HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice (Not!)
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:50:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bz87p8.JFG@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
#In article <502@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##Sigh.  I was right.
##
##Some of prefer to be allowed to live at least parts of our lives
##without state interference.  
#
#So do men.  

Obviously the man who said "Why not?" disagrees with you.  I know
several more who do, as well.  When I said, "Some of us" I wasn't
referring to women only.  

#So repeal the child support laws and make this a pure
#contractual issue, with the rights and responsibilities falling where they
#should, on the person who makes the choice -- the woman.
#
#Now, you have no state interferance.  If you choose to sleep with a man, and
#wish to bear a child if you get pregnant, get a contract signed first that
#says he's willing to pay <x> if you're single, or that custody and finances
#will be handled as <y> if you are married and split up.

Who enforces the contract, Denninger?  

#Otherwise, what you're really saying is that you want all the advantages in
#this situation, as I suspected.

Oh, really?  I was discussing having everything codified.  You've made
the leap to this meaning that I want all the advantages in a child
support situation.  That's an interesting leap, since I'm not ever
going to be in the that situation.  Of course, from what I've seen
of your articles, you seem to believe everyone is as obsessed by 
child support as you are.

##That's my problem - it's not the same standard.  You might try re-reading
##what I wrote.  I don't think that many women would deny a child a
##relationship with his or her father if the man agreed to it, regardless
##of any previous agreements.  You automatically assumed that I would
##do this.  I doubt that I could.  
##
##Even if the woman did try to stop any such meeting, the child will
##eventually grow up and be independent.  It's possible that a
##relationship with the father might occur then.
##
##There is nothing that is analogous to abortion.  Granting men the
##right to refuse to pay child support will not make things equal.
##That was all I was saying.  
#
#Sure it will.  It will mean that women, if they want a man's cooperation,
#will have to secure it contractually or "be nice" as they may choose,
#instead of being able to beat men over the head with "child support" and
#"dead beat dads".

I guess that you don't want to read what I wrote.  The alternative
is that you don't understand it.

Would a man who failed to honor his contractual abligations be
considered a deadbeat dad?  Does it matter - you specified no
state involvement above, so there's no way to enforce these
contracts.  It sounds to me as if you want all the advantages
(a relationship with your child, the right to support that child
at your whim, etc.) but no real responsibilities.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:46:46 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Dec16.161128.17605@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes...
>
>KD> Good luck.   It was reported today in the Chicago Sun Times that a 2nd
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>KD> trimester fetus has been successfully saved after VERY premature birth.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>KD> This wall is going to keep being pushed back, and we had better put in a
>KD> retaining wall somewhere behind the current state of technology.  If we
>KD> fail to do so, we risk having this decision made for all of us "in the
>KD> interest of the children".
>
>You're kidding!?!

No, I am not.  In the front section on the 16th I read the article.  I read
that paper on the train every morning (since the Trib went to 50 cents I
switched over to the Sun Times)

It was a late second-tri preemie, and required being put on artificial
respiration and the entire works, but the baby >did< survive.  The "birth"
was actually more properly a miscarriage -- but they saved the fetus/child.

We >are< going to run into this on an increasing basis.  

Now, what was that again about women having no interest in working with i
men on this issue?

>Wow.. at any rate, would you be willing to transcribe the article onto a.a.i
>and t.a. for us, or if it's too long, would I be able to ask that you mail a
>photocopy of it to me?

If I had it I would, unfortunately the paper makes it only to the train
station where it gets deposited in the trash.

Sorry; don't have the article.  However, I bet one can find it easily enough
if you're truly determined.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 DEC 92 19:18:36 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>> 
>>>Are you aware that you just said that 100% of rape victims survive?
>>>I think you wanted to say "can not consider that her life is in much 
>>>jeopardy."
>>> 
>>>Maybe not statistically speaking, but since it is not expected that everyone 
>>>know these statistics it is reasonable for someone being physically, and 
>>>brutally attacked to believe that their life is in danger.
>> 
>>Are you aware that not 100% of pregnant women survive?  Isn't it equally 
>>reasonable for an unwillingly pregnant woman to believe her life is in 
>>danger?  After all, there is always some risk.  When it's all over, the 
>>probablity of death for each woman is either 0 (she's alive) or 1 (she's 
>>dead), but during every pregnancy the risk is somewhere greater than 0 but 
>>less than 1.  It's impossible to determine for certain what the outcome will 
>>be until it happens.  
> 
>By this reasoning, when I get into a car, there is some possability that 
>someone will kill me in a car accident, and I am therefore justified in 
>killing all other drivers to protect myself.

Why go that far?  Why not just assess the risk and decide if you want to 
continue driving cars?  Why not let pregnant women decide if they want to 
continue a pregnancy or not based on their assessment of the risk involved?
See, in your scenario, you are killing other people, which you do not have a 
right to do.  There is no such person being killed in an abortion.

>>Every pregnant woman faces some risk of death from her condition, whether it's 
>>0.0001 or 0.9999.  Why would you not allow them to use lethal force to protect 
>>their lives?  Especially when you admitted in a previous post that you would 
>>use whatever force necessary to prevent a man from using your body against 
>>your will.
> 
>I never admitted any such thing, and you know it.  I admitted I would use 
>lethal force to protect myself against violent, forced sex.  You somehow 
>twisted that.

What do you think violent forced sex is?  It involves someone using your body 
against your will.  
	
				.... Heather.
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MURDER
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:09:27 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona


 (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:27:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.152835.22126@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  
clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu>  
romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
> >
> >ABORTION IS MURDER
> >no elaboration required.
> 	And no tiresome thought processes, either.
> 	It's amazing.  Do this clueless geek actually think he's the
> first person ever to jump in here and yell ABORTION IS MURDER in all  
caps?
> Does he really expect anything aside from flames like this one?  Is  
there a
> point to this sort of juvenile behavior?
> 	Pinkboy.
> 
> The_Doge
> 

Well actually I do have my reasons for oppossing abortion, but since most  
of the pro abortion crowd is so illogical and unreasonable I just thought  
I'd come down to their (your) level.
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MURDER
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:45:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1992Dec17.043415.9969@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.181355.8049@advtech.uswest.com>  
>steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> > = (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> 
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 
>> When you finally get around to taking a class, Karl baby, kindly tell
>> every woman you can what you think of abortion.  Then come back and let
>> us know how your love life isn't.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> steven@advtech.USWest.Com
>
>Well Steve, you guessed wrong, I'm involved in a steady relationship.  
>The idea that all women are pro aboortion is wrong.
>
>Karl

I'll second that.  My SO is definitely female and extremely pro-life.

David............
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:44:26 GMT

> = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>Here are a few
>
>"Thou shalt not kill"
>"Thou shalt not steal"
>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>In some states adultery is illegal.
>All of these are based in religion.  
>I think that a few of them make pretty good laws.

I suspect it would be rather easy to find examples of "religion" condoning
killing, stealing, working on sunday, polygamy, and having sex with someone
other than your spouse.  In fact, I suspect if you read the bible (the parts
you'd probably rather ignore), you'll find most items condoned (if not 
encouraged) there.  Hypocritical?  Yes.  Sorry to shatter your little dream 
world.  Perhaps you'd rather go back to sleep, everythings still happy 
in FuzzyBunnyLand (tm).

Further observations:
o don't kill or steal
  Can you justify your claim that these are uniquely religious concepts
  (I doubt it). Seems that they are rather obvious concepts and where most 
  likely simply co-opted from existing norms.
o close stores on sunday
  Excuse me, but, why is it a good idea for stores to be closed on Sunday, and
  what would be a reasonable punishment for those who disagree?
o one spouse
  I guess that depends what religion you've chosen.  More specifically, 
  which sect of christianity you've choosen.
o adultery
  I guess that depends what religion you're following.
  I recall hearing something about "temporary wives" lately, coming from the 
  HolyBook (tm) of one of the world's OneTrueFundamentalistReligions (tm).
  And what does the bible have to say about having sex with servants?
  I give you a hint: look before the part with the instructions for 
  burnt live-animal offerings.

BTW: exactly which religion *is* the OneTrueReligion (tm).  And what makes
*you* uniquely qualified to identify it?  Could it be ... vanity?
Or perhaps personal taste?  If you jump off a cliff, why should we follow?

-Brian
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Summary: All laws in the US are not in the hands of the majority
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:35:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

Haven't posted or even read here in a while.  I've been
having a lot of laughs at the strange and twisted attempts
at logic of this Finkelstein chappie.  He has almost a gift
for being in error.  Anyway, came across this in one of his
postings and just figured I'd drop y'all a line to let you
know I survived the Nor'easter of '92, albeit with three days
without electricity, heat, or hot water.   Not too bad.  Certainly
better than a lot of other unfortunate people.

In article <11DEC92.17172495@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> Susan Garvin wrote: 
> >(1)  Not all laws are decided by a vote from 
> >the majority of the electorate.  Very few are.  Many decisions are
> >made by courts, and most of the rest by legislative bodies.
> 
> Which are elected by a vote of the majority.  Ultimately, all laws are in the 
> hands of the majority.  They vote for polititians who will represent their 
> views when making the laws.  It may not be direct, but it is the majorities 
> wishes that are ulitimately carried out.

This statement by the Finkelstein is incorrect.  Rights, as defined
by the Constitution are not the product of any sort of majority
vote.  As interpreted by the Supreme Court, legal issues settled on
Constitutional principles are not the product of any sort of majority
vote.  In point of fact, the very reason that rights were laid
out in the Bill of Rights by the Founding non-gender-specific
Parents was to prohibit the "tyranny of the majority over the
minority."  It would take far more than a majority vote to alter
those rights as defined by the Constitution.

Furthermore, it is a strange and rosey picture that the
Finkelstein paints to claim that politicians represent the views
of the majority in their passing of laws.  Many laws do not
represent the electorate's wishes, and it is naive and ignorant
to claim otherwise.  This is speculation on my part, but I would
warrant that farm subsidies for tobacco growers, for example,
would never get past an informed and empowered majority.  Yet
Congress provides these subsidies.  Legislation in the Congress
has as much or more to do with the mutual scratching of backs
and vast barrels of pork than it has to do with the wishes of the
majority.  In fact, special interests are the order of the day,
in spite of Madison.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 DEC 92 13:39:34 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu show us yet again that he 
does not know the difference between his fantasies and reality:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:

Loren, this is what you wrote.  You brought up the idea of you and me and 
having sex, totally out of the blue and unrelated to any issue we were 
discussing.  

>>>If insist on using this scenario, then my refusal to agree is equivalent 
>>>to refraining from sex with you because you don't want me to wear a condom. 

You wrote about it, so you must have been thinking about it, right?  I mean do 
you expect me to believe that you post things without giving them any thought 
what so ever first?

Oh, wait a minute.  I do believe that.  Okay, forget I asked.

>No.  If I were entertaining thoughts of sex with you (which I am not) then I 
>would refrain for the same reason I did last time.  You didn't want me to wear 
>a condom, and I didn't think that was safe.  

Loren, you are not a teenage boy any more.  Don't you think it's time to put 
your fantasies about older women behind you and try to have a real life?  

>Doesn't the title pro-life mean that you want abortion to be illegal?  
>Otherwise you are pro-choice.  Anti-Abortion is irrelevant.  So I ask you 
>again, do you believe that all men who are pro-life (want abortion to be 
>illegal) are hypocrites?

Who put you in charge of making up definitions?  It is possible to be pro-life 
without being pro-forced birth.  Just because you can't be pro-life without 
wanting to interfere with other people's lives and decisions doesn't mean that 
other men can't.


				.... Heather.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51836 talk.religion.misc:23713 alt.atheism:23502
From: siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 07:00:10 EST
Reply-To: siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz)
Organization: Modem Madness BBS    1+516-295-9435


> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
> 
> >Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
> >over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
> >"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
> >someone who prefers suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
   Sounds like God believes in the prime directive.

Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
Stimpson J. Katz

     I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:54:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.191530.5009@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>Darcy, I don't understand why you would want to be humiliated by having
>someone post evidence that you were being tactless and tasteless wrt the
>past sexual abuse of Susan Garvin's SO.  

At the time I was being "tactless and tasteless" [sic], I didn't realize that
the SO was a _victim_, Lyman. I have apologized for that mistake. And my 
"tactlessness and tastelessness", please note, was posted to alt.flame. 

So why are you still whining?

>I am convinced that, no matter what evidence is provided, you will
>(figuratively) grind your hands into meatloaf to hold fast to the coral
>reef of your delusion that you were somehow wronged by the numerous
>talk.abortion participants who flamed you for what you call a simple mistake.

The reaction was way out of proportion to the "transgression", Lyman, and
there was never any reason to inflict the flamewar on talk.abortion. Those are 
the "wrongs" which have gone apologized-for.

>You claim you apologized.  You claim that your nearly fifty articles
>on the subject were motivated by concern for other victims of sexual
>abuse.

I have claimed no such thing. I would characterize my t.a articles in question 
as justifiable defenses against massive overreactions by the Instantly Self-
righteous Crew. No more, no less. They weren't motivated by altruism, but 
rather a desire to set the record straight on some outright falsehoods, 
wild speculations, smears, etc. Once the damage had been done, in terms of
exposing t.a participants to unnecessary, explicit discussions of child 
molestation, I figured the only thing left worth salvaging from the wreckage 
was the truth.

>If this whole matter is, as you suggest, a matter of interpretation, there
>must be a tremendous range in t.a participant's interpretive abilities.  

What an absolutely shocking revelation! I'm aghast.

>Why
>is it that the ONLY t.a participant that I can recall supporting you was
>that nilwit Steve Franklin, and possibly Mr. J'accuse himself, Peter Nyikos?

Gee, does this mean I might not win the Mr. Popularity award this year?

Break my heart...

								- Kevin
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:15:30 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

Darcy, I don't understand why you would want to be humiliated by having
someone post evidence that you were being tactless and tasteless wrt the
past sexual abuse of Susan Garvin's SO.  Fortunately for you, I don't keep
archives.  As cheap as mass storage is these days, it's still too expensive
for me to use for archiving your blitherings.

I am convinced that, no matter what evidence is provided, you will
(figuratively) grind your hands into meatloaf to hold fast to the coral
reef of your delusion that you were somehow wronged by the numerous
talk.abortion participants who flamed you for what you call a simple mistake.

You claim you apologized.  You claim that your nearly fifty articles
on the subject were motivated by concern for other victims of sexual
abuse.

Bullshit.

Taken together, your nearly fifty articles on the subject make up a rare
culinary treat: two huge slabs of rancid baloney sandwiching the stale,
dry piece of bread you called an apology.

If this whole matter is, as you suggest, a matter of interpretation, there
must be a tremendous range in t.a participant's interpretive abilities.  Why
is it that the ONLY t.a participant that I can recall supporting you was
that nilwit Steve Franklin, and possibly Mr. J'accuse himself, Peter Nyikos?

Feel free to drop this thread, Darcy.  You're not fooling me or anybody
else, for that matter.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /  my words; no one else's
"I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating too much
pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an intestinal disorder,
not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 13 Dec 92 10:17:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.022530.23407@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne  
Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Dec6.205522.11696@nmsu.edu>, by sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen  
Doe):
> > In article <1992Dec4.044322.7917@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com  
(Gordon Storga) writes:
> > 
> >>
> >>Who created "the big sleep" in the first place?  According to your  
bible
> >>your god created death to punish Adam and Eve and all of their  
creations.
> >>It compares to you hanging your kid off a cliff by a rope and when her
> >>arms get too tired to hold on any more and she lets go and falls to  
her
> >>death you just say, "Well, it was her choice to let go."  You created  
the
> >>death-situation, then blame her for dying.
> > 
> > This is one the best metaphors for the behavior of the God of the
> > Bible I've seen in a long time.
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
> over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's  
question:
> "Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
> someone who prefers suicide.
> 
Suxie, for the love of Pete, try to keep the internal logic (scarce though  
it might be) in your posts going, even if that logic is, well, stupid.  
When the child trips and is hanging over the cliff, there is no suicide.  
She would merely be engaging in controlled non-aerodynamic flight, with a  
terminus in non-aviation facility terrain, at least in the event that God  
failed to rescue her. By the by, in the Gospel According to Suxie,  does  
God consider all children to be capable of making life-and death  
decisions? Doesn't God have the brains of a carp, so that He wouldn't hang  
around waiting for a six year old to make a declaration of faith?    your  
kid told ya he/she wanted to go play in traffic, would you let him/her? If  
not, why not? Why would you force yourself on your child when God won't?  
Isn't that a little presumptuous of you? 
	

shalom

apikoros-man
Newsgroups: talk.abortion