HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: In which Petie demonstrates his reading comprehension problems.
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:22:26 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.722212238@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 

>In <32317@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.720822858@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual nonsense in
>>response to me (>>):
>
>>Deletia about Blackstone's definition of infant, which (surprise,
>>surprise) has nothing to do with the original post in reference to who
>>qualified as a person that could be murdered:
>
>That was not the only point you made, and not even the most
>significant one.  You claimed that the unborn is not an infant.  My
>post refuted that.
>
>I see you have been taking lessons in creatively replacing deleted text
>from Susan Garvin.

You have such low credibility that I should not even waste my time
responding to this: (1) I deleted the text because you repeat your
nonsense frequently enough that I needn't bother.  (2) My post, in
which I have not idea whether or not I pointed out in passing that
infants and /z/e/f/s are not the same thing, was about who is a legal
person who can be murdered.  I do not consider whether some late stage
/z/e/f/s are sometimes called infants to be at all relevant to this
question, and will happily concede the point that fetus fanatics like
yourself occasionally try to force feed us this bizarre usage; it is
immaterial anyway.  No creative replacement took place.

I made a simple statement of fact that cannot be refuted.  Abortion is
not murder because a /z/e/f/ is not a legal person.  You cannot prove
that a /z/e/f/ is a legal person because it is not.  Responses arguing
that a /z/e/f/ should be a legal person do not address my point, no
matter how tirelessly you spew them.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The Gardener story (and relevance)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:29:41 GMT

In article <By54yw.7ny@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

> Medical data demonstrates that organized workings of the brain don't 
> start before the 24th week, 

Please post this alleged "medical data". 

> We do not consider it wrong when we have to have a dog or cat "put to sleep"
> because it is unwanted and we can't afford to provide a decent life for it.

Dogs and cats can never become human beings.

Dogs and cats aren't torn apart limb from limb when they
are "put to sleep".   

> A fetus in the first 6 months is less aware than a kitten or puppy, 
> according to medical knowledge, 

A newborn infant is perhaps less aware than many farm animals.


>-Rob


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49258 talk.religion.misc:21894 alt.atheism:21918 sci.skeptic:20096
From: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:16:02 GMT
Reply-To: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <1eq9hqINNfa3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp
 (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
[much deleted]
>
>All I am saying is "people are strange".   They do not follow the laws of
>cause and effect.  I think that people who attempt to superimpose the laws of
>science and logic on people's behaviour (and equally God's, if she exists)
>may be trying to subordinate a higher (more complete) system to a lower one.
>
>#-Ekr
>-- 

What I _hope_ this poster means is that folks don't always act for
rational reasons, not that there are no reasons for their actions.
Surely we are not to discard psychoanalysis and its descendants--which
are about why we do what we do and how we got that way.

What enabled me to retire to Rochester, New York (_the_ Garden Spot
of the planet) is that I became fabulously wealthy from my business
in Los Angeles.  Clients would come to me and tell me what they wanted
to do; for $25.00 I supplied them with a reason why it was okay for
them to do it.

Erik Timmerman
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:46:32 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.722027741@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Still playing along with Adrienne's gag, eh?


Well, this is a new one.

Not "my system went down and I lost all replies".

or "I didn't see that post"

or "I'm sure she didn't mean it" 

or "I was just joking"

But "She did it.  Not me!  Mommy, she started it!"

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:01:15 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32728@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>The inability
>to name an equivalent burden is exactly what I call the chastity belt
>theory of illegal abortion.  You are unhappy with the rate of sexual
>intercourse in our society and you want to solve this problem by
>forcing women to carry all unwanted pregnancies to term.  This is
>unfair to women.  Why should women bear all the burden for solving
>what you perceive as too much sex?

The first sentence I find incomprehensible.   What bearing does
equivalency of burdens have on whether abortion should be illegal?

The second sentence is comprehensible, but you've given no reason for
believing it to be true and in fact it's not true.  The remainder of
what you say depends on the second sentence.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49267 alt.abortion.inequity:5285 soc.men:19828 soc.women:20175
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:20:25 GMT

In article <1ejvprINNolc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.024423.15804@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
>>
>>Adrienne, 
>>
>>You are missing the point completely.  There simply is no legal recourse
>>for a man out of a forced fatherhood situation.  No matter what that
>>situation might be.  Take for instance, the case of a predatory woman
>>using the child as a vehicle for extortion. 
>
>Uh, Frank, using Larry's (?) recent example:
>
>"Take for instance, the case of a predatory woman jumping into the sun...."

It was Galen's trivially-refutable example, actually.

>Do you have any information, data, studies, ANYTHING that will help us
>here on the net understand how big a problem this is?  Is it a 'real'
>problem except in the anecdotal sense?

ALL HAIL THE HOLY STATISTICS!!! 

ALL BOW DOWN BEFORE THE MOST EXALTED BEAN-COUNTS!!!

What the hell do you think statistics ARE, Adrienne, other than distilled 
anecdotes???

How many instances of ruined lives need to be related to you before you
might deign to regard this as "a potential problem"?

None are so deaf, as those who do not wish to hear...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48105 alt.abortion.inequity:5129 soc.women:19696 soc.men:19384
From: hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner)
Subject: Re:    New Catholic Catechism: A first in 426 years
Organization: M.Sc, C.S, Queen's, Kingston, Canada.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:51:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.164002.19681@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>: On Jews
>: The Jews were not collectively responsible for the death of
>: Jesus...

However, as Ralph Benmergui said on CBC's Friday Night, we Jews are
willing to represent in court whoever _is_ responsible.  "I can just
hear my mother going click on the remote".

For the humour-impaired, please direct your comments to me in email.
The volume on these groups is large enough already.

Alejo (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Better Choices -- Adoption is an answer
Summary: Gott im Himmel.
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:55:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

sparky@wixer.cactus.org (Timothy Sheridan) writes:

[in response to a couple of adoption stories]

>You are both obviously idiots.  Since you know nothing about adoption I
>sugest you both read 'Being Adopted'  Its a very good look at the problems of
>adoption.  This is ofcorse no substitute for first hand experience. So, I
>sugest that you both EXILE your selves from all your family members and find
>some nice couple to spend the rest of your lives with!!!!!

>Then MAYBE you'll get the point !

>BTW the the ANTI_CHOICE fundimentalist ignorants have been the majior
>proponents of adoption.  That is why there are so many fucked up laws on the
>books!

I feel a definite need to distance myself from this specimen of hatred.

1) Gentlemen, he does NOT in any way represent the views of all
pro-choicers; I'd even wager he doesn't represent the views of a majority
of them.  For my part, both of your stories were heart-string-tuggers,
and you have my sympathy.

2) Mr. Sheridan in no way whatsoever typifies the view of most Texans,
and frankly I'm ashamed to share a state with him.  There seems to be an
image of Texans as loudmouthed boors, and Mr. Sheridan does that image no
harm at all.  Whether I do is a question I won't try to answer.  :-)

Sheesh.  Rant over.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48180 soc.men:19416 alt.dads-rights:2619
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:58:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
>>everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
>>is stopped - permanently.
>
>Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!

One key (and to me, obvious) difference is that women have far greater
say about their level of financial contribution.  A woman need not pay
much of anything if she is so inclined.  But the man is likely to be
forced into 18 years of payments.  While it is true that women also
contribute financially, this contribution is usually _voluntary_.

A more equitable situation would have custody of the child
automatically go to the state, requiring _both_ parents to sue for
custody, and with judgements equitably distributed between men and
women.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: C.J.'s "Know It All" Attitude...
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:51:12 GMT

> W. Steeves
>CS> CJ

>CS> You equate a mug with political slogans on it with a pin-up
>CS> calendar?  You think that if nude photographs consitute sexual
>CS> harassment, so also must the political content of a mug?

