HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:18:43 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
>In article <14DEC92.20420711@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|I'm willing to sign a legal contract stating that I will not abort any 
>|unwanted pregnancies if you will agree to be fisted for nine months.  What's 
>|nine months of your time compared to the life of a cute little unborn baby?
>|
>|Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
>|resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>|Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.
>
>I find this argument bizarre.
>
>For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
>sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,
>and being willing to submit to the conditions imposed by someone else
>as a condition for their doing so.

Why?  If the question is 'saving the life of the fetus', then the means,
outlined above, is quite clear.  Loren can save the life of a fetus by
consenting to being fisted for nine months.  Guaranteed.  He can do
this 'good' thing for the world.  He actually *can*.  It is within his
power.

It is admittedly a little bizarre to actually challenge some misogynist
to put his body where his mouth is, so to speak.  But it is illustrative
of the pro-force condition.  I have yet to see a pro-forcer take this
bet, yet they would ALL insist that someone else be forced, through
legal penalties, to do it.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:49:21 GMT

In article <schlegel.724352440@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid.
>
> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
> the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
> total liberal.

Having read this, I'm begining to think that conservative wing of the
Republican party is moving further to the right. This would make sense, since
the majority  of the Republican Party is *not* antiabortion and yet the
Republicans took a radically antiabortion stance.

>>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
> it can be business as usual for us liberals"

Rush Limbaugh is going to prevent Bill Clinton, soon to be President of the
United States, from doing anything? If all sort of people from Jello Biafra
to Pat Buchannan couldn't prevent George Bush from starting the first war
in twenty years, how can Rush Limbaugh prevent Bill Clinton from implementing
the policies he was elected to implement?

> 
>Mark

Lost Boy

***********************************************************
* Rush Limbaugh? Isn't he some sort of used car salesman? *
*                      -Karen Uru                         *
***********************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: MURDER, he wrote.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:48:09 GMT


>> > romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) 
>> me
> him, again

>> >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.

	How original; the Pee-Wee Herman Comeback ("I know you are, but what
am I?  Nyah, nyah, nyah!")
	Well, it's no more than I deserved for taking obvious flame-bait from
some college kid.  Serves me right for breaking my own promise to myself to
ignore this kind of thing.  Young Karl has actually done me a favor by
reminding me why I made that promise to begin with.
	Let this be a lesson to other adults in the forum.

The_Doge
        ObQuote: "Act like a dumbshit and they'll treat you like an
                  EQUAL!"  -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, in THE ECONOMICON 4:18
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Lost boy, please speak for yourself.
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:00:58 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <BzH1tu.7Mz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes in response to my post
to him:

(1) He does not believe most pro-choicers believe personhood starts in
the 3rd trimester.  Fine.  If I misunderstood or misrepresented you,
mea culpa.

(2) Admits personhood is a red herring but claims it goes directly to
the moral argument.  My only interest is in whether there are legal
restrictions on abortions.  I believe the moral aspect of abortion is
for each woman to decide for herself consulting whomever she pleases.

(3) Asserts that /z/e/f/s/ achieve some moral rights, which presumably
are relevant to abortion, upon achieving personhood.  Please clarify.

(4) States that people have a right to do with their bodies as they
choose.  If I misunderstood him to say otherwise, once again, mea
culpa.

(5) Asks that people be kinder in asking him to make such
clarifications as he has made here.  I did not think I was flaming him
that much, but if the stated belief in (4) reflects the original post,
then I probably would have been somewhat less aggressive in my
questioning.  I have no beef with anyone who advocates (4) on t.a.

(6) Says I lied in my assessment of what I read as an uncritical
assessment of the truth of what DODIE parodies as the self-defense
justification for abortion.   No lie intended.  To the extent I
misunderstood LB's position and misrepresented it, I apologize.

(7) Says more stuff about the morality of abortion and debating this
with DODIE.  I humbly submit that by debating with DODIE you
at least inadvertently must be debating law because he is pushing a
legislative agenda of forced pregnancy.

(8) Claims that most pro-choicers agree with his position, which
includes 3rd trimester restrictions.  As before, I disagree.  He
claims to base this on NARAL documents.  Please provide cites.  As a
member of NARAL, I have always interpreted all of their positions as
being adamantly opposed to legislative restrictions on the right to
abortion.    

SJM
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
X-To: KARL DENNINGER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:31:00 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes...
KD> In article <1992Dec01.184025.164613@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis writes:
KD> >>>>Again, the issue is legislation.  We have to draw the line >somewhere<.
KD> >>>
KD> >>>Why do we *have* to draw the line anywhere but birth?
KD> >>
KD> >>Because it is not necessary.  Again, I am not drawing a line.  I am stakin
KD> >>out a claim -- that the 1st trimester is inviolate.  The remainder can be
KD> >>debated.  I doubt anyone who is pro-choice believes that it is a >bad< ide
KD> >>to codify this much into federal law -- it is new ground not yet broken, a
KD> >>should be.
KD> >
KD> >Well, *I* think it's a bad idea.  I think it will make it much harder
KD> >to get second trimester abortions codified in law.

KD> Good luck.   It was reported today in the Chicago Sun Times that a 2nd
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KD> trimester fetus has been successfully saved after VERY premature birth.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KD> This wall is going to keep being pushed back, and we had better put in a
KD> retaining wall somewhere behind the current state of technology.  If we
KD> fail to do so, we risk having this decision made for all of us "in the
KD> interest of the children".


You're kidding!?!

Wow.. at any rate, would you be willing to transcribe the article onto a.a.i
and t.a. for us, or if it's too long, would I be able to ask that you mail a
photocopy of it to me?

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 * Can you do the Picard Maneuver in a Grand Am?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 23:11:36 GMT


In article <1992Dec9.022849.25114@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu writes:
|>| = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|>>I honestly don't know.  If something were to somehow convince me that fetuses 
|>>aren't human (For example, If someone found a way to prove that the soul 
|>>doesn't enter the body until birth) then I would go back to being pro-choice.

|Before you can speculate on when the soul enters the body, it will
|first be necessary to prove that there is such a thing as a soul.
|Anybody care to present some *proof*?

I'll settle for less than proof, since I'd hate to hold poor
Loren Finkelstein to standards higher than I hold Einstein to.
I'll settle for a proposed "soul theory" that includes a
definition of "soul", and a proposal for a repeatable experiment
to falsify that theory.

Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
basis for legislation.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American 
people which declared that their legislature should "make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church 
and State." --Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Answer for Keven Darcy.
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:50:47 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec11.164414.2484@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>The "patient" has a severe conflict of interests, and the doctor, well, there
>are bad apples in every barrel. Unless there are legal TEETH to the medical
>standards, sometimes transgressions just get swept under the rug. Maybe you
>trust our fine medical profession more than I do...

I doubt that I trust medical professionals more than you do.  My
concern is with restrictions that apply only to women.  If doctors
cannot be trusted, why single out a procedure that only affects women?

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Summary: Finklestein and common sense
Organization: Uff da!
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:03:37 GMT

In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>>basis for legislation.
>
>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>Here are a few
>
>"Thou shalt not kill"
>"Thou shalt not steal"
>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>In some states adultery is illegal.
>
>All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
>good laws.

All you did is provide some examples of religion being used as a basis for
legislation -- so where's the explanation of *why* they're good laws?
(The blue laws don't seem to make much sense -- we did away with them in
Texas over a decade ago, except for one inexplicable provision that
prohibits auto dealers from doing business on *both* Saturday and Sunday,
and there doesn't seem to have been any change except for increased business
-- and the adultery and bigamy laws you cite don't serve much purpose other
than to make money for a few lawyers, and provide a convenient means for
authorities to keep the masses in line.)

Me, I'd just as soon keep religion out of legislation as much as possible,
since religions tend not to accept the existance of any faith contrary to
theirs, and have a bad habit of painting things in black or white, no shades
of gray -- and that's not the way life works.  


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
 
 This space for rent, cheap.  Call +1 606 848-3950 for a deal you can't refuse.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:34:51 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 <1992Dec13.140346.9912@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.223928.148948@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec12.211049.26996@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec10.223329.28942@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Children are closer relations then parents?
>>>
>>>Children are genetically related to their parents.  Parents are
>>>usually not related to one another, except probably in Mr. Cameron's
>>>family.
>>>
>>>Mr. Cameron, if you insist on putting in your two cents, you might want
>>>to consult your cerebral cortex before doing so in the future.
>>>
>>>If you are only posting to illustrate your complete and total
>>>ignorance, then you are doing a magnificent job.
>>
>>The same comments might be addressed to you.  Some idiot said that children
>>are a person's closest relatives, ignoring the fact that a person's
>>relationship to their parents is just as genetically close as their
>>relationship to their children.
>
>Joel Clark, whom you refer to as some idiot, stated in a previous post
>that children are our closest relatives.  He did not state what Mr.
>Cameron posted in question form.

Nope, but it was implied.

>And both of you just happened to
>notice that we are also children, a kind of recursion of the parent
>being the child of another parent being the child of another parent,
>and so on.  Hey, maybe ol' Joel Clark wasn't so dumb when he said that
>children are a parent's closest relatives.  Maybe he was right.  Maybe
>he just left off the visa-versa and the jump up one generation.

Had he said "a person's children are their closest relatives", then you'd
be correct.  But since he said (in <Bz1y5x.L3t@SSD.intel.com>):
#The consequences of a woman's choice to man are [...]
#not to mention lack of contact with his closest relatives (his children).

it seems clear that he was *not* taking into consideration that man's
relationship with his parents.

