HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:30:05 GMT

<1992Nov17.055842.5919@netcom.com> (Ray Fischer) writes:
> A more equitable situation would have custody of the child
> automatically go to the state, requiring _both_ parents to sue for
> custody, and with judgements equitably distributed between men and
> women.

Perhaps this would be more "equitable," but would it be better?
That is, is "equity" the most important goal in formulating
policies about parental responsibilties?  As an example, if
we could devise a policy which everyone agreed was perfectly
fair, but which also resulted in doubling the number of children
living in poverty, would it be worth it?  Or if a fair system
meant no child ever knew his parents?  Fairness cannot be the
only standard we use to measure the value of public policy.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Misogyny
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:08:47 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <32683@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.215402.19126@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
>(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
>>In article <31866@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen
>>J. Mezias) writes: 
>>>
>>>I find the anti-choice position to have a
>>>discriminatory effect and I feel comfortable interpreting that
>>>discriminatory effect as evidence of misogyny.  
>>
>>More men than women died when the Titanic sunk. I guess icebergs are 
>>misandrous, huh?
>>
>>Be careful in attributing motives, based purely on EFFECTS, Stephen.
>
>First, I am sure that certain corrections would disprove your
>contention.  If we controlled for the effects of (1) actual gender
>distribution on the ship and (2) policies that allocate positions on
>lifeboats on the basis of status, we could disprove your claim by
>testing against a random sample of events {Ship hitting iceberg}.  

Similarly, can you identify any "policies" in the pro-life movement
which specify discrimination against gender WITHOUT being inextricably
linked to the biological fact that currently only women gestate? I
doubt very much that you can.

>Second, the question is not about comparisons of objective cause and
>effect, it is about how we actually define cause and effect.  If one
>applies a contract law model, then proving intent is not necessary.
>The very fact that you failed to meet the contract *in effect* is
>enought to establish guilt.

Actually, you're not even correct on those grounds. Intent is necessary for 
there to be a "meeting of the minds". People who have made contracts while 
drunk, for instance, have had their contractual obligations voided. Similarly, 
for fraud & coercion. The absence or presence of intent to enter into an 
obligation is critical.

Having said that, I don't think the contract model is particularly useful
here, unless you're trying to say that pro-lifers "contract" to deny
women abortions (???)

>My statement quite clearly gave my position: I am comfortable in
>associating the intent to discriminate against women with support for
>forced pregnancy.  If you have some other interpretation that you wish
>me to consider as I follow your advice to be more careful in making
>such assertions, please share it with us.

They value fetal human life higher than born human life. If there is any
discrimination present, it's by developmental stage FIRST, and gender SECOND.
I'd be more likely to just chalk it up to simple insensitivity to women's 
wants and needs, than to active misogyny or desire to gender-discriminate.
Insensitivity is far more prevalent in the human condition than hatred.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49059 soc.men:19757 soc.women:20115 alt.politics.homosexuality:7497
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:24:34 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

kc2@doc.ic.ac.uk (K Campbell) writes:

>After a recent spate of particularly vicious and violent male rapes
>in London (men being abducted from tube stations by 3 or 4 men and
>taken somewhere, blindfolded then forcibly penetrated), some of the
>less oppressive newspapers in this country carried comment from leading
>criminal psychologists about how it is unlikely that the incidents had
>been carried out by gay men.  

Doesn't that sort of show homosexual tendancies??  Male penetrating
a male??  Sounds gay to me.

>Food for thought?

More like disgust.
-Doc

-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roger Williams confused about what constitutes a lie!
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:51:44 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <BxxtCM.MBA@access.digex.com>, roger@access.digex.com writes:
|Have you been similarly complimented by a pro-lifer, CJ?  If not,
|then let me be the first:  You are a very able and articulate
|advocate of the pro-choice position and a worthy adversary.
|Your point about my more recent articles has some merit and I
|will strive to do better.

A gracious reply.  Thank you.  I will reserve my judgment, then,
and look forward to your future participation in the debate.

I noticed your post in the cat-torture thread, and wrote
a brief followup.  Let's see if a discussion of animal rights
can shed any light on the battle over fetus's rights.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good communication 
skills, it is a trap for losers, because it deprives them of any natural 
way out of the pointless debate loops which they fall into so easily.  
As many of us have realized, the Usenet environment is intrinsicly dry 
and blind and it is up to its inhabitants to injecting deeper meanings 
and feelings into their words and arguments in order to accomplish 
anything worthwhile, be it art, debate, or pure transformation of
information.  But those who are deficient in verbal and mental skills 
can only exchange clublike blows with with eachother ad nauseum."
-- Michael Rigler, in talk.bizarre
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:18:19 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
# 
# > I believe we have a basic right to bodily autonomy.  This is not a right
# > of action, but a right to defend ourselves against non-consensual
# > physical intrusion.  I.e., your rights of action end at my skin.
# 
# So why shouldn't all human beings have this right to bodily autonomy?

Oooh.  A trick question from the Holtsmeister!

Let's see... in the context of the question, is `human beings'
synonymous with `people' or not?

You wanna clear up this niggling little detail before I answer your
question, Mr. Holtsinger?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: projection of the week: this week's winner!
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:19:59 GMT

   "Why should I dispute *any* statement for which you do not produce
    a scrap of evidence?  I've only been disputing a lot of your statements
    to show what a blusterer *you* are."
       <nyikos.722018309@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
        Peter Nyikos to dean kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Killing for convenience
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:08:30 GMT

Much has been said about "killing for convenience."  Many 
assert that it is wrong to do so.  Yet that has 
been one of the primary reasons for institutional 
killing.  We prefer to couch such activity in other terms
that tout "dying for ideals," which certainly sounds better
to a lot of people rather than "killing for convenience" 
when talking about war especially.  No doubt both occur.

Few would accept the notion of traveling to a criminal's
abode and killing based on the notion that waiting would 
only allow the criminal to get stronger.  Yet that has been
offered as an explanation for many wars (of which killing, 
as well as dying, in case you forgot, are a part).

Monuments to the Unknown Soldier often evoke thoughts or
words concerning selflessness, dying for ideals.  
Perhaps war wasn't so convenient for that particular
soldier "known but to God," but it sure was to others.  
Unspoken, although an integral part, is the notion that 
whatever happened, it was necessary.  Necessary for what?
I doubt that anyone can name a war that was entered into 
and fought to save life.  Most often wars are justified
by appeals to "freedom," "God," or what-have-you.  
Convenience in politics, economics, or religion.  
It may be the soul of importance to you, it is mere 
convenience to others.

Killing for convenience is a time-honored tradition 
throughout much of recorded history.  People who decry
abortions for convenience are usually quite blind to
the possibility that what might be mere convenience 
to them is something of prime importance to another.
Like I say, it isn't the loss of life that concerns them,
it's the rationale behind it.  Granted, there are 
some people who are genuinely concerned about life,
but it is rare that you see them championing the thought
of legislating what they deem to be convenient.  They
have more important things to do.

--
       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!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48103 alt.abortion.inequity:5127 soc.men:19382
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:10:06 GMT

In article <1ej185INNhtj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxzDx5.IMu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1ebjs2INNmmn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <BxuK2B.32F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>>In article <1e9108INNlmu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>What a woman has is the right to define how her physical
>>>body will or will not be used. 
>>>
>>>Which is precisely analogous and symetrical to a man's right to determine how
>>>his physical body will or will not be used.
>>
>>Either his body is used 40 hours a week to earn money or 
>>it is used 168 hours a week to pace a 10x10 room.

> ... This tripe, above, isn't worthy of response!
>
>We don't have slavery in this country.  We don't force a man to work at some
>task, any task deemed by society to be productive, and take his money from
>him.  This sophistry does not forward the discussion.


I'm glad you did find the tripe worthy of response.  Here's some more:

Ever notice that if a man doesn't pay child support for a child
he didn't want and one which resulted from a condom failure,
he will go to jail if he doesn't go to work?

At least in jail he has the right to three meals and a bed.
I guess you're right -- that's not really slavery.  Hmm...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: .sig Alert!
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:00:25 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

"I happen to like being cluless all the same. Besides its fun everyone should
try ..."

<giggle> Sums it all up, doncha think?

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:13:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.185509.20901@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov23.131501.9420@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > Let's see.  You cross-posted irresponsibly to a number of
> > inappropriate newsgroups and someone complained to your
> > administrators about it.  
> Don't be stupid, I didn't cross-post my article.  I had 
> posted one article each to soc.singles, a.r, and a.r.c, 
> each on separate days.  Larry Margolis contacted my
> system administrators and told them that I had been
> "letter-bombing" newsgroups.  He didn't even bother
> to contact me first to get the facts.  

Hair-splitting now, Reverend?  Same difference.  You posted
to inappropriate groups.  Satisfied?

> > But I don't characterize Larry's mail as
> > threatening since it contained no threats or requests for
> > disciplinary action more severe than a 'talking to.' 
> I don't care about your opinion.

Then why read it or respond, silly religious fanatic person?

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Followup-To: soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:31:37 GMT

Followups are directed out of talk.abortion and soc.women.

In article <1992Nov22.185341.10487@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:

>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov21.222434.4570@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>>
>>>Doesn't that sort of show homosexual tendancies??  Male penetrating
>>>a male??  Sounds gay to me.
>>
>>    No, it doesn't.  Think before you post.  Or at least try to.
>
>I DID THINK!!  And I THINK that a male having sex with a male is homo-
>sexuality, just by definiton!

Are you really too brain-damaged to distinguish between action and
desire?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: The answer (are the unborn alive?)!!!
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:26:32 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

In article <1eg014INN6aq@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
O'Dwyer) wrote:
> 
> Does a cat have a soul?

Joshu says "Mew".

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:28:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.175129.12959@nas.nasa.gov>
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>eb>In article <1992Nov17.215532.7928@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eb>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>dk>In article <1992Nov17.162948.18306@nas.nasa.gov>
>dk>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>rf>In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com>
>rf>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>rf>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
>rf>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
 
>dk>No there is not.  At least not legislative. 
 
>eb>Truth by Blatant Assertion.

>eb>Dammit, Dan, you know better than that....
 
>Apparently I do not know any better.  I would think that those of 
>you all wishing to restrict abortion rights to protect viable fetus
>would come up with legislation that would accomplish your goals.  
>I have not seen any of this that would protect the right of the 
>woman.  Therefore, I think it is safe for me to assume that it is
>not possible.  If you disagree, then post this magical legislation.

Ray asked a question.  You made a statement.  The standards of proof
are rather different.

For the record: I think that any laws restricting abortion (as opposed
to laws offering alternatives, for example paying the difference in
price between the medical bills in cases of abortion and premature
birth by Caesarian) will lead to some restrictions on a woman's right
to terminate her pregnancy.  Now, depending on the law the
restrictions may be complete (no abortions, period) or fairly
insignicant (once the woman's gone into labor, no abortions may be
performed in ways that make it likely the z/e/f will die unless the
woman's health is in danger).

However, this is my opinion, and cases like mandatory informed consent
in the third are very iffy: I can provide an explanation for my
beliefs, but no proof whatsoever.

And id the lack of counter-examples demonstrates anything, it
demonstrates that writing such a proposal is difficult, or that there
isn't much interest in doing so (given the low number of moderates
around here).  It does *not* demonstrate that such proposals are
inherently impossible; absence of evidence is *not* evidence of
absence.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49118 soc.men:19774 soc.women:20138 alt.politics.homosexuality:7506
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Rape
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:12:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Nov22.101224.11073
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1ek8trINNp56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>
>>Men assualt more men, men kill more men.  These are violent acts.  Killing
>>is the most violent act there is.  So why don't men rape men more?  I mean
>>if it were truly an act of dominance of force then wouldn't men rape men?  It
>>just seems like rape would be just as horrible for a man (I am Gay so I am
>>not talking about man on man sex).  So why aren't these violent men, who
>>kill and assualt men, also raping them?
>
>How do you know that they don't?  Perhaps they do but it's not reported.
>
>							--  Michal

"Perhaps" is an mighty powerful word here......don't you think?

My point was that I think sex has something to do with rape.  It is
an action of voilence, but it is sexual...no matter how sick it is.

Another point is is that I don't believe that on issue on issue women
and men are equal just because we are humans.  As far as rights go we
are equal (meaning we should all have the very exact same rights).  But
as far as emotions, thoughts, and actions go I am tired of nerdering the
'genders' whenever we try and discuss these biological differences.  Just
like we have taken sex out of rape.  We will never get a handle on problems
out there if we keep eliminating objective thought.

Like AIDS.  Current beliefs are....but I do keep an eye on the fringe
beliefs too.  I am not going to go down the proper approved road especially
what with how huge this disease is now....We cannot be narrow minded on
any issue....
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48359 alt.abortion.inequity:5158 soc.men:19488
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 23:21:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>Seems to me that we have, as a people in America, reached a crossroads:

>	I posit that both of these situations are undesirable for the people
>	concerned.

>I propose we act together.  I propose that both women AND men do something
>historic -- act together as a group to secure reproductive and parental
>rights for both genders.

>What I envision is a law which provides all of the following:
[proposal deleted for brevity]

>This package of legislation would provide the following:

>1)	It would >guarantee< the right of a woman to choose whether or not
>	to carry a pregnancy to term - - that is, codify at a federal level
>	the freedom of reproduction that women want.

>2)	It would >guarantee< the right of a man to choose whether or not to
>	become a father, while insuring that the woman (who is the ultimate
>	authority on the final disposition of the fetus) has enough
>	information to know whether or not she can expect a full 1/2
>	contribution in the raising and parenting of that child BEFORE it
>	becomes her (or their) ward.

>3)	It would provide that should a child be wanted by EITHER of its
>	parents that it would have a home with said parent(s) in preference
>	to adoptive placement with any other person.

>I believe
>that a >balanced< approach such as this, which can be supported by both men
>and women, is the only way both men and women will manage to guarantee their
>reproductive freedom >and< their rights and responsibilities with regards to
>minor children.

How does your proposal protect the interests of an unwanted child
(assuming it isn't aborted)?  How does it protect the interests of
a child who is wanted by a parent who is financially unable tp 
provide for said child?  

							--  Michal
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:10:21 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->If it's not happening, then why does it hurt to legislate against it?

are you saying you want to legislate against some
women's right to have an abortion?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion