HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:25:36 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1ej4coINNilj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In *our* society, we got together and took a look at the nature of humans
>and decided it didn't make much sense for us to collectively agree not to
>think, not to speak, not to believe different things, because that's a kinda
>worthless exercise, so we decided that we'd recognise the freedom of indi-
>viduals to think, speak, and believe, in addition to some others, in our
>form of government.

>The *right* to use one's body as one chooses is a right recognised by our
>government.  It is a right EXERCISED by and individual, which is where you 
>got tangled up.

You seem to be saying that the rights we have are simply the rights
the particular society in which we live recognizes and nothing more,
and that in the United States in 1992 those rights happen to include
the right to use one's body as one chooses.

Does it follow that if the religious Right wins a bunch of elections
and one day in 1996 the government makes all abortion and all
contraception illegal, the next morning you would have no grounds for
complaint that any of your rights were being denied?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 15 Nov 1992 19:53:06 UTC

In article <10762@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> 
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1e5m2jINNob7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>The OT is a narritive of the growth of
>>the human race as a moral species.  It is the story of God trying
>>to teach us right from wrong.
>  Only if you define the human race as the nation of Israel and the
>  surrounding kingdoms of the time.
>  I think the far east, North America, Europe, etc.  would take exception 
>  to this statement, and rightly so.

The same can be said of the Mahabharata and the Epic of Gilgamesh and
many other great myths that have a great deal in common. These are
national or tribal stories that are of course tribal-centric. It doesn't
take a great leap to discover that the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example,
applies to all of humankind, not just Persians.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49215 talk.religion.misc:21876 alt.atheism:21907 sci.skeptic:20086
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 23 Nov 1992 09:50:50 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov19.154625.27778@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <1efhvcINNcin@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>And the problem with all of science is that there are vast numbers of
#>completely unreconciled departments all saying apparently contradictory
#>things about the universe.  Religion is one of those departments.  

#That's garbage. Religion is not a subset of science(non-empirical.)

We are using two different definitions of science (more likely the same
definition used in two different ways).  I understand science to be
equivalent to 'understanding' or 'knowledge'.  That certainly includes
religion, and all forms of mysticism, plus the conventional departments of 
science.

Furthermore, religion _is_ empirical.  People experience faith, in the same
way that they experience sentience.  Experience is the only real evidence for
either.  (i.e. you can't see either of these things under an electron
microscope).

Back to science: I have yet to see a scientific theory which explains to me
why I should feel so profoundly good when my 3-year old son kicks up the
leaves in Munich and sings songs about Santa Claus.  Those are some empirical
facts which do not fit any conventional science.  I can repeat the experiment
if you like.

Lastly, I am not _anti_ science, nor am I some kind of mystic fundie (I'm
actually an agnostic, just to get clear).  However, I do have a problem with
science's lack of human values.  Lot's of 'how' with no 'why', if you follow
me.

#It's not like Biology conflicts with Chemistry, sir. Sure there are
#unsettled issues but I hardly would characterize that as "vast numbers of
#completely unreconciled departments all saying apparently contradictory
#things about the universe. "
#
#>I have absolutely no problem reconciling the OT and NT, and I'm not even a
#>Christian.  How does a parent act towards a spoilt child?
#Why does one set rules out for a child, sir?

All I am saying is "people are strange".   They do not follow the laws of
cause and effect.  I think that people who attempt to superimpose the laws of
science and logic on people's behaviour (and equally God's, if she exists)
may be trying to subordinate a higher (more complete) system to a lower one.

#-Ekr
-- 
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'
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 20 Nov 1992 12:37:31 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov20.172138.1825@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <sj39g68@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
>>"good" because they promote order & reduce accident rates,
>>without making any "moral" judgments about driving through
>>intersections without stopping.  This is one of Adrienne
>>Regard's favorite examples, I think.
>...
>I don't really understand the example.  Order is generally a good
>thing and pain and suffering are bad, so the laws are passed.

A law specifying one is to drive on the right hand side of the road does
not automatically determine that driving upon the left hand side of the
road is immoral, painful or full of suffering.

Why is order a 'good' thing?

You are using the notion of economic 'good' versus moral 'good' here, and
really, you shouldn't mix 'em up because there are plenty of examples
available of economic 'goods' that you would find moral 'bads'.  

Order is a 'good' thing because there is a high cost to chaos.  In some
areas of life, we prefer to pay the higher cost -- we permit free speech
for one thing, which enables a whole mess of people to say nasty things 
to/about/against other people.  The economic cost may be 'bad', but, in 
fact, the enforcement cost of the alternative would probably be 'worse'.
Go fish.

>(things that become bad only by being prohibited) and _mala in se_
>(things that are bad without reference to any positive law prohibiting
>them).  For example, neither driving on the right nor driving on the
>left are _mala in se_.  But once England decides by law that people
>should drive on the left it becomes immoral to drive on the right
>because given the established rule of driving on the left would cause
>unreasonable risks to people.


Ah, good.  Now, having got this far, do you or do you not recognise
that 'unreasonable risks' to people include, and in many cases is primarily
determined by, economic considerations?

Sure, you can twist and turn the law into a 'moral' framework if you want
to, ignoring all the areas that the law is SILENT on moral issues, or you
can actually take a look at the law, go past the surface security of 
insisting it's a moral framework, and observe the economic forces under-
neath.  Economics is a much simpler explanation, after all, of why societies
with *competing* religious doctrines ('moral' doctrines if you will) often
include the *same* legal prohibitions.....  Economics is also a much simpler
explanation of those areas where the law is SILENT on moral issues.  

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: J. Price's Search for the Holy Clue
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:09:30 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes to Lynn Alford:

>>> She knew there was a chance and she took and messed up PAY THE PRICE !!!

>> You seem to express a willingness to PUNISH a married woman for having sex
>> with her husband.  Is that the case?  Yes?  No?

> I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.

Her husband had sex too.  What equivalent punishment should he bear?  Before
you get carried away, your solution of abstinence is unreasonable, unworkable
and unenforcable.  You may wish to rant on about this, but most of the world
will be unsympathetic and rightfully so, imo.

>> Either way, fie on you, you clueless wet-behind-the-ears newbie.

> So is being new a crime?

No, and neither is being clueless, but being clueless sometimes carries 
heavy consequences.  There are clues embedded in the responses you are
getting from other people, as well as from me.  Don't leave home without
them.


-- 
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: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:14:12 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1eds3tINNl6d@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.215527.23123@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>,People should be responsible for their sexual activity, as they are
>,for their other activity.  That responsibility includes the
>,responsibility to foster and support rather than destroy the life that
>,results from sexual activity.  

>Why?

The life is a forseeable (even if not probable) consequence of the
activity, life is valuable, and destroying life is bad.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48040 alt.abortion.inequity:5120
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Who owns sperm?
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:12:11 GMT

In article <1e3kmgINNgo3@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>[in analogy to sperm that is "left lying around"]

>>I believe you'll find that, in the case of lost property, where the owner (or
>>a legal representative of the owner) can be found and communicated with, 
>>notification is necessary before the "clock" can start running on appropriating
>>the unclaimed property. So if she doesn't TELL her lover that she intends to
>>assume ownership of his sperm, it's not hers.
>
>In California, if thae bank makes an error on your account and deposits 
>an extra $1000, and does no correct the error for 90 days the money 
>becomes yours.  I paid for a lovely trip to Costa Rica this way.    :-)

Interesting.  Some women don't correct the error for 9 months,
get more-than-sufficient child support, and pay for lovely trips 
to Costa Rica that way.  Plus daycare, of course.

That's the kind of morality I admire.  [big sarcasm alert]

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49090 alt.abortion.inequity:5253 soc.women:20128 soc.men:19764
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 22 Nov 1992 00:01:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:

>The fetus has NO *inherent*, *objective* value, only that which the
>mother (and possibly father) places on it.

On the contrary.  A fetus has value as material for medical research.
(Remember Bush's fetal tissue banks!)

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:01:10 GMT

In <1dm6olINNljt@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <BxFCx6.B6B@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?
>>>The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and I'm
>>>not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for ALL
>>>the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money for
>>>that.
>>
>>Well who the hell do you think will be paying for 1.6 million abortions
>>per year inside of 12 months?  (actually, I tend to think the abortion rate
>>will increase under William Jefferson Blythe, but let's stick with a
>>verifiable figure).  Funny how you complain about taxpayer's wallets when
>>it comes to little kids, but you don't have a qualm about those wallets
>>if they happen to be paying for body parts in a garbage can.

>Uh, Steven, maybe you weren't looking, but abortion costs about $300-500 a
>pop. 

Yes, but that is because it is generally not paid for by someone other
than the patient [Blue Cross, taxpayer] and so it follows the law of
supply and demand FAR more than other medical expenses.  Watch costs
skyrocket once taxpayers start footing the bill.

> Which is hardly comparable to even ONE MONTH'S child support, be it
>payable by a man, a woman, or 10 taxpayers.

I don't know what world you live in, Adrienne, but I can support my
three daughters with $900 per month with NO trouble at all.  'course, I do
have to support my wife and me too, and we have to keep up house
payments, but that's got damn little to do with our three kids.

>  Give the taxpayers the choice,
>and it'll be MANDATED abortion for everybody who cannot prove that they
>have a big trust fund put aside for little Joey.

That does it: from now on, until I am corrected, I will call Adrienne
"pro-abortion", not "pro-choice": she never did encourage the other
two choices (keep the child, put up for adoption) anyway, but that is 
not sufficient reason to call her pro-abortion.  This last statement
of hers, by itself, would not be enough either, it was just the last straw.

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
X-To: ADRIENNE REGARD
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:13:00 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
AR> In article <1992Nov5.022416.3257@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.g
AR> .org> writes:
AR> >From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
AR> >AR> Oh, come on.  What you are really saying is to hell with the thousands
AR> >AR> of years of legal precident our western culture has relied upon.
AR> >
AR> >But, you don't seem to object to "saying to hell" with the thousands of
AR> >years of legal precdents which are to the perceived disadvantage of women.
AR> >
AR> >So why object to attempting to change legal precedents which are perceived
AR> >be disadvantageous to men?

AR> Ah, the big question.  The $64,000 question.

AR> WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?

AR> The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and I'm
AR> not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for ALL
AR> the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money for
AR> that.


Since you oppose programmes that further strain the "average taxpayer," I
feel compelled to ask you if you also oppose public funding for abortion
clinics?

---
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 * Obi Wan Kenobi at the dinner table: Use the FORKS, Luke!
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Menstrual Extraction and the 5-week limit (Revision)
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:29:20 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Nov19.034141.113103@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
><nyikos.721696188@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> [...]
>>I first learned about it from the bestseller (more than a million copies
>>sold) _Everywoman_, by Derek Llewellyn-Jones [Faber and Faber, London, 1978]:
>>
>>         ...Large numbers of women have been treated by 'menstrual
>>     regulation', and the reported results show that only one woman in
>>     every 250,000 treated has died--a rate three times less than the
>>     deaths which follow an injection of penicillin! [p. 135]
>
>Note the date of publication [1978].  According to the Alan Guttmacher
>Institute, published in "Facts in Brief:  Abortion in the United States,"
>       The risk of death associated with abortion decreased
>     more than fivefold from 1973 to 1985, with 3.4 deaths per
>     100,000 legal abortions in 1973 to 0.4 in 1985.
>
>Note that the 1985 death rate is the same as the rate given for
>menstrual extraction.  How then do you conclude:
>>it is so much better for the WOMAN.

Additional figures published by Dr. Michael J Rosenburg in the American
Journal of Public Health, summer 1992:

	US death rate from pregnancy and childbirth: 10 in 100,000.

	US death rate from surgical abortion: .4 in 100,000.

From Population Council of New York:

	Death rate from RU-486: 1 in 100,000.

Just FYI.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:50:24 GMT

In article <By0uut.F7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.011111.3228@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>>>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.
>>>No flame intended.  Just fact.
>>In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?
>I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.
>Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.
>That's something I call a lie.
It's not what I call a lie. I'm prepared to grant that it is not descriptive
of you, but you need to show that she knew it to be untrue for it
to be a lie.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:02:28 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In <1992Nov20.203647.2889@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.183909.5104@panix.com> jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold) writes:
>>In <1992Nov20.174546.2811@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>>>What is at stake [in the question whether rape has an essential sexual
>>>component]?

Thank you for totally deleting and not responding to the answers to your
question.  Just shows how you don't know what you are talking about

>>The moral perception that somehow rape and sex are interchangeable.
>Who has ever had that perception?

YOU DID!  In your original post you said that sex and rape were
corrolaries of one another.  You equated them.  YOU HAD (HAVE) THAT
PERCEPTION...

>To say rape=sex+force is not to say rape and sex are interchangeable,
>any more than to say robbery=taking money+force is to say that all
>situations in which X gets money from Y are robberies.
>Again, why is this issue so upsetting?

Again I ask myself why do I bother even trying to expect that you willever
undersatdn the difference....

And once again jim, I thank you for totally deleting your statements and
mine, thus allowing the conversation to be ruled by you.....
Your inability to answer or comment on my statements (or any other
persons) proves that you really don't want an answer....

Jack
jis@panix.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:21:11 GMT

In article <pkz1g1r@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I don't consider myself to be "pro-choice" because I'm personally 
>> undecided on the issue of legislation.

> whereas ms. bartley wants to legislate against some
> abortions. based on that alone, it would appear that
> her position is more anti-choice than yours.

The Keeganoid doesn't appear to be satisified with 
defining the label "pro-choice"; now it wants to 
define the label "anti-choice" as well.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Menstrual Extraction and the 5-week limit (Revision)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:41:41 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 <nyikos.721696188@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> [...]
>I first learned about it from the bestseller (more than a million copies
>sold) _Everywoman_, by Derek Llewellyn-Jones [Faber and Faber, London, 1978]:
>
>         ...Large numbers of women have been treated by 'menstrual
>     regulation', and the reported results show that only one woman in
>     every 250,000 treated has died--a rate three times less than the
>     deaths which follow an injection of penicillin! [p. 135]

Note the date of publication [1978].  According to the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, published in "Facts in Brief:  Abortion in the United States,"
       The risk of death associated with abortion decreased
     more than fivefold from 1973 to 1985, with 3.4 deaths per
     100,000 legal abortions in 1973 to 0.4 in 1985.

Note that the 1985 death rate is the same as the rate given for
menstrual extraction.  How then do you conclude:
>it is so much better for the WOMAN.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion