HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 19 Dec 92 15:17:19 GMT
	<TODD.92Dec18120557@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Dec18.055554.32254@watson.ibm.com>
	<TODD.92Dec19155659@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas

In article <TODD.92Dec19155659@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> todd@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:

  Well, I read all of this with as open a mind as is possible for
  me, and have to say that it was enlightening.  It is good to
  hear a medical opinion for a change.

  Yet at the same time, I'd like someone to write in and say what
  health effects happen to the fetus during abortion.

 
So do your little "thought experiment" and ask a fetus about it, yourself.
Sheesh.

--PLH, looks like the virus is on *that* side of the Pacific by now...


 
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:04:46 GMT

I changed the distribution to "world".  Nothing usa-specific about any of
the things below.  On the other hand, I removed alt.abortion.inequity from
the newsgroups despite the word "obligation" below.

In <1fokv0INN4rt@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>nelsonwr@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Weaver Nelson) writes:
>>It takes more than a possible risk.  The only way that the woman
>>can escape this obligation is if there is real and immediate danger
>>to her life or long term health.  It is not self defense to kill
>>someone that you see because they might do something to you in the
>>future.                           ^^^^^

>Oh, so what you're saying is that you cannot defend yourself against
>a gunman until he has actually pulled the trigger!  Because until he 
>has actually done so, there is only the risk that me may harm you.
>Or perhaps you mean that you can only defend yourself against the gunman
>after the bullet has actually entered your body.  Because until that 
>point there is only a risk that the bullet he has fired may harm you.

The way I read his words, he's saying that you cannot kill the average
person on the street with his hands in his pockets, on the assumption
that he is fingering a concealed loaded pistol.

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.

Peter Nyikos
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 09:03:29 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

Gentle readers, DO read.  The bet is on.  We need your votes.

In article <11DEC92.04315613@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>In article <10DEC92.18111010@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>lf>In article <9DEC92.19571364@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>lf>No.  Like I said before, I don't believe in forcing my views on others.
>> 
>>>No.  I am pro-life, but I am also pro-law.  In the scenario that I was 
>>>replying to abortion was legal.  When I said I would "Keep explaining my 
>>>reasoning to people in the hopes that they would realize that they mey be 
>>>wrong"  I meant thatI would do so in the hopes that enough people would 
>>>change the law.  
>> 
>>Gee, I'd really like to see you reconcile these two statements, too.
>> 
>>"Enough" people would be 51 percent of folks who voted.  Which leaves 49%
>>who voted in disagreement, in addition to all the other people who DIDN'T
>>vote.  And they would have 'your' views forced upon them via the law.
>
>No.  They would have the views of the majority forced upon them.  This is what 
>we call a democracy.  Can you say democracy?  It is happening right now.  

Can you say "republic"?  Can you say "Constitution"?  Do you understand the
function of the Constitution within the confines of the United States of
America?  Could have fooled me!

You appear to have zip understanding of the limits of government and the
democratic process.  You appear to have zip understanding of the scope of
the private sector.

>>At any given time, Loren, I'll bet money I could get 51% of a given 
>>population to vote that you should be strapped to a chair for 3 weeks (by
>>offering them a portion of the money bet).  
>How much money will you bet?  Whatever it is, I'll take that bet.

 
THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.

All posters who want to strap Loren to a chair for 3 weeks can get a 
piece of the bet by voting "yes".  Send votes to Dan King by typing
mail dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov and telling him yes, strap loren to a chair
or no, don't strap loren to a chair.   Dan will accept one vote from
known posters in talk.abortion (that's your voter's registration, if you
will), and will accept votes until a period of 3 days pass with no more
input.  Then the polls will be closed.

Now lets see what Loren thinks of 'democracy'.

I've left all the rest in just to keep the bet straight.  I've also saved
this in archive.  Let's see if Loren is willing to live in a world where
his civil rights are subject to the whim of any random majority.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:36:26 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>In a previous article, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>The issue is simplified considerably in the case of a pregnancy.  The
>>fetus is _known_ to be using the woman's body, and lethal force is
>>_necessary_ to stop the "assault".
>
>You still have yet to show that lethal force is allowable (under the law) in a 
>case where your life is not immediatley threatened.

True enough.  But if somebody were using your body against your will,
causing pain, discomfort, and some risk to your life, and the only way
of stopping them was to take an action that would cause their death,
what would you do?

And what would you do if they didn't care either way what you did?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52174 alt.rush-limbaugh:11775
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Summary: Karl can't read, it seems.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.043415.9969@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.181355.8049@advtech.uswest.com>  
>steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> > = (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> 
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 
>> When you finally get around to taking a class, Karl baby, kindly tell
>> every woman you can what you think of abortion.  Then come back and let
>> us know how your love life isn't.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> steven@advtech.USWest.Com
>
>Well Steve, you guessed wrong, I'm involved in a steady relationship.  
>The idea that all women are pro aboortion is wrong.

So?  Just where did Steve say that all women *were*, anyway?

(Not many people are pro-abortion, anyway -- I've only seen one in this
newsgroup in the last three years.  I think your definition needs a major
revision.)



-- 
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?
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:51:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <18DEC92.21570215@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
#In a previous article, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
#
##No, Heather, I (and probably 99% of the rest of the net) just felt
##that the constant and endless bickering between you and Loren,
##almost none of which contained anything intelligent from either side
##(I seem to remember something about a bet and somebody being tied
##to a chair) was pointless, juvenile, irrelevant, and certainly a
##waste of bandwidth.  
#
#Speak for yourself, David.  I've gotten over a dozen e-mail messages from 
#people who enjoyed my responses to Loren's silly posts.  

I'll add my voice publicly.  I saw a great deal of relevance in your
posts.  

#No one is forcing you 
#to read what I write.  If I have something to say, I intend to say it.  Get 
#used to it.

I'm still laughing about Anderson's attempt to criticize other people's
posting habits.  He posts a bunch of unsubstantiated anti-abortion
propoganda and ignores requests for citations for weeks.  When he
finally responds, he says he'll provide the cites "later." That's
not exactly a sterling record.

I usually translate "You people stop flaming" as "I want to post
my lies without criticism."  I think this is more than likely true
in many cases.  Finkelstein and Anderson come to mind immediately.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51755 soc.men:21031 alt.dads-rights:2904 alt.abortion.inequity:5824
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:19:13 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:


>Murders, muggings and car accidents are not consentual acts.
>Sexual intercourse is. Again, you avoid explaining why you
>would engage in a consentual activity without believe you
>could trust the other person involved.

	Didn't you just publish a pseudo-fact about men having affairs more
than women?  Why did these women engage in a consensual activity (marriage)
with people they can't trust?
	People lie, and lie well.  That's why we have laws and contracts;
society recognizes this, whether you do or not.

Robert C.


-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 09:03:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.053627.26006@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes ...
>> 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.

Perhaps we should vote that one of these services ought to be:  "Ray Fischer
will wait hand and foot on Brian Yoder for the rest of his life.".  If 51%
of the population votes in favor of this, are you suggesting that this is
or ought to be allowable?  What do you think individual rights and limited
government mean?  What it means to me is that the majority does not have the 
just power to deprive me of my property nor to restrict my actions as long as
those actions don't violate the rights of anyone else.  You seem to be one of
those folks who thinks that absolute majority rule is a good thing.  I think
it's among the most evil systems possible.
 
--Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: My vote for funniest comment of the week
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:49:38 GMT

In <nyikos.724092839@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <lefty-051292033007@90.190.56.101> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

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

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

Hmmm. Soon, we're going to have _two_ people threatening to bill Lefty 
for the "archiving services" that they're providing him with. I guess 
TSAKC is going to need a new name...

>Peter Ny.

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:42:11 GMT

romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:


>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

No it isn't because the "victim" is not a person.  Its no more murder than
swatting a fly is murder.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:55:40 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->I have proposed NO ZIP ZERO NADA ZILCH abortion restrictions, Dan. Please 
->retract your claim that I have.

kevin, you've often argued in favor of abortion
restrictions.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:13:55 GMT

> = (Karl Rominger) writes:

>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

When you finally get around to taking a class, Karl baby, kindly tell
every woman you can what you think of abortion.  Then come back and let
us know how your love life isn't.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Babba Blows Baffo Biology Basis of Being
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:44:28 GMT

In article <1gae37INNic1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
}In article <1992Dec10.213626.16685@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
}>eager@eagercon.com writes:
}>] In article 2937@tymix.Tymnet.COM, baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
}>] >
}>] >Pretty funny. When I got my vasectomy it felt very dehumanising....
}>] >that the cultural acceptablility of a kick to the nuts ibndicates
}>] >that in this area men are dehumanized and objectified. There is 
}>] >a feeling that one has subverted his fundamental reason for being.
}>] >After all production of sperm is the only male specific function that
}>] >cannot be duplicated by a world of women only. 
}
}Scuse, please.  Not that I've carefully investigated this particular medical
}procedure, but doesn't one continue to produce sperm after a vasectomy --
}but one is no longer able to deliver sperm to an external point?

Perhaps I had mine done too long ago and procedures have changed, but
my doctor explained the operation quite a bit like Adrienne does.  

}Gee, does this mean you got dehumanized all for nothing?

I didn't feel dehumanized at all, but then I may not have had the 
New Improved Dehumanizing Procedure.  Besides, I can still grow a 
beard...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:12:44 GMT

In <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:

>>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> 
>>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.

>I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
>instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.

>This started by talking about the united states government, and the way 
>democracy works.  I seem to remember saying that if 51% of the population 
>voted that way, then it would be law (but you seem to have deleted that).
>I was considering the population of the United States.  If really want to make 
>this bet, I demand a more impartial population representing a better cross 
>section of the United States.  Most likely, people who have never heard of 
>either of us.  Not to mention a much more impartial ballot counter.

Funny thing, I seem to remember something from Madison's notes to the
effect that our government was set up the way it is so that a rabid
majority could *not* impose its will on a minority. Of course, they
have screwed about with the Constitution enough so that may no longer
be the case. 

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 13 DEC 92 08:37:00 GMT

In a previous article, parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) wrote:
> 
>Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent "person".  There are cases
>where the deliberate killing of an innocent *human* is not "murder".  For
>instance, severely brain-damaged coma patients who will never "wake up".  It
>is reasonable to allow them to die (stop life support, thus "killing" them),
>even though they are still *human*.

What if the brain damaged coma patient is healing (Somehow), and is expected 
to, eventually, wake up.  Is it murder then?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: from dan bredy: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: child, fetus
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:37:52 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>My agenda has nothing to do with this.  I'm not using the word "child"
>to make any point about abortion whatever.  I only brought it up because
>people like Zack were.

People like me?

And I didn't bring this up, either. I only joined this thread when you
posted you numerous definitions of the word "child".

>|> Whether a fetus is included in the definition of the word "child" is
>|>absolutely irrelevant to the question of the propriety of abortion.
>|
>|True. In which case, why all the intellectual masturbation about
>|child=fetus|zygote|fertilized egg?

>I might ask the same thing.  I didn't start this and I'm *not* making a
>point about abortion by it.  Zack was trying to.

Wrong. I was doing nothing of the sort. See my previous comment.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:01:42 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec21.000435.21114@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>_Hernandez v. New York_ was not concerned with housing discrimination,
>Stephen. Did you read the quote at all?

You claimed that equal pay for identical pay claims presumed
discrimination.  I state you were incorrect; you still are.  Since the
case you cited was not about equal pay for identical work, I did not
any more closely than I had to in order to determine that the
statement I subsequently posted was correct.  You repeat it below (>>):

>>I think the non-responsiveness of this is obvious.
>
>It was very responsive. In the first place, the cite I made from
_Hernandez v.  
>New York_ contained at least one statement of law which applied
generically to  
>_all_ forms of discrimination, not just racial discrimination. In the second 
>place, in the scale of Equal Protection claims, race is much more recognized 
>as a basis of discrimination than gender is. The ERA *FAILED*, remember, 
>Stephen? It was in all the papers. If racial discrimination requires a showing>of discriminatory intent, it's a fairly safe assumption that the burden of 
>proof in gender discrimination is at least as high. Lastly, I note that while 
>I have provided legal cites which may or may not be 100% on point, Stephen has>declined to present any legal cites whatsoever in support of his side of this 
>argument about law. He has done scarcely more than blither vaguenesses about 
>"critical legal theory", and attempt to pick little crawly nits in my 
>arguments. I leave neutral observers to make their judgments based on the
>facts and reasoning presented.

You are making an ass of yourself, Kevin.  Equal pay for identical
work cases do not require showing discriminatory intent.  I know this
for a fact.  I stated it.  You have danced around it, posted some
cases not at all relevant to equal pay for identical work, and posted
some nonsense about the ERA.  Your ignorance is manifest.  With
respect to equal pay for identical work, race and gender as well as
other categories are protected.  The ERA has nothing to do with it.
Neither does a proof of discriminatory intent.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: Clark University
Date: 17 DEC 92 16:35:40 GMT

In a previous article, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>In article <1992Dec13.095755.6204@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Just take a quick look at the Pro-Lifers.  Every time I've seen a demo on
>>TV, the spokesMAN for the group is just that, a man.  The leaders of the
>>local Pro-life group are local businessMEN.  When you see picketers at the
>>local clinics, a large percentage of the group are men.  
>>
>>Yep, looks like a large percentage of the Pro-life leaders are men, all right!
> 
>Why is that surprising?
> 
>As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!

This is really bizzare logic.  If pro-lifers ever managed to get abortions 
outlawed, a LOT more men would be stuck with bills.  If not getting stuck with 
bills is your goal, doesn't it make more sense to do what you can to gain 
reproductive rights for men, instead of focusing on trying to take away 
reproductive rights from women?


>Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion