HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:42:09 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

In which Doug finally shows me that he really is as stupid as other people
say he is...

[deleted]

>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.
>
Hmm.  No difference.  There is quite a difference, as far as I (or any
ratiobnal, thinking human) can see.  A fetus is still in the womb, and
depends 100% on the particular woman in which it is residing.  An infant,
on the other hand, is a separate and distinct individual, that has NO
dependencies on a single, particular human for life.

Let me give an example.  When my youngest son was a fetus, ONLY my wife
could keep him alive.  Now, I can do it all by my little ol' self, and
little Joshua has NO physical requirement that mommy even be alive.

Big difference, IMHO.  But you knew that.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:43:30 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 <1992Dec12.040330.6312@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>LM> I see taking away choice as hurting *everyone*, both men and women (although
>                                                                        ^^^^^^^^
>LM> women more).  Do you agree?
>    ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hmmm...not necessarily...  For every woman forced to remain pregnant, there
>will probably be at least one man who does not necessarily wish to be a father.

For every woman forced to remain pregnant, there will probably be a man who
will be forced to become a father.

>I am not convinced that women necessarily wish to be parents any more than men
>do, yet I am willing to listen to any statistics...

I'll start looking as soon as you come up with those statistics that people
have been asking you for that show there is a real problem you're up against...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52246 soc.men:21326 alt.dads-rights:2993 alt.abortion.inequity:5983
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Jane Austen as a role model for eliminating sexism ... NOT!
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:15:58 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Dec16.214111.20189@cbnews.cb.att.com>, eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
|C.J., I don't recognize the quote--Northanger Abbey?  Mansfield
|Park?  Sense & Sensibility?  Pride & Prejudice?  Emma?  That
|other one whose name I can't remember?  Her childhood (unfinished)
|play?  Letters (and, if so, where can I read them?)?

P&P.  Elizabeth is referring to the inestimable Mr Collins, who
she describes to her aunt as more amusing to observe than Mr
Wickham.  In its context, it's an ironic comment.  I enjoy the
irony when tagging a flame with that quote, especially when
my target turns out not to know who Jane Austen *is*.

Followups probably shouldn't go to all those newsgroups.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: David Boucher's confusion about controlling one's own body.
Keywords: Now On Sale At Newsstands Everywhere....THE ULTIMATE TRUTH!
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:56:41 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <2256@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca
(BOUCHER DAVID) writes: 

>If a man were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, and as a 
>consequence she miscarried, would he not be charged with murder?  Is
>there anyone who thinks he should bet let off with simple assault?

This has nothing to do with abortion.  The man has violated the
woman's bodily autonomy.  I don't know what existing legal principles
would say about the death of the /z/e/f/.  However, I fail to see how
the killing of a /z/e/f/ that the mother has chosen to support is
relevant to abortion.  A father can choose to donate a kidney to his
child or he may refuse.  Regardless of his decision, if someone kills
that child intentionally and without provocation, it is more than
simple assault.

>How about if he doesn't hit her at all, but rather just slips a couple
>of RU-186 pills into her coffee?  If she suffers no ill effects (other
>than miscarriage), can or should he be charged with any crime?  Would 
>(or should) the law treat such an act any differently than, say, putting
>pork into Kosher hot dogs (some years back, several members of the KKK were
>caught doing that at a meat-packing plant where they worked).

Please explain the relevance of these bizarre events to abortion.

>Suppose in the second case, the woman sued the man for the loss of the fetus?
>Could he argue that the fetus is just a collection of cells, and as such, is
>worth no more than a lock of hair or some fingernail clippings?  If the
>fetus does have some intrinsic value, does that value belong exclusively to
>the woman who carried it, or does some portion of it also belong to the
>father... or, does the fetus ultimately only have value to itself?

Again, I think a lawyer would be better qualified to speak to how the
courts would handle this.  It also is irrelevant to abortion, which by
definition involves a child that the mother does not wish to support
with her body.

>Finally, in any of the above cases, would it make any difference if the man
>in question were the father-to-be of the destroyed fetus? 

No.

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 DEC 92 15:05:50 GMT

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

>Actually, you were using fisting as an analogous situation to being pregnant.  
>You offered to carry a fetus to term, if I would agree to being fisted.  Since 
>you made this offer, you were the one bringing yourself into the scenario, not 
>me.

I wasn't offering to fist you myself Loren.  And I notice that you have still 
refused to accept this offer.  Why aren't you willing to let your body be used 
to save the life of a fetus when you would force women to do that?  Do you 
enjoy being a clueless, sexist hypocrite?  

>>>Doesn't the title pro-life mean that you want abortion to be illegal?  
>>>Otherwise you are pro-choice.  Anti-Abortion is irrelevant.  So I ask you 
>>>again, do you believe that all men who are pro-life (want abortion to be 
>>>illegal) are hypocrites?
>> 
>>Who put you in charge of making up definitions?  It is possible to be pro-life 
>>without being pro-forced birth.  Just because you can't be pro-life without 
>>wanting to interfere with other people's lives and decisions doesn't mean that 
>>other men can't.
> 
>Again, you are avoiding the question.  I'll ask again without using 
>parenthesis, which obviously confuses you.  Do you believe that all men who 
>think abortion should be illegal, are hypocrites?  Or are you going to avoid 
>the question again by using a different definition of illegal.

The parenthesis didn't confuse me Loren.  I simply do not agree with you that 
being pro-life always implies being pro-legislation based on the fact that I 
know people who are pro-life but do not try to force their views on other.  I
never used a "different definition of illegal".  Where on Earth did you get 
that?  You imagination is really running wild today.

In answer to your revised question:  No, I do not think all men who want to 
illegalize abortion are hypocrites.  There must be some pro-life men out there 
who are willing to let their bodies be used to save the life of a fetus.

However, you are clearly not one of them.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 04:44:15 GMT

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 subject begs further reflection and dialogue.
>
And it would be nice if you tried to find some facts before the next
time you post.
Anybody who describes hypothermia as a gentle death is doing a fine
job of displaying a severe case of ignorance.

--
                  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: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 DEC 92 18:14:01 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>>Then let me answer your question as you quoted it here.
>>If someone was in the act of raping me (rape being violent, forced sex) then I 
>>would use whatever force necessary to protect myself.  
> 
>So you would use lethal force if necessary to get someone to stop using your 
>body, but you won't let pregnant women do the same.
> 
>Hypocrite.

Maybe you should learn to read!  I said I would use lethal force to protect my 
self against violent, forced sex.  I would be happy to let a pregnant woman 
kill someone who is trying to have violent, forced sex with her.

Stop trying to trap me with word games, and semantics.  I'll make it easy for 
you.  What you are trying to get at with these rape analogies is the 
following.  (You have been using a rapist to represent the fetus, not the 
impregnator)

If, somehow, I became pregnant, would I have an abortion.  The answer is no.  
Not unless having an abortion was the only way to save my life.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:56:49 GMT

romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes ...
>clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>>romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 	And no tiresome thought processes, either.
[...]
>> Does he really expect anything aside from flames like this one?  Is  
>> there a point to this sort of juvenile behavior?
>> 
>Well actually I do have my reasons for oppossing abortion, but since most  
>of the pro abortion crowd is so illogical and unreasonable I just thought  
>I'd come down to their (your) level.

Say, that's a clever idea.  Follow one childish no-brainer with
ANOTHER childish no-brainer!  Points for consistency dude!

But the only thing you're going to convince anyone of is that 
you're a narrow minded bigot who doesn't know how to put together 
an intelligent argument.  Bummer.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty of (Fill In The Blank)
X-To: ALL
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:36:00 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
DK> ws>In article <1992Nov21.024551.18385@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zo
DK> guild.org> writes:
DK> DH>baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes...
DK> DH> In preparing to get a vasectomy I found out that many (most in our area)
DK> DH> doctors will not give a vasectomy to a married man without the notificat
DK> DH> and counseling in the doctor's office of the wife. Not the law, they jus
DK> DH> tired of being dragged into suits later on. Leastwise, that's what
DK> DH> they told me.

DK> ws>WHAT!  You're *serious*??  And here we are, getting accused of oppressing
DK> ws>women, when this is routinely done with *men*?!

DK> I seem to have missed the mention of this being government enforced
DK> spousal notification.  It may be routinely done, but it is not
DK> governmental mandate that it is done.  When I had a vasectomy
DK> they strongly suggested I should talk it over with my spouse,
DK> but since we were separated, I ignored their suggestion and
DK> went ahead with the procedure.  There was no intrusive governmental
DK> agency to force me to inform my spouse, which is what you are
DK> calling for regarding abortion.  Do you believe there should
DK> be such a governmental agency for vasectomy notification?

DK> ws>Do you know what other states this happens in?  Thanks!

DK> It is not up to the states.  It is done by the policy of the
DK> medical practitioner and not state policy.  If my state
DK> were to propose such legislation I would fight it just as
DK> strenuously as I would fight spousal notification of abortion.

Actually, I received a letter from a man in California (who has not stated
whether he wished to remain anonymous, so in the interim, I will assume that
he wishes to remain private) who stated that he was required to notify his wife
of the procedure.  I have since asked him whether he was required to *seek
consent* as well as merely give notification, and I have also asked him to see
whether or not it is a state requirement or merely a doctor's discretion.

Can anyone else confirm or deny this?  Thanks!

---
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 * Star Trek XXX: In Search of Geritol.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:29:30 GMT
Distribution: na


kr>In article <1992Dec17.043531.10053@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
op>In article <1992Dec16.190927.26788@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
kr>>  (Karl Rominger) writes:
 
kr>>ABORTION IS MURDER
kr>>no elaboration required.
 
op> Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
op> murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
op> Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.
 
kr>In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
kr>question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
kr>question of justice as it relates to abortion.
 
