HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:59:38 GMT

In article <1dm3mmINNju7@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxCntB.5JD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1defqoINN4ue@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>But as a *general* rule, they do not do this.  Because as a *general* rule,
>>>there is no presupposition within the relationship that the man should for
>>>some reason shoulder these costs.
>>The "GENERAL RULE" is not relevant, though.  The question is whether
>>an unmarried man is liable or not, for expenses before birth and/or
>>related to the woman herself.
>
>Wait a minute.  What exactly is the difference between a 'general rule'
>and a question about an (random) unmarried man and his liability to the
>pregnancy of a (random) woman?    

Is there a single man that *cannot* be held liable for pregnancy
or childbirth expenses, according to the law?

If not, then a random unmarried man is liable.

By the way, the expected liability of a random unmarried man to 
a random pregnant woman is negligible.  The expected liability
of any given unmarried man to a random pregnant woman is negligible.


>The GENERAL rule would seem to be eminently relevant to a general question.
>A GENERAL rule would not necessarily bind one specific case.  Which are you
>talking about?

The point is whether any unmarried man can resort to the "GENERAL RULE"
to defend against any liability to a woman pregnant by him.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Myelination and Fetal Brain Development (Criteria for Personhood
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 19:24:57 GMT

In <1d66v0INNk2s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov1.160407.2673@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>In article <nyikos.720216719@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>Why should the momentary dependency of the fetus on
>>> the mother, in the case of offspring past the 24th week, 
>>Momentary?  9 months x 4 weeks = 36 weeks.  36 - 24 = 12 weeks.
>>12 weeks is momentary?  I thought you were a mathematician, Peter.
>>Mathematicians usually have at least a tiny grasp of relativity wrt
>>the concept of time.

I also happen to know that premature births can happen any time, and
with modern medical techniques the offspring past 24 weeks now have 
a better than even chance of survival.

>Oh, come on, Brian.  I'm sure Peter 'does science', too.

Oh, all kinds.  But let's just stick to the scientific subject of fetology,
and not get wrapped up with other sciences, nor with mathematics, when it
is not necessary.

>Now, what was that one about the circle again?

I don't recall what people were asking about it on this newsgroup.  
If you find out, I'd rather you e-mailed me and not cluttered up
talk.abortion with it.

Peter Ny.
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!(To B.K.)
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:50:53 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

> Okay, I won't.  ;-)
> 
> Oh, was that a question?  No, obviously your god _didn't_ have a
> "reason" for that "baby" -- he apparently had no problem with it being
> aborted!

If he controlled us like a dictator, he wouldn't be fair would he.  We would
also never have the ability to sin either, right?

> 
>>The world needs Jesus.  That is a given. 
> 
> Jesus died two millenia ago.  Hadn't you heard?
> Or maybe you mean a friend of mine from college, Jesus Villa?
> He's cool.  I can see people needing him.  :)
> 
> If you're going to try to use your religion as a defense for why
> abortion is wrong, you ought to have some good idea of how you're going
> to convince those of us who don't believe in your god to agree with you.

I only care in letting you know that Jesus is still alive today.  You won't
know that unless you look, though.  He died, correct, but hey man, he is alive
again and here today if you  would look to him.  Why would all the religious
nuts all tell the same stories of how he touched them if he were not real.  He
can help you if you would let him.  He wants to.  That is why is asked his
children to tell you that in ACTS.  Most of his children are just lazy.

> 
> -- 
> _/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>  _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>   _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>         "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
>          -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau

...Ken!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions
Keywords: post, attributions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:20:11 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->Although I have made it very clear in several posts that I know very well
->how attributions work, some people in this newsgroup have still seen fit
->to instruct me.  

so then, you're admitting you lied (rather than erred)
when you falsly accused adrienne of forgery?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Selfishness?
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 05:47:50 GMT

In article <oexkq9e00WBOE6YsVY@andrew.cmu.edu> Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I have often heard the claim by pro-lifers that women who obtain
>abortions do it for purely selfish reasons; I have heard pro-lifers
>label pro-choicers in general as selfish (and materialistic, callous,
>self-centered, etc.).  I am reading a book right now called _The True
>Believer_ by Eric Hoffer, and it is very good, and quite interesting.
>This book is basically Hoffer's analysis of mass movements, why people
>become involved in mass movements, and what kinds of people tend to join
>them.  
>
>I read a couple of paragraphs that struck me particularly, and it made
>me think of the folks who have engaged themselves in the fight to
>illegalize abortion (especially the more militant and radical).
>Reprinted without permission:
>
>        "The inordinately selfish are particularly susceptible to
>frustration.                                                            
>             The more selfish a person, the more poignant his
>disappointments.  It is the inordinately selfish, therefore, who are
>likely to be the most persuasive                 champions of
>selflessness.
>        The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced,
>by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their
>own selves.  They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness
>from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some holy
>cause.  And though it be a faith of love and humility they adopt, they
>can neither be loving nor humble."
>
>Thoughts and comments would be welcome.

Well, this has nothing to do with abortion, but:

I've always found that the worst homophobes are the ones who are insecure
in their sexuality.  The ones who are afraid that they _might be_ gay,
that they _might enjoy_ watching "adult movies" for the men instead of the
women.  The ones who are afraid that they might not be "Real Men".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When we're free to love, anybody we choose; then we shall be free.  We shall=
=be free" - Garth Brooks, paraphrased. Still a RadikalFeministLesbianBitch....=
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:35:15 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov9.010039.10786@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com
(Ray Fischer):

> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes ...
>>From article <1992Nov7.173857.12080@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com
>>(Ray Fischer):
>>> Maybe so.  And maybe everyone in France really speaks English at home,
>>> and the Earth really IS flat, and Elvis really IS alive.
>>> 
>>> Taking any bets?
>>> 
>>So Ray- do you see now why you've been called a "science fundie"?
>>Stating your position as though it's self-evident doesn't make it
>>accurate, or even self-evident.  Your zeal is remarkably similar to
>>that of... well, I get sick of ceaseless labelling, so I won't
>>indulge, but you can see where this is going.
> 
> My comments were self-evident only if you consider to flatness of the
> earth, Elvis' death, and the language of France to be self-evident
> facts.  I don't.  I consider those, as well as the fact that
> intelligence resides in the brain, to be sufficiently certain so that
> any wagers on the matter would put on the side of common "knowledge".
> 
> While it may well be true that intelligence it completely unconnected
> with the brain, I don't consider that to be a useful speculation.  The
> likelyhood is low enough so that I wouldn't care to bet anything on it.

Well, I don't think anyone was contending that intelligence is "completely
unconnected with the brain", but instead arguing that the brain's
output may be the *result of* intelligence, consciousness, etc.
But I promise not to harp on this anymore.  As I recall, there was
a rather interesting discussion concerning personhood, the brain
and stuff like that.  My reader doesn't thread, so I don't know
where we left off.

Here's a thought:  Recall the film "Awakenings".  Does this sort of
situation create intolerable problems with defining personhood?
Shall those whose brain function appears to be indefinitely suspended
be stripped of their rights as humans?  Do they regain their rights
the day they regain "consciousness"?  BTW, in the preceding sentence,
should the '?' be inside or outside the ""? :-)

> 
> -- 
> Ray Fischer               "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
> ray@netcom.com             than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.non.sequitur
From: news@wdl.loral.com
Subject: Re: A Call To High Holy JIHAUD!
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:58:18 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# JUST SAY NO! TO PLUMBERS! [1]
# 
# [1] for the kiddies in our midst, look up the Dark Days
# of Anceint History when King Richard, The Milhaus reigned
# in the Land, and Sought to Protect the People From Themselves!!!!

As a kiddie who grew up in the Dickster's HOMETOWN, I feel totally
unqualified but nevertheless compelled to pick a nit:

The Evil One (and his Legion of followers who still, to this day,
worship his graven image in Y**** L**** -- the City That Must Not Be
Named) never sought to protect the people from themselves.  He sought
to protect some of the people from all of the rest, which is precisely
what the PLUMBERS were tasked to do.

----

Does JIHAUD vaguely rhyme with a severely effected SHI'HOWD'?

Git em up, Round em up, head em out, Allah akbar!


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken

p.s.  Drieux?  What newgroups does this really belong in?  Really.
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:34:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

Elizabeth --

Your details are lovely and well-devised.  They almost manage to obscure
the horrifying premise on which your proposed system is based.

You say that you want a medical ("not judicial") review process to
authorize otherwise-illegal third term abortions in cases of necessity.

Why do you want them illegal in the first place? Because you "think
third-trimester abortions are killing a possible person."

Since when are decisions about killing people (outside military contexts)
left in the hands of doctors?

Have you heard of the Hippocratic oath?

Have you heard of the court system?

What do you suppose legal protection means?  Passive judicial
intervention?  Do you want to make third-trimester abortion into a
contract violation or something?

"Killing a possible person" on purpose isn't malpractice -- it's
manslaughter.  If you mean to use that reasoning about third-tri abortion,
you'd damn well better treat it seriously according to our legal
tradition.

Reckless revisions and 'lite' bureaucracy won't do.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                        suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Nyikos flamefest
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:06:19 GMT

In article <bob1.721414164@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

   My own Mother had a difficult time bringing me into this world,
   and paid with her health later in life. I am (now) delighted to
   be here, but this was not always the case. To this day, I think
   that a free choice should have been available for her.

I am adopted.  I have always wondered what my birth-mother went
through in 1962-1963.  I imagine being sent to our small town from
elsewhere to have the child in secret.  I have wondered what she would
have done if she had a choice.  It is easy and selfish for someone to
say that they are adopted and against abortion because they wouldn't
be here if she had aborted.  The courage is to reason beyond this and
to imagine what it must have been like for her.  To this day, I too
think that a free choice should have been available for her.

___/\___  __
\      / /  \
 \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (corwin+@cmu.edu)
/_\  /_\    \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
   \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
        B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++             Carnegie Mellon

"Christians maintain a higher enjoyment level in the intamacy of their
love life than the population in general."
        Beverly LaHaye, President Concerned Women of America, 1976
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Reflections on the `pro-force' mindset
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:20:22 GMT

I'd like to see Suzanne Forgach's opinions on my comments here.

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
# Anybody get the feeling that we can do away with capital punishment by now?
# Jeff's favorite form of punishment, the ultimate he can think of for all 
# kinds of nasty doings in the world of human beings, is to force people to
# have children.  Yup, children as punishment for living a life Jeff doesn't
# approve of.  Great idea.

Hmmm.  I'm beginning to understand the troubles I'm having with my
future in-laws.  They seem inordinately peeved that their daughter,
who has been telling them for fifteen years or more, that she had no
intentions of having children *ever*, has decided to get married to a
man who also has absolutely no interest in having children.  They are
also anti-abortion. 

I've been wondering if there was a correlation all along.  Recent
posts here in t.a concerning the inherent selfishness of most
fanatics, pro-`life' activists in particular, combined with
observations I've made recently suggest that there is more than a
passing correlation here.  It's beginning to seem to me that it is a
tightly coupled thing.

I wonder how many pro-`life'rs are driven more out of reaction to
abortion as seeming repudiation of the vestigial notion that, to be a
`whole' person, you must have children, than out of any distaste for
the operation itself, or any concern for the lives of the unborn, or
*even* any weirdness about sexual `immorality.'

I think this may be the same thing that motivates the anti-gay
movement (which seems to overlap the anti-abortion movement).  It's
the whole ``if your whole life doesn't revolve around having children,
you're a waste of DNA -- you've been called into existence only to be
destroyed oh how stupid it's just awful somebody do something''
mentality.

Never mind that gays and lesbians can and often do have children.
Never mind that women who have abortions can and often do have
children.  The subconcious is infantile.

I used to just toy with this idea as a possible explanation for the
strange vibes I get from these people, but more and more, it's coming
to explain much that I can't see any other explanation for.

(I also note that these people often share a weird reaction to
Freudian psychological theory, as if their distaste for it goes beyond
mere intellectual criticism and into the realm of emotional reaction.)


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:37:30 GMT

In <1dbopeINNqvf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.022416.3257@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>>AR> Oh, come on.  What you are really saying is to hell with the thousands
>>AR> of years of legal precident our western culture has relied upon.
>>
>>But, you don't seem to object to "saying to hell" with the thousands of
>>years of legal precdents which are to the perceived disadvantage of women.
>>
>>So why object to attempting to change legal precedents which are perceived to
>>be disadvantageous to men?

>Ah, the big question.  The $64,000 question.

>WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?

>The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and I'm
>not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for ALL
>the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money for
>that.

I don't think Adrienne spends much on children anywhere outside the USA
in taxes.  As for the USA, Adrienne said something not so awfully long
ago about how in the not too distant future, social security is going
to be in big trouble, or something like that, prompting me to say:
"Sonofagun! Adrienne CAN be sensible if she wants to!"  She does not,
however, seem to have made the connection between her supporting children
today and all those "children" supporting her in her retirement.

[I know this is blatantly *ad hominem*, but I can't help wondering whether 
Adrienne is training her children to be just as non-altruistic as she is,
and I wonder whether they will take her into their homes in her old age.]

>>And after all, (allow me to take the Devil's Advocate once more...) if it is
>>apparently true (as many in the womrn's movement say) that fighting to right
>>the wrongs suffered by women, will not only not harm men, but *help* them,
>>then why should fighting the wrongs suffered by men be harmful to women?

>Because of the cost to the TAXPAYER, Will.  It can (and has) been argued
>that allowing women into the workplace results in a broader tax base and
>a redistribution of wealth without significant charges to the taxpayer,
>and, argued probably less successfully, but there are many factors to
>consider, that women in the workforce has upped our productivity, made
>better use of the US's overall talent and kept us from falling even deeper
>into recession than we have.

Adrienne seemed to be driving towards a point in the first sentence of
the above paragraph, then veered off.  Unless, of course, she is arguing
that women are by nature more productive and talented than men.

> To the taxpayer, the question is not "is it
>right?  Is it good?"  Rather the question is "DOES IT COST ME ANY MONEY???"

>Think about it.

Seems like Taxpayer Regard does not ask herself
the question, "Am I likely to benefit from this in the long run?"
Maybe she should think about it.

Peter Ny.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: STEVE wants it both ways:
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:43:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.034942.7016@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Pro-choicers often call pro-lifers stupid.  But I haven't seen as much
>of the "all of the other side is stupid; if they were smart they'd
>agree with me" mentality among the pro-choicers as among the
>pro-lifers.

Really?

Perhaps you're right: to be more accurate, the "pro-choice" political 
movement commonly seems to favor the mentality, "all of the other side 
is stupid AND RELIGIOUS; if they were smart they'd agree with 
OUR MAJORITY OPINION."  Namely, the secular moral majority.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Peter hands me more proof Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:20:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nyikos.721337496@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <92306.185328ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Oct22.054349.14132@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
> >>In article <92293.000446ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
> >>>
> >>>What Mr. Holtsinger failed to mention in his little diatribe
> >>>was that the original thread had to do with the imposition of
> >>>legal and criminal sanctions against abortion.
> >>>
> >>>Canada has no legal restrictions for abortion.  There have been
> >>>no abortion laws in this country since 1988.
> 
> You mean there are no legal restrictions all the way to the moment of birth???
> 
> >>>Are you suggesting that we are a nation of radical pro-aborts?
> 
> Sounds that way, or is your "no" yet another instance of your 
> "phantom universal," Ms. Birmingham?  I really ought to start collecting
> these, and post them all at once, so people will see what I mean.

If the law has no restrictions, that does not make the entire
nation "radically pro-abortion."  To suggest that it does, as
our resident expert on set theory suggests, is to throw logic
out the window.  Since this particular part of the discussion
could be rendered in a mathematical formula, I begin to
question Dr. Nyikos credentials even in his own field.  He has
repeatedly asked for me to back my opinion of him as stupid.
His reading of the lack of laws restricting abortion in
Canada as rendering the entire nation of Canada a "nation
of radical pro-aborts" is stupid.

Peter keeps asking me for quotes in which he says something stupid
and then he gives them to me.  Thank you Peter.

Honey.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion