HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: 18 Nov 1992 08:50:59 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov17.221107.23870@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <32781@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>>A drunk driver is not forced to donate tissue, blood, or organs to
>>save the life of a victim of his bad judgment.
>If the drunk driver were the only possible source of those things, the
>victim would certainly die if the donation weren't made, and the
>burden to the drunk driver would b commensurate with the burden to a
>woman of carrying a pregnancy to term, would you say it would be in
>principle unjust to force him to make the donation?  If so, why?


Not to get sidetracked into hyptheticals or anything, but you *do*
recognise, don't you, that RIGHT NOW, if I were involved in an auto
accident...
            indeed, if I, and I alone CAUSED an auto accident....
that, just for the sake of argument, killed me and maimed another person,
the medical community STILL couldn't seize organs out of my dead body
to save the life of the other person.  Even if I were a perfect tissue
match.  They would need either my CONSENT (via an organ donor card) or
the consent of my next-of-kin.

Even DEAD, society cannot violate my body against my will.

Do you think that should be changed?

Adrienne Regard
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:48:10 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <shkq7a0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
#
#In article <1ebg8lINN3rh@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, you write:
#|In article <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
#|[...]
#|>When you rape, you involve the body of another person.
#|>That person, just like you, has control over what happens
#|>to his/her body.  The consent of the other person is
#|>what makes the difference between consensual sex & rape.
#|>When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
#|>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
#|>you have to prove your case.)
#|The second statement is incorrect.  And it is trivially easy to prove that
#|someone else's body is involved during some abortions, just as it is
#|trivially easy to show that another person's body is involved in your rape
#|example (hint: no need to submit a rigorous topological proof in either
#|case).
#
#Who is that "someone else"?  (Hint: is your answer at 8 weeks
#any different from your answer at 8 months?)

No fair asking me such hard questions if I'm only 8 weeks old.  :-)

What do you mean "who"?  Who are you?  Do you honestly believe "you" didn't
exist at 8 weeks, or 8 months?  I understand that such is a _reasonable_
belief, but please be aware that it is an act of faith nonetheless.  It's
not the _only_ reasonable belief, either.

#cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Jim reiterates the chastity belt theory of forced pregnancy!
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:15:42 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov17.165420.294@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1e90b9INNlbk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>.In <32682@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>.
>>.>So, to accept your argument we have to buy all
>>.>of the assumptions implicit in equating child support payments and
>>.>forced pregnancy.
>>>
>>>My claim was only that child support payments are a heavy obligation
>>>that can seriously affect the ability of the person burdened by the
>>>obligation to live his life as he wants to.  There are obvious
>>>differences between making such payments and being pregnant.  The
>>
>>You bet your life there are.  In the first place, the woman in question
>>has two responsibilities, and the man in question only one.
>
>Two voluntary responsibilities, yes. Which doesn't even hold a candle
>to one FORCED responsibility, in terms of injustice.

Pay close attention to the last line of the first quoted paragraph.

>Yet again, Adrienne, you are guilty of making the consent of the woman
>to her situation "invisible".

Yet again, Kevin, you demonstrate an inability to read and understand a
simple sentence.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: What am I?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:46:48 GMT

In article <92322.191328ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.204720.21534@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>In article <92305.222922ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>
>>> [a self-absorbed Mein Kampf-reminiscent "manifesto"]
>>
>>>So what am I?
>
>>A waffler.
>
>I'll add that to the list Kebbie.  So will you now
>be referring to me as a radical extremist waffler?

I wouldn't call someone a "waffler" without explaining WHY I thought they
were waffling, Ms. Birmingham. In this instance, I identified several of
the key terms which you left undefined and/or unquantified, which led me to 
my accusation of "waffling". You have chosen to concentrate on the name-
calling itself, but you are apparently trying to evade the rationale that 
accompanied the name-calling. Are you a coward, Ms. Birmingham? Since you 
seem unwilling to follow through on it, can I assume that this whole "What 
Am I?" thread was an exercise in mental masturbation from the outset?

							- Kevin 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:36:17 GMT

Hello all - I am fairly sure that most of you don't
read alt.romance, so I thought I would share the
responses generaged by DOD from his post there.

Somehow, I don't think he's getting the reaction he
hoped for.

Diana

afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:

] In article <1992Nov16.234644.9072@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Woody Allen) 
] writes...
] 
] [Nothing appropriate to the group]
] 
] Thanks, Woody ... but you didn't include the fact that, apparently, the 
] Fetal remains from an Abortion can *also* post to Usenet.
] 
] 
] -- Stephen
] 
] 	Growing up is easier than you think ... one day, you just wake
] 	up an adult ... and mourn your loss.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Today's Quiz
Date: 19 Nov 1992 09:06:27 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov18.220754.51726@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>Has Doug ever avoided answering embarrassing questions because his
>newsreader was broken?


Sortof depends on how you define 'newsreader', don't it.

If you are talking about his machine, no.

If you are talking about himself......  (-:

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: *about Phoney and net.idiots*
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:41:46 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
->chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
->> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
->> > Hey, let's make this a real, official vote.  Y'all email your
->> > votes to me at cbnewsj!decay and I'll post the results in two weeks.
->> 
->> Let's think about this, Dean.  Jim Keegan feels that the Perfesser is still
->> too new to be an honest-to-goodness net.idiot, and that he hasn't accrued
->> enough disrespect in other newsgroups.  I think he has a point.

->I disagree.  The "Doctor" is currently being a bonehead in talk.
->religion.misc and alt.atheism. 

sure he is. as i said to lyman:

"he's too new and hasn't earned the multi-newsgroup
disrespect over time that darcy, k*nt, t*d have.
conducting a vote for Phoney would be like giving a kid
who won a few golden gloves matches a heavyweight title
shot."

plus, net.idiot is an alt.flame thing. Phoney is
unknown there. 

imo, all you'll acheive running a net.idiot election
for Phoney is a giant flamewar and Phoney won't win
anyway.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:50:02 GMT

> = (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>> = (Bill Overpeck) writes to steve

>novak:
>>My experience with the "rest of humanity" suggests that they're not
>>nearly as hateful as you seem to be.  Perhaps you should take your 
>>own advice.

>novak doesn't seem at all "hateful" to me bill. he
>seems witty, fair minded, interesting, caring. then
>again, i suppose these are all attributes you might
>find "hateful."

(Thanks.  I'll send you that $10 later.)

I'd get you and Eric together to drink some Chimay ale, but I'm afraid
you two would just shake up the bottles and squirt it on each other.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:06:57 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.220057.8270@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1ebb5tINN3cm@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.004440.19764@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>>smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
[doctor needs to kill almost born foetus to save mother]
>
>>I think to call a mature baby in the birth canal a foetus is stretching the
>>term.  This is a baby being born.  It is certainly offensive to say that the
>>baby is more important than the woman - but is it any less offensive to say
>>the woman is more important than the baby?  I, for one, am prepared to say
>>that they are equally important.
>
>Do you really think so?

Yes I do.

>I, for one, have a gut reaction against any doctor who would *not*
>sacrifice a baby being born for the mother.

I don't understand this.  If a woman and infant are in a car-wreck, and there
is only time to cut one free and save them, do you have a gut reaction to
someone who makes a snap decision to save the infant?  I only have a gut
reaction to the car-wreck.
 
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:58:24 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

> Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
> because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?

Have you met anyone who actually can't keep their zipper up, Ted?  Maybe
when you find someone who is having trouble with their zipper, you can
have a discussion.  In the mean time, have fun with your straw man.

(Is it inflatable?)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Is it birth control?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:53:44 GMT


Abortion's most common use is birth control.  Sorry to break it to
some of you, but that's just how it is.  People who state they are
opposed to use of abortion as birth control would approve its use
only in times where the pregnancy was a threat, and not the birth 
itself.  They state opposition to abortion where birth would 
endanger the woman's life, as well as denying it in most cases
of rape or incest, exclusions favored by many.

Perhaps they mean that they don't like to see abortion used as the 
primary means of birth control, or something like that.   

Personally, I'm highly opposed to abortion when used as a jet
fighter...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:01:59 GMT

In article <Bxv81E.39s@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>Don has said things on this net that 
>>I think are pretty dim.  And he's not the only one.  So?

I think I'll hang this next to my diploma as a more convincing proof 
of intelligence.

>>Adrienne Regard

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:59:04 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):

>> Hiya, Suzanne.  You've been awfully quiet ...

> Not on this end of the wire.  I've been up to my neck in writing a large
> piece code!   Some people actually work for a living :-)

Smiley noted. :-)

>> ... since GHWB took it on the chin ...

> Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
> impeachment in a year or two.  :-)

What's he done that compares with Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, or (possibly)
the Iran hostage deal of 1980?

> and your state referendum on abortion was voted down by almost 2 to 1.

> Didja ever notice, Chris, that I have never once posted that I supported
> that referendum? 

You all but trumpeted it from the rooftops.  Perhaps you did not explicitly
support it, but you went out of your way to mention it.  I believe you
predicted its passage.

> Ya know why?   It allowed for the killing of the children of rape and incest.
> _A LOT_ of pro-lifers actually voted against that referendum, for precisely
> that reason.   Since Arizona law _already_ outlaws all abortions except to
> save the life of the mother, what incentive would any pro-lifer have had to
> vote for it?

Sounds like whistling while walking past the graveyard to me.  I've read
that many pro-lifers have used a piece-meal approach to antiabortion 
legislation: nipping away at abortion accessibility until there's nothing
left.  Why the about-face in Arizona?

> The day that Roe v Wade falls, one or the other of those laws would be
> reinstated.   So why the hell should we have settled for the lesser one?

I suspect that we will be importing (or making our own) RU486, develop safe
and effective birth control and take other measures to decrease the demand
for abortion long before Roe vs. Wade is in any danger again.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:09:33 GMT

In article <1ehm2iINNid0@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>That's exactly the point.  Rape is *not* sexually motivated.
>Rape is motivated by violence and intimidation.  That's why 
>little children and old women get raped. 

Gee. I don't know. Child molesters aren't sexually attracted to children?
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:13:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Nov15.063359.20603@midway.uchicago.edu> 
eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>As I told Suzanne-Lucia, I'm trying to come up with a system which
>*both* makes it unlikely that women will be denied medically necessary
>abortions and makes it difficult for women to obtain medically
>unnecessary abortions.  

Next will you please try to come up with a system that fits coherently
into our legal tradition, without casually overturning justice and limits
on governmental power?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                      suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:44:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.185028.10080@dragon.acadiau.ca>
890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>>Yeah, and if you get drunk in a bar and wake up naked in an alley somewhere,
>>you gave your consent to being robbed, too, right?  Idjit.
>>--
>
>No, but you took it upon yourself to give up your choice of being able
>to make enough decision not to let yourself pass out, and then get robbed.
>Once again, it's your own fault.

And if I run across the street without looking and get hit by a car,
that's my own fault too.  But does that mean I *consented* to being
hit by a car?  I agree with Larry's characterization.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:41:38 GMT


dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
|ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
|>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
|No there is not.  At least not legislative. 

What do you call Roe v Wade, then?  Or do you agree with
Holtsinger about Roe?

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Cows are just plants that happen to move around a bit." 
    -- Thant Tessman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:49:23 GMT

>  = parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker):
>> = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Here's a thought:  Recall the film "Awakenings".  Does this sort of
>>situation create intolerable problems with defining personhood?
>>Shall those whose brain function appears to be indefinitely suspended
>>be stripped of their rights as humans?  Do they regain their rights
>>the day they regain "consciousness"?  BTW, in the preceding sentence,
>>should the '?' be inside or outside the ""? :-)
> 
> Well, I haven't seen that film, but to answer your question(s)...
> A person whose brain function *is* indefinitely suspended is not
> a "person" at that time.

An observation: this is an interesting subject, and certainly reasonable
persons will disagree.  But even without resolving the issue, clearly 
this discussion illustrates that mere physical resemblance to persons, 
"human life", and "beating hearts" do not imply "personhood".

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: J Price answers questions
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:52:41 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
>|>>I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.
>|>
>|>Coward.  You want to set the rules but refuse to own up to the
>|>consequences.
>|>
>Name calling is so easy whta do you mean I refuse to own up to the 
>consequences? Or maybe you mean since I am a man I can't get pregnant?

Well lessee here.
1) You face no chance of getting pregnant.
2) It isn't going to your pain of delivery
3) It isn't going to be you risking death
4) You aren't offering to pay for anyone's delivery
5) You aren't offering to pay for prenatal care
6) You aren't offering to adopt
7) You aren't offering to support a woman while she goes through birth

In short, you aren't offering anything.  Why then do you think you
have any say whatever in what a woman does with her body?

>I don't plan on engaging in any activity that could get a female pregnant until
>I am married or until I am ready to accept the resposibility if she gets 
>pregnant and to raise the child together.

Good for you.

By the way, should your future wife die during childbirth, will you 
be dying as well?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Roger Williams confused about what constitutes a lie!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:16:50 GMT

In article <BxxtCM.MBA@access.digex.com>, roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams) writes:
> ...In response Kaflowitz (if
> memory serves) posted a gracious article complimenting me on
> the extensiveness of my research and concluding that I was "a
> scholar and a gentleman".  (Although I suspect that now he wishes
> he could have the words back).

Nah.  I deed them to you in fee simple absolute.

I've gotten crankier over time.  I know I posted something to you
the other day in this thread.  I don't recall being rude about it,
but I take considerable exception to the notion that Mezias'
making an error about one line of his being part of an article
is somehow in any way egregious when compared to the deliberate
attempt to post deceptive articles.  Anyway, if I was rude,
I apologize for that.  Now watch yourself or the village idiot
will accuse you of kowtowing.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion