HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Keywords: choice question
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:20:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.131714.10234@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>In article <1eg9ngINNsuq@uwm.edu>, simon@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David Joseph Simon) writes:
>> Hi there all
>> someone named Brian I think from Arizona asked the question of pro-choice people:|>  "You say you have the "right to choose".  Who is the authority that grants you this right?
>> I have a simple answer for this.|> 1.	Its called the constitution.  
  [much stuff deleted]
>
>I wouldn't go off claiming that the constitution says things it doesn't.
>The constitution and its 27 amendments never mention the word
>abortion or make any references to it.  Then again, this hasn't stopped
>the supreme court from making a fool of itself in the 60's, when the
>supreme court ruled that the consitution allowed 18 year olds the right
>to vote.  The amendment to do that came _after_ that decision.  If
>you read the constitution, it never mentions the age 18 at all. :)
>
>People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
>the end all.  If people want abortion legal or outlawed, pass a law.
>Don't try to read it into the constitution.  Of course I would never
>last as a judge, if the constitution doesn't make a reference to it,
>it isn't in the constitution.  A horrible attitude I know, but it is
>real life.

Bill of Rights, Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be 
construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

ie. The right to have control over one's own body.
Try reading the constitution before posting about what it says.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Some buttheaded discrepancies in them thar attributions!
Keywords: forgery, tampering with evidence, lying, false accusations, empty
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:10:10 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.722187039@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes an unbelievably
long-winded whine about his own ability to get attributions straight
in which he seeks to blame everyone but himself.  It is full of his
own edits and comments, I guess to give it a feeling of unadulterated
authentiticity.  But he closes with the best line:

>What is the source of the discrepancies, I wonder?
>
>Peter Nyikos

I had to conclude that this was more than just a signature; it was
also an answer to the question.

SJM
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:57:59 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.064218.17638@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <32735@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>You seem to be drawing a distinction that I don't understand between
>having an opinion and believing that opinion to be true.

My problem is when you want to force women to behave as if they hold
your opinion.

>Maybe an example would help.  It is my opinion that the pain
>of animals is a bad thing and that the willful infliction of pain by a
>human being without justification is a bad thing.  Since I think those
>really are bad things, I favor laws against torturing cats to death
>for the fun of it.  Do you see a problem with my stance on that issue?

I'm not an animal rights activists and generally don't see the purpose
served by devoting scarce government resources to protect animals.

>>We regularly release people from responsibilities
>>that have a much stronger link with particular behaviors than the link
>>between a pregnancy and an act of sex.

A drunk driver is not forced to donate tissue, blood, or organs to
save the life of a victim of his bad judgment.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:05:45 GMT

In article <Ef2zRZq00WBLE4rVkJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Boy do you have some messed up ideas!  
>You think abortions should be used as a source of birthcontrol if
>necessary?!?  And that the practice of abstinence is a ridiculous
>solution?!?!!  Wow you're confused.  
It's an impractical solution because it is impractical to believe that large
enough numbers of people will follow it to make the problem go away.

>I (obviously) agree with the other side of the argument.
All right. I don't.

>Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
>only 100% certain method.
It's not a 100% certain method. I personally know one woman
who was raped and becaume pregnant as the result. 
>If a couple considers themselves adult enough to engage in sex, they
>should face the adult responsibilities that might accompany the action.
That seems fair.

>And making sure that the child that results from your actions is cared
>for is an obvious responsibility.  I strongly believe that killing that
>child through an abortion is not facing your responsibilities.
But many people don't agree with you. I for one, do not. Would you
mind explaining why abortion is not a responsible way to deal with
an unwanted pregnancy.

>Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>No Sex is Safe Sex.
Sure, and if I never left the house I wouldn't ever have a motorcycle
accident. What's your point?

>Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>result from sex, either.
Perhaps you should invest in some good biology books. These diseases
don't result from sex. They are transmitted through sex. This is
not the same. I'm prepared to take the risk of getting those
diseases, however.

>Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
>already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
>of you?
Maybe life isn't as simple as you think.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 7
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:58:04 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32737@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>Pregnant women are not criminals, Jim.  They also have
>not entered into a contract to bear the child by engaging in a sex
>act.

I agree on both points.  Criminal law and contract law are not the
only bases for legal obligation, though.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:39:06 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <Bxy8KK.KwF@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>How would you have the people of this net interpret this line?  I have
>>used your postings so far as an example to Will of people who feel that
>>if they don't get what they want with issueA, then they WILL remove from
>>women the right to abort.  Is that or is that not a correct interpretation
>>of your position?
>
>A correct interpretation of my position is that if women aren't interested
>in equality in the reproductive and child-support process, then perhaps men
>have it in their best interest to gain equality by removing choices from
>women.

He doesn't want a child.  She doesn't want a child.  If the birth control
fails, they can get an abortion.  If you take away this choice, you're
screwing *both* of them.  That's in *nobody's* best interest.

Sounds like a pretty stupid position to me.

>I would prefer that men take a step up the ladder.  However, if women won't
>give us a hand up we could decide to yank women down a step or two instead.

Cut off your nose to spite your face?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:55:37 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Nov15.035941.20377@rotag.mi.org>, by kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy):
>> In article <1d85iaINNate@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>>
>>>I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
>>>more important than an animal.  
>> 
>> Does it demean YOU, Frank? Do you consider yourself a fertilized egg? If not
>> demeaning to you, then to whom? I see it potentially demeaning only to
>> fertilized eggs. It could hurt their "feelings", maybe.
>
>Kevin, every single one of us is a fertilized egg.  Some of us are just older
>than others.

The same is also true of most other members of the animal kingdom.
However, there are vast differences of every sort between a born human
being, a born animal, and a fertilized egg.

The objection to saying that a fertilized egg is more important than a
person is raised because many of us feel that we earn our worth, and
that our education and experience make us somehow significant in the
universe.  If you feel that the sole purpose of a woman, Suzanne, is
to create more men and women, then I can almost understand your
opinion that a fertilized egg is just as important in the process as
the woman who bears it; however, I think that a woman of childbearing
age is quite a bit more important than this.

I honestly believe in what I feel, Suzanne, as strongly as you believe
in what you feel; I'm no more a "baby-killer" than you would call
yourself a "woman-abuser".  Your position on abortion (laws
prohibiting it in all cases) is as far from mine (absolutely no legal
restrictions on abortion) as we can get; I'd like to find out what
fuels your belief, and at the same time offer my opinions to you for
scrutiny; I want to understand "the other side" as well as I can.

If you'd be interested in discussing this with me, please send me
private email (threads here too quickly get taken over with ad hominem
attacks); or just start a new thread, or continue this one...

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:25:41 CST

In article <1992Nov19.155934.15998@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <shl2l14@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
>>I would
>>say, in fact, that the state shouldn't ever use "moral rights"
>>as justication for laws.  The state has no business making any
>>statements about "morality".)
>
>What do you mean by this?  It seems to me that judgements of good and
>bad are a necessary part of all action.  For example, if the state
>does something to promote economic growth it does it because it thinks
>economic growth is good.  How can the state act at all without taking
>positions on what things are good and what things are bad?

Jim, you seem to have come down with one of the worst cases 
of Dualism I've ever seen.  I recommend rest, frequent enemas,
a high-fiber diet, and a course of study in Jain logic.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48005 talk.religion.misc:21123 alt.atheism:21269
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:49:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1e5m2jINNob7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>The OT is a narritive of the growth of
>the human race as a moral species.  It is the story of God trying
>to teach us right from wrong.

  Only if you define the human race as the nation of Israel and the
  surrounding kingdoms of the time.

  I think the far east, North America, Europe, etc.  would take exception 
  to this statement, and rightly so.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: ru486 fears.
Summary: will ru486 lead to a rise in aids cases?
Keywords: aids. abortion.
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:04:42 GMT


 on the serious side...
 anybody know if the number of aids cases in europe
 has gone up since the introduction of ru486?

 now that this pill may be in the us soon, will
 this lead to a decline in condom use since any
 unwanted pregnacy could be easily terminated.

 and the decline in condom use could result in
 an accelerated spread of aids.

 does this mean the pill should be outlawed?
 hell no. just means that more education should
 come along with the pill.

 mark.

 "if you're like me, and i know i am..."
 -joel. mst3k
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:05:55 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted

In article <nyikos.721974650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>I think Dr Giggles is back doing his "I'll just attack
>>my opponents for no good reason" game again.  He made an ass
>>of himself with Adrienne and now he has an urge to make an
>>ass of himself with Susan.
>
>You have not seen all the evidence in re the Adrienne game.  You don't
>even realize that she started the attack, not I. 

Ah, here we have the Dr. Nyikos who doesn't lie about adrienne, right?

Dr, you will recall that this whole entire 'forgery' thread started because
you insisted I said something that in fact DON said.  You will note, there-
fore that DON and I were having a discussion.

Now, while nobody would restrict you from entering a discussion that had,
to that point, been confined between two separate people, I hardly think
YOUR entrance into the discussion constitutes "she started it!"

Mommy!  She started it!

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:03:24 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1eqofcINNllm@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-201192180819@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1eg0utINN6g0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
> >O'Dwyer) wrote:
> >> 
> >> I note that the Christian religions seem to offer salvation as a remedy for
> >> original sin, and the penalty for original sin is not particularly severe.
> >
> >Beg pardon?  Eternal damnation, outer darkness, wailing, gnashing of teeth?
> > Not _particularly_ severe?
> 
> The way I heard it, it was 'limbo'.  Neither heaven nor hell.  People who
> believe in transmigration of souls believe essentially the same thing, it
> seems to me.

First off, limbo is, I believe, only doctrinal among Catholics.  I am not
aware of any other Christian church which recognizes the concept.

Perhaps you can find some Biblical reference for this concept, hmm?

Secondly, it "seems to me" that you are profoundly ignorant on the subject
of comparative religion.  I assume that in referring to believers in
"transmigration of souls", you are speaking mainly of Hindus and Buddhists.
 Neither of these religions have any concept even remotely akin to
"original sin", nor am I aware of any concept analogous to limbo, i.e. a
place which is not specifically a place of punishment but in which one is
stuck for all of eternity.

If you think you know differently, please feel free to attempt to correct
me.

> >> The Church of Reason, on the other hand, offers a new kind of original sin -
> >> a z/e/f is guilty of the crime of non-sentience, a crime for which it is
> >> guilty until proven innocent.  And the techno-nihilists are not nearly so
> >> forgiving...
> >
> >Nonsense.  Non-sentience is certainly not a crime, but neither is it any
> >particular virtue.
> 
> Well it buys you out of personhood, it seems.   You just want to punish
> women for having sex.

What?  Did I stumble into alt.non-sequitur here?  Is the wind blowing out
of East Germany, carrying hallucinogenic waste products and causing you to
mistakenly believe that you're somehow making sense?

Could you please explain to mew exactly how it is that wish to "punish
women for having sex" by supporting no restrictions of the availability of
abortion?

Or did your train of thought get derailed somewhere along here?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: ...something Ted needs more understanding of.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:46:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.150930.374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
>because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?

Why do some folks feel that just because they can't figure out how to get
their zippers open, that no one else should be allowed to?

--PLH, it had to be asked.


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:56:09 GMT

In article <1eb8irINNil4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes ...
>>>  If someone who lived in an isolated
>>>area took this action today, believing it to be safer than
>>>performing major surgery undernon-sterile condition, I wouldn't want
>>>that person to be prosecuted for manslaughter.  I wonder
>>>if Fischer would.
>>Of course not.  But to argue that the life of a born -10 minutes
>>fetus is less important than the life of a cat is equally absurd.  
>>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
>>right of a woman to end the pregnancy?
>
>
>Ray,
>
>Is it a problem?  Is it happening with any regularity today?
>
>Do we *need* to "protect" these fetuses?  Are they in danger right now?
>
>No.
>
>What's happening today is that women who want to end a pregnancy do so as
>soon as they possibly can.  And the late-term abortions that happen are
>almost universally performed because of major threat to the mother, or
>gross fetal abnormality.
>
>Don't get so lost in the argument that you lose sight of reality.
>
>I'm one of the few who think abortion should be legal up to the moment
>the umbilical cord is cut, and not even *I* am pushing for legislation to
>reflect that belief.  Because it's *not* a real-life problem.

But you don't know that for sure. And *if* it is in fact a problem, then by 
the time action is taken, many lives could be needlessly lost.

If it's not happening, then why does it hurt to legislate against it?
Doesn't this sword cut _both_ ways?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Who owns sperm?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:01:52 GMT

In article <1e117hINN3oa@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>Ah.  I see.  An *excellent* argument for not leaving one's personal property
>>>(one's sperm) lying about outside of the realm of one's control.  Now, if
>>>*you* can think of a way to allow a man to repossess sperm HE left lying
>>>about, I'll support you in it.
>
>>If I you invite me to your house, and I drop my wallet there, is it yours?
>
>>The property of invited guests does not automatically
>>become the property of the host simply because physical contact is lost.
>>If you're going to cite a legal principle, please cite one that EXISTS.
>
>Ah, but it does become the property of the finder if it remains unclaimed
>for a period of time (usually 30-90 days).  Extrapolating from this legal
>principal, I suggest that if the man has been out of the loop (with regards
>to the woman's pregnancy) for a comensureate period of time, then he
>has forfeitted any rights to control or influence the outcome of the 
>pregnancy.

So men will simply go down to the police office every 90 days
to report a loss of sperm.

Now, if a woman happens to "find" some sperm -- perhaps noticing
it after she misses a period -- then she's obligated to report it
(otherwise she can hardly rely on the fact that the claimant was
"out of the loop").

A "pleasant" side effect of Clinton's desire to impose paternal
social-security numbers on birth certificates is that the woman
would violate the law if she intentionally misrepresents the
original owner of the sperm.  And in failing to report information
that will ultimately be revealed, she takes on the liabilities
without any right to bar the father from exercising his rights later --
in a manner reflecting "Last Clear Chance" much more clearly and explicitly.

Just following through with this relatively unproductive approach,

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