>Maybe it wasn't needed, due to recursion.

I think you mean due to commutation...

>So, what's next Larry?  Typos?

Nah.

>So, how are things in YOUR world now? Everything peachy?

Totally wonderful.  Thanks for asking.

>Would you like to throw out some of your sentiments

No, they're nice sentiments - I think I'll keep them.

>and see if they stand up to Phaedrus's analytical knife?
>What's your ideal world?  Go ahead, make my day.

Would you care to be a little more specific?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.043531.10053@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.190927.26788@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
>ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>> 
>>  (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> >
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 
>> Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
>> murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
>> Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.
>
>In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
>question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
>question of justice as it relates to abortion.
>

Absolute Justice? This should be interesting. I've sat in on Alan Bloom's
lectures, and HE was quite an advocate of this sort of neo-Platonic thinking.
I'll be glad to clash with you on this one. I've been looking for a good
debate for some time.

Lost Boy

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52474 alt.dads-rights:3023 alt.abortion.inequity:6045
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Date: 20 Dec 1992 00:42:58 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1gtd5sINNbgj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
[child support by lottery]
>>>Sounds much more efficient than the current system. You got a problem with it?
>>
>>More efficient?  

>Yes, more efficient. It would no longer be necessary to locate the biological
>parent and prove paternity; once the random pick was made, everything would 
>just be automatic. And, since the donor is guaranteed by the computerized
>selection process to be someone with sufficient income to support the child, 
>there would, in theory, be far fewer instances of donors falling behind on
>their payments, attempting to evade the law, etc. etc. The cost savings on
>enforcement would be dramatic.

>>Would you stop at national borders?  Why?  

>Stop trying to introduce irrelevancies and just answer the question, please.

>Do you or do you not have a problem with the "child support lottery" proposal?
>If so, please try to identify the problem as clearly as you can.

My point is *not* irrelevant.
By world standards Americans -- just about *all* of them -- are plenty rich
enough to support the world's children.  Usually much more so than the 
children's biological parents.  So unless you stopped at national borders
each of us, you and me included, would be supporting a whole bunch of 
children!  

About half the world's population (3 billion) divided by the number of
American's (300 million) works out to about 10 kids apiece.  What will 
you be naming yours?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52453 soc.men:21447 alt.dads-rights:3016
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:08:59 GMT

In article <1gob1jINN816@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.215545.21544@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>> Ah, another tax whiner.  Well bad news kiddo, you DO have a choice.
>> You're getting services; the government demands that you pay for those
>> services.  Seems fair to me.  If you don't like it you have two choices.
>> 
>> 1) Vote for different services.
>> 2) Move out of the country.
>> 
>> Easy, eh?  If you don't like the services the US government supplies,
>> then live in a different country.
>
>Ah yes -- "America, Love It Or Leave It" -- the favorite bumper sticker
>of American... liberals?

A superficial analysis. Everyone, short of a pure anarchist and/or someone 
who is completely ignorant of social philosophy, believes in some form of 
a Social Contract. For those who tend more towards Libertarianism/
Individualism, the Social Contract tends to be a teensy little thing. For 
those who tend more towards Statism, Totalitarianism or whathaveyou, the 
Social Contract tends to be this huge, all-inclusive thing. But in either 
case, a line must be drawn in every contract where you say "either live up to 
these terms, or bugger off". Now, when Liberals are whining, it's 
Conservatives that tend to say this, since it's the Conservatives' version of 
a Social Contract that's being scrutinized. However, when it's the 
Conservatives that are whining and the Liberals' Social Contract which is 
being scrutinized, you're gonna get exactly the same reaction from the folks
whose Social Contract is being scrutinized, i.e the Liberals. The bottom line 
here is that "love it or leave it" is pretty much ideology-neutral -- you're
gonna hear it from WHOEVER'S ox is being gored at the time -- so your attempt 
to associate it with one and only one side of the political fence is baloney.

								- Kevin
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Birth Positions...
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:47:00 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
AR> PS, yes, I also had a quite carring and supporting and wonderful helpmate
AR> during my second delivery.  But not even he, who rubbed my back ceaselessly
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AR> for 6 hours, would claim to have carried anywhere near the 'same' burden.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm...?  You delivered while on all fours?  (It would seem this way, if your
husband had to rub your *back* while you were in labour, unless it was the case
that you switched back and went onto your back after he rubbed your back)

This isn's a flame, just a question - Why???  I realise that it's a valid
labour position (another one of those things that I noticed in the delivery
room, was a picture of labour positions), but wouldn't it be really tiring to
do it that way?  Just curious...

---
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 * "Do we just sit here?" - Worf, up to his neck in mud...