HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:34:34 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <15DEC92.05302177@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>In article <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>I don't think so, Loren.  The original posting said:
 
>>From zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!noc.near.net!black.clarku.edu!vax.clarku.edu!hsims Fri Dec 11 08:45:33 PST 1992
 
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
 
>>>>At any given time, Loren, I'll bet money I could get 51% of a given 
>>>>population to vote that you should be strapped to a chair for 3 weeks (by
>>>>offering them a portion of the money bet).  
>>> 
>>>How much money will you bet?  Whatever it is, I'll take that bet.  
>>>Good luck getting enough money to pull it off.  
>> 
>>-----end inclusion----
>> 
>>Backing out already?  I said "given population" and you said "I'll take
>>that bet."
>
>Who is giving the population.  We were talking about the way things become 
>laws in the united states, and votes of the majority in the United States.  
>I noticed that you skipped mentioning that.  You are the one who said in a 
>"given poplulation"  Well, I am giving you the population.  The United States. 
>Since that is what we were talking about it is much more appropriate.  

Loren, we are getting *real* *tired* of your reading comprehension problem.

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.

And now you want out.

Yet, women who are too damned stupid to read the instructions of a birth
control method, and use it correctly have to suffer through the birth,
according to you.    

Either BOTH you stupid people get to claim ignorance, or neither of you do.

Which is it, Loren?



Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 21:36:07 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:

>>Nope, what makes you a hypocrite is that fact that you would force women to 
>>use their bodies against their will to keep fetuses alive, when you are not 
>>willing to do the same.  
> 
>Again, I say that being pregnant is not the same as being fisted for 9 months.

It's not exactly the same, but so what?  Why aren't you willing to use your 
body to save a fetus' life? 

>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. 

Fantasizing about having sex with me again?  You will refrain from having sex 
with me because if you ever try anything I will break a few of your favorite 
bones.

>>Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily
>>resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
>>Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.
> 
>The only person I have to prove anything to is myself.  I know what I believe, 
>and who I am.  
>
>Tell me.  Do you honestly believe that all pro-life men are hypocrites?  It 
>must be easy for you to believe that, because you know that they will never 
>get pregnant, therefore they will never truly ba able to prove themselves in 
>your eyes.  Is it so difficult for you to accept that a man who is pro-life 
>might also be pro-life it he were a woman?  

I know pro-life men who are not hypocrites.  The difference between them and 
you is that they aren't interested in forcing their beliefs on others.  

>The only really close scenario, for a man, to being pregnant, is If you got 
>someone pregnant, would you be willing to support the child, for at least 9 
>months before considering adoption.  While this is not an exactly same 
>situation (There is no such thing), this is relatively close.  

It's not even remotely close.  

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:15:43 GMT

In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

}"Thou shalt not kill"
}"Thou shalt not steal"
}In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
}In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
}In some states adultery is illegal.

}All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
}good laws.

While I think that the first two examples you give are merely coincidentally
in tune with some religions, I would be interested why you think they
make "pretty good laws."  Actually, I'm not particularly interested
in why you think they might be good laws.  There are enough idiots
in this world that think their beliefs should be enforced by guns,
cops and courts.  I've largely given up trying to figure out why.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:56:22 GMT

In the first article of this thread, I asked Suzanne Forgach:
>
>Can you explain to me why abortion should be legal?
>
>I know you think it shouldn't be, but you would earn a great deal of
>respect in my eyes if you could convincingly present the pro-choice
>argument as you see it, and explain how, with the same facts at hand,
>you decided that abortion should not be legal.  Try to give the
>argument as I might give it, knowing that I am pro-choice and atheist.
>
>Right now I don't think you can do this.  I expect you'll either
>ignore this article or say that my request is pointless.  Prove me
>wrong, and at least you'll make me interested enough to listen to your
>opinions, and at best you might win some people over to your side.

... and she ignored the article entirely.  Meanwhile, she's still been
posting in other threads, defending her mindlessly-driven pro-life
stance by saying such incredibly profound things as "Hey, I've _BEEN_
an unborn child."

I had hoped she would at least be somewhat influenced by her
religion's tenet of "love thine enemies", at least enough to agree to
a truce long enough to discuss her real feelings on abortion without
tossing trite one-liners around.  The mere fact that she hasn't
responded in any speaks very badly of her religion, her pro-life
stance, and herself -- just how sincere are they?

Suzanne, I only hope that someday one of your daughters tells you
she's pro-choice, or that you have to deal with a victim of rape.
I think that the best thing for your idealistic opinions would be
a strong dose of reality.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52130 alt.abortion.inequity:5936 soc.men:21260 soc.women:21544
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:15:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>Again, the argument is a "Devil's
>Advocate," based upon the proposition that in order to make "reproductive
>choice" equitable between the genders, either men and women should *both* have
>"reproductive rights" (ie., freedom of choice for women *and* men) or *neither*
>gender shoud have such rights (ie., continue to force men into "responsibility"
>through paternity suits, *and* outlaw abortion).

This position overlooks the basic inequality of pregnancy -- that it 
occurs inside the woman's body.  Your two "equality" scenarios overlook
the basic fact that in each case somebody other than the woman (in the 
former case the man, in the latter case the government) has control 
over the woman's body and that the man suffers no "equivalent" loss
of autonomy.

>So indeed, even if he *did* consider outlawing abortion to be a serious option
>for himself (which I believe that it is *not*, despite the line of argument),
>the resulting state of affairs would "control" women *and* men, although
>admittedly in different fashions.

This last paragraph leads me to think that perhaps you *do* understand
that the "men's choice or no choice" position will *not* lead to equality.

							--  Michal
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reverend Holtsinger's obsession with Patrick (Was: Re: Patrick Humphrey finds humor in mass rape? (was Re: Rape After Rape After Rape)
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:17:07 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <#ar2g+r@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#->dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#->#Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:
# 
#->Putting quotation marks around the phrase implies that
#->Holtsinger is quoting Patrick.  I'd like to see the cite
#->for the post where Patrick used those exact words.
#  
#oh i don't think patrick wrote those words. DODie has
#fudged quotes before, you know. i don't think it's a
#good idea to distrust any quote or reference which DODie
#posts until you check it against the original.

I agree - that's why I asked for the article number.

I doubt that Reverend Holtsinger will provide it, though.  I'll
be surprised if he follows up on any of this.  It seems that
he not only copies Chaney's writing style, he also copies
Chaney's penchant for running away.

(I won't, of course, be surprised if DODie claims that I'm
lying when I say that I'll be surprised if he follows up -
he does claim to be able to read my mind, you know.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 21:55:53 GMT

In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>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:
>>> 
>>>This is some kind of cruel joke, isn't it? You're just going to
>>>say "It's wrong to kill a fetus because it's a person because
>>>it's a human being because it's wrong to kill it because it's
>>>a fetus," over and over again, while I frantically try to find
>>>a re-phrasing of my question that you'll be able to understand.
> 
>>>   1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
>>>      kill them?
> 
>>There is no one quality that makes us "wrong to kill".  There is no one 
>>quality that makes us human beings.  It is a whole bunch of things, some of 
>>which are not quantifiable.  I just don't think that 
>>age/maturity/state-of-development is one of them.
> 
>I disagree with this, for reasons I've discussed in previous articles.

You disagree that there is not one quality?  Could you please tell us what 
that quality is, in your opinion.

> 
>>>   3) If my answers to the first two questions turn out to be
>>>      different from your answers, do you have any kind of rational
>>>      argument that might convince me that your answers are better 
>>>      than mine?
>>> 
> 
>OK. You didn't even attempt to answer this one. I can only assume
>that you wanted to be absolutly certain that we would answer the
>first two questions differently. Now that you know that I disagree
>with you, are you willing to take a stab at it? Please?

I have already stated my arguments in previous articles (many times).  If you 
can't find them, then I will repost them.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Organization: Clark University
Date: 18 DEC 92 21:44:34 GMT

In a previous article, conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:
>In article <1992Dec18.041148.14307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>Yup.  And if you chose to not reproduce, by using birth control, then you
>>*have* made your choice.  And if the birth control fails, then it's certainly
>>a responsible decision to stick with your original choice.
> 
>Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your comment, but I'm not sure it 
>would be considered a responsible decision to abort a child just because
>birth control failed.  

Why not?  

>The fact is, if I'm engaging in sex, there is 
>*always* the possibility of a pregnancy.  That's the way our bodies were
>designed.  

Speak for yourself.  There's all kinds of sex people can engage in without 
ever risking pregnancy - homosexuality, oral sex, etc.

>Just because I take every precaution possible doesn't mean
>that I shouldn't also take the responsibility for the possibility of 
>caring for a child that may come out of the act.  If I go bunji-jumping
>and take every safety precaution but the chord still breaks, is it my
>fault that I get splattered all over the ground?  I'd say yes, because in
>a sport like that, there's always the possibility of an accident.  

I have a feeling that many people in such a situation would place the blame 
on the company that made the faulty cord.  In such events, lawsuits are 
common.

>All of our actions have consequences, and if we're not willing to deal with 
>those consequences, we shouldn't put ourselves in situations where we'll have
>to deal with them.  

Having an abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences.  No one will 
force you to have an abortion, but the option is there for people who want it.

>So, I guess I would say the bottom line is, if you
>don't want the possibility of a child, then don't have sex.  If you do
>have sex, again in my opinion, you should be in a relationship where if
>a child does come along, it would be a good thing, overall.

What if someone feels that having a child would never be a good thing for him 
or her, no matter what the relationship, such as  married couples who don't 
want children?  Should such people have to refrain from sex for the rest of 
their lives?  

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein wants to renege (Was: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:43:38 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 <748@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>Which is it, Finkelstein?  Are you claiming that you're too stupid
>to understand the written word, or are you admitting that you don't
>have the courage to put your convictions to the test?

Damn - I *knew* that I should have taken a side bet that he'd weasel.
Oh well - probably couldn't have found a taker anyway.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:44:28 GMT

> = (David Anderson) writes:

>Let's limit the net to worthwhile discussions, ok?
>nuff said.

You have a right to express your opinion; I have the right to tell
you to fuck off and let a free forum be just that.

I'm enjoying Heather's mutilation of Finkelstein's stupidity.  His views
on impregnated rape victims rivals Schweikert, Forgach and Liar
Holtsinger for fascist hatred.





-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52308 alt.abortion.inequity:6001 misc.legal:21476
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:57 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec17.180825.3363@rotag.mi.org>,
 kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes...
>In article <1go3dlINN2v5@gap.caltech.edu>
- peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>Thus, your position seems to be that any man who sleeps with a woman
>>>should have the same legal rights as a sperm donor.
>>
>>He would be exempted if and only if a specific written agreement for the
>>care of the child, existed (and was held valid by the state) prior to 
>>conception.  You will note that this is currently required of sperm banks.
> 
>How is this "specific written agreement" any different, in legal terms, from 
>the proposed "pre-sex contract" (except that it is more generous to the woman
>by offering her a subsidy of her abortion costs if she should choose to 
>exercise that option)? How are these "sperm bank withdrawal agreements"
>enforceable, whereas, according to the Conventional Wisdom (?) of misc.legal,
>"pre-sex contracts" are not?


This is beginning to look more and more like the problem with surrogacy
contracts.  See In the Matter of Baby M, __ N.J. ___, ___ A.2d ___ (19__)
(ruled illegal).  Sorry, no digest available, and I'm not in the law library.

						Dan, ad nauseum
						Daniel Reitman
						DReitman@Oregon.UOregon.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:52:54 GMT

In article <16DEC92.15202223@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
>
>>Loren, after reading your posts all this time, I've come to a
>>conclusion. Yes, you've convinced me.
>>I've been convinced by your keen grasp of law, sociology, politics,
>>medicine, and now, the ammendment process.
>>I'm convinced clarku.edu should raise their entrance standards.
>
>I would just like to say that not all Clark Alumni are idiots.  Loren and that 
>guy who guy took all that money from the United Way are NOT respresentative of 
>all Clark graduates.  Some of us have gone on to lead productive, non-criminal 
>lives.  
>
>Unfortunately, at some point between the time I was accepted at Clark and the 
>time Loren was accepted, Clark U. really did lower their standards due to a
>decrease in the number of applications.  Hopefully they will soon be able to 
>return to the high extrance standards they once had.
>
'Twas not directed at all Clark students or alumni, but strictly at
Loren. I have no doubt that the majority of Clark people are fine
individuals. But what a shame that the entrance standards have dropped
so low...
Lets just hope other's do not judge the entire school by Loren, else I
suspect applications will drop ever lower...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:18:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.035135.29221@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> E. Elizabeth Bartley:

>>Sure as in I've looked up the laws personally, no.

>>Sure as in I'd personally act on that information were it relevant, yes.

>Ignorance of the law is no excuse, actually. If you acted on that 
>"information", and it turned out to be bogus, you might find yourself in some 
>serious legal trouble...

I'm aware of that fact; that's why I mentioned my willingness to act
accordingly as a measure of my surety.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52267 soc.men:21343 alt.dads-rights:2999
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:56:28 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1gql3fINN4o9@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
...
>
>After all, it couldn't be true, could it, that keeping abortion legal
>means FEWER men are 'stuck' with the bills, could it?
>
>Adrienne Regard
>   

Pretty cynical, Adrienne.  I don't recall reading anybody on this group
who made the point that they'd like someone to abort just so they then
wouldn't have to pay any bills.  The argument always has been, and
always will be, that if women insist on controlling the strings when
it comes to the decision of whether to bear or abort the child, that
men also should have some decision-making power.  In other words, if
you want to have a child and the man doesn't, then YOU ARE MAKING YOUR
OWN UNILATERAL DECISION and should not insist that someone else support
you financially in that decision.  On the other hand, you also get to
make the decision to abort, regardless of the man's desires, and even
if he wants to keep the child by himself, he doesn't get to.  Why this
is such a mystery to so many women is beyond me, and I'll repeat what
I've said here numerous times before:  if you (meaning women in general)
want equal treatment in society's and the law's eyes, then stop insisting
on special treatment when it fits your personal agenda.

And let's please not belabor the old saw about "if you didn't want kids,
you should have kept it in your pants".  That applies equally well to
women.  When sex is consensual, nobody is being forced to risk getting
pregnant.


Jerry Roe
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal