HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:16:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.045654.7846@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <16802@plains.NoDak.edu> 
>        compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>
>> Likewise, a pregnant woman cannot be forced by the human being inside her
>> into a state of slavery.  She may chose to enter into this slavery
>> willingly, but she is not forced to do so.  Thus, we can see how a
>> pro-choice stand can still be valid EVEN IF THE FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING.
>
>No, the pro-choice stand is not valid even if the fetus is a human being. 
>Killing a human life, and refusing to support that life, are two totally
>different moral concepts.
Yes, but the point of abortion is not to actually kill the fetus,
but really to remove it. Killing it is incidental--i.e. it will
die as a result of removing it it, and it's safer to kill it before
you remove it.

>If medical science advanced to the point where the fetus could be 
>transferred from one person to another without being killed, then 
>your entire argument would fall apart. Are you prepared for that 
>possibility?  
I know I am.
I would have no problem with mandating transferral instead of
abortion provided it was comparably safe for the woman.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
 If it's in the machine, I eat it. If it's not in the machine, I don't eat it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Doing the Right Thing
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.154456.28236@crd.ge.com> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >kevin@rotag (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> >-> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>-> >-> >He doesn't even support such an idea *on* the net, for
>-> >-> >people he likes. When Steven Kellmeyer posted private
>-> >-> >email on the net a few weeks ago, Darcy defended him.
>-> >-> 
>-> >-> Wash your mouth out with soap, Nora. I did no such thing.
>-> >
>-> >sure you did kebbie. here's the full, unedited version of
>-> >your post.
>-> >
>-> >==========included post follows
>-> > [We've seen this shit before already]
>-> >==============end included post
>-> 
>-> Jimmy, please produce a quote which shows me discussing email
>-> privacy issues. This one you dredged up is totally irrelevant.
>
>perhaps it's not relevant to you kebbie, although i can't imagine
>why that would be the case. it seems to me that it was relevant
>to several posters, many who commented on your defense of
>kellmeyer well before i posted the actual text of your message. 

They misremembered the context. Kellmeyer posted private email, and I 
defended him, but those were INDEPENDENT events. I was defending his right
to post child-support-related material to talk.abortion, *NOT* his right to
post private email.

It was a natural mistake, and one which I am willing to forgive, if the 
matter is dropped. However, if you insist on trying to smear me with charges
that I "defended Kellmeyer's posting of private email" you'd better get a
RELEVANT quote, Jimmy. The one you're relying on right now has *NO* mention 
of email in it, nor reference to the privacy thereof. It doesn't help your 
"case" one iota. It just makes you look like you're desperately trying to get 
the "goods" on me, and you'll stoop to twisting ANYTHING for that purpose.

>i noticed you deleted it above. does it make you uncomfortable.

I elided it because it was irrelevant. See above.

>it's interesting that you deleted what you actually wrote and
>then expressed an oninion on what you said. heh.

Maybe it was "interesting" [sic] to you, but it was simply routine to me. 
Irrelevant verbiage is often elided in net.discussions.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr7.141153.5249@hemlock.cray.com> <1992Apr8.014927.5236@ncsu.edu>
	<JBATES.92Apr8152828@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com>
	<1992Apr8.230511.27730@ncsu.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:46:21

In article <1992Apr8.230511.27730@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:

>>> A fetus is no less human than any other human life. If it is not a human 
>>> life, then what is it? All humans should have the same right to existence. 

>> A human life? Do you mean human tissue that is alive, or do you mean a
>> living person? 

>Living human tissue.

>> If you mean human tissue, do you believe that your appendix
>> has the same rights that you do? 

>The concept of rights is a relationship between humans, it is not a 
>relationship between parts of the same human.

>My appendix has the right to exist, just like any other part of my body.
>It should not be killed by other humans without my permission. 
>I may kill my own appendix, since it is part of me, and not part of
>another human.

>If my appendix is removed, then my appendix should still have the right 
>to exist, if the tissue is alive. It should not be killed by other humans
>without my permission, but they may leave it to die from a lack of 
>support.

	Well, gosh, it sounds like you're supporting abortion, here. 
After all, the fetus is a part of the mother's body, eh? Sounds like you
need to come up with a better rationale. Let me help. "The fetus is a part
of the female that is an individual human life!"

	Let me ask again. What makes the human fetus a special form of
human life, that is able to exist as a part of the female, yet which she
can not choose to remove? 

>> Why is an eight week old fetus equivalent to a twenty-three year old?

>The fetus has the same right to exist as any other human life. No human
>can judge the value of another human, because it is a subjective judgement.
>If it is your opinion that a fetus does not deserve rights, then that is 
>still your opinion. Only the fetus can place a value on its own existence.
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All right, what value does a fetus place on itself? How can a fetus without
a functioning brain place a value on anything?

>> I don't extend rights to all that is "human". Humanness covers a wide span
>> of possibilities. I extend rights to "people". The fetus does not qualify.

>What gives you the right to place a value on another human life?

What gives human life rights?

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Another Perspective (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 00:30:41 GMT

<1992Apr3.042029.4684@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu said:
>In article <1992Mar31.232438.1574@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>Sending the email to his system administrator is recommended.  However, we
>>all have a right to know the true nature of KW, especially since he posts
>>knowing all about ethics.  We now have absolute proof that not only does
>>he not know anything about ethical behavior, he can't even police himself
>>to behave decently, not to mention, ethically.

[deleted the fair Nora's statements regarding sensitive email received
from one K Welch. <snif> She never mentioned the sensitive email _I_ sent
her - she probably never got over my indescretion with hat check girl and
the maid on that weekend in Rio. :-(]

>None of this excuses what Kevin did to Susan. And I do think she and the
>people who have been supporting her have a right to suggest that Kevin's
>ethics are problematic at best. But I can't let people claim that he is
>incapable of ethical behavior, when I know differently.

How about:  He seems incapable of *consistent* ethical behaviour,
especially in light of his stated major.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn 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: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:54:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.165452.17782
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:

>H******** when refering to pro-choicers too.  Usually we'll hear about the
>guiding Christian influence that established this great country, and how
>the evil pro-choicers are practicing a genocide of the "unborn".
>Conveniently they forget what their guiding Christian influence did to the
>American Indian, as in - near complete genocide of the indigenous
>population on the basis of "heathenism".  The plight of the American
>Indian is swept under the rug while these "caring folk" go off to Romania
>to adopt children, send millions of dollars to Ethiopia, send millions fo
>dollars to Israel, send food and clothing to Russia, etc.
>
>David Rasmussin once had the gall to claim that there were never any mass
>geneocides carried out by a western democracy.  How soon we forget...
>
>

Gordon.......................

don't blaim past mis-justices on a certain group. You have no
earthly idea what your ancestors did....so stop being "more-
poltically-correct-then-you." BTW, what the hell are you doing
to prevent world hunger?

Later

>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.
>

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:07:25 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) asserts:

>In <qbxtcga@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>Are you under the impression that monogamy eliminates the need for
>>abortion?

>Absolutely.

What, pray tell, is so miraculous about a monogamous relationship which
assures that each and every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy?

>Monogamy breeds an entirely approach towards sex
>in society.

Huh?  "an entirely" _what_ "approach towards sex"?

>With 
>a monogamous relationship, where sex is seen as a bond between the two
>heightening trust, physical and mental closeness, the child is
>not seen as an unfortunately side-effect but a gift resulting from
>somethign miraculous.

I see.  And since you obviously believe this dribble, those who believe
differently are flawed?  In other words, there is something wrong with me
because I did not feel that this unexpected pregnancy of mine (as a result
of a monogamous and long-term relationship, mind you) was a "gift" akin
to something "miraculous"?  BULLSHIT.  Regardless of the relationship between
a man and a woman, it is entirely possible for a pregnancy to be either a 
"miraculous gift" or a "burden" or anywhere in between.  You are not in
a position to judge.

>That is the concept i have believed and been
>taught from the beginning, and you know what? It works...

Not from my personal experience.  Telling people what to believe is very
wrong.

>  Many of the abortions (dunno numbers) are resulting from unmarried
>women, and although this does in no way prove that a monogomous relationship
>didn't exist, it does certainly does suggest that the pregnancy
>(in most cases) is the result of promiscuity.

You cannot draw that conclusion, any more than I can draw the conclusion that
since more national league games end in extra endings, the designated
hitter shortens a game.

>So, this leads me to believe
>that monogamy would make things a hell of a lot better...

I don't suppose you even think that single women are involved in monogamous
relationships, do you?

>p.s. sorry if you find my statements too generalized today, but I had
>to draw som conclusions from assumptions.

And we all know how unwise _that_ can be.


Jennifer



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Clarifications, further comments (LONG)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:32:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.133036.27924@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
>In <1992Apr1.005034.1010@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu 
>   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
>>is most likely highly correlated with divorce? 
>
>Significantly lower academic performance was measured *five years* 
>subsequent to divorce in one study (Mulholland, Watt, Philpott, and 
>Sarlin, 1989).  The acute effects of parental conflict would likely 
>be significantly reduced by then.
Perhaps--or perhaps it's a positive feedback cycle. We won't know
until the proper controls are done.

>  That seems to suggest that the 
>absence of a parent, rather than family discord, is a legitimate 
>factor in poor academic performance.  
Nonsense. It's not properly controlled. Let me give you just one example
of something it doesn't control for:
The trauma of the family discord causes significant academic
performance degradation. While the discord goes away, the mere
fact of performance degradation has the effect of encouraging
further drops in performance.

So, I ask you again, where are your controls?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:53:12 GMT
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <19862@castle.ed.ac.uk>, tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr6.171806.12636@crd.ge.com> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
|> 
|> >-> >name one law that forces a belief.
|> 
|> In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of killing of persons.
|> That law is based on a belief that it is somehow "wrong" or "undesirable"
|> for people to go around killing other people.
|>

Correction, the law prohibits the unjustified, unordered
termination of a human life. The law does not prohibit
the termination of human life when that action is sanctioned
by the state. Thus, the belief the law tries to codify is that 
under certian conditions, it is wrong for people to kill one another.
 
|> To someone who rejects that belief, the laws against murder force them
|> to behave in a certain way.
|>

The laws do not force anyone to act in any fashion. They simply state
the penalties that will be incurred if an individual takes an action
that is prohibited by the law. The only thing that prevents an 
individual from performing an action that is prohibited by law is
that individuals sense of right & wrong and a possible fear of
societal reprisals.

Do the laws that restrict speed limits, keep you from speeding, or
is it the consequences that occur if you get caught that keep you
from doing it?


|> 
|> In fact, in this way, inasmuch as we can find one person who disagrees with
|> a law, ALL laws force belief - as the original poster claimed.
|> 

I may disagree with a law (the method), but not the belief 
behind it. I may disagree with the implementation, rather
then the thought behind the law. Thus, finding one person
who disagrees with a law is not proof in and of itself
that all laws force belief.

Again, laws do not force anything. They outline what society
considers to be "wrong" action and prescribe penalties that are
incurred if a "wrong" action is preformed. It is the individual's
moral sense that prevents that individual from performing a 
"wrong" action.



-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 15:41:57 EDT

In article <1992Apr1.233006.16247@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.164718.1373@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr1.011909.1276@cfctech.cfc.com>
>>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <29126@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> keegan@oboe.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>>>mgaylord@rodan (Gaylord) errs in posting:
>>
>>>>-> Laws force beliefs, 
>>
>>>>name one law that forces a belief.
>>
>>>(Please do not accuse people of "err"ing before you've even heard their side
>>>of the story, Keegan. That is a sign of close-mindedness.)
>>
>>>Some laws are forceful. All laws embody the belief(s) of their makers. 
>>>Therefore, some laws force beliefs.   Q.E.D.
>>
>>Therefore, some laws force actions in accordance with beliefs.  This
>>does not mean the laws force people to actually *hold* those beliefs.
>>Laws against assault are supposed to prevent assault, not make
>>psychopaths believe assault is wrong.
>
>Indeed. But "laws force beliefs" can be interpreted in _either_ sense.
>Standing alone, it is ambiguous.
>
>I think confusion has been introduced by loss of the original context.
>Here it is again:
>
>"Idon't want to pay the small fortune in taxes that I do yearly, I don't want
> to drive @ 55 on roads designed for 70, I don't want many things that are 
> legislated, but thats my opinion and my tuff luck.  Laws force beliefs, its
> the same for any and all laws, and stopping abortion is a law I await."
>			From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
>			Message-ID: <1992Mar27.105424.10682@newstand.syr.edu>
>			Date: 27 Mar 92 15:54:24 GMT
>
>Gaylord seems to be describing the "active" sense of "forcing beliefs",
>i.e. forcing beliefs *ON* someone, rather than the "passive" sense of 
>"forcing beliefs" *IN* someone. In that former, more straightforward, obvious 
>sense, Gaylord is correct, and Keegan is not. That is my only point.
>
>Perhaps Gaylord can clarify...
>

My meaning is that laws force the beliefs on people, not that it forces
them to agree with those beliefs.  A good example are anti-discrimination
laws.  These don't keep people from being bigots, but anyone can sit
in the frount of a bus.  Thank you for your posting Kevin, You phrased
your reply better than I was doing.
					  Mark

>								- Kevin
From: root@devl3.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.?
Summary: Fairminded?
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:31:00 GMT
Followup-To: Adrienne's attack
Distribution: world
Organization: McKee Foods Corporation, Collegedale, TN 37315

In article <1992Apr08.162313.825@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>YOu guys are realy immature you know that? When the tough gets going,
>
>Steve, I happen to think that your religion is a sack of shit.  I happen to
>think it's pure drivel and foolish, and backward, and idiotic.  And I'm
>entitled to that opinion.  But being a tolerant, fairminded soul, I decide
>it's really YOUR OWN BUSINESS what you believe.

Sorry Adrienne. You get an F in tolerance *and* fairmindedness this quarter!
Your assessment of Steve's and my religion is anything but.  It's pejorative
and anti-social and intolerant and close-minded.
>
>You will notice, if you ARE an observant fellow, that you will not have to
>deal with insult or jokes about your religion if you keep your silly foolish-
>minded religion to YOURSELF.  Put it out here in the public domain and 
>it's fair game for anything folks care to throw at it.

What makes you think that we have a problem dealing with insults to our
religion?  We expect close-minded, intolerant people to insult us.
>
>Self righteousness just twists my knickers the wrong way.  Maybe it's a
>character flaw others share -- know it, learn it, live it, Steve.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Self righteousness just twists my knickers the wrong way, too.  Funny, I
learned that from the Founder of my "foolish, and backward, and idiotic"
religion.  He really had a *problem* with self-righteous people too.  In
fact, He called them hypocrites.  This is why I really can't see any use
in discussions about this topic.  The people on both sides are so self-
righteous (yes! you too, Adrienne) and hypocrital.

Incidentally since this thread has strayed so far why don't we change the
subject line content.

	->  Steven Foster					<-
	->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
	->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
	->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Organization: New York University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:09:01 GMT


>> = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
>>> = bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) 

>>>... we could probably use a billion less people on Earth. Too bad
>>>it's [the population?] actually *growing*. ...

>>   Heh... Ron - I said that the Population Growth is on the decline.
Ambiguous.

Let's look at that wording a bit more closely:  later comments
suggest that Steve is refering to the growth rate,
(total people this year)/(last year's total),
but that doesn't answer whether the number of new people
people each year is increasing or decreasing.  It's possible,
for example, that the ratio could decline to zero and that every 
year we get more new people than we got before.

>>Thus the rate at which our population expands is lessening. 
I'd prefer to see some evidence of that claim, and a careful 
description of the growth rate.

>>This means that eventually the rate of growth of the population will 
>>likely be 0 and then delve into the negative. 

Delve?  Oh heavens!  Fewer people than the year before?!!  GASP!
What a horrid thing!  It'd look like a ghost town around this
planet with only a billion people around!  Can't have that,
now, can we.

>>You see, this sucks, because when trends as large and universal 
>>as population growth recede, it is pretty damn hard for them to stop.

It is?  Seems like you're railing against a change in the growth
rate because it might not change again.  Looks darn foolish to me.

So we should Malthus ourselves out of existence, like bacteria in 
a toilet bowl?  Would you be happy if we turned the whole world into 
a large copy of Bangladesh?  I'd rather not, but perhaps those who
think like you can take one section of the planet, and those who
think like me can take another, and we'll see how we each make out
in the long run.   Seems like we're currently conducting such an
experiment right now, in fact.  


david
Newsgroups: talk.abortion