HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Originator: jjprice@c00065-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:07:44 GMT


ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
|>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|>>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
|>>|>>I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.
|>>|>
|>>|>Coward.  You want to set the rules but refuse to own up to the
|>>|>consequences.
|>>|>
|>>Name calling is so easy whta do you mean I refuse to own up to the 
|>>consequences? Or maybe you mean since I am a man I can't get pregnant?
|>
|>Well lessee here.
|>1) You face no chance of getting pregnant.
Biological reasons prevent me... Maybe I would like to experience pregnancy
but I am physically incapable.

|>2) It isn't going to your pain of delivery
No but I will share my wife's (when I get married) joy in bringing a new life 
into the world.

|>3) It isn't going to be you risking death
I wake-up each day and risk death so...

|>4) You aren't offering to pay for anyone's delivery
If my wife got pregnant I would pay if I were the money earner for the
household.

|>5) You aren't offering to pay for prenatal care
See Above. I will pay for things I did..

|>6) You aren't offering to adopt
Currently living in a dorm as an 18 year-old jobless college student I 
don't think there are many agencies out there that would allow me to adopt.

|>7) You aren't offering to support a woman while she goes through birth
If it is my wife or girlfriend I'm offering but seeing as I have niether at
the time no I'm not offering.
|>
|>In short, you aren't offering anything.  Why then do you think you
|>have any say whatever in what a woman does with her body?
I'm offering mine and my wife's child a home. And you better believe
I will offer every unborn child the same chance to be with thier parent's
or to be adopted by getting rid or abortion.

|>
|>>I don't plan on engaging in any activity that could get a female pregnant until
|>>I am married or until I am ready to accept the resposibility if she gets 
|>>pregnant and to raise the child together.
|>
|>Good for you.
|>
At least I accept the responsiblity of my actions!!!!
\
|>By the way, should your future wife die during childbirth, will you 
|>be dying as well?
|>
A very large part of me would die and that would be my wife. No me personally
would not die but part of my hapiness and body would die.

|>-- 
|>Ray Fischer  

-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:29:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.034023.26197@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.024428.134895@watson.ibm.com> 
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> Both that I didn't enjoy your post and that I didn't send any *threatening*
>> email.
>But are you admitting that you sent e-mail to my system administrators
>asking that someone should talk to me about my posts?  You don't
>call that threatening?  What were you expecting them to do? 
Even if your sysadmins threatened you, that would not make Larry's
email threatening. It struck me as rather polite, actually. Even
if Larry had asked them to threaten you, his email STILL wouldn't
have been threatening. In fact, I fail to see how any threat Larry
would make against your system admins would be anything but laughable.
Remember, Usenet is an anarchy.

>And contacting system administrators is right, huh?  Don't 
>even bother to e-mail the poster first, just go right to the 
>system administrators -- is that how you normally operate?
It's not how *I* normally operate. I can't speak for Larry.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:25:31 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <BxqCyB.K5A@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
by parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker):
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> 
>>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 ""? :-)
> 
> Well, I haven't seen that film, but to answer your question(s)...

Thanks for answering my questions.  This has the makings of an
interesting discussion, as long as the bickering juveniles don't
get wind of it...

> A person whose brain function *is* indefinitely suspended is not
> a "person" at that time.

Please tell me why I should believe this.  It's not intuitive or
obvious *to me*, and at present I believe the opposite.  Are you
arguing from a legal standpoint?  A philosophical or ethical one?
Or do you just think that the issue is self-evident?

> (whether or not we know about it for sure is another matter)

I agree.  But it's a relevant matter, at least in the practice
of defining - and therefore granting and revoking - personhood
and the rights attached to it.

> When their brain function is restored they are again a "person".
> (BTW, humans don't have rights, *people* have rights.

Again, I need some help here.  Is this your opinion, something
that you feel is self-evident?  Or can you show me some reason to
accept this as a norm of legal and/or moral thought?

> A coma patient is still a human even though he/she may not be a
> "person" at the time.)
> In the mean time, most of their "rights" would be transfered to a
> caring relative instead.  ie, the coma patient doesn't have a right
> to live (if brain function is truly suspended),
> but the *relative* has a right to insist that the patient be kept
> alive in the hope that brain function would resume in the future.
> 
> Legally, rights over property are given to someone else in such a
> situation-- typically a relative or an attourney--so we already accept
> this sort of thing.

Hmm.  I think you're referring to power of attorney, and it seems
that this could be viewed as acting as the incapacitated person's
representative, exercising their rights for them, but not "possessing"
that person's rights.  I would argue that the "caring relative"
described above merely provides a voice for a person who cannot
speak.

The Declaration of Independence refers to certain rights as
"inalienable".  According to Webster, this means "that may not be
taken away or transferred."  That's what I believe about the
rights of people.

> -Rob

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory ... [torturing cats]
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:30:46 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.aero.org
Summary: long way around an argument
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <1992Nov19.151140.13819@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <1ecpmpINN2vp@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>>	I've been reading way too much about torturing cats; it looks
>>	an awful lot like an appeal to emotion (a tactic usually reserved
>>	for those who have no substantive arguments to offer). How about
>>	changing it to torturing cockroaches?  Or, better yet, talking
>>	about abortion?  
>
>The example was advanced in response to a view many people seem to
>hold that in principle it is wrong to keep someone from doing what he
>wishes as long as he isn't violating the rights of some other person.
>I think the example shows that view is wrong, and so it is relevant to
>the discussion.  I would agree that there are many differences between
>torturing cats and having an abortion.

	As far as I know, the offense committed by a cat-torturer
	is an offense against the senses and sensibilities of *other*
	*people,* in a class with public nudity and maintaining a
	smelly mess in one's own back yard.  Consequently, I don't 
	think the example shows a legitimate fault.  Considering that
	there are "many differences" between torturing cats and abortion,
	I'd prefer to read discussions that stick to the latter.
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:31:29 GMT

eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
->dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
->>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->>>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
->>>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 

->>No there is not.  At least not legislative. 

->Truth by Blatant Assertion.

i'm afraid posting cute, trite and inaccurate
statements doesn't make them so, ms. bartley. it
appears you're demonstrating truth by blatant assertion
rather than applying it to dan's comment.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:06:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.065624.29065@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.210653.15302@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> Abortions can be legally performed all the
>>> way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason. 
>
>> Wrong. The sources you provided prove only that post-viability abortions
>> done for the woman's >>HEALTH<< are constitutionally protected, Doug.
>
>Right, and in Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court has defined the term 
>"health" to include emotional and psychological health.
>
>> "Health reasons" != "virtually any reason"
>
>It should be painfully obvious that if a woman is denied
>an abortion, she will quite likely suffer emotional distress.
>She can say "I need an abortion because my emotional health
>will suffer if I don't get one".  Instant abortion-on-demand. 

That's _not_ a professional diagnosis, Doug, even if the woman is a medical
and/or psychological professional. A professional diagnosis requires 
distance and objectivity and adherence to established principles of the 
profession. That's why there's a huge gulf between "health reasons" and 
"virtually any reason". A safe gulf. A gulf that'll never be crossed in the
foreseeable future.

You're an engineer, aren't you? So I assume you would find it rather insulting 
if someone went around claiming that engineers build bridges and spaceships
and chemical processing plants, and PC motherboards "virtually any way
they want to", like, say, out of Silly Putty (TM), if they felt like it. 
Wouldn't you wave the standards of your profession in such a person's face? 
Yet you're going around insulting the medical and psychological professions in 
very much the same way as the Silly Putty (TM) blowhard. Don't you think those 
professions are governed by standards that are just as rigorous and just as 
enthusiastically enforced as those of an engineer?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:13:38 GMT

>> Jim Kalb
> Ray Fischer

>>I suppose all life has some value and should not be wantonly
>>destroyed, but there can be justifications for destroying life.  Food,
>>shelter and sanitation for human beings come to mind in connection
>>with your particular examples.

>If there can be justifications for destroying life, then why can't
>there also be justifications for abortion?

True.  And to Jim:  What if I kill my fetus in order to eat it?  What if
I kill my baby because it is unsanitary?  In other words, what makes it
OK to kill non-human life but not OK to kill human life?

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 6
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:14:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.222645.24532@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>
>I take you out in my boat knowing that you can't swim and that you're
>extraordinarily clumsy (as helpless as a babe, you might say).  If you
>fall in, my guess is that I would be held legally responsible to pull
>you out.  On the other hand, if some third party threw you into the
>water next to my boat I believe I would have no such responsiblity.
>Your right to live would be the same in either case, but my legal
>obligation to help realize that right would depend on whether the
>danger you were in resulted from my action or from the action of a
>third party.

Oh, please. Consider the marginal cost/benefit of saving, on the one hand,
an able-bodied, educated, income-producing adult, at a cost of getting a
little wet, with, on the other hand, saving a small, blobby, unthinking,
uncommunicating, non-contributing human organism at the cost of 9 months
of pain, discomfort, lost economic productivity, serious medical costs, and
risks of continuing medical costs or even death for the mother? Doesn't it 
occur to you that the example is so wildly non-analogous from the point of 
view of economic efficiency, as to be totally worthless?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48088 talk.religion.misc:21180 alt.atheism:21326
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 16 Nov 1992 16:02:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   If one examines the wording of the ten commandements carefully
one wil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:35:56 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

> while this may be an unpopular statement, i don't think
> you should run a net.idiot election for Phoney. he's
> too new and hasn't earned the multi-newsgroup
> disrespect over time that darcy, k*nt, t*d have.
> conducting a vote for Phoney would be like giving a kid
> who won a few golden gloves matches a heavyweight title
> shot.

I see your point.  The Perfesser has been active in other newsgroups
but I don't think he has accrued the low esteem elsewhere that he has
in talk.abortion.  He has certainly earned the title of group.idiot
by acclamation.

Perhaps over time, a broader exposure of his unique talents in other
forums will bring him a chair (a high chair, actually) on the Council.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48937 alt.rush-limbaugh:10135
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:17:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Elizabeth Cornelia Green) writes:
: Boy do you have some messed up ideas!  
: You think abortions should be used as a source of birthcontrol if
: necessary?!?  And that the practice of abstinence is a ridiculous
: solution?!?!!  Wow you're confused.  
: 
: I (obviously) agree with the other side of the argument.
: 
: Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
: only 100% certain method.  
: If a couple considers themselves adult enough to engage in sex, they
: should face the adult responsibilities that might accompany the action. 
: And making sure that the child that results from your actions is cared
: for is an obvious responsibility.  I strongly believe that killing that
: child through an abortion is not facing your responsibilities.
: 
: Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
: No Sex is Safe Sex.  
: Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
: will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
: result from sex, either.
: 
: Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
: already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
: of you?
: 
: 
:                           --Elizabeth C Green
:                            Carnegie Mellon University

Well, some of the rest of us disagree with you.  That's what's
wrong with us, I guess, insofar as "disagreeing with Elizabeth C.
Green" can be said to be a disorder...

Bill    
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is not unrestricted abortion-on-demand
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:11:48 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Nov21.023245.24449@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.013356.38066@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>> Abortions can be legally performed all the way up to the
>>>>> point of birth for virtually any reason.
>
>>>> This is a lie.
>
>>> No, it's the truth: abortions can be legally performed all the
>>> way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason.
>
>> Not in the 30 or so states which have restrictions against it.
>
>The states can't enforce a law which is unconstitutional under
>Roe v. Wade, because it would be challenged if the state attempted
>to prosecute a doctor for performing a post-viability abortion:

Note that the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989 has a number of
third-trimester restrictions.  Some sections of the act were found to be
unconstitutional (in PP V. Casey), but of course the third trimester
restrictions weren't even challenged.

>>> BTW, are you going to send threatening e-mail to my system
>>> administrators for this post?
>
>> Why would I do that, Dougie?  I've never sent threatening e-mail to
>> *anyone's* system administrator.
>
>Sure you have, you just sent some threatening e-mail to my
>system administrators today, and they sent me a copy of it.
>I just posted it to talk.abortion under the subject line
>"Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins".

You're lying again, Dougie - there was nothing threatening.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49313 alt.flame:15071 misc.legal:20330
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:27:13 GMT
Summary: The Reverend Doug Holtsinger - psychic or psycho?
Keywords: Garvin refuted

In article <1992Nov20.190344.9447@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <nyikos.722267650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> > [.. Jeff Greenfield's post ..]
> 
> > BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
> > attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
> > things she has written.
> 
> Of course she does endorse Jeff Greenfield's bogus arguments.

I don't recall Susan writing that.  I guess the Reverend Doug
is a psychic now, reading minds.  I think Susan is quite able to speak
for herself, and if she wants to respond she will and if she doesn't
she doesn't have to.

> But notice how she never addressed your rebuttal of his arguments,
> nor did anyone else.   

I've been ignoring a lot of what you write lately Reverend,
because the arguments you post have been refuted numerous times
and shown to be misrepresentations of the original authors or
just poor arguments.  There are a lot of things posted here that
I don't respond to, like some character I just caught a whiff of
who thinks women and doctors ahould be executed for obtaining
or performing abortions (pro-life, eh?).  Just because a dog
barks doesn't mean I have to answer.


Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:31:54 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|>In short, you aren't offering anything.  Why then do you think you
>|>have any say whatever in what a woman does with her body?

>I'm offering mine and my wife's child a home. And you better believe
>I will offer every unborn child the same chance to be with thier parent's
>or to be adopted by getting rid or abortion.

In short, you aren't offering anything.  Why then do you think you
have any say whatever in what a woman does with her body?  If you're
only willing to pay for your own children, what gives you the right to
insist that _other_ people have children?

>|>>I don't plan on engaging in any activity that could get a female pregnant until
>|>>I am married or until I am ready to accept the resposibility if she gets 
>|>>pregnant and to raise the child together.
>|>
>|>Good for you.
>|>
>At least I accept the responsiblity of my actions!!!!

Good, by all means accept the responsibility for YOUR actions.  Do not
presuppose you have the right to determine OTHER people's actions
without also assuming the responsibility for other people's actions.

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