HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Science and choice  
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: world, public
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:20:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec5.115155.26324@nmsu.edu> epowers@dante.nmsu.edu (POWERS) writes:
>Daniel S OConnell (dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
...
>: What happens indeed? Just because "God" knows, doesn't mean
>: >you< know, therefore, you continue to operate with "free will".
>: 
>: The real question is: what difference does it make? We all 
>: operate under the premise that we have "free will", don't
>: we?
>	The other question is, will you also accept the other consequences
>of this premise, or will you only believe it when it's convenient? :)
>						Erik Powers

Okay Erik, I'll bite: what are the consequences?

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:05:47 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>In article <aggie-041292114854@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu>, aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec4.143452.16700@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce
>|> Cameron) wrote:
>|> 
>|> >  Also, if
>|> > the woman is more liable for the result, then it should 
>|> > follow that the woman should have more say as to what is
>|> > to happen to the fetus.
>|> 
>|> Then how come I get the bill???
>|> 

>If the female is to be held more liable then the male
>for the social and biological consequences of a
>(unwanted) pregnancy, then she should be granted more
>rights then the male. Since society deems that one of
>those rights is that she may expect support from the
>male, thus you get the bill should the female decide
>to exercise that right.

	That's what we're arguing here, isn't it?  "Society deems".  Obviously,
some of society is calling this into question, given the relatively new
technology and "rights" of women.  Society used to "deem" abortion as a crime,
until some folks similarly questioned the rightness of what "society deems".
	In other words, "society deems" is a worthless argument.  Why, in
the face of new reproductive rights for women, shouldn't we question other
things that society "deems"?

>If the male wishes to increase his reproductive rights,
>then the honorable thing to do is to accept a greater
>portion of the liabilities incurred by a pregnancy and
>its results.

	Absolutely.  And conversely, if he wishes to relinquish his 
reproductive rights, the equally honorable thing to do is to for him to 
have a proportional minimal portion of the liabilities incurred by a 
pregnancy and it's results.  This sliding scale you propose is a very useful
tool.

	The current situation, where he has no reproductive rights, but
great responsbilities is, as derived from your statement, unhonorable.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Contaminated Water and Miscarriages
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:13:34 GMT

A few years back I lived in a neighborhood that was shared by a 
large manufacturing plant.  The water wells used in our
neighborhood were also shared by this large plant.  When 
I first moved in the area,  it was discovered that the plant 
had accidentally leaked some chemicals into the water wells.  
There was the typical attempt by the company to cover up their 
mess.  A study was done of the neighborhood and it was 
discovered that there was a period were the women in the area 
had an extremely high rate of miscarriage.  After many years 
spending time in Court, some of these women won some monetary 
damages in Civil Court.
 
For those of you that think of abortion is murder, what
would have been the appropriate punishment for this company?
Since it wasn't premeditated, I would guess it wouldn't be 
first degree murder, but I would it at least be some level of 
manslaughter?  Then the cover-up would at least leave officers 
of the company open to conspiracy charges.  Actually thinking 
about it, if it could be proven that the officers covered it up
while the water was still contaminated, then they could 
possibly be convicted of first degree murder. If they had made 
the contamination of the water known, women could have stopped 
drinking it.  Another consideration might be what if it 
had been discovered early and women were warned that drinking 
the water could result in miscarriage.  Should women that had 
gone ahead and drank the water and then had a miscarriage be 
prosecuted for murder?
 
Do any pro-lifers see a difference between what this company
did above, and say if they accidentally let poisons into the 
water that was killing people who drank it?  See any difference 
between this incident and say the Union Carbide Bopal incident?

Dan King

 

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52510 talk.rape:2972
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
Subject: Reverend Holtsinger's obsession with Patrick  (Was: Re: Patrick Humphrey finds humor in mass rape? (was Re: Rape After Rape After Rape)
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:39:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Followups to talk.abortion, since this has nothing to do with rape.

In article <1992Dec19.194016.2346@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#[... re-posted from alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.society.anarchy ...]
#
#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.

## Do us all a favor -- get a dictionary and look up the word "sarcasm".  
## Let us know what you think it means.
#
#How do the readers of talk.abortion feel about a cretin 
#like Patrick Humphrey who defends "sarcasm" directed 
#at an article about mass rapes committed in Bosnia?  

I don't see any defense.  I see an explanation of sarcasm to
an idiot who took Dippold's words at face value.  Maybe Reverend
Holtsinger is also too stupid to recognize sarcasm.

##--PLH, sometimes you have to sweat the small details
#
#Do you find humor in mass rape, Humpty?   Did you think
#that Dippold's "sarcasm" was not inappropriate?  

I didn't see Patrick say that he found humor in mass rape, either.
DODie's reading comprehension seems to be in the same state as
his honesty and honor - forever lost.

So, Holtsinger, have you written Dippold's bosses yet?  Are you
going to try to have the man fired for saying something that
you don't approve of?  

You're beyond despicable, Holtsinger.  Get some help.  Otherwise,
you'll continue through life as you are now - friendless and
pathetic.

Susan
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Loren has a lot of nerve calling Heather a liar.
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:26:40 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <14DEC92.18162500@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes the usual fetus fanatic babble.
The only noteworthy passage in the usual tripe from this
forced-pregnancy moron is an accusation against Heather:

>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.

At the beginning of the verbal diarrhea on Talk.abortion, Loren posted
a disclaimer against people attacking him for advocating a legislative
agenda of forced pregnancy, denying that he had ever posted that this
was the case.  This started the please clarify thread.  When Loren
finally admitted that he did support such an agenda I asked him why he
had posted the earlier disclaimer.  I pointed out that this was at
least disingenous and probably was dishonest.  Surprise: He never
replied.  Now this liar has the nerve to call Heather a liar.  

>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)

It isn't just Heather, Loren.  Fetus fanatics are all hypocrites
because they put the rights of /z/e/f/s ahead of women.  It's a
fundamental problem with your position.  It's one of several reasons
why I don't hold it.  Relax, take a breath, and stop suggesting that a
/z/e/f/ has a right to its parent's body that no living child enjoys.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:00:56 GMT

smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

>>schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>
>> Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
>> it can be business as usual for us liberals"

>Rush Limbaugh is going to prevent Bill Clinton, soon to be President of the
>United States, from doing anything? If all sort of people from Jello Biafra
>to Pat Buchannan couldn't prevent George Bush from starting the first war
>in twenty years, how can Rush Limbaugh prevent Bill Clinton from implementing
>the policies he was elected to implement?

 I don't understand this post, I never said that "business as usual" means
 that Clinton will be stopped from enacting his policies.  What I did
 mean is that it will be harder for him to do it under the guise of a centrist.
 (business as usual as I intended means they almost anything they want without
 public scrutiny)
 
 Mark 

>Lost Boy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 01:24:09 GMT


kd>In article <1992Dec10.020906.24369@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
sm>In article <33944@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
 
sm>I support abortion as a right of removal, not a right to kill.  My
sm>position focuses on the special circumstance of a /z/e/f/, it occupies
sm>the body of another person.  No entity in our legal system is allowed
sm>to do that.  Why do you want to give special rights to /z/e/f/s?
 
kd>Would you then support, or decline to oppose, legal restrictions on the METHOD 
kd>of removal, specifically, restrictions which disallow removal methods having a 
kd>high probability of killing the fetus, where a comparably risky (to the 
kd>mother) method existed which offered a much better chance of fetal survival?
 
I would personally like to have a better idea of this legislation before 
I would support such.  Why don't you elaborate on how you are going to
craft such legislation.  It wouldn't hurt your cause if you also gave
some justification for such a law.  
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Bye bye again
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date: 14 DEC 92 14:25:21    

Well, I'm a mere 400+ messages behind in this group and about to leave
Tallahassee (at the end of this week).  So I doubt I will be posting here
again till sometime in January at the earliest.  Have a great
holiday season people, and I'll be seeing you.

Lynn 
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/    o\
/\_____/
  bb bb
To Sterling Holloway, a voice well-remembered.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:29:16 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
>> the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
>> total liberal.

>Yeah, sure, Markie.  I guess Limbaugh and Buchanan are more your type of
>moderate, hmm?