>I made no such equation.  I merely stated that if the definition of sexual
>harassment is a gender-based action or situation which makes one feel
>uncomfortable, then a mug making such "political" statements as the one I saw,
>*OR* the "Seminars For Men" flyer, *do* indeed make *me* feel uncomfortable,
>thank you very much.

The definition of sexual harassment is FAR more narrow than you seem to think.
The definition is something like, the actions, displays, etc. must create
an atmosphere of harassment that makes it difficult or impossible for one
person or a class of persons to work, or which creates an atmosphere in which
it is acceptable for a person or class of persons to be discriminated against
on the basis of race, color, nationality, gender, religion, handicap, veteran 
status, in some cases sexual orientation, etc. etc.

One pinup, in and of itself, would not constitute sexual harassment any more
than that one mug.  However, in most cases where pinups are allowed to be
openly displayed on company property, you would probably find that sexism
is pervasive in that company; men occupy all management positions; and other
harassment occurs.  The pinups, in this case, are not the problem; they are
an overt symptom of the problem, which is rampant sexism.  But they reinforce
the notion that women are merely sex objects; and their open display reminds
the women in that company that the men do not respect their wishes or beliefs.

In the same vein, if the mug in your example was merely an overt symptom of
a much larger problem that also took many other forms, and the display of
the mug served to encourage the discrimination, you would have a case.  But
one mug, by itself, does not constitute sexual harassment, no matter what
it says.

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:30:13 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32842@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.221107.23870@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
>writes in response to me:

>>If the drunk driver were the only possible source of those things, the
>>victim would certainly die if the donation weren't made, and the
>>burden to the drunk driver would b commensurate with the burden to a
>>woman of carrying a pregnancy to term, would you say it would be in
>>principle unjust to force him to make the donation?  If so, why?

>We're not talking in principle here, Jim, we're talking about the use
>of scarce state resources to protect the rights of citizens.  I don't
>think enforcing a policy based on this `principle' would represent a
>good use of state resources.   Forced pregnancy laws also differ in an
>important way, they would only punish one class of `drunk drivers'
>with the bodily consequences you prescribe.  Hence they would be
>unfair because they would punish based on gender rather than behavior.

If the issue is conservation of scarce state resources, then there are
grounds for distinguishing between the drunk driver situation and the
abortion situation in that the drunk driver situation as I described
it almost never happens, so it wouldn't be worth while to set up
procedures to determine in an emergency situation whether the
conditions that would justify forced organ donation exist.

In contrast, in the case of a pregnancy the corresponding conditions
always exist except in the rare cases of rape (I suppose including
incest) and serious threat to the life of the mother.

I should add that since there is a neutral principle (conservation of
scarce state resources) that explains the difference in treatment
between drunk drivers and pregnant women your claim that the
difference is a case of gender discrimination has no obvious support.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:14:39 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>#So then, we're left with two equally worthless arguments.  You want to
>#make the set larger than do I.  Who's right?
>
>The only point I wish to make is that we don't know who's right.  Therefore
>to attempt a definitive assertion about foetal personhood is unreasonable.
>The question is undecidable.  The correct answer to an undecidable question
>is either to unask it, provisionally accept a guess until proven wrong, or
>find a bigger system in which the question _can_ be answered.

How do you unask such a question?
Who's guess?  Yours, or mine?
And as for the bigger system, well, let's keep working on it.

And besides, another possibility is that the question will become
irrelevent.  I personally don't see fetal personhood as being very
relevent to the discussion.  Even if it were, there is no precedent
for allowing such liberties as the fetus takes with the mother's
body.

>#Maybe we'll have to use some other method of arriving at a concensus.
>#How about one that produces the greatest good while avoiding the
>#majority of the evils?
>
>Well, sure - but you cannot determine this without reference to values, which
>so far have not made an appearance in the debate.  "good" and "evil" are
>relative moral terms, too, and while relativity is in, morality is out of 
>fashion.

Is it?  I see plenty of evidence for the existence of morality.  Why
do you think we're having this discussion?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:36:55 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to Larry Margolis:

> Very funny, Larry.  You keep telling me what I already know, what I have
> already given you ample evidence of knowing, and you say I still don't
> get it.

> You also don't notice that I never explicitly accused Adrienne of
> forgery.  Why do you think I put ?!?!?!?!? in the title?

> You also don't explicitly tell me that it is WRONG to omit removing
> an attribution at the beginning of an article if one deletes
> everything from that particular post.

> Why, even Chris Lyman did not complain when I did this, in spades.
> I'll show you a copy of the post below.

Oh, no, Petey, I didn't complain at all.  I simply noted that you seemed
to have no response to any of the points I made.  Of course, you never
answered; your news server went down!  Funny how it does that when it
receives an article with my name in the header and Dr. Mildred Hanson's
name in the article.  I've been laughing about it for weeks.

Now that I think of it, you never acknowledged seeing my findings on those
lawsuits against Dr. Hanson, even though I've posted them to the net twice
and sent you a copy via email.  Oh dear, now that I've mentioned Dr. Hanson,
I suppose your news server is going to crash.  Sorry!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim's logic problems extend beyond mere equivalence.
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:51:09 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov19.153013.14588@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes to me:

>If the issue is conservation of scarce state resources, then there are
>grounds for distinguishing between the drunk driver situation and the
>abortion situation in that the drunk driver situation as I described
>it almost never happens, so it wouldn't be worth while to set up
>procedures to determine in an emergency situation whether the
>conditions that would justify forced organ donation exist.
>
>In contrast, in the case of a pregnancy the corresponding conditions
>*always exist *except in the rare cases of rape (I suppose *including
>incest) and serious threat to the life of the mother.

First of all, you are excusing the mother not because she is not a
unique donor, but because you treat women who engage in consensual sex
like criminals.  They are not.  I don't know by what bizarre reasoning
you have equated consensual sex and drunk driving, but by the same
bizarre reasoning you seem to want to conclude that women who are
forced to have sex should not be treated like criminals.  This is why
I call what you advocate the chastity belt theory of forced pregnancy.
As this shows what you call the corresponding condition always holds,
even in the cases you try to exclude with except and including.  The
difference between these conditions is not the unique nature of the
donor, but the consent of the woman.  I fail to understand how
consenting to sex renders the treatment of women as criminals as just.

>I should add that since there is a neutral principle (conservation of
>scarce state resources) that explains the difference in treatment
>between drunk drivers and pregnant women your claim that the
>difference is a case of gender discrimination has no obvious support.

You're a first rate crack-up, Jim.

SJM

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49061 talk.religion.misc:21769
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Why I am not the property of Jesus (was: Re: Reconciling OT with NT)
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:44:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

I would be a Christian still today if it were not for the writings of Paul
of Tarsus.  I have no wish to share my morals, much less eternity, with
pigs who believe that slaves should be obedient and women should be
subservient.  Especially if three of those pigs are omnipotent.

Followups to talk.religion.misc.

Goddess bless,
--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:51:59 GMT

In <1992Nov07.061227.103583@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
   (Larry Margolis) writes: >
In <1992Nov2.194806.1031@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Oct31.032532.28814@cs.yale.edu> : rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >>>

>>At any rate, the incidence of such problems is widespread enough
>>that one certainly doesn't have to work in my profession to have
>>come into contact with it.
>
>Do you think that the fact that in your profession the only users you
>come in contact with (at least, where you *know* that they're users) 
>are *abusers* might have anything to do with the problems you seem to 
>have distinguishing the two?

I am not an addictions counselor.  I come into contact with 
many *users* and their families.  The distinction between "use" 
and "abuse" is quite *moot* if the impaired individual is un-
able to function in a supportive capacity for a spouse or a
child.  "I'm sorry, Sally, Daddy is wasted right now but I'm
sure he'll tuck you in some other night".

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion