HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:44:50 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>Currently, it is the female who faces the greater burden of the pregnancy,
>biologically and socially, and thus has been endowed with the greater
>responsibility. 

	...And the associated greater privileges.

>It follows that it is the female who should have the
>greater reproductive rights. 

	Sure.  She *has* the greater reproductive rights.  The debate isn't
over reproductive rights; it's over the associated *responsibilities*
corresponding to those rights.
	Having the greater reproductive rights certainly implies a greater
responsibility for making sure a baby is created into a caring, safe
environment.  I don't think bringing a child into the world without being
able to provide economically could be regarded as safe, nor can forcing another
individual to become a parent against their will, with the likely antagonistic 
relationship between the two parents that is likely to occur even if the man
loves his child (and there is, of course, the possibility that she will be
creating a child who will never be loved by the child's father, because of the
circumstances), be considered "caring".

	She has the full privilege to declare whether a child is created; she
has an associated responsibility to make sure the child is created at the
optimum time in the optimum environment.

>It also follows that since it is easier for the male
>to prevent his semen from entering the woman's uterus then it is for the
>female to prevent the ovum from entering it, it becomes the male's
>responsibility to prevent that occurance if he does not wish offspring.

	Well, no.  In your first paragraph above, you pointed out that since
she faces the greater burden, etc. she had greater responsibilities; if
we follow that line of reasoning, one of those responsibilities would certainly
be that she makes sure the chances of her getting pregnant when she doesn't
want to be are minimized.  She is, after all, the one who is burdened by the
ensuing pregnancy.  If our "responsibilities" are based on our "burdens", 
then what has the fact that he has an "easier" method got to do with it?

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:32:43 GMT

ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.052531.26569@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes ...
>>> mart4678@mach1.wlu.ca (Phil Martin u) writes:
>>>>My point is just that I think that Decartes went looking for an answer that he
>>>>already had, if he had only known where to look for it.  I find it easier to
>>>>imagine my thoughts (original or not) as some unreal abstraction than to 
>>>>rationalize away the very real "existance" of the physical world around me,
>>>>and my place in it.
>>>>
>>>I also find the "cogito, ergo sum" argument a bit tiresome.
>>>Few people would argue that a tree or a rock thinks, but they
>>>certainly exist. (Don't they???...........8-)
>>
>>How do you _know_, with absolute certainty, that rocks, trees, and the
>>like, exist?  Given that everything you percieve is filtered through
>>soggy biology, how can you be certain that anything you percieve
>>actually exists?  How do you know that your brain isn't hooked up to a
>>computer generating signals that tell your brain you live in the
>>universe you percieve?
>>
>>The only things that are certain are those which are _not_ filtered
>>through your senses.  And that doesn't leave very much left.  The only
>>thing Descartes came up with was existance.
>>
>>-- 
>>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

>You obviously missed my sarcasm, Ray.  But, by your example,
>do we really exist? Or do we just percieve that we exist?....:-)

We *do* really exist.  We just don't "know" what it *means* to "exist"
(physically)...or what "really" means...or what "means" means...

We *seem* to exist in a physical world with certain physical laws.  It may be
that the whole thing is an elaborate simulation...but so what?  That simulation
is our "reality".  It defines the constraints of our "existance".  It is
impossible to tell anything about a higher level of "reality" (such as the
system doing the simulation).  It is the system we have access to that is
defined as "reality".

If "reality" is "really" a very clever simulation making us *think* we are in
a world with certain laws, there is no difference from that and "really"
*being* in that world with those laws, so long as the simulation is consistent.
(Of course the "laws" could be that things are inconsistent, in which case it
would be consistent to be inconsistent, but that does not seem to be the case.)

>| David Anderson                 ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu |

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 DEC 92 14:32:42 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu show us yet again that he 
>does not know the difference between his fantasies and reality:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>Loren, this is what you wrote.  You brought up the idea of you and me and 
>having sex, totally out of the blue and unrelated to any issue we were 
>discussing.  
> 
>>>>If insist on using this scenario, then my refusal to agree is equivalent 
>>>>to refraining from sex with you because you don't want me to wear a condom. 

Actually, you were using fisting as an analogous situation to being pregnant.  
You offered to carry a fetus to term, if I would agree to being fisted.  Since 
you made this offer, you were the one bringing yourself into the scenario, not 
me.

>>No.  If I were entertaining thoughts of sex with you (which I am not) then I 
>>would refrain for the same reason I did last time.  You didn't want me to wear 
>>a condom, and I didn't think that was safe.  
> 
>Loren, you are not a teenage boy any more.  Don't you think it's time to put 
>your fantasies about older women behind you and try to have a real life?  

These aren't fantasies, they are facts.  If you don't remember, then I suggest 
that you see a psychologist about your loss of memory.  

> 
>>Doesn't the title pro-life mean that you want abortion to be illegal?  
>>Otherwise you are pro-choice.  Anti-Abortion is irrelevant.  So I ask you 
>>again, do you believe that all men who are pro-life (want abortion to be 
>>illegal) are hypocrites?
> 
>Who put you in charge of making up definitions?  It is possible to be pro-life 
>without being pro-forced birth.  Just because you can't be pro-life without 
>wanting to interfere with other people's lives and decisions doesn't mean that 
>other men can't.

Again, you are avoiding the question.  I'll ask again without using 
parenthesis, which obviously confuses you.  Do you believe that all men who 
think abortion should be illegal, are hypocrites?  Or are you going to avoid 
the question again by using a different definition of illegal.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 21:35:59 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>>Like I said, if the womans life is in danger (as decided by a doctor) then an 
>>abortion would be allowable.
> 
>Any doctor, or one of your chosing?  Some physicians are very supportive of a 
>woman's right to choose, and would routinely allow abortions for any women who 
>wanted one.  I work with a pediatric nephrologist.  If he says I can have an 
>abortion would you allow it?

Any doctor who would recommend (without being influenced) that the woman get 
an abortion to save her life.  There is a difference between allow and 
reccommend.  Although, the AMA might want to regulate such recommendadions by 
limiting it to doctors who specialize in Ob-Gyn.  That is up to them.  They 
might decide that any MD can make such recommendations.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Loren is a disingenous fool.
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:01:45 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <16DEC92.14435521@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes: 

>If you people are so sure (as you seem to be) that the government can not make>laws, or ammendments to the constitution, that violate a persons rights, as 
>you have put it, then why do you care if a candidate is pro life?  Why all the>protests?  You are implying that is is impossible for abortion to become 
>illegal in this country, nomatter what, because that would violate the womans 
>right to not have someone use her body without her permission.  So, according 
>to you, even if every person elected in this country wanted abortion to be 
>illegal, it still couldn't happen.  If this is not a valid interpretation of 
>your agruments, then please tell me why not?

I am constantly amazed at the inability of any of the
foaming-at-the-mouth fetus fanatics to interpret any argument with
which they do not agree.  The Reverend DODIE is perhaps most
pathological on this point, but Loren Finkelstein seems to have a
first derivative of tendency to misrepresent that suggests he
asymptote somewhere near the Reverend DODIE someday.  I especially
like it when these forced-pregnancy nuts present some wild
misinterpretation of what has been posted and then put the burden of
proof on those of us who wish to refute these incomprehensible
reactions.  In this particular case, Loren needs to provide a
statement by anyone on the pro-choice side which implies that if every
person in this country supported criminalizing abortion, it would not
happen.  

Sarcastic speculation of the week: My own personal theory about Loren
is that his confusion at having an androgynous name has thrown him
into a state of gender confusion.  As a result he is on a misogynistic
campaign of forced pregnancy.  Perhaps he should consult Bill Overpeck
for treatment.

SJM



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:05:12 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes
to somebody:
->I hadn't realized that you were too stupid to recognize
->that my statements were speculation.

well, you should have. otherwise you'd be displaying a
form of discrimination. after all, if you're willing to
read susan garvin's mind at a time when she makes a
post (which is well before you see the post), you
should read everyone's mind which would certainly help
you to express yourself. why would you limit your
mind-reading to susan garvin?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 DEC 92 19:02:23 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>> 
>>>It is the same as someone going to college, only younger.  Being as young as 
>>>as it is, it, like a baby can not make informed decisions about whether it 
>>>wants to live or die.
>> 
>>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.  

Having said that, I hope you will now become a vegetarian.  After all, if what 
you say is true, then since we have no facts to the contrary, we must assume 
that living cows, chickens, and fish 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.  

I implied nothing Loren.  Look very carefully at what I wrote above in the 
previous post.  Both statements ended with a "?".  That means the sentences 
are questions, not statements.

				.... Heather.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51750 alt.rush-limbaugh:11435
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:56:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec11.225117.17760@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <Bz2Hro.I7n@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
##In article <1992Dec10.212406.16741@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
###In article <1992Dec3.051704.24085@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
###
###
###Not Keith A. Cochran's brother, please. Tell me it isn't true.
###
###One was bad enough..
###
##Yeah, we know.  But you came back, anyway.
##
##--PLH (oh, well, can't have everything...)
##
#As a matter of fact, I am Keith's brother. What's the matter with
#Chaney? He can't handle life in general or what?

Oh oh.  I hope that you really do have lots of free disk space,
if you're going to ask questions like that.  

#Maybe Keith and I should get the rest of the family on here...
#
#Question: How many Cochran's would it take to chase Chaney screaming
#into the nearest cesspool?

I've seen a single Cochran do it, but I'd love to see the whole clan
in action.  

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:07:38 GMT

ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Dec-92 Pro-choicers must condone
>i.. by Doug Holtsinger@csl36h.c 
>> 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.

>Like Mr. Holtsinger, I too see no particular reason to oppose a woman
>who wishes to kill her own newly born child.  The surprising concept is
>that there exists people who would forbid a woman who wishes to kill her
>newly born child from doing so.  It seems merely another manifestation
>of the cruelty in society that has lead to so much suffering.  We just
>need to love each other more.

>Michaeloomis

It is kind of funny how it's "okay" to yank a baby out of the womb piece
by piece, yet it's "wrong" to let a newborn die a gentle death from
hypothermia.

The subject begs further reflection and dialogue.

	Chris Burian

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:36:27 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> Ah, another tax whiner.  Well bad news kiddo, you DO have a choice.
>> You're getting services; the government demands that you pay for those
>> services.  Seems fair to me.  If you don't like it you have two choices.
>> 
>> 1) Vote for different services.
>> 2) Move out of the country.
>> 
>> Easy, eh?  If you don't like the services the US government supplies,
>> then live in a different country.
>
>Ah yes -- "America, Love It Or Leave It" -- the favorite bumper sticker
>of American... liberals?

Nope, it's traditionally been a right-wing slogan.

Which is not the point anyway.  I don't care if you stay or go.  I
don't care if you work to get the tax laws changed.  But if you're
going to start dishonest whining about how you don't have a choice,
please take it somewhere else.  Either that or put up with me pointing
out that you're full of crap.

Gosh.  More choices.  What IS the world coming to.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Followup-To: talk.abortion
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:53:00 GMT

No, they must not.  And until you're pro-choice, don't try to tell them 
what they must do.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Subject: Re: Jane Austen as a role model for eliminating sexism ... NOT!
Organization: The House (On the Corner)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:41:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.152545.15451@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes...
>CS> "I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
>CS> quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>CS> are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>CJ, you seem to be fairly genuine in your wish to end sexism, (although I do not
>agree with many of your choices of people to attach that label upon...), so why
>do you do yourself such an injustice as to quote such offensive sexist comments
>as these?  (Perhaps you are correct in saying that she isn't "elitist," but this
>certainly *is* offensive)
>
>
>The existence of sexism against women should *hardly* justify such petty
>"revenge" as this - it might "feel good" to "get back at men for all those
>things they say about us," but it doesn't really get us anywhere closer to
>resolving the differences and disagreements between men and women.


Who, exactly, is doing the "getting back" in this scenario?
Jane Austen has been dead for centuries....  And someone
(Will?) actually labelled her a "feminist" the other day...
*snort*

C.J., I don't recognize the quote--Northanger Abbey?  Mansfield
Park?  Sense & Sensibility?  Pride & Prejudice?  Emma?  That
other one whose name I can't remember?  Her childhood (unfinished)
play?  Letters (and, if so, where can I read them?)?


Piglet, incurable Austen snob...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:41:31 GMT

In article <1gtcprINNbds@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <1goin9INN1b3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>Men do not, however, have the same post-conception options for controlling 
>>their child-support liability as women do, Adrienne. And THAT is the inequity. 
>
>Correct.  Life ain't fair.

This isn't "life", Michal, this is "law", and the law ain't fair.

How many times must I say this before it sinks in, Michal? In a state of
nature, there is no such thing as involuntary child support. That is purely
a socially-constructed, artificial phenomenon. So when you child support
reactionaries keep whining "life ain't fair", "it's biology", "tough shit"
etc. etc. all you're doing is cutting your own throats. I'd be happy if
the paternity child support laws were repealed tomorrow, but I doubt you
would. So please justify the laws to me. "Life ain't fair" isn't a 
justification for depriving men of the fruits of their labor. "It's biology"
isn't a justification for violating their rights. Neither is "tough shit".
So where is your justification? Let's hear it.

>>Sure, once the child is born and the mother takes custody, the laws are 
>>superficially "equal". But that's like saying if I own two automobiles, and 
>>you own none, and you steal one of mine, that it would be OK to legally 
>>condone that, since the result is that we each have one automobile, and that's 
>>"equal". 
>
>A good argument, but for the opposite stance.  The woman, by the vagaries
>of biology, has two automobiles.  You have none.  Learn to live with it.

Wrong. You got the analogy all wrong, Michal. The "automobile" doesn't
represent biology; it represents money.

>>Equality is a noble goal, but not so noble that we can trample all 
>>over people's fundamental rights in order to achieve it. The end does not 
>>justify the means in this case. 
>
>In your own words even!  Equality is a noble goal, but not so noble that
>we can allow men to cancel out the rights of children to be supported by
>their parents.

The man indisputably has a (qualified) right to property; it's guaranteed in 
the Constitution. However, I am far from convinced that a child has an
inalienable "right" to be supported by its natural parents. In fact, every 
case of adoption seems to be a counter-example. Can you back up your claim 
that such a right exists in the first place, Michal?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:17:46 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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 <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>
>>>An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into
>>>a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.
>>
>>Well, let's see...
>>
>>An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
>>life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
>>and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
>>is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
>>egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
>>human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
>>a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.
>
>That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an
>unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.
>It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized.

I hate to clue you in, but by the same reasoning a fertilized egg will
never develop into an adult, either.  It might become an embryo, but then
it wouldn't be a fertilized egg any more...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)