HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:15:54 GMT

In article <lefty-181292163351@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1gs5tdINN88o@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith
>Ramsay) wrote:
>> 
>> Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
>> better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
>> other to be bad characters, no?
>
>You're new here, aren't you?

But apparently not so new that he can't recognize how counter-productive
all this ad hominem garbage tends to get.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 08:22:12 GMT

In a previous article, eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:
>In article <15DEC92.17345152@vax.clarku.edu>
>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>>But my point is that the constitution can be ammended.  If the majority wants 
>>something that is unconstitutional, all they have to do is elect people who 
>>will make ammendments to the constitution.  An example of this is prohibition.
>>When it was ammended to the constitution that drinking was illegal it became 
>>unconstitutional to drink. Then, prohibition was repealed, making something 
>>that was once unconstitutional legal again.
> 
>Try reading the Constitution.  Try the section on how one passes an
>amendment.  Hint: not by simple majority vote.

Why don't you read the paragraph that you are replying to again.  You see the 
second sentence?  

Hint:  It doesn't say that ammendments are made my majority vote.  It says 
ammendments are made by officials who are chosen by majority vote.

Maybe you should read the constitution.  It pretty much says that Congress 
(elected officials) either propose ammandments, or call a convention to 
propose ammendments.  Either way, these ammendments shall be "valid to all 
Intents and Purposes, as part of this constitution" once they have been 
ratified by (yes, you guessed it) more elected officials.  Hmmmm.  Seems like 
whoever has control of the elections (the majority, perhaps) can therefore get 
anything that they want ammended to the constitution, simply by voting for the 
people who will make it so.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 19:47:25 GMT

In a previous article, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
>Let's limit the net to worthwhile discussions, ok?
>nuff said.

What's the matter, David?  You used to be Loren's number one cheerleader.  Did 
the pompoms get too heavy for you, or are you just to embarrassed to continue 
supporting such a clueless pro-forced-birther?


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:10:29 GMT

romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:


>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

True, no elaboration is required; the original statement is simply incorrect.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:08:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.024547.25909@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.185322.3653@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}Ah, but encountering a burglar in one's house in the middle of the night
>}is really NOT analogous to being pregnant. 
>
>True, but you probably should have stopped there.  I suspect you attempted
>to explain why.
>
>
>}                                                                  When dealing 
>}with pregnancy, that's a whole different situation. The growing fetus can be 
>}monitored, tested. The medical risks are known and be accurately measured in 
>}any given case. Where there is a serious known risk, the woman can be 
>}hospitalized so that, in case of sudden crisis, professional medical help 
>}can be summoned within seconds. 
>
>I see your conception of medicine is as fantastic as your legal knowledge.
>
>ps  Kevin, I work where they make doctors.  I work with "almost doctors,"
>full-fleged doctors and medical equipment every day.  The picture is hardly
>as you present, although many people would like it to be that way.

So much for contentless hand-waving. If you think my description is 
"fantastic", then I'd appreciate an explanation WHY. Remember though, that
I'm comparing pregnancy to encountering a burglar on one's property in the
middle of the night; all of the relative terms -- "known risk", "accurately 
measured", "professional help", etc. -- should be read in that context.

								- Kevin
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:50:43 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
# peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
# >I don't argue that he has to pay for a child just because he had sex.
# >I do, however, argue that he has to pay *if* a child is born, because 
# >it was *born* and has a right to be supported!
# 
# Let's say that we have a situation where the father had notified the 
# mother in week four of the pregnancy that he does not want the child,
# but she decided to have it, and now she sues the father.
# 
# There are (at least) two options:
# 1) An unmarried mother and an angry father and a bitter fight 
#    to force him to *pay*.
# 
# 2) A forced adoption by a pre-screened couple.
# 
# Michal, like most feminists, just loves option 1) and she fights 
# hard against option 2).

Most feminists probably do *not* `just love' option 1.  I would
venture to guess that most feminists simply find option 1 to be better
than other available options (though not necessarily the best option).

Option 2 sucks rocks.  Hard rocks.  It shouldn't be difficult to
understand why.

# So I have just one questions for her (and every one who is against 
# choice for men): what, in your opinion, is better for the *child*,
# option 1) or option 2)?
# 
# Please try to give a clear answer.

Leading question.  Taking it literally, the clear answer I'd give is:
option 2.  Now, and here's the important part Mr. Gazit, *YOU* are
burdened with the responsibility to explain why this makes any
difference.  Bear in mind that you didn't give me the opportunity to
propose any other alternatives than option 1 or option 2, and you
limited the scope of the question to refer only to what would be best
for the child in most cases without allowing me to comment on what
would be best for the mother and/or the father as well.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52473 alt.abortion.inequity:6044
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: You want to talk about nature?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 00:33:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>In article <1gtcprINNbds@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>>Men do not, however, have the same post-conception options for controlling 
>>>their child-support liability as women do. And THAT is the inequity.

>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.

You want to talk about nature?  

In the "natural" state, when conception occurs the woman is pregnant.
No elective abortion -- there ain't no such thing in "nature".
If that's not "involuntary child support" then what is?
In "nature" the man can get off scott free.  The woman can't.

Of course, in "nature" many women would die in childbirth.

Some of us think that we humans have improved upon "nature".

>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?

Support of children is a fundemental tenent of common law.
A society that does not put children first deserves the future that it
creates for itself.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:10:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.104035.26545@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>not care for this.
>
>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.

I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.

-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Karl Rominger is factually inaccurate, elaboration provided.
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:53:13 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu>
romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes: 

>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

(1) Murder is a legal term that involves actions that, among other
things, cause the life of a legal person to cease.  (2) The only legal
person involved in abortion is the mother; the procedure is not
intended to harm her life.  (3) Hence, your claim that abortion is
murder is, to be kind, factually inaccurate.

To be less kind, it is just plain emotionalistic stupidity.
Furthermore, you have to compete with the likes of many foolish people
in the pro-forced pregnancy camp before you even begin to approach a
noticeably severe level of logical deformity.  If you want to size up
the competition, execute the following in sequence within
talk.abortion: /holtsinger/ /forgach/ /nyikos/.  Be sure to return to
the lowest number post before each name search.

SJM
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:16:25 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>>I know that you would like to think that I am a hypocrite.  You probably 
>>assume that all pro-lifers would turn to pro-choice if they became pregnant, 
>>but that is not the case.  Some of us really believe in what we are saying.
> 
>Gee, Loren, what a surprise!  You deleted my offer to carry a fetus to term if 
>you would agree to Keith's nine months of fisting offer.  I've given you the 
>perfect opportunity to prove that you really would be willing to use your body 
>to save a fetus' life, and you ignored it.

No.  I deleted your offer for 2 reasons.  
1. I do not believe that being pregnant is quite the same experience as being 
fisted for 9 months.  You would probably say that I have no clue what it's 
like to be pregnant.  Well, unless you have been fisted for 9 months, you 
don't really know if it's the same thing, do you?

2. I know from experience that you are a liar, and that even if I did take 
this offer, you would still, probably, have an abortion.

>You are, without a doubt, a hypocrite.

In your opinion, which has been wrong before.  

If anyone really wants to find out if I am a hypocrite, you would have a 
better chance of learning the truth from any of my friends, rather than from 
Heather who, obviously, has something personal against me.  (Which, has 
nothing to do with this discussion)

> 
>>>But you had implied that having an abortion is more than a mistake.  In fact, 
>>>you called it murder.  I find it interesting that you would chose to remain 
>>>friends with murderers.  Would you stay friends with someone who opened fire 
>>>on a crowd of bystanders, claiming it was a "mistake"?  
>> 
>>Do you have any idea what it means to be a friend?  If my friend claimed that 
>>something was a mistake, I would believe him/her.  It is something called 
>>trust.  All of my friendships are based on it.
> 
>Why do you trust your friends with the decision to have an abortion, but not 
>the rest of the women of America?  Why do your friends get some sort of 
>special privilege that the rest of us don't get?

I said that I wouldn't withdraw my friendship from someone because they did 
something I didn't agree with.  I also said that if a friend said that 
something they did was a mistake, then I would believe them.  I never said 
that my friends should have any special privileges.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is there some point to Darcy's question?
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:16:29 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec11.053414.781@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>Above, you have FAILED to prove that the usage is "incorrect" except from the
>point of view of the SSA and/or the IRS, neither of which agency is empowered 
>to interpret the Constitution.

I was proving incorrect usage by giving examples of how /z/e/f/s are
excluded from being defined as persons in our legal system.  If you
have some counterexample, please provide them.

>You implied that the SSA and/or IRS definitions of personhood were relevant
>to the abortion issue, IN SPITE OF the fact that those definitions do not
>result in the infringement of anyone's rights. My contention is that the ONLY 
>definitions of personhood which matter to this debate are the ones which DO 
>result in an infringement of someone's rights. Do you agree or disagree with
>my contention?

They are relevant examples of how our legal system does not recognize
/z/e/f/s as persons.  I have to confess to having no idea why you are
going on about infringement of rights and persons.  Five year old
children, who are indisputably persons in our legal system, do not
enjoy the right to use the body of their parents for survival that
the pro-forced pregnancy camp wants to give to /z/e/f/s.
Consequently, it is my point that personhood is irrelevant to the
infringement of the right to BA except for the fact that those in the
forced pregnancy camp seem to use non-personhood as a criteria for
granting special rights that legal persons do not enjoy.

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51807 alt.abortion.inequity:5856
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:58:08 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>just imagine if the government WERE to outlaw abortion and started telling
>women to "hedge their bets"...

We don't have to imagine.  We can remember.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 02:45:49 GMT


lf>In article <16DEC92.21110645@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
eb>In a previous article, eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:
 
eb>Guess what?  A simple majority of the people will be unevenly
eb>distributed between the various states and districts, and is extremely
eb>unlikely to succeed in electing two-thirds of the House and Senate and
eb>a majority of three-quarters of the State legislatures.
 
lf>Or, a simple majority vote could be fairly evenly distributed between the 
lf>states.  In that case, the 51% majority would fill the House and Senate with 
lf>their own candidates, and the ammendment would pass.   
 
Actually 51% majority is not required to change the Constitution.  All
that is needed is 358 particular U.S. citizens to change the Constitution.
That is no where near a majority of U.S. Citizens.
 
Wait, I think we can even reduce this number lower using Loren logic.
In an election year all members of the House of Representatives and
1/3 of the members of the Senate are up for election.  So lets
say 291 people got together and decided who they would vote for
in their congressional district and for the senate that year.  And
lets assume they were the only people that voted that year in 
those particular districts and states.  Now those 291 people 
they voted for get together with 33 more already elected Senators.
Now we can change the Constitution with only 324 U.S.
Citizens deciding on the change.  So much for that whole 
majority rule idea Loren seems to believe in.  With the voice 
of 324 U.S. Citizens the 13th Amendment could be repealed and 
a federal law could be passed enforcing Loren's strapping 
to a chair.  
 
Dan King
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Loren's hallucincations about majority rule.
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:58:33 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <11DEC92.17234548@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes: 

>Not at all.  If you can convince enough people of that, then it will be made 
>illegal.  Ultimately, the majority has to have what it wants, otherwise, you 
>end up with a small group (Minority) making decisions for the majority.  In 
>our society, where all people are supposedly equal, the largest group must, 
>and will, get what it wants.  Even if it has to resort to revolution.

Loren continues living in this fantasy world where the majority passes
laws.  Wake up, Loren, smell the coffee.  Reagan's 1984 landslide
entailed support from just 21% of the elegible voters.  We live in a
republic, not a majority rule democracy.  The sad fact is that a small
minority of fetus fanatics can impose their will on a much larger
group: Look at the Republican platform this year.  It called for a
Constitutional ban on abortion that is not even supported by the
majority of Republicans. 

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A QUESTION FOR JJ PRICE.
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: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:42:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.215049.29946@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.233358.19784@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec8.013753.10978@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec6.221446.24524@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>[....]
>>>>Technically, cancerous tumors are human as well.
>>>>Just like the fetus, they are human cells going through an incredibly
>>>>high rate of duplcation. Doesn't mean we're going to stop cutting them
>>>>out of peoples bodies.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Brilliant analogy, Mark.  Tell me, how many cancerous tumors do
>>>you know of that have been born and live on their own? (calling
>>>fetuses 'tumors' doesn't count)
>>
>>How many fetuses do you know that are living on their own?
>>I can't think of any, off hand.
>>
>The key word, Mark, is *born*, ie leave the host's body. And, yes,
>I know a helluva lot of fetuses who have been born and are living
>on their own.............

I don't. I know many fetuses who were eventually born (and hence,
became children, not fetuses) and live on their own. I don't know any
fetuses living on their own.

BTW, a while back, you posted some ridiculous statistics you claimed
were from the lancet. In them, you claimed rates of 9.5% hemorrhage,
4.2% lacerated cervix, 1.2% perforated Uterus, and 27% infection rates
for suction abortions.
A number of people replied to this, asking for you to back this up
with a citation. 
I posted some detailed figures from a non-biased source, which were an
order of magnitude safer then your claims.
You responded to none of these.
Does this mean that you are tacitly admiting that your post was
nothing but hot air and invented propoganda?
Or perhaps you are going to claim your newsreader broke and you missed
the whole thread?

--
                  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.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: David Anderson and Mark's pants: Typical fetus fanatic obfuscation.
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:46:23 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec18.173923.22408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes the usual
fetus fanatic obfuscation in a thread where the header suggests he is
fantasizing about Mark Cochran taking his pants off:

>I'm not hiding anywhere.  I just haven't had time to address all
>the questions sent my way.  And I will be out of town for the next
>month, so you'll have to wait (I know you'll miss me, but you'll
>get over it...:).

Don't you love these fetus fanatics.  They stay mute for days or
weeks, usually blaming their posting software; to his credit, at least
David didn't do this.  Then they promise they'e going to respond to
everything in a (a) few days.  (b) a couple of weeks.  or (c) a month.

>But I promise to return with the Lancet article.  I didn't invent
>or misrepresent anything.

They always make this promise too, but somehow it never happens ...

SJM

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52131 alt.abortion.inequity:5938