HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Date: 9 Sep 1992 12:17:21 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BuBqCM.M9K@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>A really couldn't care less about +traditional+ view of marriage.  
>>My concen is that all partys are treated as fairly as possible.  
>Mine, too.  I wouldn't personally disregard the traditional view as completely
>as you seem to, but I am +all+ +for+ permitting flexible marriage structures.
>The state doesn't need to predefine marriage.


Ah, a man after my own heart.  The problem, Don, is simply this:  you will
observe that the state *does* predefine marriage.  It also has a long history
of changing the rules on a whim, but that's another complaint.

So, given this particular political state, what's a fellow to do?

I don't see a whole lot of strong options for him, which is a crying shame,
actually.  A man's only real recourse in the current situation is a heck of
a lot of very good communication.

Even pre-conception contracts (extra-marriage) probably would be challanged
in court if the couple wanted to separate, and I'd bet money the man would
lose the custody battle, because even UNMARRIED folks are judged by the
(shameful) standard of married folks, i.e., the man is judged to be less
able to parent than the woman.  You could hope for a really good attorney....

That's pretty bleak to one way of thinking, yet to another it's really the
only viable outcome since it forces the only useful approach: lots and 
lots of good communication.  Think about the kids you know from divorced
families.  The ones where the parents worked out their differences had much
less interference than those whose parents were jerks to each other.  (My
own example notwithstanding).   But when one parent is determined to wrest
the children completely away from the other parent, no one can win.

Though the 'system' would currently give the female parent a better chance
at accomplishing such a goal.

>I'd rather have a complete revamping: marriage contracts should be
>as flexible as any other contract. 


Why bother with them at all?

Adrienne Regard
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:05:31 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715886268@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>WRONG!!! The fetus, umbilical cord, placenta, and bag of waters all
>come from the original fertilized ovum.

They all "come from" there, huh?  So, a one celled creature can
spontaneously generate 20 pounds of mass...

I guess the ovum imports all that stuff from the 5th dimension.  Can't
possibly mean that it's sucking the life and nutrients out of the woman
and dumping its waste into her bloodstream.  Nah.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:47:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <29705@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU 
(Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

}(1) If Ronald Bense were occupying your body against your will, say
}he were attached to your neck sucking your blood because he is a
}vampire, you would have every right to remove him, and probably even
}kill him.  That is provided you weren't enjoying it.

Vampire bats do not suck blood.  They make an incision, it bleeds, and
they lap it up.  I'm not sure about other vampires, but I assume their
mouth parts are similar.  I don't know of any documentation for that, but
I expect I can dig up something from Merlin Tuttle (and if you don't
know who he is, don't be surprised, but you don't know much about bats
either).  This testimony is from an eyeball witness, is that documentation
enough?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:18:28 CDT

In article <k6tn!_p.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
>>>coincidentally is the the current viability age.
>>
>>There have been cases of children being born at 20 and even perhaps 19
>>weeks and surviving.  According to Bernard Nathanson, there was a case
>>in a Chicago (!) hospital of one Madeline Mann, born on June 27, 1989
>>weighing all of 280 grams; she spent 4 months in the premature nursery
>>and was 
>>
>>"discharged home on October 26, weighing 4 pounds, 3 ounces, healthy
>>and with reasonable assurance that she would have no significant health
>>problems in the future related to her extreme prematurity.  She is the
>>smallest survivor on record to date...but, as athletes say, records
>>are made to be broken.
>
>And at $300/day for 4 months, it probably cost at least $40,000 (and note
>that I'm using _extremely_ conservative cost estimates).  How many lives
>were lost to save this one person?  How do you justify spending this kind
>of money on a regular basis to "save lives" when it means trading one 
>life for hundreds?
>
My friend's son was born at 23 weeks gestation and saved at
a cost of one million+ dollars, incredible physical suffering
for him and months of emotional agony for his parents.

"Looks good today"
"Another infection.  May not make it."
"Another cerebral hemorhage. We don't know the
extent of the brain damage if he does make it."

You get the idea.  He may be fairly normal, but it
will be years before his parents know the extent
of the learning disabilities he may have.

I'm not sure that I could justify putting a little
premie through that much pain for a 5% chance at
survival.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 03:46:05 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<exuptr.445.716052187@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>In article <Lo1iqB17w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
>>Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
>>Date: 3 Sep 92 13:01:08 GMT
>
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>> <1992Aug27.233041.22694@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney
>>> >|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              
>>> 
>>> Does this mean that the NRLC is dedicated to achieving civil rights for 
>>> the unborn?  Or is this your own idea?
>>> 
>>> Please tell me how you plan on providing a fetus with a voting stylus.  Or
>>> were you planning on restricting a fetus's right to vote?
>
>This is pretty stupid.   Like 10-year-olds vote.

I agree, this is pretty stupid.  Why anyone would fight for the right to
vote for fetuses is beyond me.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There is no bottom to this pit -- is there?
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:40:37 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
## I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually congratulate them
## for achieving it.

#Do you also congratulate men for successful insemination?

#``Damn fine work there, Billy Joe.  I say I gots to admire that.''
''Ain't that the, uhhh, third one this week?''

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:14:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.114923.21488@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>> Well, perhaps some of us would be willing to concede if, say, Susan
>> Garvin conceded that Gloria Feldt's comment was purely theological and
>> that if that is her reasoning, it is no better than pro-lifers whose
>> activism is based on their religion. 
>> 
>> Then again, that IS what Gloria Feldt said: it WAS her reasoning. 

> What the little feller fails to acknowledge is that Gloria
> Feldt may base her personal views on abortion on her religious
> perspective, but Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her
> personal religious views the law of the land.  



Subject: Catholics for a Free Choice
Date: 10 Jul 92 15:46:00 GMT

In article <1482700012@igc.org>
fkissling@igc.org (Frances Kissling) writes:

...

Gloria Feldt   I do not believe that the fetus, although it has
value, is entitled to personhood status or to any other
citizenship guarantee under the Constitution, and therefore due
process for the fetus is not a legal right but a legal wrong.  
     My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
we want to be precise) and that the well-being of the woman must
prevail [and on] the ... information I have gained from looking
at actual fetal life and at women involved in pregnancies,
childbearing, miscarriages, and abortion....
     * * *

...
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:56:21 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Sep10.160029.2152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <43661@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

>If by supporting the constitution you believe I support legislation I
>guess you could come to that conclusion.  

You misunderstood me.  
I am saying that the Constitution is like a "law" - in the loosest sense.
It is a statement of what can and cannot be.  What is and is not
permissible - in, amongst other things, "law" - in the strictest sense.

As a result of that Constitution - which you seem to support - it is
*not permissible* to have certain types of laws.

So you support this rule concerning "law".  Don't you?

>Nah, I don't think that by supporting the constitution I support
>legislation.  

But you do support a rule against certain types of legislation.  No?

>Yes, it is the case that the constitution has been used to overturn
>laws...I don't think that is any kind of legislative support.  
>I gave it the "old college try" Tommy, but I can't swallow that one.

I don't understand the phrase.
But I hope the comments above clarify my position.

I do not claim that you are supporting any piece of "legislation" - in the
strict sense.

But you do support a legal entity - the Constitution - which effectively
"outlaws" certain laws.

>}Partly on faith, yes.
>
>Care to divulge the other part?  The part that comes with examples,
>projections, estimates, etc.  

I am arguing for a right to vote for a law.  I am not arguing that *you* 
should vote for it.
Hence your question is irrelevant.

However, I have no reason to suspect that an extension of child-support laws
would be any more problematic than many existing laws.
Do you have examples, projections and estimates to show otherwise?

I feel the burden of proof is on you here.

>}If I was convinced that the law was going to be bad, I'd assess the "badness"
>}and may vote contrariwise.
>
>But that is not what you said.  You said that if all other things were
>equal, you would pick the candidate that would consider a law as opposed
>to one that would not.  You made no distinction as to whether the law
>was appropriate or not nor of the "goodness" or "badness" of the law.

My statement was a bit unclear.
If a candidate openly proposed what I considered a "bad" law, then, all else
being equal I would not vote for him.

But if a candidate stated that he would consider extending legislation
to restrict abortion then, all else being equal, I would vote for him.

I guess I would give a "I'll consider a law" candidate the benefit
of the doubt that he wouldn't implement a bad law.

tommy
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More Specious Unsubstantiated LIES from Nyikos
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:47:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep11.043505.18727@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In  <1992Sep10.222220.27942@rigel.econ.uga.edu>  mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
## Look, people.  Just because Nyikos is anti-choice and generally clueless about
## abortion doesn't mean EVERYTHING he writes is NECESSARILY wrong.  THINK and
## do some research YOURSELF before you flame.
##
## # tanj
## ## Nyikos
##
## ##Fact: some Planned Parenthood clinics do not use anesthesia.
##
## #Substantiate this so-called fact.  Or retract it.
## #My guess is that all you have is whole-cloth "testimony" again.
##
## This "so-called fact" is true, unless PP has some arbitrary internal rule
## requiring anesthesia.  When I had my abortion, anesthesia was NOT required,
## although it was strongly suggested.
#
#His statement implies that they don't use it at all, which is quite
#different than not *required*.  If he had said "Some clinics don't
#force you to use anesthesia", it would have been clearer, but not
#sounded as damning.

Indeed.  A clinic which gives a single patient anesthesia "uses"
anesthesia.  Unless Nyikos can prove that there are PP clinics
which will not give anesthesia to anyone, he's lying.

This is probably another of those things that he "heard" and
didn't bother to substantiate.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:04:02 GMT

In article <nyikos.716336156@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep10.214356.17609@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.716074092@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>Elizabeth thought the umbilical cord was a part of the mother's body.

>>Wrong.  I thought that the umbilical cord *connected* to the mother's
>>body, and if the part of the mother's body it connects to was
>>surgically removed, the fetus would die.

>For the benefit of readers who might miss the import of the word 
>"thought", let me point out that the umbilical cord connects to
>the placenta, which is still not a part of the mother's body, coming
>as it does from the original fertilized ovum, along with the cord,
>fetus, and bag of waters.

Gee, how did all of these fit in a single cell?

The woman's resources had a *lot* to do with all of them.  Don't
trivialize that.

In any case, all of this is irrelevant to my original point: there is
a point at which the fetus ends and the pregnant woman begins (with
imo a hefty overlap, but that doesn't matter to this point).  If the
woman removes this part of her body, the fetus will die.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.131710.7009@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
 
>: This hypothetical belief on the part of a hypothetical defendant would
>: not be taken as a "reasonable belief" in Texas courts. 
>
>Since my grandmother was murdered by a burglar, who stabbed her through
>the heart with a butcher knife while she slept, I have what I believe is
>a reasonable belief that a burglar is a threat to my family and my life.

It should be noted that we weren't talking about a burglary.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:04:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.010315.4301@hubcap.clemson.edu>
conradv@eng.clemson.edu writes:

[repost's Steve Chaney's article, adding that he liked it at the end]

Oh, no, Cinder's back.

Planning to apologize for saying that the Holocaust "removed" Jews as
opposed to abortion killing z/e/fs, Cinder?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Sex Selective Impregnation
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:35:44 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[--claims that NFP is good for sex selection as well
as curing halitosis, heart burn and hemmoroids deleted--]

Or...

If you take note of what astrological sign the moon is in when
you have sex, you can actually increase your chances of selecting
the sex of your baby.

It's true!

Conceptions that happen when the moon is in a 'masculine' sign
(Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, Aquarius) result in boys.

Conceptions that happen when the moon is in a 'feminine' sign
(Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, Pisces) result in girls.

So get yourselves a Farmers' Almanac and go to it!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 22:09:53 GMT

In <1992Sep03.195602.27562@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.715479538@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <24500@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>
>> >Maybe, Doug, you'd care to list those organizations which you will accept
>> >as unbiased sources, so that the rest of us won't have to submit 20,000
>> >sources to finally get one that you can't write off as "sounds like
>> >a pro-abortion organization." Unfortunately, any organization that supports
>> >choice is by your definition a pro-abortion organization, no matter
>> >what their actual stance is. So I imagine the only sources we'll see
>> >you consider unbiased are pro-lie organizations
>>
>> Hear that, Dougie? Don't even think of quoting from a pro-life source,

>Try reading what Ron wrote, Peter.  He was asking *Doug* what source *Doug*
>would accept. 

He was also "poisoning the wells" by using the term "pro-lie" for
"pro-life", indicating non-acceptance of pro-life sources.  Like 
Susan Garvin saying all my sources are "propaganda", even (I suppose)
an article from the Miami Herald about an actual police arrest.

> *Doug* isn't quoting from *any* source.  All *Doug* is
>doing is whining that he doesn't like any of the sources that have been
>presented in support of my statements.  I'd *love* to see Doug present
>something factual.

Trouble is, if Doug came up with his own list of three doctors who
do 3rd trimester abortions, y'all could say, "that's right, those
are the three, give that man a seegar" all the time heaving a sigh
of relief that he missed someone YOU know about.  Hence my suggestion
to submit names and locations to a neutral third party.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35257 alt.abortion.inequity:3561
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:35:26 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1bnnvba.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><Bu1FJD.F5L@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1992Sep03.215609.14780@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>><Bu09ut.Es5@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>...
>>And, beliefs regarding abortion are not necessarily religious.
>>My beliefs regarding abortion are certainly not; they arise from
>>consideration of morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity, 
>>pragmatism, and a bit of scientific experience (research on reproduction).
>
>No offense Don, but my pro-abortion beliefs arise from consideration of
>morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity, pragmatism, and a
>bit of scientific experience too.  

No offense taken.  Let me repeat, though, that the quote was addressing
whether abortion beliefs (in any direction) are religious -- and it wasn't
claiming that morals, justice, science, etc. necessarily support one position.
Don't assume from my statements that I am necessarily against abortion,
either.  I've avoided making a claim one way or the other because
I'd like to discuss the topic rather than being dismissed as being 
on one side or the other.

I can see reasons of pragmatism, personal rights, and woman-fetus equity
in favor of legal abortion.  I can also see pragmatism, woman-man equity, 
and my "hands-on" scientific experience as reasons to ban abortion.
I'd just prefer that any feelings of mine against abortion not be taken
as religiously motivated.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion