HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women
Subject: Re: Fetal Protectionism
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:05:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Don Beaver) writes:

>>You might not be an anti-abortionist extremist, but at least for
>>third-term abortions (almost always done to save a woman's life or
>>health), you are not only advocating forced-birth, you are indeed
>>"worshipping" the fetus at the further expense of a woman in the most
>>dire need of an abortion.

>The simple fact that you respond in this way makes it clear that 
>you are a "pro-choice" extremist, IMO.  And you prefer straw men
>and insults to substance.

Thanks for avoiding an answer.  I guess I nailed you pretty good.

BTW, definition number 4 for worship:

  "Extravagent respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of
  esteem."
                     - and -
 
  esteem - 1. (archaic) worth, value 2. (archaic) opinion, judgement 3.
  high regard (not to be confused with Adrienne)

>>>What I have found most telling about posters who call themselves
>>>"pro-choice" is that they move quicker than a knee-jerk to accuse
>>>anybody not touting the "pro-choice" slogans of being a "pro-life 
>>>religious-right fetal worshipper," none of which I am.

>>You may not be religious right; you are a pro-life fetal-worshipper.
>>You've just proven it.  Why else would you prefer a fetus over an
>>endangered woman?

>This is why I avoid t.a. -- such completely extremist and intentionally
>baseless statements.  I am not "pro-life" and I do not "worship fetuses."
>Now go bait somewhere else.

Dial 1-800-WHINE.

If you don't "worship" fetuses, then why would you ban 3rd term abortions,
all of which are done to save a woman's life or health?

I guess you have no answer.  You just hold that stance, and accuse anyone
questioning that stance to be "baiting" you.

Here's a suggestion: if you don't want to be "baited", then don't propose
laws based on nothing and expect people to understand.

I'll try one more time: why the hell would you ban the only abortions done
SOLELY to save a woman's life or health?  If it's not fetal worship, then
what the hell IS your rationale?  You sure haven't stated any.

>>Methinks you're pulling the wool over your own eyes.

>Methinks you haven't got the wool out of your eyes.
>And it's causing you a lot of irritation and inflammation.

Yeah, right.  That's why you're the one posting angry, defensive bullshit
instead of explaining your strange views on abortion.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Fetal Protectionism
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:58:02 GMT

> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Don Beaver) writes:

>>>The lies are obvious:
>>>
>>>1.  "a Fetus Worshipper like Don"
>>>
>>>2.  A suggestion that I might "force women to give birth."

>>Hmm.  All indications from your earlier posts suggest you do.
>>
>>Answer this question, and I may change my opinion:
>>
>>Do you support any restrictions on a woman's right to abortion?  If so,
>>what restrictions and when?  If not, would you totally outlaw abortion?

>If a law banning third-trimester abortions were proposed, I would
>support it.
>
>I would not totally outlaw abortion.

OK.  Thanks for clarifying your position.

>I also refuse to accept a legal system that affords women the power
>to decide *legal parenthood* without providing men an equal right.

That's not what we're arguing, and I get sick of seeing it dragged into
abortion debates.  It's a legitimate issue, just not germane in t.a.

>If you consider this "forced birth" or "fetus worship," I suggest
>we have a radically different outlook on life.

You might not be an anti-abortionist extremist, but at least for
third-term abortions (almost always done to save a woman's life or
health), you are not only advocating forced-birth, you are indeed
"worshipping" the fetus at the further expense of a woman in the most
dire need of an abortion.

And, I think our "radically different outlook" is pretty obvious.

>If you consider regarding reproductive rights as something held
>by all persons (rather than just by women) to be "forced birth," 
>then I am certain we have a radically different outlook on life.

If you consider a man's "rights" to allow forced birth, then indeed,
you're quite different than I.  I'm sad for you but glad for me.

>What I have found most telling about posters who call themselves
>"pro-choice" is that they move quicker than a knee-jerk to accuse
>anybody not touting the "pro-choice" slogans of being a "pro-life 
>religious-right fetal worshipper," none of which I am.

You may not be religious right; you are a pro-life fetal-worshipper.
You've just proven it.  Why else would you prefer a fetus over an
endangered woman?

