HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Classic Argument of Potential
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:19:14 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] In article <1992Sep30.175355.23854@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >But I guess that when its important enought to legislate
] >against the rights of the Born in favor of some of the UnBorn,
] >{as they are still DeHumanizing Sperms and Eggs - since they
] >seem not to have 'enough' potential....} it does not surprise
] >me that a little 'disrespect' can be overlooked when it comes
] >to killing women who fail to show the proper respect.....
] 
] You have some very odd theories.  Where do you get them from?
 
Don,

I will presume that you are as new to the abortion debate
as you suggest, and hence have never heard the classic 
argument of 'potential.' Namely, that we should defer
to the UnBorn the Attributes of the Born, as there is
a Potential that they May Be Born.

This Classic Argument of AntiAbortionists keeps coming
up time, and time, and time again, EXCEPT when the 
argumentative form: "A Thing is that which it might become."
might suggest something that is NOT accpeted as being 'reasonable.'

In the specific: Most AntiAbortionists Dehumanize sperms
and eggs as they Fail to have enough of the 'potential stuff'
to be in the position to be "A Thing is that which it might become."

Given that the Gentleman would KILL a woman for NOT
showing enough/the_right respect for/toward himself,
{and Please, let us not equivocate that he did in
point of fact say that... its been reposted enough }
it is a logical consequence of the argumentative form
to conclude that As He Might Potentially Become a
Murderer of Women as They Might Potentially Show Disrespect,
THEREFORE it is that He is a Murderer of them...

Now do you wish to resolve this 'argument of potential'
or do you wish to conclude that I have misinterpreted
your line, and that you are merely arguing about the
speculation that there might possibly be some interpretation
somewhere that may or may not agree with some notion held
by someone at some time and place. But of course that this
is not your personal opinion.


ciao
drieux






-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Reply-To: reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL
Organization: Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:05:09 GMT

Okay, here goes.
I have been discussing "freedom," pro-choice, and anti-choice for several
years now, and with several people.....

Besides the fact that I trust my OWN instincts, and as a woman I KNOW I
am QUITE CAPABLE of making MY OWN DECISIONS ---

NO ONE
NO WHERE
HAS EVER GIVEN ME A REASON THAT I ACCEPT AS GOOD ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE
POSITION THAT ANYONE ANYWHERE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT
THEY SHOULD DO WITH THE HORRIBLE POSITION A PERSON FINDS THEMSELF IN
WITH AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY.

Is this a "FREE" Country?

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: guest@sonia.ma.utexas.edu (guest)
Subject: Yawn
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
Distribution: utma
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:23:56 GMT

This is a really stupid news group.


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Radical Reading Notions Revealed....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:26:36 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] In article <1992Oct1.191914.27156@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >Given that the Gentleman would KILL a woman for NOT
] >showing enough/the_right respect for/toward himself,
] >{and Please, let us not equivocate that he did in
] >point of fact say that... its been reposted enough }
] >it is a logical consequence of the argumentative form
] >to conclude that As He Might Potentially Become a
] >Murderer of Women as They Might Potentially Show Disrespect,
] >THEREFORE it is that He is a Murderer of them...
] 
] By the logic you are presenting, every person has the potential 
] to become a murderer, so they are already murderers.


I think that you understand the basic notions
of the 'argument of potential' quite well....

Now how far are we allowed to go with the
'argument of potential' when working in
the AntiAbortionistMindSet?

Should we carry it to its logical conclusion,
or should we make the leap of faith when they
do, and agree that one set of PotentialPersons
are real persons, as that part is needed as an
apriori to the following argument... but not
worry our little heads about the reductio ad absurdum....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: children, world population
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:40:29 GMT

In article <92262.165733ICDPW@ASUACAD.BITNET> ICDPW@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
>Your children are not YOUR children.  They come THROUGH you but do not
>belong to you.  They are life's longing for itself.  - Gibran, The Prophet

Who owns your sperm? 


>The whole abortion question could be made moot if prevention of conception
>were realized.

Which is going to happen when...

> Why is it ok to use the science of mathematics to avoid
>conception (i.e. rhythm method) but not ok to use the sciences of biology
>and biochemistry?

Because it is my body. Because it is my SO's body. Because we want to.

>We need to slow the world's population growth, so why
>not couple it to the solution of the abortion question?  What's wrong with
>a tax incentive for voluntary surgical sterilization?  Bye, Bye

'wrong'? wrong... hmm. wrong....

are we talking *intrinsically* wrong or just 'we think it is therefore...'?







-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:59:49 GMT
Subject: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity


                            Executive Summary of
                             Forced Fatherhood


	It seems that Fatherhood is forced upon thousands of U. S. men 
	each year. These men typically don't like to talk about it, 
	disagreed with their lovers about abortion and adoption, and
	were sued for child support. The U. S. courts aren't protecting
	men from birth control fraud.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Statistics, Threats, Sex Selection (was: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 22:45:51 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct5.161512.1111@zooid.guild.org>  goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
> Larry Margolis writes...
> LM> I'm looking forward to seeing your numbers and sources, Will.
>
> I didn't recall the source, but I believe that it was from a "pro life" group.
> Does this invalidate the source?  Maybe, maybe not.

Does this mean you don't have any statistics to back up your claim?

> LM> > I was speaking from anger, but I never actually threatened her.
> LM> >
> LM> > She, however, threatened *me* three times.  Just *who* is the violent
> LM> > person here?  Me, who dared to have *thoughts* of it, or her, who actually
> LM> > *threatened* me three times?  You decide.
>
> LM> Saying "I'll kill you if you tell anyone about this" is not, generally
> LM> speaking, a serious threat.
>
> Actually, she said (on the first time that she made the threat) : "(If you
> tell, then) You're a dead man".

So it was about what I had surmised.

> LM> > This is also an interesting subject matter...  How can "pro choice"
> LM> > people oppose abortion after a sex determination, if they are in
> LM> > favour of abortin "for any reason and no apologies"?  Will they
> LM> > oppose sex determination solely because "it just might be a female"?
> LM> >
> LM> > But if one *is* "pro choice" *and* opposes abortion after a sex
> LM> > determination then the question arises : What do these people
> LM> > *really* believe?  - In being Pro-Choice, or
> LM> > Pro-Choice-Only-If-It's-A-Choice-We-Agree-With?
>
> LM> You seem to be confused.  Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.  Pro-choice
> LM> does not mean that you're in favor of abortions at all.
>
> I know, I know....  I have been in this debate over terminology, many times
> before.
>
> LM> It means that you're in favor of letting the woman make her own choice
> LM> as to what's best for her.
> LM> You can oppose abortion for sex selection, or abortion for any reason at
> LM> all, as long as you don't want to *legislate* your opposition.
>
> Yes, but there *are* many feminist groups trying to tell women who *make the
> choice* to terminate their pregnancies after a sex determination, ...

I was commenting on your saying "if they are in favor of abortion".
I don't know anyone who's pro-choice and in favor of abortion.  Since
you say you've been in this debate before, I don't understand why you
continue to call people "pro-abortion" who are in fact anti-abortion but
still pro-choice.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity



                WHICH STATES HAVE THE LOWEST AND HIGHEST
                   CHILD SUPPORT FOR PATERNITY SUITS?

Just send me email with two pieces of info:

	1.) The name of the state 

	2.) The percentage of after tax income that is awarded for 
	child support for children born out of wedlock

For example, my award was in California, which forces men to pay about 23% of 
our after tax income for one child.

All entries will be anonymous, and I'll post a summary of the responses by
state. IMHO it will be interesting to see which jurisdictions extort the
most and least money from men forced into fatherhood.

                        ENTER THE SURVEY NOW!
From: khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:36:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles


Abortion is not a women's issue. Therefore, only men have the right to 
decide whether abortions should be legalized.
Why ?

Consider the following situation:
Two heavy weight boxers are competing for the world championship. But after
a very long fight, neither of them is knocked out. So who will decide the 
outcome of the fight ? Of course we can not give one of the two fighters
the right to decide. This right should be given to neutral judges. 

Abortion, like this situation, is a conflict of interest between two parties.
In this case, the first boxer is the (potential) mother, and the second boxer
is her fetus. The mother wants an abortion: she may be unprepared for a child,
or she may be still in school, or maybe she simply does'n want to be ridiculed
as a single mother. The fetus, on the other hand, has its own interest. The
fetus can's say. It even can't think. But we can safely assume that every
organism has an innate desire to survive. Therefore, abortion is not in the
interest of the fetus. In this conflict of multual-exclusive interests, it is
unfair to give either party the right to the final decision. Like the above
example of the boxers, the final decision should be given to the outsiders
who have no interest in the outcome of their decisions. That's why only men
should have the right to vote on abortion issues. Women tend to be sympathetic
only to other women, and their votes will of course be biased against the 
fetus's interest.
Futhermore, to insure the highest fairness possible, only young men who have
never married can vote on this issue. Otherwise, family commitment will 
influence the votes of married men. Married men are not free to express their
own opinions in this sensitive issue.


Kan Nuel.


 

 
 
 

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Re: Statistics, Threats, Sex Selection (was: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:29:09 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


ws>In article <1992Oct5.161512.1111@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
LM>Larry Margolis writes...

(It helps to leave reference to the previous article somewhere.  Either in the 
"In article" statement or in the "References:" tag.  If you refuse to do this
courtesy, you should avoid cutting up peoples post and leave the entire thing
in.  In a previous post you quoted portions of my post, but left insufficient 
references to go look up my original context.)
 
LM> Saying "I'll kill you if you tell anyone about this" is not, generally
LM> speaking, a serious threat.

ws>Actually, she said (on the first time that she made the threat) : "(If you tell,
ws>then) You're a dead man".

ws>Whether it was serious or not, it definitely *sounded* pretty serious.  Her tone
ws>of voice was also *very* serious, and more deadly threatening than any mere
ws>*emotion* of mine.  Indeed, if there is a "walking time bomb" here, it is hardly
ws>me.  (Granted, I don't think of *her* in that fashion, either, but I was quite
ws>hurt and afraid that she threatened me.  Yes, it *is* possible for a male to
ws>feel fear at a threat, regardless of the gender of the person making the threat.
ws>It also hurts when the person is someone you love, and presumably loves you as
ws>well).

And I support your right to not have to tell others about your situation
just as strongly as I support her right to not have to tell you about
her abortion.  I don't think government should be forcing communication
between couples, especially when it could result in violence.  I'm not
saying either of you would or wouldn't get violent, but I believe the 
best judge of that would be the people involved and not the government.

ws>I never threatened or harmed her, yet she threatened my life three times.  Just
ws>who is guilty of attempting to control and intimidate? 

You are guilty.

ws> A few people accused me
ws>of trying to "control women through violence," (in different words), yet with my
ws>life under threat, I was *hardly* the one "in control".
 
I don't know about others, but I have not accused you of trying to 
"control women through violence".  I have accused you of trying to 
control women through legislation.  I don't want either of you "in 
control" of the other.  You should both have control over your 
ownselves and not the other without consent.

ws>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"

Dan King
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The Classic Argument of Potential
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:16:05 GMT

kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch) writes ...
>drieux, just drieux writes:
>>In the specific: Most AntiAbortionists Dehumanize sperms
>>and eggs as they Fail to have enough of the 'potential stuff'
>>to be in the position to be "A Thing is that which it might become."
>
>The human sperm and egg are just that.  They are haploid cells that survive
>for a few hours and die.  They carry the potential to form a human being,
>not a person.

Well, as a former egg and sperm I am greatly astonished to learn that
not only did I survive but a few short hours before dying, but that 
I am not even a person!  Golly gosh!

Several people are going to be greatly astonished at my early demise.
Still, since I've been dead for lo these many decades, maybe I can
get a refund on my income taxes.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
Subject: Rationalization
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:23:10 GMT
Organization: DG, SID, Atlanta, GA

It is interesting how people will get into deep rationalizations to
try to justify abortion.
Here's the basic scenario: You have sex outside of marriage, you get
pregnant, and now you have a "problem".  So to eliminate the problem,
you destroy the unborn child.
   Rationalization 1: It is part of my body - I can do what I want.
   Rationalization 2: It is not really a viable human life, etc...
   Rationalization 3: The child will be unwanted and suffer a terrible life.
   Rationalization N: etc.
Let's face it, why not just say: "I killed the unborn child because I
wanted to."  The reason you rationalize is because you are trying to 
avoid the guilt that you feel.  After a while in rationalization,
you actually begin to believe in it and the guilt is gone.  But there
comes a day of reckoning.
   I outlined the "basic" scenario.  I will address the others in another post. 
On the interesting rationalization:
   "I don't want to bring the baby to term and have it adopted because it will
have a terrible life."  - So kill it instead ?????
-- 
             ==========================================================
            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
           //   "My views are my own"                              //
          ==========================================================
From: khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Date: 3 Oct 92 04:51:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

In article 4076 hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU wrote:

> There are certain members [of the Catholic clergy] that would like
> to avail themselves of a constant stream of young children to molest and
> thus have an interest in keeping the number of available children at max.

I can't understand why there are people who can make such an explanation
of the Catholic Church's stand on the abortion issue. 

As a Catholic, I strongly believe in my Church, but I never consider other
religions my enemies, and the same is true for all the Catholics I know.
Unfortunatelly, I have seen so many people who openly express their
hatred and hostility toward our Catholic Church. These people often point
to some stories hundred years ago to accuse the Catholic Church of 
religious intolerance, but now they themselves never miss a chance to blame
and attack her. Are these people more tolerant ? 

As a Vietnamese, I never forget how 300,000 Vietnameses were executed
just because they were Catholics. We have been suffering enough. We don't
need any more bashing.


From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:34:13 GMT
Subject: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity

The National Center For Men is preparing to litigate the equivalent of Roe V. 
Wade for *men's reproductive rights*. Below are excerpts of a letter written by 
Joe Appelbaum, the litigation chairman for the National Center For Men.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Begin Excerpts <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fighting For Fairness and Equal Rights
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Post Office Box 317
                                                       Brooklyn, New York 11240
                                                       Telephone (718) 845-2010

	We are attempting to overturn very sexist laws which deny men the
right to decline fatherhood in this age of "reproductive freedom" for women.

	A man's life, future and wallet are currently in the hands of his 
female partner if she gets pregnant and decides to have the child contrary
to his wishes. He is denied any say in the matter. He is not allowed to say, 
"I do not choose to be a father and I don't want to be held financially
responsible for this child." We are going to petition the federal courts to
permit a man, prior to fetal viability, to go into a family court and 
relinquish rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. We want a legal
"right to choose," too.

	Our attorney, Robert Smith, has agreed to take this case "pro bono,"
but we still have to cover his expenses. I, myself, have pledged $200 for
this case (I was a paternity suit victim). If you have been, too, there is
no need for me to emphasize the importance of this lawsuit. If you haven't
been (yet), try to imagine a deceptive and uncaring woman taking you to 
court to force you to support a child, when you were never given a choice.
The financial consequences alone could total over $100,000 for twenty-one
years or more.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><> End Excerpts <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

We can use this filing as an opportunity to raise America's consciousness 
about men's lack of reproductive rights. We would like to maximize media 
interest by simultaneously petitioning the federal courts in other districts 
nationwide. If you would like to join us, you can

	1.) Distribute this letter far and wide.

	2.) Help find an attorney in your area who will file papers in federal 
	    court.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:18:09 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Distribution: usa

In article <8186@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V.
Nguyen) says:

>Abortion, like this situation, is a conflict of interest between two parties.
>In this case, the first boxer is the (potential) mother, and the second boxer
>is her fetus.

Gotta give you credit -- I've NEVER seen this analogy before.
But doesn't this belong in talk.bizarre?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.usage.english