HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Will Steeve's Reprehensible Attitude <period>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:04:10 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

  [...]

# Well, excuse me!  If I am not mistaken, you read that from a *MUG*
# entitled "Women," which was full of wonderful remarks basically
# declaring the glorious intellectual and moral superiority of the
# female of the species...  (Oh boy, I just *can't* wait for a MEN mug
# which slanders women as much as that mug slandered men).  Hardly a
# source of original ideas, hmmm?
# 
# I saw this err, *mug* at the offices of two women at the company which
# I used to work for.  And if I weren't on my six month probation
# period, I would have had no qualms about charging the pair with sexual
# harassment, seeing as there seem to be legions of feminists declaring
# that pin-up calendars are also sexual harassment.

  [...]

# Oh, so you THAT'S what you think?  Men should only be sperm donors,
# AND wallets, and then you can throw them away like a used condom, eh?

Ah, my favorite peeve.  I just *LOVE* it when supposedly enlightened
men complain about feminists, and, in the same breath, whine and
moan about how society devalues them by reducing them to sperm donors
and wallets.

Men still have the lion's share of power in human society, Mr. Steeves
-- it is apparently wasted on you.  Get a grip.  Bang on a drum.
Something.  Anything.  Shit or get off the pot, son.  Either decide
you're a Real Man and you can take a little criticism, or get used to
the fact that you're a snivelling little weasel whose only purpose in
life is to keep the Little Woman from ever having to do anything but
look after the children.

{ Followups set appropriately. }


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``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

ObPeeve:  I don't read alt.peeve.  I know what's good for me.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:19:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.184241.12652@nas.nasa.gov>
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.064722.10308@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
 
>>I've recently made it clear that I support requiring medical approval,
>>not judicial approval.... 

>You mentioned this before, and I asked you about it, but either I missed
>your reply or you missed my question.  How is this suppose to work?  
>Currently the medical profession has no such ability to make or 
>enforce legislation.  If you allow legislation to determine when
>abortions are allowed, you are taking it out of the hands of the
>medical profession.  This would leave it up to the judiciary to
>enforce.  So would you ellaborate on how you would write legislation
>that would keep the judiciary out of the equation?

In an emergency, any doctor qualified to diagnose if a third-term
abortion is need and to perform one could go ahead and perform one but
might have to justify the abortion afterwards.  (Of course, if he
doesn't perform one and she dies, there's no "might" about him having
to justify his lack of treatment.)

In other cases, doctors who are certified qualified to diagnose
conditions which require an abortion (ask the AMA who; I would guess
all gynecologists and some others) can diagnose a needed abortion.
Two opinions (one could be granted over the phone or after looking at
faxed information if need be) are needed for a legal abortion.
Barring having accepted a bribe or giving false information to another
doctor to secure a concerring opinion, the worst he could face (say,
for routinely certifying every case in which a woman says she wants an
abortion as a case in which an abortion is medically necessary) would
be losing his certification to perform or authorize an abortion (with
a second opinion) without any possibility of having it legally
questioned afterwards.

This obviously lets the doctors override the laws on abortion at will.
But I've no reluctance to let them do that, partially because of a gut
instinct that if the medical profession as a whole feels that strongly
about the matter maybe they outta be able to and mostly because it
would be very difficult to stop them from doing so in any case (I've
been told that there were some hospitals before Roe which routinely
performed illegal but medically necessary abortions; they were called
tonsilectomies or appendectomies and nobody involved admitted they
weren't; a third-term ban would be much harder to circumvent, but not
impossible ... the doctors could pretend she spontaneously went into
labor and the best they did to save both killed the fetus).

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:27:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct31.130332.4612@verifone.com> 
ron_s@verifone.com writes:

> It is not the province or business of government to legislate
> morality, 

So I take it you're an anarchist.  Say goodbye to murder, rape,
and robbery laws.   

> There exists no such thing
> as "the common good", there only exists individual human beings,
> with their fast disappearing individual rights as guaranteed
> in the bill of rights section of the US Constitution.   

That's the best argument I've seen for giving rights to
all human beings. 

>aloha


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:36:43 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:


>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political
>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>finally over.  Thank God.

Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:13:20 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>...  I am also trying to impress on you that your
>view that a z/e/f is _not_ a person is nowhere near as objective as you (seem
>to) think it is.  Nobody's view of personhood is.  But you seem to be prone
>to thinking that your view _is_ objective, and you very often appeal to
>science to back it up, as if that would make it objective.

I realize my view is subjective; I try to back it up as well as I
can -- but this time, _you're_ the one who's got _me_ picked wrong. :)

I'm of the opinion that a human being becomes a person when its brain
begins functioning like the brain of an adult -- that is, when it
gains the ability to think on the second order, as opposed to on an
animal level.  This either happens when the brain of a fetus
myelinates, or (and this one I've just begun considering recently)
when the brain of a baby or very young child reaches a more final
stage of development.  It's a moot point, really, so I won't bother to
go into my reasoning (unless anyone would care to know -- I've posted
it here before); and besides, I keep revising my opinion on it as I
learn more.

I still mark the event of birth as being more important than anyone's
guess as to when personhood begins, of course.

-- 
_/_/_/  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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: compromise 
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:47:02 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <rgj1vtg@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
->   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>
->>>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
->>>the term of pregnancy.
->>
->>this statement is not correct.
->>[asserted without supporting evidence since such
->>evidence has been posted dozens of times in response to
->>holtsinger's comments to the contrary]

->Roe can easily be interpreted as abortion on demand, 

i've seen more than enough data posted to this
newsgroup in the past to convince me otherwise.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46634 alt.abortion.inequity:4845 soc.women:18835 soc.men:18666
From: dblack@seas.gwu.edu (David K. Black)
Subject: Re: Brain mylenation and fetal development or something like that
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:11:13 GMT

In article <1d406nINNil6@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>David Black and me:
>>>
>>>>You simply cannot get from "This will help to preserve society"
>>>>To "Do This"
>>>>Without going through, "Society ought to be preserved."
>>>That isn't true.
>>>"This will help to preserve society."
>>>          It serves my PERSONAL economic benefit to preserve society
>>>                               	[economic self interest]
>>>                            Therefore, "do this"
>
>
>>A says "Do this, because it serves my personal economic benefit"
>>B says "Why should I serve your personal economic benifit?"
>>Now A can either say, "Well what I'm really  trying to do is
>>preserve society, which I'm sure you agree is something we ought to
>>do so..." 
>
>Maybe it would be clearer if, in the above transcription, I changed
>the line "Do this" to "therefore I will do this." 



If "Do this" is changed to "therefore I will do this" in the above,
the prescriptive nature of the law is ignored. The result only states
that people tend to act in their own self interest.  Like multiplying
both sides of an equation by zero, true but not very enlightening.




>We are talking about why an individual would act, not how an individual
>will coerce others into action.

I was under the impression that we were talking about what forms an
acceptable basis for civil/criminal law in a free society.  And the
law *is* coercive.  As mentioned earlier, it forces people to build
their houses a certain way, and to drive a certain way.  But we
presumably do not allow the law to constrain our autonomy without good
cause. The law must justify itself to us by appealing to some tacitly
accepted moral structure.

>
>I'm suggesting that what you see in a social environment is derrived from
>the enlightened self interest of individuals, and that those individuals
>act in concert to promote their OWN self interest.  And that 'morals' as
>we know them, spring from the norms associated with social behaviors, 
>rather than the other way around.
>
>Adrienne Regard
>

At the risk of putting words in the mouth of another, let me try to
charactrerize the argument.  Pardon me if I err or oversimplify:

1. People tend to act in their own self interest.
2. People perceive an orderly society to be in their own self
interest.
3. They pass laws and create an enforcement structure to ensure an
orderly society.
4. Post hoc, a method of justifying these laws and structures is
either concocted or just evolves.  Although it may appeals to things
like universal maxims, or unchanging truths, the justification method
is actually quite flexible, if not totally superfluous.

To accept such an argument is to make way for the power hungry.  If we
agree that the notion of universal moral truth is fit only for
religious zealots and the sentimental, we will find ouselves
defenseless when the legislative process falls into the hands of tyrants.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: A Call To High Holy JIHAUD!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:06:19 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] 
] I'd be interested in seeing what in British common law you think
] guarantees a right to privacy. 


well for starters:

'a man's home is his castle'

is not just a slogan.

If you will take a little time, you willl find that I am
NOT OBLIGED to open my door to the Constable! And that the
Constable HAS to have a search warrent to come in witout
my EXPRESSED Authorization.

{yes, Ugly fact, it did take the Baron's Revolt, and
the promulgation of the Magna Carta to Get One KING
to Understand this Wee MINOR point of Common law.}

Granted the Socialists { and the TORIES } have been Chipping away at this
all with such lovely extentions of the 'Official Secrets Act'!!!!

Granted it is a Bit of an INTELLECTUAL LEAP
to go from MY HOUSE to MY BODY.....

Both of which I own/control!

ciao
drieux

ps: yes I know that the line reserves to the states and 
the People.... But are You expecting me to hand to the
Local Central Committee of People's Komisars that which
I will not freely offer up to the Central Committee of 
the PolitBuro?????

Unless Otherwise Delegated, I prefer to retain....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Who to listen to?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:27:29 GMT

In <Bx5E44.8K9@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Nov2.202734.12819@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30.203233.2664@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct29.233916.22798@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>>
>>>> The pro-choice people attack seem to attack alleged "intolerance" by
>>>> pro-lifers by being vulger and obnoxious, just as intolerant as they think
>>>> their opponents are. Notice that the pro-life postings are more polite.
>>>
>>>Yeah, Chaney's comments about Patrick's wife were very polite.  I wish
>>>everybody were as nice as Steve.
>>>
>>But have seen any of what Patrick throws at people?  He's mad at me for
>>merely telling a joke about Clinton, then denies he's a Clinton supporter.
>>I mean, the comments weren't even aimed at him and he took it personally.
>>Even I don't get that angry over someone's comments.

>Do you *work* to be this clueless, Simon?  Point out to me the proof that
>I'm mad at you.

You may not be mad at him, but you sure are obnoxious toward him (going
back to his >>> paragraph), if what you say below is any indication:

>  I doubt I'd be laughing at your drivel so much if I were
>mad at you.  If you were teling a joke, why did you go to such lengths to
>make it appear as anything *but* a joke?  You just concocted that story
>after a couple of people gave you a wigging, and rightfully so.  To top it
>off, you insinuate that I'm a Clinton supporter -- do you have any proof of
>that? 

He contrasted two things you said, one of which was a denial that you
are a Clinton supporter.  Just so happens your denial was a true
statement.  Care to deal with the thing he contrasted it to?

> I know I have proof I'm not -- check the Presidential totals for
>Harris County Precinct 507 in the next couple of days and see how many votes
>Andre Marrou got from there.  Mine will be one of them.  Yep, I'm a real
>Clinton supporter, all right...or are you such a loyal Bush sheep that you
>can't conceive of any opposition other than a Democrat?  You're the one
>that's getting your knickers in a knot because people are rightly pointing
>out that you're acting like an idiot.  That's your problem to deal with, not
>mine...

"loyal Bush sheep"--watch whether Simon gets his knickers in a knot 
because PatricK revenged the (alleged) implication that PatricK is a 
Clinton supporter in this way.

Watch whether his response is even half as obnoxious as what PatricK
just posted.

Peter Ny.
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:20:02 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1da0gmINN1tt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:

>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political
>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>finally over.  Thank God.

Yes.  That is likely to be pretty much that.

(And hopefully sometime after FOCA passes, the Supreme Court will
bring itself to overturn Roe and *finally* admit that several specific
rights to privacy do not a generic right to privacy make.)

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: DOD and RvW yet again
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:41:02 GMT

In <1992Nov6.211309.2531@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com 
   (Ray Fischer) writes: >
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >> 

>>Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
>>provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
>>on-demand?
>
>Because it quite clearly isn't.

That isn't so obvious, given the current classification of
mental disorders.  Are you familiar with the DSM-III-R?

>Are you proposing that women should be denied abortions regardless 
>of medical necessity?  

Is the possibility of "psychological harm" included under the
rubric of "medical necessity"?  

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47361 alt.abortion.inequity:4984 soc.women:19174 soc.men:18956
From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:33:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncsa.1992Nov9.193309.2825
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Originator: jsue@mars.ncsa.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Nov7.023435.10116@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>Besides, you *keep* forgetting:  this is about valuing our own humankind.
>>NOT about reproduction.
>
>Precisely!  It's more important to value a woman than to force her to
>reproduce.
>

I did not say anything about force.  Also, why do you assume that the
woman is more important than the "defined" life inside her?  You are forcing
the choice of which life we value.  Why does there have to be a choice?
The woman doesn't necessarily lose her life in this process, while the
fetus inside does.  There are many other options for the woman, and
many people who are willing to help out.

Hey look, I don't think we ought to outlaw abortions, nor that we ought
to ostracize women who seek them.  However I do believe that our society
should view this as a very important decision, and to support its people
in their choices.  We've gotten to the point where abortion becomes
a method of birth control - and we treat one of our own kind as less than
animals.  I keep remembering an interview with Stevie Nicks where she
tells how she was pregnant 4(!) different times, but had abortions because
the band was going on tour and it just wouldn't be convenient.

I don't think that Stevie Nicks is indicative of our society in general,
but it's sickening that our society sees nothing wrong with this.




-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: The life expectancy of mothers
Originator: jjprice@c00093-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:52:00 GMT


Hi :-)

In a recent article someone brought up the fact that they like to
see people live to a ripe old age of 80.I agreed with them and stated
I hoped I lived that long as it is.

I have gotten many replies stating that a child birth and the 9 months
of strain on the body while carring a z/e/f (sounds dumb I thought she
was carring a baby) shortens her life span.

I was wondering how come females have a longer lifespan than males.
This point seems irrelevant.I do realize that a pregnancy does decrease
the life span but it seems as though nature has compensated and given
women a longer lifespan.


-Jeff Price

	"What is legally permissible rapidly comes to be seen as
	 morally acceptable" 
			- Cardinal Cahal Daly of Ireland
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
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: Sat, 7 Nov 92 02:46:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.040523.13980@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>Keith Cochran candidly admitted:
>
>>"...let me
>> tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>
>> 1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>
>What when she's in a coma?  There was a case a few years back when a
>pro-life group went to court to stop a man from having his comatose
>wife given a very late abortion (he had some reason to believe it
>would bring her out of the coma; she did recover a couple of months
>later)....  In that case the judge threw it out of court ruling lack
>of standing.  Would you have let him do it?

I don't know.  One of the reasons why I refuse to advocate any sort of
legislation wrt abortion is that I know I don't know.

I suppose in this sort of case I would treat it like any case where one
person is in a coma.  The Spousal Equivelant/Parents/Guardian/Whatever
would have to be the ones to decide, in consultation with the doctor(s)
involved.

--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion