HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:41:32 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In <1992Nov18.042617.9925@panix.com> jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold) writes:

>Is that your head in your ass or are you just constipated?  Sex and rape
>have NOTHING to do with one another.  Rape is pure violence.  The fact
>that it includes sex organs has nothing to do with whether it is relatd to
>"sex" in general....

>If you think rape and sex are the same, you're dumber than a rock....

Hi, Jack -- nice to hear from a fellow Panix user.

Could you explain at more length?  Maybe a couple of examples would help:

1.  Tom surprises Mary in her apartment and forces her to lie still
while he takes a throat swab and a blood sample, and then takes her
temperature with an oral fever thermometer.  Mary struggles because
she thinks Tom's crazy and doesn't know what he'll do.

2.  Tom surprises Mary in her apartment and forces her to lie still
while he rapes her.  Mary struggles because she doesn't want to be
raped.

It seems to me that from the standpoint of pure physical violence
there's not necessarily anything to distinguish the acts.
Nonetheless, the latter is a more serious crime.  It seems to me that
the reason it is more serious is the sexual element -- the forced sex
is felt to be a violation of Mary's personality in a way that the
forced medical examination is not.  Do you agree?

If not, what's your explanation for the fact that rape is a
separately-defined crime?  I'm very much interested in your views,
because you seem to devoted considerable thought to the matter.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:25:18 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

It seems that if Peter Nyikos wants to be more effective as a member of the
Campus Sexual Assault Task Force, he should get some facts straight:

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>> According to the CDC (March, 1992) the highest rate of new HIV infection
>> is among WHITE MALES, AGES 18-22.  How many more have to become seropositive
>> before you say "enough is enough", Peter?  Oh, let me clarify that.  The
>> highest rate of new HIV infections is among white HETROSEXUAL males, ages
>> 18-22.

> Is that so?  And are you comparing the respective population bases?
> Are we talking absolute numbers or per capita rates?

> How much of this could be avoided if people refrained from anal
> intercourse?

Keith, may I borrow the clue fairy tutu?  Thank you.  There are other vectors
for HIV infection besides anal intercourse, Peter.  Coitus sex will do it too.
So will needle sharing, contact with open wounds and tainted blood.

> Right now, all the deaths I know of are due to legal abortions.

Since the mortality rate for childbirth is an order of magnitude higher than
for 1st trimester abortions, I'm surprised you're not hyperventilating about
the dark goings-on at the baby mills.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48106 alt.abortion.inequity:5130 soc.men:19385
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 16 Nov 1992 12:21:49 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov15.045914.22615@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...

>Although you don't consider the above to be a "valid" problem, why do you
>consider this-poor-lady-trapped-by-some-scheming-man-using-her-body-against-
>her-will as a legitmate problem?

Scuse, please, but what exactly are you talking about?  Are poor ladies
trapped into using her body against her will?  When and how, and what is
the 'trapping' mechanism?          

Are you making a substantive argument here?

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: csmith@blackplague.gmu.edu (Blackplague)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
Organization: GMU
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:40:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.721348444@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> Sounds about right.  A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
> bizarre when you read the fine print.  South Carolina has laws against
> "adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
> cohabitation or habitual actions.
> 
> Even so, one would think that sometimes people would be prosecuted under
> the law, at the behest of jilted spouses and SO's, but one never reads
> of such things in the papers.
> 
> Peter Ny.

Here in Viginia it is illegal for unrelated members of the opposite sex to
cohabitate.  This law DOES get inforced, albeit infrequently.  About 2
years ago a Fairfax County Police Officer was forced to resign or face
criminal charges when it was discovered that he was living with his girl
friend.

Blackplague
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@carson.u.washington.edu (Alden  Hackmann)
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re The thoughts of a fetus
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:05:23 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!  

Name your sources, please:  Journal, author(s), publication date.  

>"Think" about it.

Even if it is true, how does fetal dreaming bear on a woman's right
to an abortion?

Alden 

"On my dental office admission form they asked if I was a virgin, and I
checked the 'yes' box."

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:09:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.044519.5596@bnr.ca>, bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes:
>Different in the way God shows his (sorry, His) wrath/love.
                                            ^^^
Whatever.  :-)

>OT: stone the sinner (my fav: gathering sticks on Sabbath)
>NT: "let he who is without sin..."

OT:  sinner deserves death.
NT:  sinner deserves death but, since we are all sinners, no one is qualified
     to carry it out.

>I think that is a LITTLE different.
>In the OT, if anyone got in His way (Sodom, Eqypt, Babel, etc), He
>wasn't slow in throwing his weight around.  In the NT, He didn't 
>smite a single person (well, maybe Judas. But in a round-about way.)

What about Ananias, Sapphira, and Herod?

>Of course there a few books in NT that look like they belong in OT
>(Revelations, for one), but those don't focus on the life of Jesus,
>which seems to be the main crux of the NT.

Actually, only the gospels focus on the life of Jesus.  Acts and the letters
focus on the impact of his life on the world.  The OT prepares the way for
the Messiah, the gospels tell of his life, the letters tell of the impact
in the aftermath of his death and resurrection.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Wisdom (was Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:18:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.155142.2431@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu 
(JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) shows he has a good grasp of things when
he writes:

}Yes things illegal happen, and there are punishments for getting caught, the
}punishment for having or preforming an abortion should be death.  Morals are
}set down by law, the moral of promiscous sex is outlawed with prostitution 
}for example.

Would you care to deal with "filthy lucre," too?

}I HAVE NO FINANCIAL AID...

That isn't all you lack.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Today's Quiz
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:13:16 GMT

In article <hjt12p@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#In <Bxnz26.2wG.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

#->Who has less character, Holtsinger or Nyikos?  (I tried
#->to provide a comparison chart, but I can't seem to find
#->any distinguishing characteristics.)  
#
#->Holtsinger                             Nyikos
#
#->quotes out of context                  quotes out of context
#
#->makes false accusations                makes false accusations
#
#->reprints false information             reprints false information
#->about court cases                      about court cases
#
#->lies habitually                        lies habitually
#
#->cannot admit errors                    cannot admit errors
#
#
#->A prize will be awarded to the first person who can find a real
#->difference in these two.  (Smaller prizes to people who can extend
#->the list.)
#
#for both prizes ..............
#
#has no opinion on legislation             5-week cutoff
#(unless he's lying)                       (unless he's lying)
#
#pay up.

Not yet, Jim.

Mark Kaufman pointed out that DODie uses a diminuitive form of his
name while PHoney uses his full name, Galen pointed out that one
can tell the truth and doesn't while the other can't, and Diana
(catwoman) recently pointed out that one posts abortion-related
articles to alt.romance.chat.

I think that we've got a 4-way tie.  There will have to be a tie-
breaker to determine the winner.  (I'm open to suggestions
as to what that tie-breaker will be.)

Susan
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 23 Nov 1992 11:22:24 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

M. Price>
Me>>

>>Probably a similar one to that which led you to assume that a human foetus is
>>non-sentient.
>   Oh. So it was in an embryology text?
>
>BTW, the use of "non-sentient human fetus," unless tautological, would
>seem to indicate an existence of a possible "sentient human fetus." In
>which case, your above statement denies the possible existence of any
>non-sentient human fetus. Is this what you really meant to do?  Why?

No.  I mean to say that _any_ assumption relating to the sentience or
otherwise of a foetus is asinine.  Sentience as a criterion for foetal
personhood is largely worthless, because we have no test for the existence of
sentience in a foetus.  It is as unreasonable to expect a foetus to pass any
test for sentience as it is to expect a computer without a display to 
draw fractals.

[ Now, before somebody argues that a comatose person has exhibited sentience
in their past life, please firstly examine your assumption that the past is
more important than the future. ]
-- 
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:49021 talk.religion.misc:21742 alt.atheism:21826
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Date: 21 Nov 92 11:49:11 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1eg9ngINNsuq@uwm.edu>, simon@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David Joseph Simon) writes:
> Hi there all
> someone named Brian I think from Arizona asked the question of pro-choice people:
>  "You say you have the "right to choose".  Who is the authority that grants you this right?
> I have a simple answer for this.
> 1.	Its called the constitution.  You know, the paper that grants us freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  Be sure and grab a copy of this next time you are at the library.
> 
>        	Dont shovel this "authority" stuff on me!! Who is the authority that grants you the right to harass pro-choice people at the homes, for expressing their opinions, something else also guaranteed in the constitution.
> And, who is the" authority" that give the anti-choice side the right to trash and judge everyone else's belief systems based on their own view of everything.
> 
> So spare me your whining about "authority".  I don't want to hear it.  
> 
> David Simon

I just read in our local paper that a local celebrity, noted for his picketing
of the local Planned Parenthood offices and his strong championing of
fundamentalist causes is being investigated by a grand jury for sexually
molesting three children........

Hmmmm....  That's why he's anti-abortion!  More available kids!

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:02:06 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes to Jim Kalb:
> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>> If the drunk driver were the only possible source of those things, the
>> victim would certainly die if the donation weren't made, and the
>> burden to the drunk driver would b commensurate with the burden to a
>> woman of carrying a pregnancy to term, would you say it would be in
>> principle unjust to force him to make the donation?  If so, why?

> Not to get sidetracked into hypotheticals or anything, but you *do*
> recognise, don't you, that RIGHT NOW, if I were involved in an auto
> accident...
>            indeed, if I, and I alone CAUSED an auto accident....
> that, just for the sake of argument, killed me and maimed another person,
> the medical community STILL couldn't seize organs out of my dead body
> to save the life of the other person.  Even if I were a perfect tissue
> match.  They would need either my CONSENT (via an organ donor card) or
> the consent of my next-of-kin.

> Even DEAD, society cannot violate my body against my will.

The VA Medical Center in Minneapolis had to pay $50,000 in damages recently
just for that reason.  A patient at the VAMC was asked repeatedly to donate
his corneas when he died, as was his wife.  With each refusal to sign the
necessary forms the doctor(s) making the request were increasingly rude and
abusive.  Even without authorization, a doctor attempted to remove this
patient's corneas at the moment of death.

> Do you think that should be changed?

In other words. if the dead enjoy some degree of bodily autonomy, why not
living women with unwanted pregnancies?

-- 
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
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:59:03 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>heck, anyone who's embarassed to answer an
->>abortion-related question in talk-abortion doesn't have
->>much character, do they?
->>
->>which reminds me, you will be answering my questions,
->>won't you?

->Nope.  

i didn't think you would. it's that "character" i
referred to, isn't it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:12:34 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes ...
> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>If life is valuable in general, why do we raise cattle and then kill
>>them?  Why do we destroy the rainforests in Brazil?  Why do we step on
>>bugs that find their ways into our homes?
>
>I suppose all life has some value and should not be wantonly
>destroyed, but there can be justifications for destroying life.  Food,
>shelter and sanitation for human beings come to mind in connection
>with your particular examples.

If there can be justifications for destroying life, then why can't
there also be justifications for abortion?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:35:06 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <nyikos.721587670@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> Here's another such exhibit.  I have noticed, BTW, that Doug is no
> less pro-choice than Elizabeth Bartley, possibly more since Keegan has
> not noticed him come out in favor of punishing women who get illegal
> (post-myelination for Elizabeth, post-viability for Doug) abortions.

I don't consider myself to be "pro-choice" because I'm personally 
undecided on the issue of legislation.  I don't consider abortion 
to be a Constitutional right, and I believe it should be a matter 
of public policy decided by the states.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment
Followup-To: talk.rape
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:07:10 GMT


In article <1992Nov20.174546.2811@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
|In addition -- it's impossible for a man to carry out a rape if he is
|not sexually excited. [much deleted]

This is completely untrue.  It is not uncommon for rapists
to be unable to achieve erection.  Rape doesn't require an
erect penis penetrating the victim.

Kalb had better do some reading on the topic before he blats off
in public like this again.  Followups to talk.rape.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.232050.10789@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes, in part,
>
>>>>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>>>>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
>>>A (minor) nit...Lutherans are catholic.  And so are Eastern & Greek
>>>Orthodox and Anglicans.
>>>
>>        Your nit needs to be picked a bit more...
>>        Evangelical Lutherans are QUITE protestant...
>>        Tho, I do agree the Missouri Synod-varieties are Catholics without a >  >        pope.
>>..
>
>I'm curious about your statement.  We send our daughter to a
>Misouri Synod Lutheran school and have attended services
>at the church there, though we are not members.  In what sense 
>do you mean it?
>
	The Missouri Synod Church I attended as a child was rather conservative and legalistic. The attitude and outlook of thmbership resembled a Catholic
church than iother protestant denominations or even ELCA
congregations taht I was subjected too...

	Many of the members of the last ELCA congregation I had to suffer 
through were born-again fundie types with charasmatic inclinatio...

						=Kblwb+Kpblca=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.religion.misc
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Why is Nykios AntiBible?
Keywords: slavery, pro-life
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:36:16 GMT

In article <nyikos.722119966@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}                                          Paul sent a slave back to his
}master, but this master might well have been as kind to the slave as 
}though it had been his own child, no?  

No.

}What conclusions am I supposed
}to draw from all this?

Uh, if a slave is the master's own child, the slave should be treated
kindly, but be a slave nonetheless?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Petie versus Petey (or should that be Peetie?)
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:39:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <32994@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Nov20.075121.85266@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes: 

>>Every time I think Petie can't make a bigger fool of himself, he goes ahead
>...
>>This is referring to J. S. Greenfield's article, which Petie kept
>...
>>Do you *enjoy* playing the fool, Petie?

>I have posted this because I was recently accused of being the only
>person on the net that spelled our affectionate form of address for
>Prof. Nyikos, as Petie rather than Petey.  Larry demonstrates that
>this is not the case.  Maybe it's an East (Petie) - West (Petey)
>thing.  You know yin yang, lightness darkness, high SAT low SAT.

>SJM

   Hey, _I_ use "Petie" too. Maybe it is geographic! But more
importantly, it has to be thrashed out in this newsgroup whether it is
more appropriate to use Petie Sweetie or Petie Honey. It seems that both
have their advantages:

Sweetie
1. It rhymes
2. I was one of the first to use it (hey, I didn't take SATs--this is
all I get to brag about)

Honey
1. It lends itself to the appropriate abbreviation PHoney
2. Petie considers it sexual harassment.

  Hmmm, pretty even, it seems to me. Any suggestions?

                                                                  MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion