HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:26:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1gg8smINN5tc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) 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.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:32:42 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith
Ramsay) wrote:
> 
> Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
> better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
> other to be bad characters, no?

You're new here, aren't you?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: mcdonald@kestrel.edu (Jim McDonald)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:28:57 GMT
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA


In article <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

...much deleted...
|> 
|> An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into 
|> a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.
|> 

Not necessarily.  A fertalized egg  is totimpotent, so it can grow into a human adult,
but it can also grow into a set of ovaries, or a collection of blood cells, etc., living 
inside a body predominately derived from a different zygote.  There are several
documented cases of citizens of the U.S. who are chimeras derived from 2 or more
zygotes.  If the ovaries of such a citizen are not a person, then how can you argue 
that the zygote they grew from was a person?

Zygotes are simply not individuals the same as fetuses or developed human beings. 
To argue otherwise leads to gibberish.

So, please, stop repeating the false claim above. 

And before you waste more net bandwidth with your pronouncements about
embryology, perhaps you could invest a hour or two actually reading some 
modern embryology text--look up  chimera and mosaic while you're at it.

  jlm
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ireland...Catholic Church
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:43:23 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
> ruairi@sy.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp (Ruairi.H) writes:

>>       I remember hearing a few years back ( high school ? ) that the
>> group with the highest ratio of violent deaths (ie the most dangerous
>> category of person to be) was an unborn child in America.

Quick quiz:  how many "unborn children" are citizens of this or any other
country?

>>       I, personally, find this repulsive and while not against
>> abortion in all cases am against abortion on demand.  If, as it
>> appears, the majority of Irish people agree with this it means we
>> live in a democracy not the 15th century.

> Sure -- it's one of the dark sides to democracy -- tyranny of the
> majority, or mob rule.

Anybody who compares the democratic form(s) of government to mob rule
probably should get out more, for the fresh air if nothing else.  So
Michael, are putting forward the propostion that:

	11/3/92 elections == Krystalnacht

???

Or that the process by which legislation is proposed, debated and voted
upon is somehow equivalent to what's going on in Sarajevo right now?

Perhaps you should do some meditation on the dark sides of other forms
of government, particularly totalitarian forms.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /  my words; no one else's
"I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating too much
pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an intestinal disorder,
not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:53:42 GMT


Pro-choicers will often argue that even if the child is 
considered to be a person, the woman should still have the 
right to separate herself from the child, and that this 
right stems from the so-called "right to bodily autonomy",
or the "right to bodily privacy".

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".  In their
defense, pro-choicers will argue that the woman should have 
a right of separation which guarantees that all associated 
risks of the abortion should be carried by the child, and 
not by the woman.

But since both parties are assumed to be "persons", with 
presumably an equal right to bodily autonomy, it would appear
difficult to justify this particular assignment of risk. 
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.

Alternatively, pro-choicers might say that the woman should 
not bear any risks during the abortion procedure since her
bodily resources are being used by the child, and the child
is endangering the woman's health.  But this argument could
also be used to justify "aborting" the woman when the child's
health and life are threatened by the woman's ingestion of
drugs and alcohol.

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.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:45:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec11.005831.7605@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-101292162238@lefty.apple.com> 
> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> Letting a person die is not morally equivalent to killing them.
> >> I cannot kill a person who requires blood, marrow, or kidneys,
> >> but I can refuse to support them if I was not responsible for
> >> their condition.
> 
> > Um, Dougie, you can refuse to support them even if you _were_ 
> > responsible for their condition.
> 
> Um, "Leftie", if you cause a person to require blood,
> marrow, or kidneys, and they die as a result, you can
> be charged with homicide. 

Which is entirely beside the point.  Thanks for agreeing with me.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:28:51 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 <1992Dec13.194837.14312@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>I am an observer to this so I don't know what this is really about
>but I would like to have my say...

Sure - don't let not knowing what you're talking about stop you,,,  :-)

>|>... and she ignored the article entirely.  Meanwhile, she's still been
>|>posting in other threads, defending her mindlessly-driven pro-life
>
>Are you accusing Susan of not having a mind?

No, he's talking about Suzanne.  :-)

(And I think the implication is more that if she has a mind, she's certainly
not using it.)

>|>stance by saying such incredibly profound things as "Hey, I've _BEEN_
>|>an unborn child."
>
>So have we all...and fortunately some of us were brought to term and
>some weren't. (PS There's no point in that it's just MHO)

OK - all of us that were aborted, raise your hands.

>|>Suzanne, I only hope that someday one of your daughters tells you
>|>she's pro-choice, or that you have to deal with a victim of rape.
>|>I think that the best thing for your idealistic opinions would be
>|>a strong dose of reality.
>
>I am so glad that you wish bad things on someone..I may be a woman hater..
>a cold insensitive bastard..etc....(things that have been said about me on
>this net) but I would never wish the misfortune of rape or family problems
>among anyone....

Reread what was written.  Hoping that she has to deal with a rape victim
in order to get a dose of reality is *not* wishing rape on anyone.  (I have
to admit, I was ready to flame the original poster when I read that, until
I reread it more carefully.)

>[...]  Maybe this just pissed Susan off enough to ignore it...

I suspect this is pissing off *both* Susan and Suzanne.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
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: Thu, 17 Dec 92 18:00:16 GMT

In article <16DEC92.21143872@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) wrote:
>>In <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>>An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into
>>>>>a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.
>>>>
>>>>Well, let's see...
>>>>
>>>>An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
>>>>life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
>>>>and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
>>>>is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
>>>>egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
>>>>human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
>>>>a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.
>>>
>>>That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an
>>>unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.
>>>It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized.
>> 
>>I hate to clue you in, but by the same reasoning a fertilized egg will
>>never develop into an adult, either.  It might become an embryo, but then
>>it wouldn't be a fertilized egg any more...
>
>Except the fertalized egg will grow into an embryo...adult.  There is a 
>difference between growing into something (fertalized egg -> Embryo), and 
>being changed into something by outside forces (unfertalized egg -> fertalized 
>egg)

*SIGH*
Loren, have you ever taken a biology course? Do you know *anything*
about the biology of reproduction?
You statement above, in order to be correct, should read:
"Except the fertalized egg [your spelling. I'll be happy if you get
the biology correct. Somebody else can undertake to teach you to
spell] may, under circumstances which occur for perhaps one out of
three fertilized [correct spelling, since it's my word this time...]
egg, implant, and begin the process by which it may (again, against
the odds) eventually become an embryo, a fetus, and (potentially and
eventually) a child."

Does anyone remember if Loren has ever posted an article which
contained any correct information?

--
                  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.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals,soc.culture.canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:56:24 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Dec-92 Re: Vegetarianism and
abort.. by Todd Law@juno.elcom.nite 
> In article <1992Dec14.210217.5066@cdf.toronto.edu>
g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (R
> osemary Waigh) writes:
>  
> >1.  Most vegetarians are so for health reasons, not ethical reasons. One
> >       would not expect to be able to predict their aspects towards
abortion 
>  
> >       based on their desire for a healthy lifestyle.
>  
> 900 million Hindus say you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

Not true.  The only Hindu demographic group that remains vegetarian is
the Dravidian Brahmins.  The rest eat meat if they can afford it.  


> >2.  There is more involved in the abortion question than right to
life, there
>  
> >       is also the question of the rights of the pregnant woman.
>                                     ~~~~~~
> "rights" should read "convenience".

It is a matter of rights & how can a person who access to using e-mail
complain about someone else having a convenience?  The labelling of an
abortion a convience is one of the most basic displays of the misogyny
that underlies the anti-abortion movement.

> >3.  Ethical vegetarians who are so to minimize *suffering* could
consistently
>  
> >    support abortion in cases where this choice would cause less suffering
> >    (e.g. if the z/e/f has not yet developed the capacity to suffer,
or if th
> e
> >    pregnant woman's life is in danger).
>  
> The part where the woman's life is in danger is fine with me, but the
> suffering is indetermined.  What z/e/f feel is largely unknown.
> (I take it z/e/f means zygote/embryo/fetus).

Zygotes have no nerve cells and cannot feel suffering.  I think the same
is true of embryos.  Fetuses probably do feel pain when they are killed
by an abortion.  If fetus were permitted to develop into a human being,
that human being will probably feel much more pain over the course of
its life, so why is the pain of a fetus worth mentioning?

> >4.The people who *are* being inconsistent are those who insist on the
sanctit
> y
> >  of life, yet eat the bodies of slaughtered animals.
>  
> I make no claim to consistency, but derive fun from arguing with those 
> who think they have it.  Pass the headcheese.

Perhaps, Mr. Law should find some real arguments, if he wishes to argue with 
Ms. Waigh.

Michael Loomis
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:16:34 GMT
Organization: Clark University

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

>I know that you would like to think that I am a hypocrite.  You probably 
>assume that all pro-lifers would turn to pro-choice if they became pregnant, 
>but that is not the case.  Some of us really believe in what we are saying.

Gee, Loren, what a surprise!  You deleted my offer to carry a fetus to term if 
you would agree to Keith's nine months of fisting offer.  I've given you the 
perfect opportunity to prove that you really would be willing to use your body 
to save a fetus' life, and you ignored it.

You are, without a doubt, a hypocrite.

>>But you had implied that having an abortion is more than a mistake.  In fact, 
>>you called it murder.  I find it interesting that you would chose to remain 
>>friends with murderers.  Would you stay friends with someone who opened fire 
>>on a crowd of bystanders, claiming it was a "mistake"?  
> 
>Do you have any idea what it means to be a friend?  If my friend claimed that 
>something was a mistake, I would believe him/her.  It is something called 
>trust.  All of my friendships are based on it.

Why do you trust your friends with the decision to have an abortion, but not 
the rest of the women of America?  Why do your friends get some sort of 
special privilege that the rest of us don't get?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: My vote for funniest comment of the week
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:53:59 GMT

In <lefty-051292033007@90.190.56.101> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>In article <125@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <Byr98r.8J5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> [lots of text deleted]
>> 
>> Adrienne said:
>> ##Oh, yeah, and with Darcy, too.
>> ##
>> ##Man, you are in great company. 
>> #
>> #Thanks!  I agree.
>> 
>> After all these years, Darcy has an admirer.

>Come on, Susan.  Kevin has certainly had admirers in the past, Steve "Late
>But Not Especially Lamented" Franklin being only the most recent.

>Not surprisingly, they were uniformly even sillier sons of bitches than
>Darcy.  Mr. Beaver seems to be no exception in this regard.

I've decided to put no more weight on insults emanating from
lefty@apple.com  than if they emanated from apple@apple.com
instead.  They bear so little resemblance to anything going on in
the world of human beings.

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

I know DOD stands for "Dear old Dougie." What does CMC stand for?
and how do all those :. change the meaning?

[Just want to know what info to feed into my "apple". :-)]

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: parker@ehibm5.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:41:42 GMT

kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:

>In article <Bz7KqK.HsL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>We *do* really exist.  We just don't "know" what it *means* to "exist"
>>(physically)...or what "really" means...or what "means" means...

>	"We"? Sorry, I do not know if you really exist...

Yeah, sure, a non-sentient AI program could rattle off the post you just read
without batting a diode...  UH HUH, suuuuuure.

I didn't say you *knew* I existed, I said we *do* exist.  Even if this
"elaborate computer simulation" we are in is *simulating* me, or you, or
anyone else is irrelevant.  We still "exist" within the "reality" of the
simulation--which is as "real" as you're going to get.

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Kevin's "Unretracted lie" documented as truth
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:43:55 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
->(I'm posting this because I think Darcy has Keegan in a killfile, so might not
->see that this is being posted by Keegan every time Darcy posts Susan's quote.
->It would save a lot of bandwidth if Darcy would stop incorrectly labelling
->it as a lie...)

i think the contrast between kevin's false insinuation
and my full documentation provides an accurate profile
of the thing called kebbin.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A clue for Chris Burian.
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <BzEy8s.7x8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
(Christopher J Burian) writes: 

>It is kind of funny how it's "okay" to yank a baby out of the womb piece
>by piece, yet it's "wrong" to let a newborn die a gentle death from
>hypothermia.

The right to abortion is a right of removal.  In the same way that you
or I have a right to refuse to donate tissue, blood, or organs to save
someone else, a woman has the right to refuse to have her body used by
the /z/e/f/.  Your sensationalistic and cheap emotionalism about
yanking babies out of wombs is detached from reality.  The reason why
most /z/e/f/s are routinely killed in the course of abortions is that
they would have no chance of survival outside of the womb.  Many of us
who support the right of removal have no problem with protecting the
life of the /z/e/f/ if that imposes no additional risk on the woman.
In fact, there has been a recent post asserting that current medical
practice does in fact require this.  After birth a /z/e/f/ becomes a
child.  Allowing it to freeze to death is against the law.  There is
no longer any right of removal because it is already out.

>The subject begs further reflection and dialogue.

If you advocate a misogynistic legislative agenda of forced pregnancy,
then I suggest you engage in further reflection.  One place to start
might be in explaining why you want to give a right to use a legal
person's body to a /z/e/f/ when that right is routinely to denied to
all persons in our society.

SJM
 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: parker@ehsn18.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Deadly force to prevent or terminate rape (was: Re: The Gardener story (and relevance))
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:55:56 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <Byt64t.HG0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>
>>As to the issue itself... I have heard of a jurisdiction where a rape victim
>>does *not* have the right to use lethal force in defense.

>Where is that?

I think you deleted it.  I'm thinking of Canada, as evidenced by this exerpt
from "The Lioness Method" which was posted on talk.rape a while ago.

#        You do not have the right to threaten with or use
#deadly force (knife or gun) unless you are in a state of
#reasonable fear that deadly force is about to be used against
#you. If, when asked why you STOPPED your attacker, you reply
#that he was about to rape you, you will be sent to prison.
#If reply that he was about to rape you AND YOU WERE AFRAID
#THAT HE WOULD KILL YOU, then you probably WON'T, particularly
#in a jury trial.

Other references indicate that the text was written for Canada.  I don't know
if it is true anywhere in the US.

>>It's a matter of "believed intent".  If the victim kills because she
>>doesn't want to be raped, it's against the law;if the victim kills because she
>>feared for her life (or health?) it is self-defense.  The tricky part is in
>>showing that she feared for her life.

>This is not true in New York (or any other state that I know of).  A person
>can kill the assailant, if necessary, in order to prevent or terminate a rape.
>The victim *need not* believe that their life is in danger.

>>That is not documented evidence, it is merely a secondhand description of the
>>reasoning behind it. You do not necessarily have the right to use lethal force
>>in "self-defense".

>You're describing the reasoning behind the use of deadly physical force in
>defense against other force.  I.e., it's legally justified to protect against
>deadly physical force, but not against a simple assault.

Isn't that pretty much what we were talking about?  leathal force to protect
against non-deadly assault?

>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

-Rob