 Nope, I don't like Buchanan at all for president.  Please use my real name.
 What was your name again? Stevie?

>Why do I get the feeling that Limbaugh deprogramming groups will be
>operating in the near future?  Man, try thinking for yourself before it's
>too late.

 So what's your point then?  Do you have anything of substance to say?
 Usually I assume that people that say things like you have above are just
 reacting at the emotional level and have to use an ad hominem statement.
 Apparently what you are saying is that everyone that disagrees with you is
 simply not thinking.  Maybe it's you that needs the de-programming.

>I really don't think people consider him a threat, except for the number
>You really consider a TV talk show host to be the
>nation's savior, don't you?

>Poor boy.  I gotta admit the Republicans haven't given you much to cheer
>about.

 Does anyone else taste the bile?  Steve, lighten up a little, he's a talk
 show host just having a good time with his opinions.  And yes the Republicans
 have given me a lot to cheer about (Kemp in 96!), they helped improve the
 high tech trade balance with Japan, won the cold war, have been in office 
 during the start talks and treaties, have secured the ex-soviet states as
 allies (not yet but almost).....and I could go on.
 
 Mark
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:19:59 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 <1992Dec17.235628.4398@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
>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?
>
>Pretty cynical, Adrienne.

If you don't like the way it sounds out of context, you probably should
have left in context...

>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.

Probably why that's not the argument she was addressing.  In case you forgot
what Karl wrote (immediately after you trimmed it), this is what Adrienne
was addressing:
In article <BzErHD.3xA@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
>men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
>take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!

Adrienne merely pointed out the fallacy in Karl's argument.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Resolving abortion through legal and moral reasoning
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:46:25 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->UNRETRACTED LIE
->---------------

->"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
-> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
->				    Susie Garvin
->				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
->				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: misogyny, projection, and the predictability of behavior 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:39:12 GMT

In <#0g27pp@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <490@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>>I don't care to follow-up ridiculously long articles just
>>>so you can relive your flamewar with Keegan, Overpeck.
>
>>Do you expect him to come to your defense? 
>
> why would you ask this question of a woman, dr. bill?
> i've never seen you ask a male if they were expecting a
> female to defend them.

I asked that question of Susan to see if you'd come to her
defense, as you predictably did, officer jim.  It makes one 
wonder if your (inevitably) protective behavior isn't indica-
tive of the very misogyny that you try to lay at my doorstep.  
Perhaps this is a good example of the projection which you so 
incessantly misapply.

Interesting how that works, isn't it?

Bill
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:44:28 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <480@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <Bz03BM.4J4@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>#I would posit that the use of birth control should be prima facie evidence
>#of intent not to be a parent.
>#
>#That would be a nice thing to be able to have codified...
>
>I'm beginning to think that some people in this thread would like
>to have everything codified into law.

Nope.  We would like to have the same rights women have in the reproductive
arena, limited by biological differences.

>I wonder if Denninger also thinks that parents who had birth control
>failures result in live births should have their children taken
>away from them.  I wonder if he thinks that no one should ever
>be allowed to change their minds.  I wonder if he would deny
>custody to a man who used a condom and later decided that he
>wanted the resulting child.

I don't think that people should be able to change their minds on a
contractual issue without paying the price, no.  If you claim you're going
to do something in any other area of life, and get renumeration for it, you
cannot then say "oh I'm sorry, I don't really want to do that now" and walk
away.

Yet in this area >women< can do exactly this.  Men, however, cannot, and in
fact aren't even allowed to make a decision in the first place!  The choice
rests entirely with the woman involved.

>My problem with "male choice" is this - a woman who has an
>abortion has made an irrevocable decision.  A man who renounces
>his paternal rights and responsibilities has not.  Even if
>he legally had no further rights, it would be hard to deny a
>child's request to know his father if the father changed his
>mind and wanted to know the child.  

How does this differ from a woman giving up a child for adoption?  Again, a
"changeable" decision.  Yet we allow this in our society.

>with time.  An unwanted pregnancy sometimes results in a
>wanted child.  

And, frequently, a walking wallet.

>Susan

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 14:43:55 GMT

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


Newsgroups: talk.abortion