Perhaps the attributions are wrong here.  But it seems from
the attributions that Karl made the claim above that no
elaboration is required.  Now he is elaborating here.  What's
the deal Karl, are you now retracting your claim that no
elaboration is required?
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na	 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:46:21 GMT

In <1992Dec16.160705.23542@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:


>In article <nyikos.724089886@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
>>And BTW, an earlier post on this thread said all pregnancy involves a 
>>risk to life, and asked what the Weaver Nelson probability should be 
>>before abortion is allowed.  To which I would reply, that all abortion
>>involves a risk to life, and what anyone's probability should be
>>before they will EVEN SUPPORT LAWS MANDATING ABORTIONISTS INFORM WOMEN
>>OF THE RISKS INVOLVED.
> 
>I think this reply was to my question to Weaver Nelson.  However,
>I have been unable to figure out what  Peter is trying
>to say here.  I've read it over a number of times but I can't 
>figure it out.  Then again I never took a SAT test so I don't
>know if it is my failure to understand someone of Peters 
>intellect.  Could someone with comparable SAT scores to Peters
>please help me understand what the hell Peter is saying here.

I'd really like to help you, Dan, but as I'm only competent in
English, and passable in French, I don't think I can. Of course,
it just might be English in which case the good doctor has come
up with an entirely new sentence construct.

> 
>Thank You,
>Dan King

REBel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guide to Posting (ple
X-To: JAMES G. KEEGAN JR.
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:54:00 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes...
JGKJ> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
JGKJ> ->garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
JGKJ> ->>Why am I not surprised that Beth Bartley finds humor in feminist-
JGKJ> ->>bashing?

JGKJ> ->Why am I not surprised that resident feminist Susie Garvin suffers from
JGKJ> ->pronounced humor deficiency?

JGKJ> why am i not surprised that lifetime-member of the
JGKJ> council of net.idiots kevin darcy finds humor in
JGKJ> feminist-bashing.


Huh??  Why is this "feminist-bashing"?  I'd consider it as such, *if* he were
to say that "*all* feminists suffer from humour deficiency," but as such he
has only commented on what he has perceived from *one* feminist.

---
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 * Oxymoron : Intense Apathy
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:47:52 GMT
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


rf>In article <1992Dec11.073117.28727@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
dk>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes ...
 
dk>My feeling is that if society believes they have a say in the 
dk>life of members or potential members, there better be some 
dk>damn good justification for it.  I have seen no such 
dk>justification from either you or Ray.  We should never turn
dk>over rights or privilege to society for trivial reasons, 
dk>no matter how little we value those rights or privilege.  
 
rf>For the most part I even agree with you.  I brought up the issue
rf>originally as a proposal, one I saw to have benefit.  I am by no means
rf>to the stage of strongly advocating such changes, but neither have I
rf>seen compelling reasons to not implement such a proposal.
 
I had thought I had posted some compelling reasons.  Obviously
they were not compelling enough to convince you.  I guess I'll
have to learn to live with that.
 
rf>Your comment about not turning over rights without good reason would 
rf>be a good one IF you had demonstrated that killing a late-term fetus 
rf>without reason is even a right at all. 
 
My point that I have tried to make, and apparently have not 
done a very good job of presenting, is that any legislation 
that would try to dictate how abortions are to be performed,
would also prevent women, who have reasons we can both agree
are valid, from being able to procure.  (pretty impressive 
run-on sentence, perhaps not as cool as some posted by Linda
or Dean, but I am proud of it.) I see us both being unsuccessful
in what we were trying to accomplish with each other in this
thread.  I needed to convince you that the dangers of this 
legislation is that it would remove the rights of some women
so that you would see the rights of the fetus as not compelling.
You needed to convince me that the rights of the fetus are
more compelling than the women's rights I am concerned about.
I guess we both must now live with our failures.
 
rf>Society generally disagrees 
rf>with that viewpoint, as there have been a few cases of people 
rf>charged with manslaughter for killing _other_ people's fetuses.  And
rf>you won't gain many social points by arguing in favor of that
rf>"right".  
 
I have no idea about social points, but I would disagree 
that these people should be charged with manslaughter.  I 
have heard of a few such cases, but I do believe they are 
a rarity.  I would think the normal charges would be assault.
I think California came up with some sort of special 
category for such cases, something like fetal manslaughter
but I was under the impression this was more to protect the
woman than the fetus.  Then again I could be wrong.
 
rf>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
rf>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Summary: Whoops!  There goes another brain cell.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:00:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.182720.23688@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.152835.22126@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  
>clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu>  
>romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> >
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 	And no tiresome thought processes, either.
>> 	It's amazing.  Do this clueless geek actually think he's the
>> first person ever to jump in here and yell ABORTION IS MURDER in all  
>caps?
>> Does he really expect anything aside from flames like this one?  Is  
>there a
>> point to this sort of juvenile behavior?
>> 	Pinkboy.
>> 
>> The_Doge
>> 
>
>Well actually I do have my reasons for oppossing abortion, but since most  
>of the pro abortion crowd is so illogical and unreasonable I just thought  
>I'd come down to their (your) level.

Great -- Steve Chaney's managed to hack an account at Allegheny...



-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 605 637-4971 at LeClair's Bar & Grill.

                     So, what are you looking at down here?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion