to 
personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue.  I don't know whose 
schedule you are looking at, but as far as I am concerned, I finished school 
earlier than I wanted.  Now, do you really want to start getting into 
unrelated personal attacks on the list?  I, not being a petty person, am 
giving you the chance to stop this bull.  

Talk about hypocritical.  You want me to start posting all the condescending 
things you have posted.  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52471 alt.society.civil-liberty:6985
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Date: 20 Dec 92 00:00:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec16.215545.21544@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>Besides, as things are now, I work for the government for half the year.
>>I have no choice about this, and I am not paid for that work.  What
>>else would you call uncompensated involuntary labor?
>
>Ah, another tax whiner.  Well bad news kiddo, you DO have a choice.
>You're getting services; the government demands that you pay for those
>services.  Seems fair to me.  If you don't like it you have two choices.
>
>1) Vote for different services.
>2) Move out of the country.

How ironic. Now the LEFT are saying "AMERICA--LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT"

Oust the bastards who feel that they are autonomous individuals who 
have the right to be free from initiatory force, eh?

It's not so much the left don't want the government to use force against
people, just not them, eh?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Poor Michele, stuck in the Middle Ages...
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Michele, misogyny, stinking putz
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:54:53 GMT

        And then in article 36703, Michele writes:

Isn't Keith a woman name? So, if it is right, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU 
SPEAK ABOUT BALLS?!?!? Shutup, woman, stay in the house, keep you hot
that your man is coming.

        Lessee--Katherine, Katie, Kimberly, Katrina--nope, can't find
Keith in here. I'd guess it's probably a guy's name. Ask Keith Richards
of the Rolling Stones if you don't believe me.

        Nice bit of misogyny there, BTW. Is it just you, or do all
Italians have such disgusting, prehistoric notions about how to treat
women? No wonder you hate American women.

        Now go ask Santa Claus for a life and a clue. And be a good boy.

Tep
-- 
Did you really think I spoke for anyone else? Boy, you're gullible!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
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: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:16:46 GMT

In article <14DEC92.18335543@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

[Riiiiiiip]

>Like I said, if the womans life is in danger (as decided by a doctor) then an 
>abortion would be allowable.
>
Wonderful! Then we can completly ignore your drivel.
Guess what?
Every woman who has ever been pregnant has risked her life.
So, since you would allow abortions if a doctor decided the womans
life was in danger (see where you said that up there?), you would,
then allow any woman to have an abortion.
Thank you for taking a Pro-Choice stance on this issue.

[Riiiiiiiip]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Summary: Just what we need -- another Kevin Welch clone...
Organization: Whatever it is, it's right out until January 11.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:32:15 GMT

In article <TODD.92Dec18123853@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>
>In article <1gqlleINN4tn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>
>>Do you think society should force her to?
>>Do you think that *your* feelings about *your* existance should have
>>dominence over hers?
>>Do you love your mother?  Would you have her enslaved for your sake?
>>
>>It's a thought experiment.  You don't have to answer.
>>
>>Adrienne Regard
>
>I want to reply to this.
>
>Here is one person suggesting to another person that he/she should be
>dead, all humour aside.

Really?  You must share with us the logical gymnastics that led to that
conclusion, some time.  

>Pregnancy is not slavery.

Oh?  Have you been pregnant before?  Perhaps you should try it some time
before issuing proclamations on what it is or isn't -- because you aren't
exactly qualified to judge that from your own experience.

>Another thought experiment:

Not quite, but proceed anyway.

>You are a five-month old fetus.  You are semiconcious in the womb. 
>You can hear voices outside.  One voice is saying 
>
>"Maybe I'll get rid of it.  Afterall, it will affect my career
>for a while, and worse, it might leave stretch marks, and I won't
>look so good in a bikini.  Yes, that's what I'll do."

This one's got more holes in it than a kilo of Swiss cheese...at 22 weeks,
the brain hasn't developed to the point where thought is possible yet, so
how can you be semiconscious -- and you can understand spoken English at
that stage?  Not bloody likely.  (Not to mention that the hypothetical
female doing the talking in this scenario wouldn't likely be waiting until
the 22d week of pregnancy to start worrying about such concerns as her
figure -- by that time, it's already getting fairly obvious just what
condition she's in.)

>Sometime later, faint glimmers of light appear somewhere, you don't
>know what it is, but it is scary.  You feel something hard and
>metallic grabbing at you.  It pulls you.  You are sucked out into
>a cold noisy place.  It is the whir of a sucking machine.  What
>the hell's going on?  You are barely aware of things, but you
>realize one thing: that you are dying, and you just barely got
>started.  Pain fills your small body.  Your glimmer of consciousness
>fades, and you are pulled into death.
>
>Just a thought experiment.  You don't have to answer.

Might as well, anyway -- you could at least come up with one with a little
better grasp of reality.  If that's your idea of a thought experiment, then
it should be safe to assume that you won't be getting any calls from the
Nobel Prize folks any time soon...

--PLH, at least Schroedinger's cat is safe...



-- 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:23:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec17.211922.15114@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>>
>>Believe it or not, we *all* have the right to choose what happens to our
>>bodies.  The thing that we don't seem to be willing to accept is *when*
>>that choice occurs.  The choice occurs *before* you have sex, not during
>>and certainly not after.
>
>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>*have* made your choice.  And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your comment, but I'm not sure it 
would be considered a responsible decision to abort a child just because
birth control failed.  The fact is, if I'm engaging in sex, there is 
*always* the possibility of a pregnancy.  That's the way our bodies were
designed.  Just because I take every precaution possible doesn't mean
that I shouldn't also take the responsibility for the possibility of 
caring for a child that may come out of the act.  If I go bunji-jumping
and take every safety precaution but the chord still breaks, is it my
fault that I get splattered all over the ground?  I'd say yes, because in
a sport like that, there's always the possibility of an accident.  All of
our actions have consequences, and if we're not willing to deal with those
consequences, we shouldn't put ourselves in situations where we'll have
to deal with them.  So, I guess I would say the bottom line is, if you
don't want the possibility of a child, then don't have sex.  If you do
have sex, again in my opinion, you should be in a relationship where if
a child does come along, it would be a good thing, overall.
  
===============================================================================
Paul Conditt		Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research	Phone:	  (512) 835-3086   FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
  Laboratories		Fedex:	  10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas	Postal:	  P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live
no witty sayings or quotes here
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: My netserver is deaf, but not mute, again
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:33:40 GMT

My netserver has not received any news in close to 100 hours, and 
every one of the hundred-plus posts I have tried to read has expired.

If you want me to respond to questions or arguments or just want me to
see something that's been posted, please e-mail to:

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (preferred address) 
or
n410113@univscvm.bitnet

Philosophical trivia: The last time this happened I put the qualifier
"I hope" before "mute", but it is actually superfluous since if the
netserver is mute, you wouldn't be seeing this post anyway.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Kidney analogy calls for legal abortions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:45:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.021555.23107@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by hsims@vax.clarku.edu:

>>>> People die waiting for kidney transplants, 

>>>No, they die waiting for liver and heart transplants.  
>>>People waiting for kidney transplants have dialysis or a fairly new process
>>>which uses the abdominal cavity as a kidney.   (BTW - more and more people
>>>waiting for heart transplants are getting artificial hearts too.)

>> No, they die waiting for kidney transplants as well. Dialysis -
>> whether machine or peritoneal - is *not* a safe procedure. It is
>> not at all uncommon for people to arrrest during treatment. 

>These are all limitations of medical science, and not because the
>kidneys themselves have failed.

Yah, right.

Similarly, aborted fetuses don't die from the abortions; they die
because of the limits of medical science and medicine's failure to
know how to remove a fetus from a woman's womb and replace it in an
artificial womb.

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52191 alt.society.civil-liberty:6955 alt.rush-limbaugh:11785
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:45:52 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Dec-92 Pro-choicers must condone
i.. by Doug Holtsinger@csl36h.c 
> Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
> demand must argue that the child should not be considered
> as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
> are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
> late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
> must condone infanticide.

Like Mr. Holtsinger, I too see no particular reason to oppose a woman
who wishes to kill her own newly born child.  The surprising concept is
that there exists people who would forbid a woman who wishes to kill her
newly born child from doing so.  It seems merely another manifestation
of the cruelty in society that has lead to so much suffering.  We just
need to love each other more.

Michaeloomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:41:43 GMT

<CORWIN+.92Dec12181311@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier:
><1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>   Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
>   into the nearest cesspool?
>
>1.  I've seen Keith do it.
>

Won't he actually have get *out* of his cesspool before he can be chased
back in?


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 21:00:34 GMT

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

>Like I said, if the womans life is in danger (as decided by a doctor) then an 
>abortion would be allowable.

Any doctor, or one of your chosing?  Some physicians are very supportive of a 
woman's right to choose, and would routinely allow abortions for any women who 
wanted one.  I work with a pediatric nephrologist.  If he says I can have an 
abortion would you allow it?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:26:11 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec12.040358.6377@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes...
>DP> Evidence?  Other sources posted here over the years claim that far
>DP> more women than men are activists on both sides of this issue.
>
>Hmmmm...I'm not sure about that claim.  If you believe the quotes of some rather
>misandrist "Pro-Choice" activists who yell the following about the "Pro-Life"
>movement:
>
>"4-6-8-10  Why are all your leaders men?"
>
>....you'd almost believe that there were more *men* in the "Pro-Life" movement,
>at the very least.

Why would you believe that?  The chant is talking about leaders, and you're
talking about members.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:23:43 GMT

In article <1gbmk8INN74p@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
>>Simply ingenious, Michal.  How can you argue that a woman should not have
>>to carry a child to term just because she had sex, yet believe that a man
>>should have to pay for a child for 18 years just because he had sex?
>
>I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex.
>I do, however, argue that he has to pay *if* a child is born, because 
>it was *born* and has a right to be supported!

Well, if our *ONLY* concern is that the child is supported adequately, why not
just jetison -completely- that whole ikky nasty complicated notion of personal 
responsibility, and go to random picks? I mean, we could feed everyone's tax 
return into a computer program which would maintain lists of who has enough
disposable income to support a child, and who doesn't. Then whenever an
illegitimate child is born, we just pick a child support "donor" at random 
from the "can support" list. Just imagine of all the money we'd save on court 
cases, blood tests, tracking down "deadbeat dads" etc. And imagine how many
illegitimate children Donald Trump would end up supporting...

Sounds much more efficient than the current system. You got a problem with it?

								- Kevin
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Trick question from Mark Cochran.
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:20:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes: 

>Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
>into the nearest cesspool?

It doesn't take anyone to chase Chaney screaming into a cesspool.  He
seems to wallow in cesspools of ignorant, vicious illogic quite
happily without help from either of the posting Cochrans or anyone
else.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:01:51 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
[...]
# Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
# demand must argue that the child should not be considered
# as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants 
# are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
# late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
# must condone infanticide.

Why is Mr. Holtsinger unwilling to take a position on legislation or
pending Supreme Court decisions that might restrict a woman's right to
choose to have an abortion?

Could it be that he condones infanticide?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:02:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <11DEC92.06541996@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
wrote:
> 
> In a previous article, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) wrote:
> > 
> >Even if your characterization of the situation were accurate, it would make
> >no difference.  If I kidnap someone, and feed him alcohol until he develops
> >cirrhosis, I cannot be required to donate my liver to him.
> 
> That is what you think.  If the case you described were to happen, and the 
> person filed a suit against you asking for your liver, instead of a monetary 
> iretribution, he man not win, but he may.  It would make hell of an 
> interesting trial, though.

I repeat: "I cannot be required to donate my liver to him," as this would
amount to involuntary servitude and would, therefore, be unconstitutional.
Please feel free to posts some relevant facts if you disagree.

The only interesting point about the trial you describe would be its
brevity.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.