Methinks you're pulling the wool over your own eyes.




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: abortion
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:44:12 GMT

> J.H. Woodyatt
>> Ferrari
># > D. Weaver

># >There are already many classes of people.  When you were 4, you were
># >not a full, legal person. If you were, you would have been able to vote,
># >you would have had to pay taxes, you could have been drafted, etc.
 
># A four-year-old IS, indeed, a "full, legal person."  It is not, however,
># a full, legal citizen.

>I think you're both wrong here.  Any four-year-old born or naturalized
>in the U.S. is a full, legal, U.S. citizen.

I fail to see how a minor can be considered a full, legal citizen when
minors do not have the rights guaranteed to full, legal citizens in our
Constitution.

>Wrong again, I think.  Two kinds of persons: citizens and aliens.
>Aliens and citizens are each divided into subclasses under the law.
>Citizens, for instance are divided into adults, minors, etc.

Doesn't the Constituion simply assert that "citizens" should have certain
rights?  Does it differentiate that these rights only apply to "adults"?
If not, I don't see how it would be possible to deny them full adult rights.

># To summarize, then, an organism either is or is not a person under the
># law.  Organisms that are persons may also be citizens or partial citizens.

>I don't expect you'll find the phrase `partial citizen' in the U.S. code.

I may not have the phrase correct, but I believe that is how it is perceived
in law.  

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:39:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:


>>Murders, muggings and car accidents are not consentual acts.
>>Sexual intercourse is. 

One hopes so!

						--  Michal
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5991 soc.men:21344 soc.women:21596 talk.abortion:52270 alt.feminism:6191
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Quoting Someone Else's Private e-mail (was: abortion)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:26:35 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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

In <beckley.724632483@qualcom> beckley@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Jeff Beckley) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>If I tell you that if you send me something, I'm going to post it, and you send
>>me something, then you *have* given me permission to post it.  Plain and simple.
>
>Now I'm sure there are lawyer-types out there who can refute the (lawful)
>validity of this statement better than I can, but this seems a bit extreme.
>
>So, Larry, if you respond to this post, then I am going to steal all your
>money from you.  If you respond, then you have given me permission to
>separate you from your wallet.

A more apt analogy might be, "If you send me your wallet, I'm going to remove
all the cash from it."

Would your opinion about this be any different if the original poster had
stated:
   I want you to stop sending me abusive email.  If you persist, I will feel
   free to post it to the net.

>P.S. When you respond, it would make things easier for me if you would include
>the numbers of you bank accounts.   ;^>

Sorry, they're unlisted.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:56:33 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:

>I don't see the argument that the guy can risk odds, create a baby, and
>then suddenly say, I have no responsibility.  I mean I understand that a
>guy CAN do it, but I don't agree with it.

	According to the standard Pro-Choice argument, he doesn't create a
baby.  He creates a foetus.  The foetus cannot exist on it's own, nor can
the man, if given the foetus, create anything from it.  He, very literally,
cannot create a baby.
	The woman creates the baby.  She has the choice, and she is, in 
fact, the only person who *can* create a baby.
	The responsibility question stems from this ability.  It's a biological
factor that makes us think she should have the choice; it's the choice that
makes us think she should have the responsibility.  If she can't support a 
baby on her own, and she hasn't lined up someone willing to give both
economical help and parental loving to the baby, she shouldn't create one.
Creating one without the economical ability to support one, or without (a)
willing co-parent(s) is a crime against the child and anyone else, be that
an individual man or all of society, who is required to support the child
without having been a partner to the decision.
	Bottom line: he and she have risked the odds of creating a foetus.
The choice and ability to create a baby is entirely hers.  

>So if you follow this reasoning, the male doesn't suffer any lack of
>control over his life without making choices to do so.  If he chooses
>to do things without reguard to the consequences of his actions, then
>I'd say he reaps what he sows.

>This may sound harsh to some, but I call it responsibility.

	The consequences of his actions are a foetus.  If you'd care to
describe exactly what he does to create a baby from a foetus, then I guess
we'll be able to talk about what the associated responsibility should be.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:18:54 GMT

<1992Dec5.041249.19584@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com said:
>In article <Byr1Ky.J9D@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul) writes:
>#     I agree with Kevin here. Why should anybody pay for a kid he didn't
>#  want? If abortion was available to the mother of course.It is the mother
>#  who wanted to have the child, and she should be the individual who would
># take care of the child alone.
>
>Lemme see if I can 'splain it...

Ok, 'Ricky'. :-)

>Here's what women can do to avoid having children they don't want:
[options deleted]
>Here's what men can do to avoid having children they don't want:
[options deleted]

>This about covers it for each gender.  For both men and women, the
>options are slim for people who fail to avoid having children they
>don't want.
>
>I don't think it should be easy for men or women to abandon their
>children to the hands of the other natural parent just because the
>steps they took to avoid having children they don't want failed.
>
>Do you?

No.  But then that doesn't appear to be exactly what Hale was talking
about.  If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want 
children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
responsible for any resulting children?  If the woman didn't want children
either then the man should help pay for an abortion.  But, if the woman
decides *she* wants children then why should he be held responsible for
her decision?

Now, "what about the child"?  Well, since the woman in this scenario has
opted to keep the fetus and have children against the man's wishes she
should be completely responble for all financial needs.  If she can't
provide for a child that she wants then she should be having children and
that child should be removed from an incompetent parent.

A poor analogy:  If you drive a woman friend to a mall are you responsible
for half the cost of anything she buys there?  I mean, you *knew* there
was a possibility she might buy something even though you made it clear
that you didn't want to buy anything.  Maybe she told you she just wanted
to look around but changes her mind.  Do you feel that you should be
liable for half her expenses?

Note: I obviously wouldn't code anything as ambiguous as this into law.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 01:12:15 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1gdcpaINNhbc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>
>>>If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want 
>>>children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
>>>responsible for any resulting children?
>>
>>Because they are still *his* children.

>Only in terms of genetic similarity.

Nope.  Because of his participation in the conception.

>Tell me, Michal, if the next child
>found abandoned in a trash dumpster happened to be genetically similar
>to you (even though you weren't its actual parent), could you be legally
>billed for its support?

Only if I had contributed to the existence of the child.  For example,
if I had gestated it, then I would expect that I could be legally billed
for it's support (as well as charged with abusing/abandoning it!)

>>And because children have a right to be supported by both parents.

>Where is this right written in the federal Constitution (i.e. the same level 
>of jurisdiction where the man's property rights are given protection)?

The constitution specifically states that rights are *not* limited to 
those specifically listed therein.

>>>Now, "what about the child"?  Well, since the woman in this scenario has
>>>opted to keep the fetus and have children against the man's wishes she
>>>should be completely responble for all financial needs.
>>
>>Why?  Is this child any less deserving than a child who's parents
>>agreed tthat they would both provide support?

>The question is not whether the child is deserving of a certain AMOUNT of
>support, Michal, the question is about the SOURCE of that quantity of 
>support. The child generally doesn't care where the support comes from.
>Daddy's greenbacks smell pretty much the same as Mommy's. So why are you
>strenuously arguing that X amount of support must always come from BOTH
>parents?

I'm not.  I'm arguing that both parents have an obligation to support the
child.

>Have you responded substantively to my "child support lottery" proposal
>yet, Michal?

Yes, Kevin dear.  I have, in a seperate post (hoping it didn't bounce!)
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:51:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>For example, leaving
>is pretty much out of the question if your income is high and would like it
>to stay that way, and/or if you have children.

Life is full of these little trade-offs.


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5904 soc.men:21142 soc.women:21450 talk.abortion:51917 alt.feminism:6011
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:09:34 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

In article <1992Dec14.095945.510@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
># bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com said:
># >hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul) writes:
># >#     I agree with Kevin here. Why should anybody pay for a kid he didn't
># >#  want? If abortion was available to the mother of course.It is the mother
># >#  who wanted to have the child, and she should be the individual who would
># ># take care of the child alone.
># >
># >L

	Let's put it this way, once the kid comes into the world, even if
I DON'T want the kid, would it be humanitarian to abandon the kid, that's
the question?  To put it in other terms is to miss the point that the
problem isn't MY or the MOTHER'S  wish that matters but the welfare of
the little kid.
	One of the very important lessons of feminism is to teach us to
open a dialogue between two people and COMMUNICATE.  I think males
tend to choose to argue too much, we've been "trained."  Maybe the
expression of "verbal war of survival" would fit here.  REMEMBER:
This is merely my opinion.  We can follow the question of communication
between two people by attempting to commicinstead of making
unwanted children the question of rights (legal or personal).

wing
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What's really behind this "men's choice" thing?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 18:58:50 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>If a man has made it clear to his 'mate' that he doesn't want 
>children, and uses appropriate contraception, then why should he be
>responsible for any resulting children?  If the woman didn't want children
>either then the man should help pay for an abortion.  But, if the woman
>decides *she* wants children then why should he be held responsible for
>her decision?

Because they are still *his* children.
And because children have a right to be supported by both parents.

>Now, "what about the child"?  Well, since the woman in this scenario has
>opted to keep the fetus and have children against the man's wishes she
>should be completely responble for all financial needs.

Why?  Is this child any less deserving than a child who's parents
agreed tthat they would both provide support?


-- 

                                                --  Michal

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5988 misc.legal:21452 talk.abortion:52257
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:14:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <lairdb.724566025@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>|Hmmm.  Let's go with this a little and see where it gets us.  Taking an
>|embryo to be a body part of the mother, what is the "legal" status of a

>Except that a fetus is not analogous to a finger.

Mark has a good point, albeit not quite the right one.
A foetus is *not* an organ of the mother's body.
It is a seperate living thing *inside* her body -- a parasite,
if you wish to use that terminology.  
It is analogous to the placenta, which has the same 
genome as the fetus.

Perhaps the placenta can be a useful guide here.  I know that
human placentas are used in the pharmecutical industry.  Does
anybody out there know how they are harvested, and whether 
compensation is given to the women?  to the fathers?  to the
hospitals?
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: dyurman@world.std.com (Dan Yurman)
Subject: Ph.D Programs?
Summary: What are the best Planning Ph.D programs?
Keywords: Urban Planning Doctorate
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:27:50 GMT

This is a request for recommendations and advice on Ph.D programs in urban
planning.  I got my MURP in 1975 and am now interested in pursuing the
Ph.D.  I want to work on links between urban planning and environmental
quality.  Because I live in "remote" Idaho I am especially interested in
completing at least some of my course work via email and video.  Any
suggestions gratefully received.
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Yurman  dyurman@world.std.com
PO Box 1569 Idaho Falls ID 83403 112W02 43N28 -7 GMT
"Chance favors only the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur


Newsgroups: alt.wolves
From: ebynum@panini.cs.jhu.edu (Evan Bynum)
Subject: Copyright Infringement
Followup-To: alt.wolves
Summary: Posting GIFs illegal?
Keywords: GIF, copyrights, lawsuit, run to South America
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:20:39 GMT

Hey fellas,

	This message is intended for all you laywers who happen to read this
group. I've spent the past two weeks searching the Internet for some
good-quality GIFs of wolves to post to this group. I've found a series of
six GIFs of arctic wolves that seem to be the only ones out there. Archie
searches have revealed nothing but these six. For the benefit of those who
lack FTP ability or knowledge, I'll post them in January.

	For now, I need some advice. I have access to a high-quality scanner
and I'll be more than happy to scan and post some pictures from magazines,
books, and other sources. My question is this: will this be enough of a
copyright violation that the parties concerned will decide to press (gasp)
charges? I'd hate to be hauled into court simply for propagating a few
pictures to a group of people who would no doubt appreciate my efforts.

	Just offhand, the reason I ask this is that I've seen posts on
several of the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups that were form magazines such
as Sports Illustrated, and even on this group people have quoted newspaper
articles (they have provided the sources as well). 

	Please send all advice/replies to ebynum@cs.jhu.edu. If you feel the
need, be all means post replies as well. For now, it's back to finals, the
holidays, and a new year. Later, all.

						Evan H. Bynum
						ebynum@cs.jhu.edu