HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:39:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.180622.106850@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In  <Bw2C9z.54I@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>> It's clear that there are a lot of possibilities.  I'd give her the
>> benefit of the doubt if we were discussing why she would have waited
>> a year and whether we should regard it as a despicable act.
>>
>> At the same time, I'd give Will the benefit of the doubt,
>
>I give Will the benefit of the doubt, too, as to whether he actually
>would kill his SO if he found out a year later that she had gotten
>an abortion.  Nevertheless, I find the evidence that there exists
>people who feel so strongly regarding their "right" to control the
>body of another person to be a compelling argument against *forcing*
>notification of the father.

As long as you aren't stating categorically that the supporters of
notification feel they have the right "to control the body of another
person," I don't see anything wrong with your justification.

Even the much-debated Pennsylvania law made it explicitly clear
that notification was not necessary under all conditions.  So it's
not clear how notification is necessarily control.  You might argue
invasion of privacy, but IMO the grounds for declaring it "control"
are more flimsy.  The Missouri law requiring +consent+ was control.

The marriage contract is currently treated as an implicit
legal agreement, where the conditions are assumed to be "traditional."
As long as this remains so, the husband should be assumed to have
an interest in offspring of the marriage (he is bound to support them,
after all), so he should know of reproductive decisions which
directly affect his reasons to be married and his legal duties
for the next 18 years.

The better solution is to have enforceable marriage contracts
where all parties can choose the conditions.  Then I'd choose the
Standard Form 11JX92B with the disclosure requirement, and you
could choose Form 88AO33X with no requirements.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:05:25 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.719008403@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Oct11.173632.97990@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
>
> >I see nothing wrong with saying you'd kill to protect your child.  (Would
> >you stand around and let your child be killed?)  That's a far cry from
> >saying you'd kill someone (hypothetical or not) for not showing you the
> >proper respect.
>
> I don't know what Don's point was, but I am going to monitor you
> VERY closely to see what more you say about Suzanne Forgach threatening to
> unplug Andy and Ray in order to protect HER child.  You seemed to
> be quite eager to dump on her a while ago for that.

Peter, the last time you said this it was from ignorance, and a number
of us explained that I was not in any way dumping on Suzanne; I was
pointing out Chaney's hypocrisy for dumping on Mark for making an
identically-phrased "threat" against anyone threatening the rights of
his (Mark's) female relatives.

Previously, after making those idiotic allegations, you admitted to
ignorance, and were educated.  Now you make the same charge again.
What's your excuse this time, dishonesty or stupidity?  (Or did you
"save them for careful study", and then forget that you did so and
now claim you "missed them all"?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Don Beaver Do You Have a Point.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:27:21 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

Great you do not admit that anything that you do not 
hold is not a part of any world that you do not comprehend.

Or am I missing your point?

1. The argument of potential has been used here time
and time and time again. If you have not seen it used
please learn to read.

2. That the young gentleman who will kill women if
they do not respect him has also made appeals to
the argument of potential has also occurred.

3. that you do not like the fact that the concommitant
conclusion derivable there is not in his favor, is a
personal problem, and I recommend that you seek counsel,


ciao
drieux

-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:11:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
|> I think not.  In particular, I saw no reason to interpret "with a smile
|> on my face" as a sign of violent insanity; rather, it seems a figurative
|> description intended to emphasize her point.

I agree with you completely. Her statement, and Will's before, were
read by me to be rhetoric. You know, exaggerated speach to make a point.

But I actually agree with Janis's statement in a very literal sense. If
someone were threatening or attacking my son with intent to do bodily
harm and possibly death I would use any and every method at my disposal
against the perpetrator up to and including deadly force. 

Your mileage may vary.
-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: pg23+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick Pearse Gallagher)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re:poll results:fyi
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:21:17 GMT
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


	One thing that's always puzzled me about the pro-choice movement.  So
many seem to say,' I'm pro-choice, but I'm anti-abortion.  Or, I wish
there weren't so many abortions, but I'm not going to violate a woman's
right to choose.  It's odd, because I know that if I didn't believe that
a fetus was being killed, I would be all for abortions.  It  would help
economically, environmentally, etc.  If abortion is merely a removal of
unviable tissue, why are you personally against it.  Why would you make
sure a woman explores all other options first and have an abortion as a
last resort?  It seems to me that if you're not a supporter of fetal
rights, abortion should be the best option in nearly all cases of
unwanted pregnancies.
	RE:  Pro-abort bias in WNC.  I agree that there is a big pro-abortion
bias throughout the country.  The numbers are deflated in DC for the big
marches in January and pumped up for the pro-choicers.    I also see it
here in Pittsburgh.
---Patrick
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:39:23 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <2636@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>|> I think not.  In particular, I saw no reason to interpret "with a smile
>|> on my face" as a sign of violent insanity; rather, it seems a figurative
>|> description intended to emphasize her point.
>
>I agree with you completely. Her statement, and Will's before, were
>read by me to be rhetoric. You know, exaggerated speach to make a point.
>
>But I actually agree with Janis's statement in a very literal sense. If
>someone were threatening or attacking my son with intent to do bodily
>harm and possibly death I would use any and every method at my disposal
>against the perpetrator up to and including deadly force. 

I would also use deadly force to protect my children against serious harm.
I would not LITERALLY "slit [the attacker's] throat wide open and drink their 
blood with a smile in my face."

That's exactly my point:  people should distinguish between literal
and evocative descriptions, not seize upon an out-of-context excerpt
--whose meaning has even been clarified by the speaker--  to prove a point.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: poll results: fyi
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:52:02 EST
Reply-To: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

A lot of heat has been generated in the abortion issue over the labels
that each side tries to stick on the other - "pro-life,"
"anti-abortion," "pro-choice," and so on.  What would the results be
like, I wonder, if there was a poll conducted that included the
following EQUAL CATEGORIES:

        Do you consider yourself:

        Pro-life...............__

        Pro-choice.............__

        Anti-abortion..........__

        Anti-life..............__

        None of the above......__

     I would hazard a guess that a majority of the answers would fall
under BOTH the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" columns.  Many people
consider themselves pro-choice AND anti-abortion at the same time,
because they believe in a woman having every alternative available to
her, while at the same time they would encourage her to consider every
possibility before having an abortion.
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:33:23 GMT

In <1992Oct11.173632.97990@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
>>
>> ===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
>> ===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.
>>
>> I think not.  In particular, I saw no reason to interpret "with a smile
>> on my face" as a sign of violent insanity; rather, it seems a figurative
>> description intended to emphasize her point.

>True.  To emphasize her point that she *would* kill, with no qualms,
>if the life of her child was threatened.  Actually drinking the blood
>sounds dangerous, since you can catch nasty diseases that way.  (Practice
>safer slaughter!  :-)

>I see nothing wrong with saying you'd kill to protect your child.  (Would
>you stand around and let your child be killed?)  That's a far cry from
>saying you'd kill someone (hypothetical or not) for not showing you the
>proper respect.

>Did you have a point?

>Larry Margolis

I don't know what Don's point was, but I am going to monitor you
VERY closely to see what more you say about Suzanne Forgach threatening to
unplug Andy and Ray in order to protect HER child.  You seemed to
be quite eager to dump on her a while ago for that.

Peter Nyikos
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:35:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Bw0sw5.5GC@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>The word most suspect to me is, "individual:"

>"Every individual, except a man, has a fundamental right to choose
>when or whether to have a child."

>or,
>
>"Every individual has a fundamental right to choose when or whether
>to have a child, and some individuals' rights are greater than others'."

I have a similar sentiment.  It makes no sense that when delivered
in Griswold v. Connecticut the judge said that the decision to have child
lies in the heart of the marital relation.  The Justice went further to say
that this was protected by every interpretation of the Constitution.

So, it's ironic that it in Roe, it was held that the woman, whether in
marriage or not, has a fundamental right to determine the fate of her
z/e/f or "whether or not to have children".

Hmm.  So let me figure this out.  Before conception:  decision and
rights up to both parents (marraige).  During pregnancy, decision left
up to mother, as if it becomes more "fundamental" or more "private".  And
after birth, both parents have equal rights.

I'm sorry; this is purely illogical and inconsistent with the court's 
findings.

former fetus,

--
I need something to fly over my grave again . . .  I need something to breathe.
				    r.e.m.
			        Kevin C. Welch
                         kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
From: msgctr3@convex.com (msgctr3 account)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:11:00 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

>              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

>1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
>Yes                  [ ]

>2.) Are you pro choice?
>Yes                  [ ]

>3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
>Yes                  [ ]

>4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
>rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
>No                   [ ]

>5.) What sex are you?
>Female             [ ]

>6.) How old are you?
>19 to 65           [ ]

>7.) What religion are you?
>Other              [ ]
Baptist

>8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
>Republican         [ ]

>9.) How many years of education have you completed?
>High School        [ ]
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About those first Amendment rights
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:02:43 GMT

reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL writes:
] NO ONE
] NO WHERE
] HAS EVER GIVEN ME A REASON THAT I ACCEPT AS GOOD ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE
] POSITION THAT ANYONE ANYWHERE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT
] THEY SHOULD DO WITH THE HORRIBLE POSITION A PERSON FINDS THEMSELF IN
] WITH AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY.
] 
] Is this a "FREE" Country?
 

1. well to be brutally honest it is a constitutionally
guranteed right to say what one pleases within the 
context of certain clearly defined limitation of
common and statuatory law.

eg: "I wouldn't do that." is one thing:

	"I will KILL YOU - BITCH! As your having an abortion
	shows a complete Lack of Respect for My Obviously
	GodGivenDivinelyInspiredMaleRights."

on the otherhand would seem to be a separate matter all together.

2. A useful rule of thumb: advice is what you pay for it....
{given that this is offered freely, you can assume of it
what you will.}

having had a few persons recommend that I should have a
bullet lodged in my temple {funny, I don't look drieuxish?}
I generally tend to afford such 'telling someone else what
they should do' within the context of the aphorism.

3. Now was it the case that you are more concerned with
those who wish to use the power of the state to enforce
an AntiChristianDogma espoused by AntiAbortionists?


ciao
drieux


ps: I still keep hoping that the RevengeOfTheReligiousRight
will finally allow us to settle the abortion issue by
Auto De Fe of those persons engaging in heretical uterances.




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Proof that not all abortion is murder.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:24:36 GMT

In <1992Oct8.161325.9567@cs.ucf.edu> long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long) writes:


>We will prove that terminating pregancy after conception is not  
>necessarily murder.  The proof is by contradiction.

Lots deleted here, the gist of which is that, because of the phenomenon
of twinning, it is impossible to tell prior to a certain stage of
development how many individuals are killed, hence none are.  There is
something to be said for this reasoning, but it could still be argued
that "hence none are" is a non sequitur.

>In particular, use of morning after pills, such as RU486, does not  
>constitute murder.

It is only recently that RU 486 has been confirmed as an appropriate
morning after pill.  Its primary use up to now has been as a "zero to
five weeks after implantation" pill.  In particular, it was an 
"antidote" to implantation, not a preventive.

>Of course, the destruction of a developing embryo does not fit the  
>assumptions of this proof, and so is not proved to not be murder.   
>However, other less natural means exist for converting virtually any cell  
>into a full human being (cloning, etc.) and so the destruction of any cell  
>is murder by the above definition, which is absurd.

Cloning of a human being is still in the realm of science fiction.
The book, _In His Own Image_ belongs to this genre.
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty of (Fill In The Blank)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 09:08:28 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct9.011012.24380@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
> And apparently, a few people here, do not even believe that a man even has
> the right to get counselling!

I saw a number of people suggesting that you *should* get counselling;
did I miss any saying you don't have the *right* to get counselling?

> But, do we treat *all* men as though they are "potential oppressors,"
> and not inform them of what is happening, because of the small minority
> who will react with violence?

No, in most cases the woman does share it with the man.  I just don't
see a need for a law saying that she *must*.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
Subject: Re: Rationalization
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:18:00 GMT
Organization: DG. SID, Atlanta, GA

>>> Ah, then why didn't you just say in your first description of the "basic
>>> scenario":  "You have sex."  rather than "You have sex outside of marriage"?

>>   The "main" scenario for abortion is for those who have sex outside of
>>   marriage, because they have a "problem" they need to "fix".  In marriage,
>>   you don't have the same "problem", which I can detail at another time.

> Hmmm, married woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be; she considers
> it a "problem" and it needs to be "fixed".  Sounds exactly the same.  It
> seems to me you put an unjustified emphasis on the marital status of the
> woman.  Abortion is an option there as well; how she deals with coming to
> that decision in relationship her spouse is a good topic for here on
> alt.abortion.inequity and have been discussed.  We can go over that again
> if you'd like.

   I've been there - I have firsthand experience.  The couple has the baby
   because they don't want to murder it.  Why try to rationalize it (abortion)
   as acceptable?  Don't lie to yourself.
  
-- 
             ==========================================================
            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
           //    "My views are my own"                             //
          ==========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Radical Reading Notions Revealed....
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:28:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.203427.8829@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>In article <BvpsCs.IrE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.182636.8965@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>] In article <1992Oct1.191914.27156@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>] 
>>>] >Given that the Gentleman would KILL a woman for NOT
>>>] >showing enough/the_right respect for/toward himself,
>>>] >{and Please, let us not equivocate that he did in
>>>] >point of fact say that... its been reposted enough }
>>>] >it is a logical consequence of the argumentative form
>>>] >to conclude that As He Might Potentially Become a
>>>] >Murderer of Women as They Might Potentially Show Disrespect,
>>>] >THEREFORE it is that He is a Murderer of them...
>>>] 
>>>] By the logic you are presenting, every person has the potential 
>>>] to become a murderer, so they are already murderers.
>>>
>>>I think that you understand the basic notions
>>>of the 'argument of potential' quite well....
>>>
>>>Now how far are we allowed to go with the
>>>'argument of potential' when working in
>>>the AntiAbortionistMindSet?
>>
>>I don't know.  Why don't you ask someone of the "AntiAbortionistMindSet"
>>or someone who professes an 'argument of potential'?
>>
>>I'm not sure what s/he would respond, but I don't see a parallel
>>between being a person and being a murderer -- potential or real.  
>>So you've lost me.  What's your point?
>
>His point eluded you?  Seemed perfectly obvious to me that one can conclude:

Perhaps I should have said, "What's the point?" or, "What's the point
of your argument?"


>The anti-abortionist "argument of potential" drieux is referring to, I believe
>argues that since the fetus is a POTENTIAL person, that it should be treated
>like a person BEFORE it realizes this potential. And that makes about as much
>sense as a POTENTIAL murderer should be treated as a murderer before s/he
>realizes this potential.

This was my impression of what Drieux was saying.

Now, what is the point?  How are "anti-abortionist arguments" 
relevant to the preceding thread?

Drieux seems to be defending exactly what you object to:
the conclusion that a potential murderer (ie. any human being) should
be treated as a murderer.  His defense is on the grounds that
a potential person should be treated as a person.


I asked for a clarification of Drieux's purpose in arguing this
topic (and of its relevance), so that we could avoid smokescreens 
and straw men.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity