HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Gypsies and the Down's Syndrome:  McBean and Nyikos email
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:14:16 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Peter asked me to post this discussion, so here it is thusfar:
>> >>, >> = me
>> >, > = Peter (duh (just making sure you knew!))

In article <brandonu.ca mcbeanb.mail.abortion:13>, nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >> Other
>> >> people have different beliefs and values, and it's unfair to impose
>> >> one set of values on such a large and diverse population as that in
>> >> which we live.  That's why I'm pro-choice.
>> >
>> >This is going to probably be the big bone of contention between you
>> >and me in the future.  As you may know (I picked it up from Peter Maas's
>> >book _King of the Gypsies_) many gypsies think they have a god-given
>> >right to steal, and this may be shared by the Mafia as well.  Yet we
>> >continue to have laws against theft, etc.
>> 
>> Here's a sticky argument, but I think I can surpass it...
>> Being pro-choice, I am not actively causing the death of any feti,
>> but I am protecting all women's rights to protect their bodies.
> 
> Since when is abortion for gender selection, and abortion for 
> the elimination of
> handicaps on the order of Down's Syndrome, protecting the body of
> the woman?  
> 
>> The gypsies and the mafia's personal beliefs would cause them
>> to actively harm other people, and violate their freedoms.
>> A pro-choicer violates nobody's freedoms other than the fetus,
>> but the fetus is not a person, only a potential person, therefore
>> the rights of the mother (the real current person) override any
>> partial rights of the fetus.
> 
> Uh-oh.  Looks like we have another big bone of contention here.  When
> you say "potential person," are you speaking in purely legalistic terms?
> I would guess not, from your use of "actively harm".  But then you are
> making a gigantic assumption, that the fetus is incapable of suffering
> great agony during a D&E dismemberment, etc.
 
[red herrings and straw men deleted :) ] 

> Peter 
From: deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:24:40 GMT
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Lawsuit against Dr. Mildred Hanson
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:20:12 GMT

Last week, Peter Nyikos mentioned that a lawsuit was filed against
Dr. Mildred Hanson of Minneapolis for failing to inform a patient
of the results of a pap smear in a timely manner.  Too bad he didn't
include the whole story.  The suit was thrown out before it ever went
to trial.  It seems that Dr. Hanson's office repeatedly sent the
results to the woman by mail and by telephone.  I learned this during
a telephone conversation with one of Dr. Hanson's associates.

Dr. Hanson has been the defendant in many nuisance lawsuits.  It
seems that there are lots of pro-lie lawyers out there willing to
take any sort of outrageous statement they can concoct with the
help of their clients into court.  In Dr. Hanson's case, all of
them resulted in not-guilty verdicts.

So, Peter, do you have any more red herrings or strawmen
for me to set fire to?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:50:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Eric
>Kevin
>>Eric


>>>So, Kevin, are you going to apologize to all the rape victims that
>>>you insulted in the above post?

>>Hey, Eric.  What is your problem?  Are you just plain stupid?  Or ignorant?
>Neither. You, however, seem to be both.

>>First you misconstrue my response (which was just another way of saying
>>abstinence - with no reference intended whatsoever to rape); then you ask
>>me to apologize to raped women for congratulating a woman for getting pregnant.

>No, I asked you to apologize to them for implying that refusing to
>have sex was a sure way to avoid getting pregnant, which is what
>your original post implies.

I in no way ever said that abstinence would not get a woman raped.  You are
just going to drill me with this issue, aren't you.  If I talk about one
particular thing, Eric, I do not have to talk about EVERY particular thing
that comes with the territory.  Rape is an unjustified act in which the woman
is not at fault.  It is an act of aggression and a deranged dominance of a 
rapist over a woman (or man).  I was NOT referring to this.

>>Number one, abstinence is a sure way to prevent pregnancy.  I do NOT believe
>>that it is any deterent to a deranged rapist.  I never said that abstinence
>>had anything to do with being raped, nor did I intend it.

>Abstinence can be a difficult thing, sir. It is quite difficult to be
>abstinent when someone is holding you to the floor and forcibly penetrating
>you.

Drill me.  Be it your choice.  I made no accusations or assumptions here.
Twist them if you will.

>Your snide response that "pants" is a perfect contraceptive reminds
>me of nothing more than the implication that a woman who was
>raped "wanted it".

Oh give me a break, Eric Rescorla.  You let yourself off to be
such a crusader.  I made no statement saying that a woman who got raped
"wanted it".  Why don't you just lay it off, Eric?

>I remind you that it was not so long ago
>that Steven Friend claimed that women who were raped secrete a chemical
>which prevents them from getting pregnant.

Could this be any more irrelevant??  Did I mention Steve Friend?  Did I
even mention rape?  NOooooo.  So what?  What's your point?  I made no
connection to Steve Friend here.  What's the issue, Eric.

>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu

kcw


--
Kevin Welch						  POLITICALLY INCORRECT
University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu				  FREE MARKETS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:18:36 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <SCOTTS.92Sep14103503@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>,
scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) wrote:
> 
> I wonder if Chaney is paper trained?

Not to judge from the amount of excrement on the net with his name on it.
--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 14 Sep 1992 12:17:57 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

I cut a whole lot of this out, and got right to the meat of the
discussion. This thing was getting WAY too long.

In article <43922@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
> 
> Then we have a grave problem for two reasons:
> 
> 1. If I reject those premisses, you are helpless.  The trouble with 
> 
> 2. Sometimes those premisses conflict.
>    A rapist may want the freedom to rape a woman - and believes that such
>    is OK.
>    BUt the woman disagrees.
>    Conflict.
> 
>    I want freedom to protect foetuses by law.  *Me* - *I* want that freedom,
>    based upon those premisses you mentioned.
>    And the mother wants the freedom to not be forced to support the foetus.
>    SHe also demands her freedom from those premisses.
>    Conflict.

In both cases, a person's rights are being violated. In the first,
her right to happiness. In the second, her right to privacy, and
her ability to do as she wishes with her body.

To grant rights to the other party in either of these cases is to
say to the woman "You are a secondary concern, and your autono-
my is not as important as that of your male counterpart.".

> 
> >Like I said before, good laws protect the autonomy of people.
> 
> You opinion.
> Respected, but rejected.

I think that pretty much says it...

My belief is that personal freedom (in conjunction with a guarantee
of personal safety) is paramount.

I guess your belief is that if you believe it, then it should be
a law. (I say this because I believe that pro-lifers are neither
the majority, nor are they necessarily on the "chosen path").

> No of course it doesn't.  You are right, an anti-abortion law *would*
> restrict the woman.
> ANd your freedom to abort, in itself, doesn't violate my freedom.
> 
> BUt if your freedom to abort is sustained by restricting *my* freedom to
> choose some laws - *then* I am restricted.
> 
> Enforcing a right to abort (as the Constitution appears to do) violates my
> freedom to choose a law revoking that abortion right.

It tells me that you don't really have the right to pursue pro-
life legislation, in the first place.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - not my employer's
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 18:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.013235.25908@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><nyikos.715894480@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:
>>People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
>>posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
>>justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
>>any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them.
>
>I will post something soon from previous posts of Suzanne's.  She is on
>record here as being against all forms of birth control, except NFP, in
>some way.
Well, Suzanne is RC, so naturally she's against every form of
contraception but NFP. To be fair, she does not to my knowledge
advocate legal action against barrier method contraceptives.
(e.g. condoms, diaphragm, etc.) which is consistent with a position
that views fertilized eggs and on as being worthy of protection.
Not that I'm not concerned by her opposition to the pill, but
I think we should be clear on what she does or does not oppose
legally. 

>go after the doctor.  She has also inferrd that a theocracy is her goal
>after abortion is illegal.
This should be "implied". We inferred it from her implication.
(Grammar flames are terrible things, aren't they.)

>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
>and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
Hey, you forgot ME!
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:16:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep05.050415.38486@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <Bu37J0.Avr@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep04.142221.30426@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >In  <Bu1FJD.F5L@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Sep03.215609.14780@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com wri
>> >> >In  <Bu09ut.Es5@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> >> Referring to "enforce" defined as "strengthen":



>> >Well, let's see...  Abortion has been legal in this country for 20 years.
>> >Have all the people that think it's wrong changed their minds?

>> Now, why should all the people that think abortion is wrong have
>> changed their minds?  It suffices merely that +some+ people may
>> have changed their minds
>
>+Some+ people *may* have changed their minds?  Shall we agree that this
>is too nebulous to quantify?

Yes, just as "all" is too strict to be useful, in addition to being
logically inappropriate.  My full sentence was:

  It suffices merely that +some+ people may
  have changed their minds or that more people believe abortion is okay,
  if you want to address whether legalized abortion has strengthened
  pro-abortion beliefs.



>> >> And, beliefs regarding abortion are not necessarily religious.
>> >> My beliefs regarding abortion are certainly not; they arise from
>> >> consideration of morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity,
>> >> pragmatism, and a bit of scientific experience (research on reproduction).
>> >
>> >You mean they weren't forced on you by the legality of abortion?
>>
>> No.  Have I ever said they were?
>>
>> We go in circles: there is a difference between "force on" and "enforce,"
>> as both our dictionaries have already revealed.
>
>You mean that the fact that you live in a society in which abortion is
>legal didn't enforce the belief that abortion is a moral choice?

I mean that there is no reason to believe +a priori+, based on the
definition of "enforce," that legalized abortion has not "enforced"
the belief that abortion is a moral choice.

For example, if abortion were illegal, then the positions taken
by the Lifetime channel +might+ not be so outspokenly pro-female-choice.
Such use of the airways probably has some influence on people's beliefs.
Yes, that is nebulous!

Anecdotal as this is, it shows (I hope) that it is not impossible that 
legal-abortion laws could enforce (strengthen, not compel) moral beliefs.
Not just that abortion is morally acceptable, but that it is strictly
a woman's choice.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Steve chaney, hypocrite??? Naaahhh (Re: Questions about "consensus")
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:54:57 GMT

In <24861@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
>>simply because the majority decided something was wrong.

>>By the way, this is a trick question.

>I have a much better one....

>>|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
>				     ^^^^^^^^
>My "religion" states that an abortion must happen if the pregnancy threatens 
>the life of the mother-to-be.

I believe this is the case with Judaism.  

> It also requires an abortion in cases
>where a new baby cannot be afforded or wanted, provided that in this
>case the potential mother does not wish to carry this fetus to term.

Pretty nearly hypothetical case in the United States, not only because of the
possibility of adoption but also because of welfare.

>Would I be free to practice this religion in your world? You claim to
>be pro-freedom of religion, after all.

Freedoms are not absolute.  To someone wishing to revive the religion
of the Aztecs, with its mandatory human sacrifice, I'd say, no way
Jose.  (Although an Aztec would typically have a much longer name.)

>>|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice    Registered Democrat |

>Let's forget the rest of the hypocritical nonsense you espouse in your
>.sig. You stand for every thing these things are against, and the only
>reason you'd be a registered democrat is in an attempt to undermine
>the Democratic party.

Would you also say that about PA governor Casey?

Peter Nyikos
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Fun things to do with pro-lifers...
Date: 8 Sep 1992 16:00:04 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com
Keywords: Ha-ha... Made my day!

Here's a good one to try the next time you see a pro-lifer demonstration
in action:

Out where I live, we have a certain group of pro-lifers that regularly
marches on a clinic in one of the local doctor's office complexes. The
clinic is not actually near the road, but they make sure and get real
close to the main drag, so you can see their "resolve".

So anyway, one day my wife and I decided to have little fun...

We pulled up, and I said (real concerned) "Excuse me... I didn't know
there was an abortion clinic in this complex."

To which one of the protesters replied "Oh yes... It's right over there.",
and pointed to one of the offices.

I said "Thanks, man... I've been hunting for that place all week... Thanks
for your help!".

If you look up chagrin in the dictionary, that man's face could have been
the picture beside it... He was steamed! I'm just glad I could provide him
with the same kind of aggravation he provides others with.

-- Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I did this of my own volition... My employer had no say at all.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:43:02 GMT

In <18bacdINN7lj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
   regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
In article <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de> 
   frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes: >>

>> only an automaton would not have at least a nagging 
>> doubt about having an abortion.
>
> I do not have any nagging doubt.  And I am not an automaton.  This crap
> is merely your prejudice and reflects (rather badly) upon you.
> You may not be an automaton, but you sure sound like one.  Most people
> are not as cock-sure of their *clothes* decisions as you seem to be
> about your *moral* decision.   Are you ever wrong?
>
> Now, I wonder if the defender of clinical psychology is going to pop his
> head in here and chide Frank for diagnosing my writing pattern as an
> automaton.  I won't hold my breath.

I don't ever recall seeing "automaton" as diagnostic category... 

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36581 alt.abortion.inequity:3761
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:26:01 GMT

<1992Sep3.145448.26265@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>><1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>><1992Aug31.211903.25718@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
>>>do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.
>>
>>The difference might be that while we can all believe what everyone "should" and
>>"shouldn't" do, we are not all out trying to make laws to force people to 
>>do the things we think they should be doing.
>
>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>they think we should be doing.

Wrong.  I haven't been camping in years.

>And no, this law will not force women to get abortions, but it WILL further
>reduce the probability that fathers will EVER have any rights in regards to
>their unborn children.

As it should be.


Gordon
-- 
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.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:35:17 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

O.K. On one condition--the moderator has to be drieux.


                                                  MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Germany Abortion Law
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:11:23 GMT

>[...]
>>I have liked very much about the German system is that it stipulates
>>that the fetus is a person (ending religious debate) and +then+ says,
>>whose rights prevail?
>
>I still think it was arbitrarily chosen, and was based on religious
>issues, but they did effectively throw out any further debate on the
>personhood of the fetus and now are faced with having to look at the

Setting rules of semantics is fine, but defining "person" to include
zygotes doesn't do anything to the substance of the debate.
IMO, since a zygote and an infant (for example) bear almost no
resemblance physically or mentally, defining "person" to include both
makes the term so broad as to be meaningless.  If it makes some folks 
happy, fine, but it doesn't resolve or enlighten anything.  As usual, 
I suppose it is of some use in 
VagueEmmotionalAppealDon'tThinkToHardAboutItSoundBiteSlogans.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 23:40:36 GMT

In <1992Aug31.201542.26881@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:


>Pennsylvania, home of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control
>Act of 1989, has an ERA in its state constitution.  So
>much for the ERA protecting abortion rights.

>Susan

On the other hand, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled, citing that
state's ERA, 
"Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy
by not funding abortion...is sex-oriented discrimination."

 	"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
			--pro-abortion (not just pro-choice) slogan
	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
			--Peter Nyikos




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:42:35 GMT

jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>Hmmmm, what will be done when _everyone_ knows someone who has
>been the victim of a violent crime?  

Let's be clear about the problem:  A juror is not excluded merely for
knowing a crime victim.  Exclusion applies when the juror does not
appear able to prevent that knowledge from controlling her verdict.

One who thinks, "my neighbor was murdered and that sure shook me up, but
I'll wait for proof before I convict this defendant," may sit on the jury.
One who thinks, "my neighbor was murdered and I'd rather be safe than sorry,"
may not.

-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion