HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:25:47 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <BxzFy1.KA3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.203906.103034@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <Bxy8KK.KwF@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>How would you have the people of this net interpret this line?  I have
>>>>used your postings so far as an example to Will of people who feel that
>>>>if they don't get what they want with issueA, then they WILL remove from
>>>>women the right to abort.  Is that or is that not a correct interpretation
>>>>of your position?
>>>
>>>A correct interpretation of my position is that if women aren't interested
>>>in equality in the reproductive and child-support process, then perhaps men
>>>have it in their best interest to gain equality by removing choices from
>>>women.
>>
>>He doesn't want a child.  She doesn't want a child.  If the birth control
>>fails, they can get an abortion.  If you take away this choice, you're
>>screwing *both* of them.  That's in *nobody's* best interest.
>
>But if your vote tips the balance, then by taking away (or threatening to)
>a power held currently by women, you encourage those women (and men)
>who otherwise aren't interested to support your position.

But I think it would be wrong to take it away (as well as not in *my* best
interests), so I certainly wouldn't do that.  And I don't make empty threats.

>In the long run, you support *everybody's* best interest, if you succeed.

The end justifies the means?

>>Sounds like a pretty stupid position to me.
>
>I wouldn't call it admirable (I would call it childish)
>but it sounds like standard politics.

Like I said, ...  :-)

>To call it "stupid" out of hand sounds a little shortsighted.

Not "out of hand".

>It may be stupid,
>pragmatically speaking, if it gets regarded as childish -- but
>this sort of technique works (and fails) all the time.

So do other forms of blackmail.  Doesn't make it right.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: ray fischer's abortion "restrictions"
Summary: when does restriction become imprisonment?
Keywords: dance the dance, semantics
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:33:56 GMT

several times in the past eight or ten days, i've asked
ray fischer if he wants to imprison the women who have
banned abortions. ray has denied ever calling for a ban
and he has pointed out that "restrict" is different
than "ban."

ray never answered my question about imprisoning women. i
don't know exactly what restrictions he wants. he seems
a bit timid about expressing his views.

i suppose putting pregnant women in a cage would
restrict them.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:12:50 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

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.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: NCAR
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:26:59 GMT

>    = frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#   = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>#>  = 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)...
>#> A person whose brain function *is* indefinitely suspended is not
>#> a "person" at that time.
>#
>#An observation: this is an interesting subject, and certainly reasonable
>#persons will disagree.  But even without resolving the issue, clearly 
>#this discussion illustrates that mere physical resemblance to persons, 
>#"human life", and "beating hearts" do not imply "personhood".
>
>You left out "brains".  That's a mere physical resemblance too.  

Yes, the physical presence of a brain is also a mere physical resemblance.
So, would you agree with me that the presence of a brain is, in itself, 
insufficient to establish "personhood"?   Warning: to state otherwise leads 
rather quickly to some absurd notions of "personhood".

>By the way,
>Brian, if we leave out every physical resemblance, we must now confine
>ourselves to mystic truths.  I can live with that, but I doubt if you can.

That's nice, but *I* never said anything like "leave out every physical 
resemblance".  I said "mere physical resemblance" is insufficient to
establish "personhood".

And you're right, I'd probably have a hard time basing my opinions
only on "mystic truths".  BTW, exactly what are "mystic truths" anyway?

>P.S. Your observation about personhood contains a circular argument.  
>Mystics don't get those problems, you really should try it.

I suppose my observation could be considered circular in that I assume
there exist "persons" whose "personhood" is self-evident (eg. myself, the
people I work with, my neighbors, typical infants & children, etc).  
I then use these "indisputable persons" as a LARGE set of reference points 
to which some being might be compaired in an attempt to establish whether 
or not this being might reasonably be considered a "person".
Now if you reject my assumption, then certainly you will find my
observation circular.

-Brian
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:21:20 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb):

>Because the z/e/f has value not that different from the value of an
>infant, because the only way the woman can avoid the servitude is by
>destroying the z/e/f and because apart from cases of rape (and
>presumably incest) requiring the continuation of the pregnancy would
>not violate any right of autonomy any more than the general rule that
>people are responsible for the forseeable results of their actions
>does.

Your assertion about the value of the /z/e/f/ is your opinion, and you
are entitled to it.  I just don't understand why you want to enact
laws that force everyone to conform to it.  Your argument that you can
justify this in terms of the forseeable results of action simply does
not hold water.  We regularly release people from responsibilities
that have a much stronger link with particular behaviors than the link
between a pregnancy and an act of sex.

SJM
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim gives rationale for pro-choice stance in 1 sentence.
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:56:06 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov21.165104.10764@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes: 

>Another way of looking at it is to treat the preservation and
>enhancement of the particular human lives that actually exist as
>important.

Precisely, this is why living women should be allowed to control their
own bodies even at the expense of potential people.  If you believe
otherwise, please give an example where a non-criminal person is ever
compelled to give bodily servitude to an existing person.

>And what should people do if their principles differ and lead them
>into conflict?  It seems to me the outcome is the war of all against
>all unless they can find some principles to agree on.

You are not proposing a war of all against all; you are proposing a
punishment for some (women) in the name of all (our legal system).
Can you say Jihad, Jim?  How many lashes would you prescribe for women
who do not do everything in their power to ensure that the child they
are being forced to bear turns out healthy?  Would you personally like
to administer this punishment?

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.222504.113100@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov20.174446.10649@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>And if you wish to quibble over the wording of the question, please reconsider
>>just expediting this issue by answering the ultimate question:
>>
>>       In your opinion, does a woman have an unconditional, absolute legal
>>       right to abort at any time in her pregnancy, for any reason?
>
>Since Roe v. Wade clearly allows for restrictions, the answer is obviously No.
>Did you mean to ask if she *should* have such a legal right?

Many people (including, I suspect, all pro-choice Extremists) consider RvW 
"bad law", Larry, but for the sake of expediting the resolution to this 
Extremism sub-issue, I'll gladly pose, as a separate question:

	In your opinion, should a woman have an unconditional, absolute legal
	right to abort at any time in her pregnancy, for any reason?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:15:04 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
(Adrienne Regard) advises Kevin Darcy:
> 
> But don't go telling other people that you can sue for fraud in an unen-
> forceable situation, because that's doing people who would (be stupid
> enough to) listen to you a GRAVE disservice.

Kevin has, in the past, shown a strong predilection to give horribly
misguided legal advice without benefit of a license or, for that matter, a
clue.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48622 talk.religion.misc:21553 alt.atheism:21672
From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:25:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov19.210645.6256@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> Then we get to the question of his alleged direct decent from king David.
>> Ever notice in Matthew it traces Jesus ancestry through JOSEPH to David?
>
>And in the Gospel of Luke, his ancestry his traced through MARY to David.
>So there you have it.  A direct bloodline.
  
  Purely anecdotal and unsubstantiated by the very text from which
  you pull the bloodline under question.  In other words, wriggling
  or outright intellectual dishonesty.

>> Ever notice the contradictions in the geneologies given in the other gospels?
>
>Heh?  Just because one's paternal and one's maternal does not mean they
>contradict.

  How could Jesus have a paternal bloodline, you dolt?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:13:16 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>}What I would like to see are laws that allow a woman to terminate a 
>}pregnancy at any time, but requires that an attempt be made to save 
>}the life of the fetus when practical and when it does not place the 
>}mother at great additional risk.  Granted, this may not always be
>}possible, but when it is, it should be required.
>
>Why would you like to see this?  Is it a problem?  Is it common?
>Why do you think the legal system should handle this, anyway?
>Who gets to pay for it?

Some sort of clarification regarding the status of fetuses _is_
needed.  If a woman is assaulted and subsequently miscarries, the
assailant may (or may not) be charged with manslaughter.  Does this
mean a fetus is a person?  Is this a good thing?  Should manslaughter
charges apply to fetuses?

If the fetus is wholly a non-person until the moment of birth, then
such cases are clearly inappropriate; the assailant cannot be charged
with manslaughter.  I suspect few women are happy with this
interpretation.  An alternative is to give the fetus legal
protections, however, this will mean that the fetus is protected from
the mother as well.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.pets.cats,soc.singles,alt.romance.chat
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Now JUST HOLD ON A MOMENT THERE BUD!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:26:32 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] 
] Thanks, Catwoman.  Purrrrr.
] 
] Gordon
] Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
] Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
] "CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
] [space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]


HISSING SOUND followed by the lowering of ears,
arching of Back and other Displays.

Need I say ANYTHING MORE!

ciao
drieux


ps: You can Have My ProblemOlderWoman when You Pry her
from my DEAD COLD HANDS!!!!

pps: thank God I'm not one of those Archie Bunker types
who is territorial about relationships and all....


ObWarning: You wouldn't want us to get into a MarkingTerritoryContest
now would you??????


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49055 talk.religion.misc:21762 alt.atheism:21841
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Keywords: choice question
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:24:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Nov21.200136.13932@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
}In article <1992Nov20.205249.23225@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <1992Nov20.131714.10234@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu 
}>(Mark McCullough) writes:
}>
}>}People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
}>}the end all.  If people want abortion legal or outlawed, pass a law.
}>}Don't try to read it into the constitution.  Of course I would never
}>}last as a judge, if the constitution doesn't make a reference to it,
}>}it isn't in the constitution.  A horrible attitude I know, but it is
}>}real life.
}>
}>Perhaps it escaped you Mark, but all things are legal until someone
}>passes a law making them illegal.  I suspect you should check out 
}>"real" sometime, as in "real life."
}	Let's be charitable (c'mon, it can't hurt just this once!) and note
}that what we really have here is a philosophical difference between the
}Statist and Individualist mentalities.  

I'm not really sure why I am included in this follow-up,
as I am neither a Statist, Individualist, Papist, Fascist, 
or whatever.  It is trivially simple.  If there are no 
laws, nothing is illegal.  It takes passage of a law to
make something illegal.  It doesn't matter whether you 
include Republicans, Democrats, Jains, Bhuddists, Baptists,
or Jews.  (Sorry if anyone felt left out).  Oh, I have to 
confess that some call me a speleologist, so I am guilty
of belonging to one of the "ist"s.  The society I
belong to is one of the larger underground societies, too...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:43:09 GMT

> = clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> = (Mark McCullough) writes:

>> How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>> do appear to be quite different):
>> 
>> He mellowed.

>Jesus came!

Did he have a cigarette afterwards?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: My friend turns two
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:43:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.011729.4677@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
writes:

}Saving lives is what anti-killing laws are all about.

There are people who will disagree with this.  They will argue that 
legislation has little to do with saving life.  I am one of those
people.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 2
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:05:57 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32779@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>The
>whole dispute depends on whether you or the woman carrying a child is
>better qualified to decide how to handle the pregnancy.

That is an appropriate way to view the situation if it is accepted
that abortion is an acceptable way to handle a pregnancy and the only
question is whether to choose it in the particular situation.  Of
course, not everyone looks at things that way.  From the pro-life
point of view, you might as well say that a dispute between those who
do and those who don't want to forbid torturing cats to death for fun
depends on whether the owner or some interfering do-gooder is best
qualified to decide how to handle the situation in which cat owners
find themselves.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:22:54 GMT

In article <1ej28kINNi66@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxzHMB.LvI@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1ebu7hINNchd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>>>>>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>>>>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>>>>>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>>>>>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>>>>>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
>>>>>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
>>>>>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.
>>>
>>>What is so hard about donning a condom to protect yourself?
>>
>>Perhaps here's the problem:  in the last couple of posts I've seen,
>>only the women seem to believe that condoms are highly reliable.
>>That's an interesting comment in itself.

>don, you are having a hard time getting you own reasoning straight.

Well, one of us is.


>IF the woman WANTs a child enough to entrap a man, she isn't about to use
>a birth control method, is she?  She isn't about to be thinking that condoms
>are 100% reliable, is she?  No.  THAT woman will support completely his
>choice NOT to use a condom.

And if he does choose to use a condom?  Does he now have any legal 
recourse to avoiding the economic, emotional, and legal burdens of 
fatherhood, if the condom fails?


>IF the woman DOESN'T want to become pregnant, she very well may use her own
>method of birth control -- and will probably tell him so, if he were curious
>enough to ask.  And he may trust her birth control to be 'enough', or he
>may ACTUALLY engage the gray matter between his ears and figure that ADDITIONAL
>birth control is in his best interests, TOO! 

Your misandry is showing, Adrienne.  "Curious enough to ask"?  "ACTUALLY"?

The point is that a man *must* face the 50-50 chance (per decade of sex)
of forced fatherhood, if he relies upon the word of another person.

The alternative is abstinence.

You haven't suggested any other alternatives.


signed,  another disingenuous idiot,

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:24:27 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
# It's pretty clear to all of us, I think, that cancer is always unwelcome, and
# pregnancy isn't.  I don't imagine women will voluntarily place cancer cells
# in their womb anytime soon, and I don't believe you do either.

I have several benign cancers I am in no hurry to have removed.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain