HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:21:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

In article <1992Nov19.042445.3279@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>> I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
>> 
>>    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
>>    authority that grants you this right?
>
>RIghts are not granted.  Rights are recognized.
>
>Dean Kaflowitz

Oh?  The authors and signers of America's own Declaration of
Indepence would disagree with you.  Even Thomas Jefferson,
a probable non-Christian, author of the Declaration of
Independence would even disagree with you.
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Date: 17 Nov 1992 18:50:03 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <lefty-161192130727@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.203304.22081@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill
>Overpeck) wrote:
>> 
>> Is it "good" to have rights?  If so, why?   
>
>This is a content-free question.  It is neither "good" nor "bad" to have
>"rights".  People are considered to have them.

It is one of the most _content-full_ questions you will ever hear. And people
consider other people to have rights because they experience the idea to be
"good".

>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)

-- 
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: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:18:18 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Nov14.151657.8820@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
|In <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
|>When nobody else is involved, nobody else has the right to
|>interfere.

|If my greatest joy in life is torturing cats to death, does anyone
|else have the right to interfere?

Are you destroying someone else's property?

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"A moment's thought would have shown him, but a moment is a long 
time and thought is a painful process." -- A E Housman
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:40:34 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov15.051701.20791@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1de3flINNm51@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>
>>I guess what I am trying to do is rattle the cage of those who think that
>>z/e/f's "don't exist".  I'd like to suggest that there is no shame in valuing
>>something for its potential.  Duracell got rich on lousy batteries, and
>>that's just potential energy.
>
>When one buys a battery, mostly what one buys is portable containment of
>energy, not energy itself. Kilowatt-hour for kilowatt-hour, it's much cheaper
>to buy what's coming right out of one's wall socket.

Right.  And when one buys milk, one is mainly buying a carton - portable
containment of milk.  It's much cheaper in the long run to buy a cow.  Still,
there's no shame in buying cartons of milk, and no one claims that the
cartons do not contain milk, even without having looked inside.

What on earth is one buying when one falls in love, I wonder?

>If we want to truly compare energy to potential energy, howzabout the
>difference between what's coming out of my wall socket, and a promise from
>the power company to eventually provide me electricity? Which is going to
>keep my refrigerator, and my microwave, and my bedroom LAN running? Which
>is more "valuable" to me, right here and now?

Even that electricity is only potential energy.  I guess you were robbed.

>For best results, try answering this question during a complete power
>blackout. :-)

Hard to read the physics book in the dark, of course.  Maybe that's why
Duracell sell those torches.

>								- Kevin

-- 
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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:37:35 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Nov19.183336.13018@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.165609.7444@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}But you don't know that for sure. And *if* it is in fact a problem, then by 
>}the time action is taken, many lives could be needlessly lost.
>
>}If it's not happening, then why does it hurt to legislate against it?
>}Doesn't this sword cut _both_ ways?
>
>Sort of like, gee, if you're not hiding anything, why would you object
>to a search?  

"Sort of like", but not really, since I'm giving an example of _legislation_
and you're trying to analogize to the complex and delicate balance of rights
involved in law _enforcement_. Apples and oranges.

>I guess we should make it illegal to jump into the sun.  We don't know
>for sure it isn't a problem, and if in fact it is, many lives could
>be needlessly lost before we take action.

We know that approx. 100 third-trimester abortions a year are being done for 
"good" reasons, Galen. Given that order of magnitude, it's not much of a 
stretch to conjecture that maybe a few dozen are being clandestinely done for 
"bad" reasons.

Now, for comparison, how many instances per year do you suppose there are
of people jumping into the sun for "good" reasons?

Your analogy quickly burns to a cinder.

(Besides, I think the sun would be outside the jurisdictional boundaries of 
U.S. Law anyway).

>If anyone else had said something like this, I would probably think
>it is the stupidest thing they had said.  But coming from Kevin,
>it doesn't even rank in the top 100...

Content?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49162 alt.abortion.inequity:5265 soc.men:19791
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 22 Nov 1992 19:47:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Do you realize
>that taking out a murder contract on one's lover or divorced spouse is in 
>many ways _significantly_ less burdensome than paying 18+ years of child
>support, and that a growing number of men are awakening to this reality,
>and choosing to exercise that "option"? 

I don't see how murdering the mother lessens the burden on the man.
Hypothesizing that he's not caught, wouldn't it just further burden
him with all the parenting responsibilities, both financial and 
care-giving?

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus (Lost Boy Responds)
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:09:40 GMT

> = hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>the human fetus can actually dream!  
>
>"Think" about it.

What about fetus' that have no brain and hence cannot "think"?
Your vague assertion suggests you have no problem with early term abortions.
Or will you come up with another position in this case?
What's the bottom line?

-Brian
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 23 Nov 1992 13:46:18 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov21.073246.6630@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
#> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#>#How are we going to decide what is a human being and what isn't?  You
#>#assume that anything concieved of people is a person, but that 
#>#assumption has been shown to be largely arbitrary.  If I define as 
#>#human anything warm blooded, then your argument could just as well be 
#>#used to argue for equal rights for turkeys (and just in time, too!).
#>
#>Every definition has been shown to be largely arbitrary.  Your argument is
#>equally circular, and equally worthless.  It could be used, and has been, to
#>justify the worst atrocities in living memory.  Which is worse,  letting
#>turkeys in - or leaving people out?
#
#Your assuming (without suitable justification) that any people are
#being left out.

And you are assuming they aren't!  This could go on forever.

#So then, we're left with two equally worthless arguments.  You want to
#make the set larger than do I.  Who's right?

The only point I wish to make is that we don't know who's right.  Therefore
to attempt a definitive assertion about foetal personhood is unreasonable.
The question is undecidable.  The correct answer to an undecidable question
is either to unask it, provisionally accept a guess until proven wrong, or
find a bigger system in which the question _can_ be answered.

#Maybe we'll have to use some other method of arriving at a concensus.
#How about one that produces the greatest good while avoiding the
#majority of the evils?

Well, sure - but you cannot determine this without reference to values, which
so far have not made an appearance in the debate.  "good" and "evil" are
relative moral terms, too, and while relativity is in, morality is out of 
fashion.

#Ray Fischer                   
-- 
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'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:35:32 GMT

> = Chris Lyman:
> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>> We the defenders of our smallest brothers and sisters will never go away.
>> We will forever be pricking your consciences.

Not without a condom, you won't.

>Hiya, Suzanne.  You've been awfully quiet since GHWB took it on the chin
>and your state referendum on abortion was voted down by almost 2 to 1.
>I sure wish I could help out on this child killing problem but what does
>that have to do with abortion?

Not to mention the fandango danced on the bird-like chest of Suzanne's
favorite  right-wing bigot, Evan "I'm A Felon So I Can't Vote" Mecham.

And isn't this just like Suzanne to screech at us about amendments "doing
an end run around RvW, ha ha ha", then with her tail between her legs,
sliding like Crisco on Teflon back onto t.a. without admitting that the
anti-abortionist repression movement has suffered a possibly mortal blow.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:30:05 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1ebg8lINN3rh@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, you write:
|In article <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
|[...]
|>When you rape, you involve the body of another person.
|>That person, just like you, has control over what happens
|>to his/her body.  The consent of the other person is
|>what makes the difference between consensual sex & rape.
|>When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
|>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
|>you have to prove your case.)
|The second statement is incorrect.  And it is trivially easy to prove that
|someone else's body is involved during some abortions, just as it is
|trivially easy to show that another person's body is involved in your rape
|example (hint: no need to submit a rigorous topological proof in either
|case).

Who is that "someone else"?  (Hint: is your answer at 8 weeks
any different from your answer at 8 months?)

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Dogmatic attachment to the supposed merits of a particular structure
 hinders the search for an appropriate structure" -- Robert Fripp
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49301 alt.abortion.inequity:5287 soc.men:19840
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:51:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

In article <By37I7.5DG@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
|> The point is that a man *must* face the 50-50 chance (per decade of sex)
|> of forced fatherhood, if he relies upon the word of another person.
|> 
|> The alternative is abstinence.
|> 
|> You haven't suggested any other alternatives.

Um, how about this: he could choose his sex partners carefully enough
that he can _believe_ the woman when she says she using a certain form
of birth control?

Or, he could encourage (insist?) that she use either a diaphragm or a
contraceptive sponge, or foam or something else that he can be _sure_
is actually used at each instance of sexual intercourse?  Combined with
a condom, that actually approaches 99% effectiveness, doesn't it?

--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48878 alt.abortion.inequity:5209 soc.men:19684 soc.women:20048 alt.feminism:4785
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Keywords: Garvin refuted
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:48:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <By166q.1xD.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> Although at least two people reposted the articles in question 
> and proved that Nyikos is lying, I'll do it one more time.  

He made a simple mistake of misattributing a post.  I would hardly
call that "lying".  Anyways, you have yet to address Mr. Nyiko's 
rebuttal of Jeff Greenfield's arguments.  

> Holtsinger's lies about the
> Roe v. Wade decision have been exposed countless times, yet
> Holtsinger still reposts them.  

They're not lies, it's the truth: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted
abortion-on-demand throughout the term of pregnancy.  Abortions
can be legally performed all the way up to the point of birth. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:15:44 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>Maybe an example would help.  It is my opinion that the pain
>of animals is a bad thing and that the willful infliction of pain by a
>human being without justification is a bad thing.  Since I think those
>really are bad things, I favor laws against torturing cats to death
>for the fun of it.  Do you see a problem with my stance on that issue?

Not if the cat is living inside your body.

>Jim Kalb 

                                -rocker
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:55:27 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32777@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>You claim that you want to force people to be responsible for sexual
>activity.  You claim you favor support laws, which would force both
>men and women to support children financially.  Then you favor forced
>pregnancy, which puts a special burden only on women?

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.  It is true that prohibition of abortion
puts a special burden on women; however, since that burden results
from the application of the same principle (responsibility for one's
actions) to persons in different circumstances (persons who can and
persons who can not become pregnant) I see no reason to view the
special burden as unjust.  Nor have you suggested a reason.

You seem to object to the view that one's obligations depend in part
on one's circumstances.  I don't understand the objection.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:41:34 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> I remember Jeff Greenfield as being the only person who attempted to
>>> address my sources.   None of my sources had been taken out of context.
>>> Jeff Greenfield made that accusation because he knew he had lost the
>>> argument, and he was getting desperate.  He couldn't debate me without
>>> slinging dirt. 

>> Liar.  Susan Garvin saved those posts, in case your memory needs refreshing.
>> I had them saved too, but deleted them before I realized that you'd become
>> trapped in endless recursion on this issue.

> So what?   You saved a bunch of garbage.  Jeff Greenfield didn't refute my 
> sources.  He ignored three of my sources, and he presented a single source 
> in support of his argument from an author who has held conflicting views on 
> Roe v. Wade.   Face it, Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
> throughout pregnancy.

Liar.  He showed how the meaning of most of your quotations changed when
restored to their original contexts.  Face it, Reverend, your assertion that
RvW is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy is undiluted
fantasy.

>> I wish I'd saved all the posts demonstrating your lack of reading skills.
>> First you had trouble discerning the difference between "want" and "deserve."
>> Now it's "you" and "Kathyrn Kolbert."  

> But when I quote Kathyrn Kolbert, how can you call me a liar?  I'm quoting
> her, right?  So how can I be lying?  Tell us how that works.

Remember your little joke where you quoted Bill Clinton out of context? 

>>> There are several thousand abortions performed annually after the 21st week 
>>> of pregnancy (viability starts at around the 22nd to 23rd week).

>> Viability in how many cases?  

> Why does that matter to you?  How many post-viability abortions must
> be performed before you would support restrictions on abortion?  Give
> me a number. 

Since your issue with late-term abortions is largely a product of your
undernourished imagination, I'll give you an imaginary number: the square
root of -1.

-- 
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,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:00:05 GMT

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

>    Still not sure?  Then, by your incredibly simplistic definition,
>everyone who commits male-male rape in prison is gay.  I doubt many of the
>inmates would agree with that assertion. 

They certainly have homosexual tendancies/DESIRES...
-Doc

-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48802 soc.men:19658 soc.women:20024 alt.politics.homosexuality:7449
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: 20 Nov 1992 16:45:47 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
: In <1eb73dINN14q@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
: What can you possibly mean by saying that rape has nothing to do with
: sex?  The contrary is true as a simple matter of definition.

I mean to say that it is a crime of violence.  Rape doesn't always use a
penis.  Women have been raped with broken bottles, and just about any phallic
object imaginable.  Rape doesn't limit itself to women, either.  Something
like 1 in 7 (?) calls to the Dublin Rape Crisis centre are from men.  

: Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)


-- 
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'
                   
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48966 soc.men:19718 soc.women:20085 alt.politics.homosexuality:7483
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:41:28 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
>I think this is who I'm sending this to... It's in response to your "what 
>really pisses you off about prolifers", or whomever.
>
>Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>the human fetus can actually dream!  

Dogs dream too.  What's your point?

>"Think" about it.

If someone did think about, that would already be exceeding your
contribution.  

SJM

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48837 alt.abortion.inequity:5205 soc.men:19669