HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:05:52 GMT

note followup

Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes ...
>Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
>only 100% certain method.  

Allow me to propose a hypothetical scenario, one that is not to
implausible, that might illustrate one of the problems with your
opinion.

15 years have passed.  You've been married 10 years and have had four
children.  Your choices are ...
1) Abstinence
   Problematic, as your husband isn't likely to be thrilled about
   giving up sex for the next decade.  Choice now are ...
   1a) Be divorced
   1b) Put up with your husband's affair
   1c) Run the risk of getting pregnant again.  Hopefully it won't
       kill you or bankrupt you.
   1d) Put up with an unhappy marriage
2) Never get married (probably the most honest thing to do, IMHO).

>Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
>already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
>of you?

I though I knew all the answers once myself.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:31:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.050948.162613@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>> Maybe he'll call
>> you a name and then tell you he only did it because it saved you
>> from his having to call you a worse name.

> Well, I'm putting Peter on notice - if he calls me any more names,
> I'll consider it harassment and Take Appropriate Actions.

You mean you're going to send threatening e-mail to his system
administrators?
 

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48466 soc.men:19543 alt.dads-rights:2638
From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:04:11 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Nov15.171529.5616@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>...  They are told that the only safe sex is no sex.

With regard to parenting the above statement is 100% for men/boys and
100% untrue for women/girls.  That is the essence of the debate and it
is grounded in social mores not biology.

Peter B
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adoption is an answer
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:40:50 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov20.002028.8409@ncsu.edu>, by dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger):
> Doug Holtsinger
>>Joe

[deleted stuff about aquatic sports and abortion >:-]

>> I would like to see some respect on both sides of this, and at least
>> see members of each side refer to the other side by labels the referent
>> has chosen, if only because reduces unnecessary offensiveness and flames.

Amen!  Just think what slogging through a talk.abortion without
"unnecessary offensiveness and flames" would be like.  Why, it
might not be "slogging" at all.  And Doug Holtsinger's posts
would be shorter, and I might read more of them.  BTW, why is it
necessary for so many of the space-occupiers (also called posters)
in t.a to use dumb labels at all?

> I disagree; I think people should be labeled by what they believe,
> not by what they want others to call them.  

I disagree; I think people should be addressed by their names, or,
when appropriate and grammatically correct, by various pronouns.
That's what I think Doug, and I'm pro-life just like...
Aaaaaaagggggghhhh!!!!  I did it to myself!  It's like a disease...


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: when does potential life begin?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:25:28 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <markts.721887230@mcl>, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
> 
>  lots of talk lately about when life begins.
>  answer: when you are born. 

Incorrect!

>  when does potential life begin?

The beginning of time, yes?
 
>  are we so proud of our sperm that each is
>  a potential life? 

Well, they are, pride or not.

> do millions of would-be souls scream in agony as they race out of my
>  penus and discover that they are in a condom?

Maybe.
 
>  is every egg a potential life? 

Yup.

>  is pms a mask for guilt that results from not fulfilling
>  that "life"'s potential?

Not as far as I know, but if that's how you feel about it, then what could I
do about it?
 
>  when is a soul set aside for a life?

I figure souls exist forever, so it's kinda redundant, but that's just me.
 
>  or is life like an overloaded function?  can it exist without a soul, 
>  but with room for that variable when it needs it.

Sounds cool.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: The answer (are the unborn alive?)!!!
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:12:37 GMT


lefty@apple.com writes:
|frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) wrote:
||Does a cat have a soul?
|Joshu says "Mew".

10 points out of a possible 10 for Lefty.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory ... [torturing cats]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:50:44 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Keywords: forced childbirth

In <1ei7nmINNc3e@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:

>	As far as I know, the offense committed by a cat-torturer
>	is an offense against the senses and sensibilities of *other*
>	*people,* in a class with public nudity and maintaining a
>	smelly mess in one's own back yard.

That seems wrong -- I don't think people who favor laws against
torturing cats would be satisfied by laws against the public torture
of cats that permitted people to engage in such conduct as long as it
was kept under wraps.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 3
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:19:18 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)

>Such difficulties are forseeable and parents are obligated to deal
>with them.  The issue you raised is whether that obligation should
>include a legally-enforceable obligation to be an organ donor if need
>be.  I said I didn't have a very strong view on the subject, but since
>organ donations (unlike pregnancy) haven't become part of the
>universal pattern of life they seem less eligible as a matter for the
>imposition of legal obligations.

You contradict yourself in this paragraph.  Will the real Jim please
stand up.  Are the difficulties foreseeable or not?  How does an event
qualify as part of what you have called the universal pattern of life?
Exactly what percentage of the population need to be affected?

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:40:26 GMT

In article <1eooc0INN4p5@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>I would venture to say that, in a significant percentage of the cases under
>>discussion, for the man to insist on wearing a condom, when the woman has
>>already assured him that birth control is "taken care of", there will be
>>no sex at all, regardless of whether the woman is a #1 or a #2. 
>
>Are you claiming that women refuse to have sex with men who want to use
>condoms?  Weird!   I've heard arguments that men don't like condoms, but I
>don't think I've ever heard one that women don't.

I know several women who do not like condoms.  I'm not talking
solely about partners, thus I can reasonably disregard that they
were somehow trying to please me (by addressing a stereotype) by 
saying so.  Some of the reasons:  friction, lack of closeness, 
lack of reliability (gotta use something else *anyway*)...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:27:27 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes ...
>In <shl2l14@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>I would
>>say, in fact, that the state shouldn't ever use "moral rights"
>>as justication for laws.  The state has no business making any
>>statements about "morality".)
>
>What do you mean by this?  It seems to me that judgements of good and
>bad are a necessary part of all action.  For example, if the state
>does something to promote economic growth it does it because it thinks
>economic growth is good.  How can the state act at all without taking
>positions on what things are good and what things are bad?

The state does things to promote economic growth not because such
growth is "good", but because growth is what's wanted by the people.
Ditto national security, banking regulations, etc.  Good/Bad don't
much come into most government policies.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:34:16 GMT

<27645@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>I'd like to see a re-post of Mr. Nyikos' reply so that
>
>You're the only one that would so far.
>
>>everyone can see his refutation of Greenfield's arguments.
>>Who knows, perhaps one of you pro-aborts might get up the
>
>Gordon? Diana? Dan? You're being paged....

Yes?  Sorry, I was in the middle of refuting one of Peter's "arguments".
What was it you were saying?

>>courage to actually reply to Mr. Nyikos' arguments, instead
>>attacking him for an accidental misattribution.

Poor Old Doug.  It seems he missed the reams of posts that Peter and I
(the #1 pro-abortioner) generated.  Tsk, tsk.

>What arguments? Oh, you mean that luke-warm air he's been blowing. Remember,
>he's an expert in the fields of logic and set theory...don't you wonder
>how good he is when he can't even keep the attributions straight in
>a simple post? The application of both appear to elude Nyikos.

I usually cut people slack wrt the technology of the news systems (unless
they claim superior intelligence).  I only pick on peoples mistakes when
they set themselves up as infallible, like Rasmuffin used to do with
regularity.  I've been known to mangle an attribution or two myself.
Personally, I think there are much easier things to refute than just
picking on Peter's news (in)ability.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty of (Fill In Th
X-To: LARRY MARGOLIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:24:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> In <1992Oct30.014531.22679@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.o
LM> writes:
LM> >I realise that you might find it invidious to "legislate honesty".  However
LM> >there are many areas where "attitudes" and "honesty" are legislated, namely
LM> >"affirmative" action laws, "comparative worth" pay programmes,

LM> These laws were passed in response to a verified problem.  I've seen no
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LM> evidence of such a problem in regards to the laws you want passed.


I hardly think that the lack of "equality of results" is necessarily inherent
proof of systemic discrimination.  Read "The Employment Equity Empress Has
No Clothes," by Grant A. Brown, for a thorough refutation of the premises
behind "affirmative action" laws.  (*Someone* is going to call the title
sexist, I just *know* it...)

Still, the reason I brought up the point, is that in employment situations, we
*used* to count on the honesty and the objectivity of employers to hire without
bias, and to trust their judgements without having to *force* a judgement upon
them.

In the case of father notification, we have a case where people have said "Women
will generally tell the father, unless there is a genuine problem," and indeed,
that "you can't legislate attitudes".  This is why I find it so strange that
in the former case, we feel it necessary to legislate attitudes and honesty,
without it being considered "oppressive," yet in the latter case, many of these
same people who yell about having to legislate attitudes, are crying foul.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "Data, are you dead?"  "No, Sir! I rebooted"
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:12:18 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov17.214309.22646@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <32776@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>
>[If I want to make a practice of torturing cats for fun]
>>Then, make sure you move to a community or state where they have not
>>enacted protections of animals on the basis that your right to torture
>>animals is not outweighed by the right of animals not to be tortured.
>>Or, move to a remote location and do as you please.
>
>Do you believe it is in principle wrong for a community or state to
>enact such protections?

I think the political systems of all states and communities need to
come to an agreement about how the rights of various entities will be
traded when they come in conflict.  Protecting cats from torture is
not very high on my list of uses for scarce state resources; I do not,
however, oppose protection for cats in principle.  For that matter,
neither do I oppose protections for /z/e/f/s in principle.  I oppose
protections for /z/e/f/s that trample all over the rights of the women
in whose bodies they reside.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:32:15 GMT

> = Rocker writes:

[...]
>CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
>of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
>Clinton directly.  

Which tactic reminds me of a question for you religious types: if there
really is a god, why is Jerry Falwell still alive?

>If this were the military, wouldn't that be called
>mutiny?  (resist temptation here, oh drieux...)

It's actually a case of petulant children whining and holding their breaths
because someone other then a sop to right wing religious dipsticks won the
presidency.

(I'll bet drieux could phrase this more colorfully.)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:27:59 GMT

> DOD    
>> K. Darcy
>>> DOD

>> Wrong. The sources you provided prove only that post-viability abortions
>> done for the woman's >>HEALTH<< are constitutionally protected, Doug.

>Right, and in Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court has defined the term 
>"health" to include emotional and psychological health.

So?  Do you really believe that a woman whose pregnancy would result in
her becoming schizophrenic or suicidal is that much better off than a 
woman whose pregnancy would result in her being permanently physically
disabled?

Physical health problems which could legally justify having a 3rd-trimester
abortion do not include something as minor as a backache.  So why do you
think that mental health problems which could be used to legally justify
a 3rd-trimester abortion would include something as minor, say, as a bit
of depression?

Just because exceptions are made in Roe v. Wade for the emotional and
psychological health of the mother doesn't mean that she can legally get
a 3rd trimester abortion for just any old reason.  The emotional and
psychological problems have to be SEVERE, DODie, just as severe as the
physical problems would have to be in order to justify such an abortion.

Your argument that *because* a woman can legally get a 3rd trimester abortion
on the basis of a threat to her emotional and psychological health under
Roe v. Wade, *therefore* Roe v. Wade allows unrestricted 3rd trimester
abortions, just doesn't make sense.

>It should be painfully obvious that if a woman is denied
>an abortion, she will quite likely suffer emotional distress.
>She can say "I need an abortion because my emotional health
>will suffer if I don't get one".  Instant abortion-on-demand. 

Bullshit, DODie.  Just as a woman can't obtain a 3rd-trimester abortion
by saying, "This pregnancy threatens my health because it gives me a
minor backache," a woman can't obtain a 3rd-trimester abortion by saying,
"This pregnancy threatens my mental health because if I don't get an
abortion, I will be annoyed."  In many, if not most states, three independent
doctors must examine the patient and conclude that severe and irreversible
harm will come to the woman if the pregnancy is not terminated.  The
abortion must then be done in a hospital, probably after the three doctors
have provided their evidence to the hospital review board, which must also
approve.  All possible measures must be taken to save the fetus, as long as
such measures do not increase the risk of harm to the woman.  Any doctor
who does not follow these procedures has broken state law and risks losing
his or her license and prosecution.

The only place where there is "instant abortion-on-demand" in the 3rd
trimester is in your imagination, DODie.

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:58:03 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <Bxy8KK.KwF@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>>A correct interpretation of my position is that if women aren't interested
>>in equality in the reproductive and child-support process, then perhaps men
>>have it in their best interest to gain equality by removing choices from
>>women.

>He doesn't want a child.  She doesn't want a child.  If the birth control
>fails, they can get an abortion.  If you take away this choice, you're
>screwing *both* of them.  That's in *nobody's* best interest.

>Sounds like a pretty stupid position to me.

>>I would prefer that men take a step up the ladder.  However, if women won't
>>give us a hand up we could decide to yank women down a step or two instead.

>Cut off your nose to spite your face?

	What's your point?  Larry, people exist that would rather have 
everyone miserable than be part of an exclusively oppressed class (only
wrt this issue; this argument should *not* degrade into a "who is generally
more oppressed than whom" argument).  This may be stupid, to your mind, but
that matters not a whit; what matters is that they exist, and ignoring them,
pretending that they don't exist, is self-destructive.
	The current situation certainly isn't in men's best interest; pointing
out that the new situation isn't in men's best interest in a different way
just further asserts that men have *nothing to lose*.
	Actually, if I only thought of myself, I'd much rather live in a
situation where everyone knows conception equals kids, with fate being the
decider, than live in a situation where conception means my future is in the
hands of someone else.  I don't think this is unusual; I think most people
would rather be the victims of nature than the victims of another human being.
Is there a difference between losing a leg because a tree falls on you and
losing a leg because someone runs over it?  Yeah, I think so, so I wouldn't
call this position stupid.
	It's not mine, though.  I'm pro-choice; but I'm also open-eyed enough
to recognize that as long as choice for women is a bad deal for men, there
will be men who fight it.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc,men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:55:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.204529.17560@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Abortions can be legally performed all the way up to the
>> point of birth for virtually any reason.

> This is a lie.  

No, it's the truth: abortions can be legally performed all the
way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason.  The
four sources which I provided prove this fact.  

> The facts are that there are only 3 or 4 doctors in the US
> who perform third-trimester abortions.  

Several thousand abortions are performed annually after the
21st week of pregnancy (viability starts around the 22nd
to 23rd week of pregnancy).  The third-trimester is generally
acknowledged to start around the 24th week of pregnancy.  

> You've been repeatedly challenged to back up your claims by producing evidence 
> of any third-trimester abortions performed for "trivial" reasons.  

I'm not claiming that third-trimester abortions are performed
for "trivial" reasons; I'm saying that Roe v. Wade does not
permit the states to prohibit post-viability abortions.

> From Roe v. Wade:
>   "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
>   argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
>   terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
>   whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

Right, the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion is dependent
on the availability of a physician who's willing to perform the
abortion.  That observation agrees with two of my sources (Mark
Tushnet and the Alan Guttmacher Institute).  

>Larry Margolis

BTW, are you going to send threatening e-mail to my system 
administrators for this post? 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality