HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:13:42 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug17.151901.11089@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <Bt4stG.Az@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>My point is that according to today's legal environment, the basis for the
>>child's enjoinment of the man is much, much weaker than it has ever been,
>>simply because the idea of what it means to be a father is being destroyed
>>by reproductive technology and legal abortion.
>
>On the other hand, the argument is much stronger today than it ever was
>before, because of the new technology that makes determining paternity
>more accurate than ever.

You are confusing basis with means.

>
>>Precisely BECAUSE a man has absolutely no say in what a woman may do with
>>the embryo, he is not a father in any real sense.  He is no more a father
>>than the OB/GYN is a father.  IN fact, he is less of one, simply because
>>the doctor has a legal duty to provide advice on carrying to term, while
>>the putative father is legally silenced.
>
>Quick, find the fallacy.

The fallacy is yours, in assuming that an adoptive father cannot be a
father, and that your sire is always a real father to you.

>
>>The basis for enjoinment is causative action, but the only
>>person who engages in causative action is the woman.  
>
>Have someone tell you about the birds and bees sometime.

He knows. His point is that the only person who causes is the one who
chooses, and that the man, although he has enabled the woman's choice,
has not chosen and is therefore no more responsible than, say, the
woman's parents, who certainly also enabled what is happening.

>
>>The sperm donor is not liable for support.  As I understand it, he signs a
>>document which shields him from child support enjoinment.  Explain that one
>>oh mighty legal scholar.  How can the donor sign away the CHILD'S right?
>
>It's not completely clear that he can.  At least, I'm not aware of any
>laws or court decisions where the issue has arisen.  

Do you think a sperm doner *should* be liable for any children created
with his sperm?

>
>>You get my point.  The concept of "parent" is mutating.  The old definitions
>>do not hold.  The old basis for child support does not hold.  
>
>The fourth sentence does not follow from the second and third.

Do you mean to say that being a parent has nothing to do with child
support?


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: What defines a human life anyhow?
Organization: Only because I MUST HAVE ORDER!
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:34:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.162222.15051@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug8.235313.23360@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug8.200300.20099@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> 
>>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>> To disallow early term abortions but to allow euthanasia of brain dead 
>>> folks doesn't make sense
>>
>>Nonsense.  Brain-dead individuals will never become functioning human
>>beings again.
>
>And that is a criteria for human rights?  Fetuses aren't humans now, but could
>be and brain dead people aren't people now and can't be untill we make some
>sort of medical technilogical breakthrough?

Like, what kind of medical technilogical break through would it require to
bring function back to a DEAD brain?  I think you are attempting a bad
analogy here.

>
>Explain why that is a valid criterion.

Why is the loss of POTENTIAL life the basis for convicting and punishing
a murderer?

>
>> A developing child is a functioning human being. 
>
>You'll have to elaborate on how an early term fetus is 'funtioning' as a human
>being.  Bring in a few examples. Perhaps how they function better than a
>brain dead individual.

MUCH better.  Or maybe you have never seen an ultrasound. . .  Before it
gets to crowded in there, they swim and dance, sometimes with rather wild
abandon.  Reminds me somewhat of a Dead Head concert I attended once. . .

>>While
>>the child may not possess consciousness, it will eventually come to
>>gain consciousness, unlike a permanently brain-dead individual. 
>
>And why does that matter? Any pair of sperm and egg have the same feature 
>you've described in potentiality. We do not protect them or enact laws which
>allow them to maturate. Why a fetus that is just a little bit further along
>then, but still has all the funtionality of two cells?

Because it ISN'T two separate cells anymore.  It is one.  You have to draw
the line somewhere.  Unfortunately, no one in this discussion ever seems
to be able to realize that there stance is usually based on a belief system,
and is therefore inarguable.

>
>-- 
>David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
>Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
>Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
>            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Who is "righter"?  Or are all wrong?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.024136.552@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> 
z_woodsjl@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

> I am not inclined to force my own personal point of view on other people,
> however I do feel that both sides of the abortion issue are very open to
> criticism.  I want to address both sides with the faults of both.
> [...]
> 
> PRO-LIFE
>
> If pro-lifers are interested in the rights of the unborn, then why do they 
> use violence (an act that violates the rights of others) to block clinics, 

Not every pro-lifer supports clinic blockades.  I greatly sympathize 
with the pro-life movement, but I don't see how clinic blockades will 
accomplish anything.  I don't think confrontational approaches are the 
answer.  But persuasion is good.  

> as well as subject themselvs and their children to injury by lying down to 
> block clinics, 

I don't approve of placing children in danger like this.  Children should
stay home where they belong. 

> and why have pro-lifers bombed clinics, possibly causing 
> injury or loss of life (the possible loss of life, caused by efforts to 
> preserve life)? 

I don't approve of this violence.  The people who bomb clinics should
be punished severely.  

Please realize that the pro-life movement does not support the violent
actions which you describe.  Many pro-abortionists would like you to
believe that every pro-lifer supports these violent actions, but
that's wrong.  I'd like to see these people put in jail just as much
as the pro-abortionists. 

> Why is it that many people who support the pro-life side, are supporters of
> capital punishment?

There are many people in the pro-life movement who do not support capital 
punishment.  I don't support it.  But I don't believe that a pro-life/capital
punishment stance is necessarily inconsistent.  

> Both sides are guilty of the following:  Both are guilty of not trying to 
> reach a compromise that would accomplish the goals of both sides--the is the
> prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  

I support easy access to contraceptives, sex education in the public
schools, and the dismantling of the many barriers to adoption.   

> Think about it. . . is anything being accomplished by attacking one another?

No, nothing can be accomplished by resorting to violence.



Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Interesting REasoning Pat
X-To: DRIEUX, JUST DRIEUX
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:50:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity

NOTE: My mailer is STILL hiccuping madly.  My Sysadmin recommended that I
preface my messages by writing "Newsgroups: " etc., as the top header line,
instead of specifying a Silicon Copy to a cross-posted group.  If this does
not work, could someone please alert me about it?  Thanks!


drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DJD> ] dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
DJD> ] DH> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:
DJD> ] DH> In article <92182.092025AOEXY@ASUACAD.BITNET> AOEXY@ASUACAD.BITNET wr
DJD> ]
DJD> ] DH> >> DRIEUX is a sick dog homo.  There is only one cure for this. And i
DJD> he
DJD> ] DH> >> too. A single 22 slug in the right temple is quite effective!
DJD> ]
DJD> ] DH> > I love this: the mentality of the pro-"life" movement at work.
DJD> ]
DJD> ] DH> I think it's more likely that the poster is pro-choice, since it's
DJD> ] DH> obvious that s/he embraces the repulsive notion that human life
DJD> ] DH> can be killed arbitrarily.
DJD> ]
DJD> ] Bravo, Doug!  Touche'!  (Is there a better net.standard way of writing
DJD> ] "e"-accent aigu without having to say "e'"?... Guess not).
DJD> ]

DJD> I think that will here has shown clarity of vision in
DJD> supporting DearOldDoug's premise that Killing a ProChoicer,
DJD> by ProCoicers is a reasonable assumption....

Whoa, wait a second there, Drieux....

I am *not* one of Doug's supporters, let's just get that straight here.  I
am not one his his opposition, either, but that isn't really the point.

At any rate, I was *only* saying "Touche'" because he was giving a
stereotypical answer about "Pro choicers" in response to a stereotypical
comment about "pro lifers".

I was only saluting his reply, not his stance.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Organization: It takes to much TIME to organize. . . where is that damn key!
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:15:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.002239.4610@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>SG> From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
>SG> I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
>SG> ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
>SG> problems might be inherited.
>
>Susan, you're being rather insensitive.  I know what John is going through,
>because I have been through it myself, and I can say that a *lot* of men who
>have been through it, do indeed wonder about their own fitness as parents,
>when they see a situation where someone has apparently "spurned" them as a
>parent.

That, and nightmares about betraying my child. . .  Ms. Garvin seems to
think that 'father' is a title that can be bestowed or witheld, at the
mothers discretion.  It isn't.  Even if you abort my child, I am still
his father.

>The situation may be nothing even CLOSE to being "spurned as a parent," or
>because one is "genetically inferior" (as you seem to have implied) ; it may
>be because the woman thinks that she is unable to support the child.
>Nevertheless, some men *do* believe at some point that the reason had
>something to do with themselves being "inferior" in some way.
>
>Whether you realise it or not, you are probably playing upon very hurt
>feelings of inferiority which John *might* have been experiencing.  While I
>am not comparing the *physical* trauma to that of rape victims, playing upon
>such fears is like telling a rape victim that "He did it because you're a
>slut" or because "you deserved it".
>
>You might not agree with his views, but resorting to insults is not the
>answer, either.

Hear hear!  I pledge to refrain from insults, if those who respond to me
will do so.

I have tried very hard to remain open minded, calm and polite, but for
those occasional slips, I do apologize.

I hope that by now, Susan has realized that both of our arguments are based
on our beliefs of what rights men and women should have.  And belief is,
at it's very core, a religious thing.  And completely inarguable.  Her
belief in what rights a woman should have is no more (and no less) valid
than my beliefs.  Simply different.

>---
>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"

I find your posts to be fair, reasonable and well thought out.

What's WRONG with me!? :-) :-)

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: ABA Protest
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:58:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.051846.29948@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ab269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John  Laws) writes:
>
>In light of the American Bar Associations vote to support abortion
>on demand I am posting the Cleveland area phone number of Lawyers
> for Life. This organization is a group of pro-life lawyers. I am
>certain that most (hopefully all) will immediately suspend their
> ABA membership. I urge all lawyers who oppose abortion to do
> likewise.
[....]
	Will Lawyers for Life also take a stand against capital punishment,
or would that be too much to hope for in the consistency department?
	An amusing quote, in this context:
"In all other occupations in which men engage:
 The Army, the Navy, the Church, and the stage.
 Professional ethics, if carried too far,
 Your chance of advancement will certainly mar.
 Said I to myself, said I!"
		-- W.S. Gilbert, "Trial by Jury"
[...]

>-- 
>"Life what a beautiful choice" (Thanks to the Arthur Demoss Foundation)
	Alas, "choice" seems to be what you (and Demoss) would like to
eliminate, which is why this slogan is such a masterpiece of hypocrisy.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: calories
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 07:47:37 GMT

. >>a fetuse has first dibs on every calorie a woman consumes
A statement that is not realy true. A fetuse may have first dibs on any
calorie that is not nessasaryy for servival but if it comes to a point
where the body can sastane it's self of the fetuse the body wins. Some-
one who is drasticly losing weight will stop ovulating to conserve the
calories used for that. Just as a body will 'devower' its self to mantain
the most importint activitys. There are casinstinces where the body is so 
used to a state of near starvatin that its has adapted to be able to maint-
tain all activitys.

ELF-KIN	I'M BACK
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Segmentation Fault Co
X-To: STEVEN ARNOLD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:49:00 GMT

sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes...
SA>         And I don't think cripples, gays or Jews make particularly good
SA> citizens.  Killing them is a positive moral good to the human race and
SA> to the planet.

I *CANNOT* believe that I just saw this...

I do not have a kill file, but you *might* convince me, Mr. Arnold...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Look both ways before you cross the network.
From: blackmon@eng.auburn.edu (Ferrol Rawson Blackmon)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in gen
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:05:23 GMT
Reply-To: blackmon@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering


>>Interesting to note that tissue from fetuses aborted from ectopic
>>pregnancies or from miscarraiges is also used - in fact, the only
>>way researchers can currently get federal funding to do fetal tissue
>>research is to use tissue from these sources.
>
>Why not do monkeys?
>
>Funny, how pro-choicers tend to oppose monkey experimentations, but
>would have no problem substituting monkey fetuses with humans. 

How about because "monkeys" are endangered and the human population of the world
is busting apart at the seams.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrol Funkmeister X                "Whatever you do Pile, don't try to get the
blackmon@eng.auburn.edu              f*ck up that obstacle.  If Gawd wanted you
Auburn University                    up there, He'd have miracled your ass up 
Computer Science and Engineering     there.  Wouldn't he, Pile?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: ABA Protest
From: jfinn@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:54:43 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Aug16.144121.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, jfinn@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.170115.2124@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug13.051846.29948@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ab269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John  Laws) writes:
>>>
>>>In light of the American Bar Associations vote to support abortion
>>>on demand I am posting the Cleveland area phone number of Lawyers
>>> for Life. This organization is a group of pro-life lawyers. I am
>>>certain that most (hopefully all) will immediately suspend their
>>> ABA membership. I urge all lawyers who oppose abortion to do
>>> likewise.
>> 
>> Good, there are too many barred lawyers anyway.  I don't mind if a bunch of 'em 
>> commit career-suicide.
>   
Query: In what way would this be career suicide? 

 John E. Finn
 Wesleyan University 
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads.rights
From: blackmon@eng.auburn.edu (Ferrol Rawson Blackmon)
Subject: Re: ABA Protest
Reply-To: blackmon@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:24:01 GMT

In article 2124@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.051846.29948@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ab269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John  Laws) writes:
> >
> >In light of the American Bar Associations vote to support abortion
> >on demand I am posting the Cleveland area phone number of Lawyers
> > for Life. This organization is a group of pro-life lawyers. I am
> >certain that most (hopefully all) will immediately suspend their
> > ABA membership. I urge all lawyers who oppose abortion to do
> > likewise.
> 
> Good, there are too many barred lawyers anyway.  I don't mind if a bunch of 'em 
> commit career-suicide.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
> Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
> Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
>             Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.


My thoughts exactly.

Funkmeister X

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?      (2)
X-To: LOREN I. PETRICH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:31:00 GMT

Loren I Petrich writes...
LIP>         And look at this newsgroup. Despite the underrepresentation of
LIP> women on Usenet as a whole, the pro-choice contingent of active
LIP> posters is at least half female. The same cannot be said of the
LIP> anti-abortion side, whose only regular female poster is our good
LIP> friend Suzanne Forgach.


Loren, you have just committed what is known as the "fallacy of composition,"
namely assuming that because one segment of a collection has a certain
characteristic, that the entire collection has that characteristic.

In your case here, it is logically invalid to argue from a position that
because there are many "pro life" men and only one such woman, that the
composition of such individuals is similar, nationwide.  (This does *seem*
be be what you are saying).

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * I thank my lucky stars I'm not superstitious...
-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
X-To: NANCY PATRICIA O'CONNOR
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:39:00 GMT

nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes...
NPO> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
NPO> >For your information, why is it that there is now a gigantic National
NPO> >Women's Coalition for Life, with 1.5 million members, sitting around
NPO> >Capitol Hill right now?

NPO> >Why is it that Concerned Women for America, a pro-life women's group,
NPO> >outnumbers the National Organization for Women, by 750,000 to 300,000?
NPO> >Can you answer that question?

NPO> Sure--their ideas about women's roles and reproduction have been
NPO> shaped by patriarchal religions.


Nancy, why are you not giving these "pro-life"/"anti-abortion" women the
benefit of having the *right to choose* their own beliefs and principles
without having to second-guess them and tell them that they have been,
in essence, "brainwashed by men".

Indeed, would someone say that a "pro-choice" person had been shaped by
*matriarchal* beliefs?  :-)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Friends come and go; enemies accumulate.
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What defines a human life anyhow?
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:09:03 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug18.233413.18715@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>Because it ISN'T two separate cells anymore.  It is one.  You have to draw
>the line somewhere.  Unfortunately, no one in this discussion ever seems
>to be able to realize that there stance is usually based on a belief system,
>and is therefore inarguable.

Ah....  It's long been one of my beliefs that untimately the abortion
debate resolves down to "well, we have different premises.  All we can
do is try to convince each other that our logic is flawed or that our
premises are wrong."

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity