HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Karl Rominger waffles: Surprise, surprise!
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:09:44 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec17.043531.10053@pellns.alleg.edu>
romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger), the latest fetus fanatic to
advertise his stupidity in all caps, originally wrote:

>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.

Then in response to his fellow fetus fanatic, David Anderson, he
changed his mind (Aside: I hope it works better now):

>In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
>question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
>question of justice as it relates to abortion.

(1) Isn't generous of Karl to concede that his original statement was
a lot of hogwash in the legal context (US) where he posted it?  

(2) Karl seems to share with his fellow fetus fanatics a desire to
impose his definitions of absolute justice on women.  Isn't that
generous?  It's interesting that these fetus fanatics never include
having a enough faith in women to let them make judgments about their
own bodies in their definitions of `absolute justice?'  However, I
have to admit that Karl is correct that absolute justice is
complicated.  For example, posting a factually incorrect statement in
all capital letters on Talk.abortion is a pretty stupid way to
introduce the topic.

(3) To call the utter nonsense Karl will post as a justification for
giving special rights to /z/e/f/s a `thesis' is self-possessed
ignorance.  I can't wait to see the bilge he tries to pass off as
logic to justify an agenda of hateful legislation aimed at restricting
the rights of women.  He has already demonstrated his understanding of
consistency by first posting that no elaboration of his position was
required and now promising to provide it.

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:46:21 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1fvvd9INNjdp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec5.154830.23744@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>>VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU
>>
>>[proposed ways to reduce the number of abortions]
>>
>>>  * A waiting period should be enacted.  I dare somebody to give me a
>>>    GOOD reason why this should not happen.
>
>How 'bout because we've already decided that it ain't nobody's business
>how long and hard or how short and easily we make up our minds about things?
>
>Show me a GOOD reason why there shouldn't be a waiting period before you
>decide to buy groceries.
>
>Show me a GOOD reason why there shouldn't be a waiting period before you
>get a pet.
>
>Show me a GOOD reason why there shouldn't be a waiting period before you 
>get cash from your local ATM machine.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Well, Adrienne, its too late.

One waiting period law has already been upheld.  This is but the first step
and the first of many.  There will be more.

Still interested in not helping with men gaining the same rights as women
have had for the last 20 years with regards to reproductive freedom, and
thereby enlisting men in this fight as well?

Perhaps this one law was a quirk.  But there is no guarantee that is so.


By the way, if you are pro-choice, then just what IS it that a man and woman
create when a pregnancy >begins< due to sexual intercourse?  I suspect that
you won't say "person", or "child", because if you do then you have
committed murder if you abort it.

If you say "fetus" or "embryo" then just what action is it, and whos choice,
that causes that fetus to become "child"?

Now what was that again with regards to who ought to bear the responsibility
which came with the choice?

--
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
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 11 Dec 1992 15:54:59 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <11DEC92.18221565@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
 
>>This is *not* the rational for shooting -- to kill -- someone FLEEING from
>>a crime, where lethal force is ALSO allowable.
>I never said it was.  I was explaining why people who kill their rapists, 
>during the crime, can plea Not guilty by self defense.
>I never tried to justify killing someone who was fleeing.

'I never tried to actually address the legal issue requested by myself,
and presented to me by Larry.  I thought I'd take an end-run around it
instead.'

Yeah, right.

Adrienne Regard


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52114 alt.abortion.inequity:5934 soc.men:21253
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:15:05 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1g2ioqINNiuc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Ah.  Over the objections of the father?  Fathers who had been recognised
>by the courts as having both the legal responsibilities and rights of parent-
>hood of these children?

>Do you mean to tell me that these two women walked away from these children
>during the last five years but the FATHERS of these children had no
>'corresponding right' to place those babies up for adoption?

Adrienne, a couple of years ago I asked you if you knew even a 

single case where:

1) The mother gave up a custody of a newborn.

2) The father has gotten the custody.

3) The state forced the mother to pay even one penny in child's support.

I also pointed out that when the sexes are reversed  
there are quite a few cases like this.

Have you found any case like that?

Does it make any change in your deep conviction that the
laws are fair toward men?

Is there any discrimination against men that can change your
deep conviction that the laws are fair toward men?

>Do tell.

Do tell.

>Adrienne Regard

Hillel                                   gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Recently there were some statistics posted in alt.child-support about how 
good fathers who got joint custody were at paying their support.  I don't 
know if anybody else noticed What's Wrong with This Picture."
                                               --  Eric Pepke
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:13:11 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes ...
>rf> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>My point that I have tried to make, and apparently have not 
>done a very good job of presenting, is that any legislation 
>that would try to dictate how abortions are to be performed,
>would also prevent women, who have reasons we can both agree
>are valid, from being able to procure.

Actually, the point to tried to make was that legislation might allow
other to impose restrictions, not that the legislation itself would.
And while this is certainly not a minor point, in itself it is
probably not sufficient a reason to prevent such legislation.  An 
argument claiming that protections for the fetus cannot be
implemented because it might allow others to interfere to the
detriment of the mother, can also be used against any law that might
allow such injustices.  In particular, you might just as well argue
that because some people are injustly convicted of murder, any law
restricting one's ability to lop off the head of one's neighbor should
not be enacted.  But sometimes people are mistakenly convicted of
murder, and sometimes the neighbors keep you up all night with
partying.

>rf>Society generally disagrees 
>rf>with that viewpoint, as there have been a few cases of people 
>rf>charged with manslaughter for killing _other_ people's fetuses.
> 
>I have no idea about social points, but I would disagree 
>that these people should be charged with manslaughter.  I 
>have heard of a few such cases, but I do believe they are 
>a rarity.  I would think the normal charges would be assault.

Pardon my skepticism, but if it was _your_ 8 1/2 month child that was
killed, I suspect you would be more than a bit put out by just an 
assault charge.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis' dishonest arguments about rape and self-defense 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.052932.14834@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> the justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense
>> derives from the victim's reasonable belief that their life
>> is in _immediate_ danger, or that they face great bodily harm.

> But the victim need *not* believe that, and is still justified in
> blowing away the assailant.

... because the law presumes that the victim's life is threatened.
Your rape-pregnancy analogy fails for two reasons: 1) pregnancy
is not normally a situation where the woman can reasonably believe 
that her life is immediately threatened, and 2) rape is unlawful
force, pregnancy is not.

>>   Ordinarily a woman is justified in taking human life in protecting 
>>   her chastity where she has been placed in fear for her life or
>>   great bodily harm."
>>
>>   186 Neb. 359, 183 N.W.2d 258, State v. Goodseal (1971)

> That's the state of Nebraska.  

No, that's the common law justification for the use of
lethal force in self-defense; it's not limited to the
state of Nebraska.

> I'm primarily talking about the state of
> New York, where it's lawful to kill the attacker in order to prevent or
> terminate a rape, *without* requiring that there be any belief that the
> victim's life is endangered.  

... because the law presumes that the victim's life is threatened.

> You also consistently fail to address the
> fact that it's legal to kill the perpetrator when they're fleeing from 
> the crime.  

The apprehension of criminals has absolutely nothing to do with 
your bogus rape-pregnancy analogy, which started this thread.

> You also fail to address the fact that in at least one state, it's
> legal to blow away someone who's walking down the street with your TV set.

That's irrelevant to your bogus rape-pregnancy analogy.

> And you ignore the fact that, statistically speaking, a rape victim 
> can *not* consider that her life is in jeopardy.

Statistics has nothing to do with the justification for the
use of lethal force in self-defense:

  "Ordinarily a woman is justified in taking human life in protecting 
   her chastity where she has been placed in fear for her life or
   great bodily harm."

   186 Neb. 359, 183 N.W.2d 258, State v. Goodseal (1971)


>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice...NOT!
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:02:00 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
MLP> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
MLP> >It depends, if one takes the typical pro-life stance, then irregardless
MLP> >of the man's actions, contraceptive failure does not release the man
MLP> >from his responsibilities. However, if one takes the pro-choice stance,
MLP> >that the use of a contraceptive is indicative of intent (or lack there of)
MLP> >the man has met his responsibility  and should be release from his
MLP> >liability for the child.

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

Oh, PLEASE, please Michal, do *not* start this "You don't give a damn about
your kids" again (I realise that you didn't use these words, but merely the
idea) ... please.  Indeed, to what you have just said, *I* could say:

An aborted baby doesn't give a damn if Mommy used foam.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Bring out your dead!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Only you can prevent Creeping Surrealism
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:21:05 GMT

From the December 17, 1992 edition of the _Washington Post_:

    "In Baton Rouge, LA, anti-abortion protesters dressed
     as Santa Claus were arrested after blocking the 
     entrances to a women's clinic with their sleighs."

In a related story:

    "A pediatric neurologist writing in the December issue
     of the American Journal of Diseases of Children says
     sickly Tiny Tim in Charles Dicken's "A Christmas
     Carol" probably suffered from a kidney ailment known
     as distal renal tubular acidosis."

[The article apparently made no claims as to whether young
Mr. Cratchitt would have allowed his family members to
be tested as potential organ donors.]


If you're like me, you're sick and tired of trying to cope
with events like these. Why not send a strong message to "drieux" 
and the rest of those bureaucrats in Washington? Make a large 
donation to the North American Applied Philosophy Association, to 
help us in our fight.

"Portia the Philosophy Porcupine says, 'Remember, only _you_
can prevent Creeping Surrealism'".

[Portia the Philosophy Porcupine, and the distinctive likeness
thereof, are registered trademarks of the North American 
Applied Philosophy Assocation. All rights reserved, and have
a _swell_ day.]


-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:27:11 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 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.  It is generally accepted that, unless you have facts to the
> contrary, living{beings do not want to die.  You imply that the woman
> carrying the fetus should be able to decide it it wants to live or die.
> Then a mother of a 1 year old is even more qualified to make that decision.
> She had been with the child longer.

I see three problems here:

1. I don't see any indication that the woman is deciding what a fetus wants;
   there are lots of indications that she is deciding what _she_ wants.  Imo,
   the most important reason for a woman to be pregnant is that she _wants_
   to be pregnant.  Do you know of a better reason than that, Loren?

2. One should be careful about asserting the importance of living beings'
   desire to live.  Otherwise, one could certainly not eat a Big Mac with
   the same relish[1] as one could otherwise.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you whining about other
   participants engaging in semantical juggling to win debating points
   recently.  Yet it appears that you did exactly the same in your paragraph
   above.  Have you decided that this is how the game is played, or is there
   something else?

There are other difficulties as well, but Heather is bright enough and
capable enough to point them out to you.  Hope this helps.


[1] OK, I made a horrible pun.  You may inflict a slow, painful
    death on me now.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /  my words; no one else's
"I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating too much
pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an intestinal disorder,
not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: net.cop ray fischer strikes again
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:56:10 GMT

net.cop ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) to patricia o
tuama:

->And please take your vendetta against Darcy somewhere else.

i see you want to control where people post ray.

since you want to control what medical
options a woman can select to have an abortion, i
suppose controlling where and what people post is the
next step.

you control freaks are all the same.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The Gardener story (and relevance)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.045644.122352@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>>>> Nice to see you admit (for a change) that you were wrong.
>>>> You have failed to address my statements above.
>>> No need to.  What you originally said was not true; I pointed that out, and
>>> you corrected yourself.
>> No, my original statement was correct, and you were wrong as usual.

>Your original statement was:
>>
>> A person may use lethal force in self-defense only when they
>> believe that their life is _immediately_ threatened.

You're quibbling over semantics.  My original statement wasn't 
worded exactly to your liking, and I clarified it.  Give it up, 
you have no argument here.

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:50:58 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>Let's say that we have a situation where the father had notified the 
>mother in week four of the pregnancy that he does not want the child,
>but she decided to have it, and now she sues the father.

>There are (at least) two options:
>1) An unmarried mother and an angry father and a bitter fight 
>   to force him to *pay*.

>2) A forced adoption by a pre-screened couple.

>Michal, like most feminists, just loves option 1) and she fights 
>hard against option 2).

>So I have just one questions for her (and every one who is against 
>choice for men): what, in your opinion, is better for the *child*,
>option 1) or option 2)?

>Please try to give a clear answer.

On the basis of the limited answer you've given, I would say that option
2 is best for the child.  When a friend of mine was in exactly that 
situation I encouraged her decision to give the child up for adoption.
(With the strong concurrence of the father, I might add.)

However, in this situation it was the *choice* of both the parents.
I am not so sure that government-mandated adoption is a good idea.

The question, as usual, comes down to:  Who decides?


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:38:29 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

In <1992Dec12.040021.5863@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>> In <BxzDx5.IMu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> >
>> >the abortion argument is about reproductive freedom for *women*.
>
>> If a woman got pregnant, and was unable to get an abortion, would not the
>> man be forced to become a father just as much as the woman would be forced
>> to become a mother?
>
>
>Of course, but that's Karl's entire point

Really?  That's my entire point as well.

> - in the case which you specified, *both* partners are forced to be parents,

So under Karl's scheme, a lot *more* people will be forced to be parents.
Pardon me if I fail to see anything good about this.

>I admit, though, that this is a "Devil's Advocate" type of argument, but still,
>the fact remains that only women have the right to abdicate legal parenthood
>during pregnancy, while men do not.

The fact also remains that only women have the fetus inside their body during
pregnancy, while men do not.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sarah@admiral.uucp (Sarah Jane Attridge)
Subject: "pro-abortion"
Reply-To: sarah@admiral.uucp (Sarah Jane Attridge)
Organization: The Grid/Waffle BBS, 203-661-2873, -1279, -0450, -2967
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:14:25 GMT

I actually know someone who claims to feel this way....
She says the world is too crowded & no-one should be allowed to have any 
children. She is kinda loopy, ya know? But I am very much pro-coice, 
always have been always will be....although I doubt I would be able to 
bring myself to have an abortion...I know quite a few people who have.
SJA

--
sarah%admiral.uucp@yale.edu (Sarah Jane Attridge) <yale!admiral!sarah>
The Admiral's Public UNIX - Greenwich, CT - System Administrator: Doug Fields
(HST/V32) (203)661-2873 -- (PEP/V32) -1279 -- (V32) -0450 -- (V29/MNP6) -2967
>FREE!< Unix shell accounts, Usenet access, and Internet-style mail available
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 07:07:24 GMT

In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
> 
>The answer to your question is right upstairs, bub.  I said "...I could get
>51% of a given population to vote..."  Therefore, I am 'giving' the population.
>You took the bet --
>                    probably because you are too damned stupid to read.

You just proved your own wonderous comprehension skills.  You said you could 
get 51% of a given population.  Given implies one that was given to you.  You 
should have said taken if you wanted to take a population of your choosing.  


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame