HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:37:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bz87I5.JAK@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
#In article <480@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##I'm beginning to think that some people in this thread would like
##to have everything codified into law.
#
#Nope.  We would like to have the same rights women have in the reproductive
#arena, limited by biological differences.

Some of "you" do seem to want everything codified, though, it would seem.

##I wonder if Denninger also thinks that parents who had birth control
##failures result in live births should have their children taken
##away from them.  I wonder if he thinks that no one should ever
##be allowed to change their minds.  I wonder if he would deny
##custody to a man who used a condom and later decided that he
##wanted the resulting child.
#
#I don't think that people should be able to change their minds on a
#contractual issue without paying the price, no.  If you claim you're going
#to do something in any other area of life, and get renumeration for it, you
#cannot then say "oh I'm sorry, I don't really want to do that now" and walk
#away.
#
#Yet in this area >women< can do exactly this.  Men, however, cannot, and in
#fact aren't even allowed to make a decision in the first place!  The choice
#rests entirely with the woman involved.

Child support is not renumeration for childbirth.  Perhaps this
is why you have such a problem with it - you think that you're
being forced to pay for a service that you didn't want.

Men can, in fact, walk away.  Many have.

##My problem with "male choice" is this - a woman who has an
##abortion has made an irrevocable decision.  A man who renounces
##his paternal rights and responsibilities has not.  Even if
##he legally had no further rights, it would be hard to deny a
##child's request to know his father if the father changed his
##mind and wanted to know the child.  
#
#How does this differ from a woman giving up a child for adoption?  Again, a
#changeable" decision.  Yet we allow this in our society.

I haven't seen as many men whining about not having the right
to give a child up for adoption as I have about not having the
right to abort.  I have a lot more sympathy with the adoption
argument.

I'd point out, though, that adoption is not strictly analogous
to what I have outlined above.  Women who place their children
for adoption have a set time limit during which they can change
thier minds.  Unless it is an open adoption, they don't know where
their child is, nor who adopted him or her.  


##with time.  An unwanted pregnancy sometimes results in a
##wanted child.  
#
#And, frequently, a walking wallet.

I suppose that you had a point.  I'm sure that I'm probably not 
interested in hearing it.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:41:56 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Dec11.022530.23407@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec4.044322.7917@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Who created "the big sleep" in the first place?  According to your bible
>>>your god created death to punish Adam and Eve and all of their creations.
>>>It compares to you hanging your kid off a cliff by a rope and when her
>>>arms get too tired to hold on any more and she lets go and falls to her
>>>death you just say, "Well, it was her choice to let go."  You created the
>>>death-situation, then blame her for dying.
>
>Don't be stupid.

Ridiculous.  A Christian telling atheists not to be stupid.

>When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>someone who prefers suicide.

Oh dear.  His saving grace.  His saving grace, manifested in
excavating the abyss under the cliff, piling sharp stones on the bottom
and polishing the surface of the cliff, so that the child will slip.
Then the villain lovingly prepares a rope for the child to grasp, and
when he predictably slips (of his own accord, as you would have it)
and is hanging over the cliff, the old jerk comes along with an oily grin
and says: `Do you want Me [note capital] to save you?', and then he even
expects to be respected, thanked, blessed, worshipped and so on for
having been such a revolting sadist.

What an utterly idiotic religion.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:31:32 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->UNRETRACTED LIE
->---------------

->"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
-> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
->				    Susie Garvin
->				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
->				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:31:36 GMT

> Michal Leah Peri
>> Bruce Cameron

>>It depends, if one takes the typical pro-life stance, then irregardless
>>of the man's actions, contraceptive failure does not release the man 
>>from his responsibilities. However, if one takes the pro-choice stance,
>>that the use of a contraceptive is indicative of intent (or lack there of),
>>the man has met his responsibility  and should be release from his 
>>liability for the child. 

>A hungry child doesn't give a damn if Daddy used a condom.

Simply ingenious, Michal.  How can you argue that a woman should not have
to carry a child to term just because she had sex, yet believe that a man
should have to pay for a child for 18 years just because he had sex?

Either both genders consent to childbearing/childrearing by having sex,
or neither do.

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:47:44 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Dec17.174412.5975@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.161128.17605@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes...
>[Riiiiip]
>>KD> Good luck.   It was reported today in the Chicago Sun Times that a 2nd
>>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>KD> trimester fetus has been successfully saved after VERY premature birth.
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Please provide a full citation for this. My professional opinion is
>that this is not possible.

I'm sure you can find the article if you wish.  I believe it was in the
paper on the 16th of this month (possibly the 15th).

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:06:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
>> 
>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>>>someone who prefers suicide.
>> 
>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
>
>
>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

If one is not alive, one cannot be killed.

--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / iikkap@mits.mdata.fi, in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODie's attempts to tell only half the story
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:21:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


In his zest to slur Patrick, DOD reposts a single article from an
ongoing discussion.  I thought that I'd repost Dippold's post
on his comments, as well as another person's views.  

Susan

/begin included articles/

From pitt.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!qualcom!rdippold Sun Dec 20 14:52:18 EST 1992
Article: 39480 of alt.sex
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:01:29 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

sh30443@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Shiva the Destoyer) writes:
>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>>>	I hope this article makes you uncomfortable.  I hope this article makes
>>>you act.

>>You bet.  I'm gonna go rape somebody.

>  I have *NEVER* flamed anyone, in ANY forums.  Nor am I a particularly
>righteous or religious person, but you have stepped beyond tolerable 
>boundaries, 

Oooh, ahhhh, and as soon as I did it I felt the Laws of the Universe
closing in on me for exceeding the Tolerable Boundaries.


>and I hope you were either kidding, or go kill yourself because
>otherwise your life is worthless.

Why, no, I find that confessing the intention to commit rape where
tens of thousands of people will read it before I do so to be a
particularly brilliant legal strategy.

I also find that toying with those who crosspost particularly pompous
and heartwrenching ("Wouldn't you like to make more money?  Sure, we
all would") missives generates some of the most interesting mail.

P.S. What's a Destoyer?  Is that like the Toyminator?
-- 
The best God is one that gives nothing and demands nothing.  That is the only
God you can count on. -- Conan


From pitt.edu!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bz269 Sun Dec 20 14:52:53 EST 1992
Article: 39577 of alt.sex
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:46:35 GMT
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Followup-To: alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, wc8754@writer.yorku.ca (John Slonimsky) says:
>In article <rdippold.724640745@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>>>	I hope this article makes you uncomfortable.  I hope this article makes
>>>you act.
>>You bet.  I'm gonna go rape somebody.

>Very funny!  And next you're going to tell me that the holocaust
>didn't  happen.
>GROW UP!

Worse would be if he were the kind of guy that posts about the 
holocaust on alt.sex and alt.sex bondage.

	The purpose of these groups is the discussion of sex.

If the purpose of the "rape rape and rape some more" author was to 
motivate readers to write their Reps to call for US involvement in 
a war, or to educate the readers about some politicical situation,
he posted in the wrong place.  Talk.politics.misc is for that, not
as or asb.

If the purpose of the "rape rape and rape some more" author was to  
titilate the readers sexualy, or attract flames and jokes dealing 
with sex or some aspect of his article, he posted to the right place:
alt.sex or alt.sex.bondage.

Given this, Ron Dippold's response was very appropriate.

Jim Del Vecchio.

/end included articles/

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: DODie's fantasies
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:06:41 GMT

patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes ...
> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>Be careful, Larry.  DOD will probably post "Larry Margolis advocates
>>public masturbation" tomorrow, in at least six newsgroups.  (None
>>of which will be alt.sex.solo.)
>
>...but one of which will likely be misc.test, and the other candidates:
>sci.skeptic, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.turkish, alt.tasteless,
>and (of course) alt.holtsinger.lie.lie.lie...:-)

And don't forget alt.holtsinger.truth.truth.truth.

Oh wait, that newsgroup doesn't exist.

How about that.

:-)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is there some point to Darcy's question?
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:40:01 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec21.011930.21668@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) continues insisting that /z/e/f/s are legal persons.  As
proof he cites a case in which unborn children can sue *after birth*
for injuries caused before birth.  Yoo-hoo, Kevin, please notice that
the right is only granted after birth, i.e. after legal personhood is
attained.  He continues:

>>>Fetuses can have inheritance rights, albeit contingent on birth.
>>
>>This does not provide a counterexample at all.  

Becaus they have to be born, i.e. become persons, to get the rights.

>Why not? Your only "examples" of fetal NON-personhood, besides RvW itself, 
>consist of administrative definitions. The inheritance example existed in
>the Common Law even before abortion was criminalized. I think it's more
>indicative of established legal principles than whatever happens to be the
>bureaucratic definition of "person" in the SSA this week...

And inheritance rights do not apply until after birth and legal
personhood.  Regardless of whether I agree on which is more indicative
of legal principles, both apply only after birth.

>>If you think the generalization is false, please provide several
>>examples of instances where /z/e/f/s are given recognition as persons.
>
>Refute the ones I've already provided first.

You haven't provided any.

>>The SSA and IRS examples are not isolated
>>instances at all; consider that all-important question of citizenship
>>of which they are a subset.  
>
>Wrong. They are not a "subset" of citizenship at all. The SSA could let
>me give a social security number for my cat, the IRS could let me have a
>tax credit for, say, solar heating panels or asbestos removal, and none of 
>this would violate any Constitutional principles.

Only persons are allowed social security numbers.  If your cat got
one, it would be in error.  You cannot apply for one for your cat.
You are starting to sound purposefully stupid.

>As for citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment says that anyone who is born 
>or naturalized is a citizen, but it doesn't say that those are the ONLY 
>things that can be citizens, so if the INS wanted to grant citizenship to a 
>tree, what do you suppose would be unconstitutional about it? 

Your counterargument to me is that the INS might want to make a tree a
citizen and that this would not be unconstitutional.  Don't you feel
foolish even typing this?

SJM
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:40:45 GMT
Organization: The Immoral Minority

#Will you ever, even after all the communication you want, let
#your bed-partner decide what to do in a case of unplanned pregnancy?

In article <28307@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu 
(Beth Weiss) writes:

>_We_ have decided what to do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy:
>make our family one bigger than it is.

If you would change your mind, do you want to do it independently,
or under a law that says that your partner must agree?

Do you have any objection to a legislation that will require your
sex partner approval for your abortion right?

Do you have any objection to the current legislation that let you take
your partner to the cleaners, even if you agreed about an abortion in
a case of unwanted pregnancy?  (Assuming you changed your mind.)
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:57:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <11DEC92.17544571@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
wrote:
> 
> In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> > 
> >So, Loren, who died and left you in charge of making that decision for the 
> >fetus?  And what makes you more qualified to decide that than the woman 
> >carrying the fetus?
> 
> The woman is no more qualified to decide if the fetus wants to live or die 
> then I am.

This is an astounding assertion.  What would possibly lead you to believe
that a fetus "wants" _anything_?

> It is generally accepted that, unless you have facts to the contrary,
> living beings do not want to die.

It is?  "Generally accepted" by whom?  Does this refer to _all_ living
beings?

> You imply that the woman carrying the fetus should be able to decide it it 
> wants to live or die.

No, I believe Heather is saying that the woman carrying the fetus should be
able to decide whether it _does_ live or die.  The wants, needs, desires
and aspirations of the fetus (should it, against all reason, have any)
don't enter into consideration here.

> Then a mother of a 1 year old is even more qualified to make that decision.  
> She had been with the child longer.

I'd like to hazard the observation at this point that you seem to be an
extremely stupid person, Loren.  Not just misinformed, or ignorant, or
deluded, but stupid.  Stoopid.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Holtsinger pushing infanticide again
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:41:07 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e 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
Followup-To: talk.abortionFrom: margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis)

In <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Pro-choicers will often argue that even if the child is
>considered to be a person, the woman should still have the
>right to separate herself from the child, and that this
>right stems from the so-called "right to bodily autonomy",
>or the "right to bodily privacy".
[...]
>Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>as a person.  This position implies that newborn infants
>are not persons, since there is no difference between a
>late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers
>must condone infanticide.

See above, where you referred to the woman's right to separate herself from
the fetus?  This might come as a shock to you, but after birth, they *are*
separated.  As usual, your "logic" doesn't hold up to reality.

Why do you feel compelled push infanticide?  And why do you make up beliefs
and impute them to others, when you're afraid to post your own beliefs
(despite repeated requests)?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion