HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: franklin defends darcy
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:33:55 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <Bs5Jtt.Mzs@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis) writes:
> In <1992Jul28.180637.25888@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Subliminal Psychology Talent Scout) writes:
> 
>>What: <Bs3wn8.BLz@cs.dal.ca>
>>Who:  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca [Steve Franklin]
> 
>>You've yet to recover from your rather embarrassing assertion that functional
>>families never beget homosexual children but that the presence of homosexual
>>children doesn't necessarily imply a family that isn't functional.
>>I, and at least one other poster, told you that the two statements are
>>equivalent.
> 
>    I don't recall saying this exactly, but you almost hit my point. My
> "embarassing" assertion was that children are a product of their
> environment first and foremost (my oversight was in making this statement
> an absolute, rather than a "in most cases" statement).
>    You see, I fully believe that strong, loving heterosexual relationships
> will (in most cases!) breed in turn loving, heterosexual relationships.
> However, I subscribe to the theory that homosexual relationships and
> practices stem from a childhood that was less than "normal". You define
> normal if you like. 

I'm sure that even by your definition of a "normal" environment, homosexuals
would arise just as much as from anyone else's definition of normal.

> There is a higher incedence of homosexuality in chilren
> who have been through a divorce. There is also a higher incedence of 
> homosexuality in those who lost a father (OR mother) when young...

Interesting, but you know what they say about correlation and causation
(no, what do they say (who are "they" anyway?)?)...

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28643 talk.religion.misc:12582
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:25:23 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul22.192636.26343@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

:It appears that once again many Catholics are confused as to what to
:worship.  In Watsonville the other day a woman claimed to see the "Virgin
:Mary" in the knothole of an old oak tree.  This was great cause for a
:migration of Catholics to scamper to the area and begin worshipping the
:tree. I say "worshipping the tree" because they have had to put a fence up
:around the tree to keep the people from stripping the bark from it in an
:effort to take some blessing with them.  Some people were shown on the
:news last night dipping their fingers into the tar used to cover the
:stripped areas, and spreading it on their faces and their children's
:faces.  Makes sense to me -- yeah right.

:Of course, there are many claims of the VM talking to the people there and
:the usual miracles that accompany this type of hysteria.  The cameras
:showed the knothole and it only vaguely resembles one particular
:picture of the VM (which the woman produced) in cameo (or outline)
:only.  Someone also displayed a photo which supposedly depicts the VM
:standing near the tree, but in reality it hardly resembles any human
:form at all.

	Hmmm... Is it OK with you to cross-post on alt.pagan?

	_I_ certainly enjoyed it.

/Loren
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29746 alt.birthright:208 alt.abortion.inequity:2805
From: hamel@athena.cs.uga.edu (Scott Hamel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:13:15 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul31.174921.21018@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
><1992Jul30.191305.21907@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>>> Many of the pro-life people also oppose euthanasia
>>> and the use of anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 
>
>However, in the particular case you describe...
>
>> Several months ago, there was a fairly well publicized case in which the
>> parents of an anencephalic baby desperately wanted their child's organs to
>> be available for transplant.  My recollection is that they were opposed by
>> a "pro-life" group, and the case was taken to court.  The parents wishes
>> were disallowed, as I recall, after the court ruled against them.
>
>> Their baby died; it would have under any circumstances.  Quite likely
>> several other children who could have benefitted from the organs, had they
>> been transplanted, died as well.  In what sense is this a "pro-life"
>> stance?
>
>This is "pro-life" in the sense that it is "pro-rule-of-law".  There
>is no question that the anencephalic baby met the state criterion
>for being a living person.  The legal question then was "Shall the
>court grant permission to individuals to take the life of a living
>person to benefit others?"  The only possible ruling was negative.
>Courts must concern themselves with the precedent they set as
>well as the immediate case before them.  Such precedent would
>render impotent the laws which protect all persons.  When those
>laws are nullified, then the legal protection of our lives that
>we all enjoy is jeopardized.  
>
>If it is indeed a mistake to protect the lives of anencephalic
>babies when their organs might be better used by other babies,
>then the laws need to be changed to reflect that.  And we,
>as participants in the political process, need to have the courage
>to make these changes.  We can't sit back and trust and expect
>the judges to do it all for us.  

Good point.  Also, wasn't this baby kept alive by artificial means?
If so, it certainly wouldn't be "taking a life" in the traditional
sense of the phrase.  To allow nature to follow its course is, IMHO,
not a case of "taking a life" or murder so long as the person has
expressed a desire to not benefit from artificial medicine.  Since 
this child was never sentient, the point is moot.

-- 
Scott M. Hamel                                   hamel@athena.cs.uga.edu
University Computing & Networking Services       shamel@uga.cc.uga.edu
University of Georgia - Athens, Ga. 30602
***I am glad I will not be young in a future without wilderness.  A. Leopold***
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:08:57 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|>> Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
|>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

|> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
|> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
|> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
|> woman.

|It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus to remove it 
|from the pregnant woman.  [...]  Try again.

Could Holtsinger please explain the crucial difference 
between "sometimes necessary" and "not always necessary"
that so moved him to insult Susan?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"One may be continually abusive without saying anything just; but one 
cannot be always laughing at a man without now and then stumbling on 
something witty."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The C word
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:49:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.004201.14944@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>
>>When Jim Kalb consents to get into a car,  he is consenting
>>to automobile accidents,  since the foreseeable results of 
>>driving include accidents & injury.  Jim Kalb knows that he 
>>is morally enjoined from seeking medical treatment for any 
>>bruises, whiplash, broken bones, lacerations from broken glass, 
>>etc., that might occur in any accident.  
>
>[several similar examples]
>
>>What makes you so different from women who have sex, Mr Kalb?
>
>I'm not at all different from women who have sex.  When I do something
>and the forseeable happens, I think I should deal with it in a
>responsible way, meaning a way that takes into account the value of the
>persons and things involved.  If I were injured in an automobile
>accident I would get medical attention because medical care for injuries
>does not destroy anything of value.  

What is the "value" of an unwanted fetus? Isn't the "value" of a human being
only objectively defineable in terms of the effect that their removal/
termination/destruction would have on OTHER people, and since the pregnant 
woman _is_ that "other person", why shouldn't she be given sole authority to 
measure this "value"???

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:39:58 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <nkkbsug@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

|dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
||garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
||>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
||>> Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
||>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.
>
||> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
||> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
||> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
||> woman.
>
||It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus to remove it 
||from the pregnant woman.  [...]  Try again.
>
>Could Holtsinger please explain the crucial difference 
>between "sometimes necessary" and "not always necessary"
>that so moved him to insult Susan?

I think that he's just trying to find a good opening for
a line about "desperately desiring dead fetuses", myself.

Not too long ago, Holtsinger was arguing that hysterotomies
necessarily involved the death of the fetus.  I guess he
forgot his own argument when he suggested them.  He 
probably forgot that the trauma of labor and delivery would
more than likely kill most of these 17 week fetuses
that he's claiming are routinely saved nowadays.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Mary Joe & Saddam (!)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:25:52 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Ya know, if she did, we would then have a loyal U.S. citizen who would
>be heir to the Iraqi throne.   Such a child could benefit our country,
>and the world, greatly!

"heir" to the Iraqi "throne"?  When did Hussein become a King?
I wasn't aware that Iraqi leaders were chosen through dynastic
inheritance.  

Silly me, I thought it was a military coup.

In any event, what on earth would possess you to think that illegitimate
children inherit thrones?  Likely such a child would be ignored or
killed.

>You see, ck, every child has a purpose in the world, if you care to
>look close enough.

I think you're taking this far too seriously, Suzanne.

>Suzanne Forgach

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:53:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.221232.29660@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.162414.8358@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> If you use intelligence as a criteria for personhood status, then 
>>> the late-term fetus and the newborn infant should have the same 
>>> personhood status.
>
>> You'll get no argument from me there. Now see (2).
>> They DO have the same personhood status, but they're not full
>> persons.
>
>What is a "full person"? Are newborn infants "half-persons", 
>or are they "non-persons" who deserve special protection, 
>like a dog or a cat? 
I'd probably end up making them non-persons under the law.
However, since they will eventually BE persons, they deserve
protection.

>And how does your position square with the 14th amendment to the
>Constitution which gives equal protection under the law to all 
>citizens of the US? Would you oppose changing that amendment 
>to deny full citizenship status to newborn infants? 
I'm following 14th amendment jurisprudence, Doug, at least some of
the way.
Otherwise, would you care to explain why I, as a person
was not given equal protection under the law when I was age
12 and not permitted to get my driver's license?

However, I agree that I would probably do things a bit differently
from the way the courts do.

>> I'm not prepared to grant a late term fetus full personhood status--clearly,
>> as I certainly don't intend for it to be permitted to vote, drive, etc.
>
>I think a "person" should be defined as an entity who possesses the
>right to life, not necessarily those who possess certain civil rights. 
But that's not the way it's defined, not legally.
Otherwise you couldn't use the equal protection guarantees to
declare racial discrimination unconstitutional.


>> I'm prepared to PROTECT it as a State decision provided that that
>> protection doesn't infringe upon the woman's health in a significant
>> fashion.
>
>I think you need to define "significant" and "health". I don't see
>how you will be able to defend your position if you arbitrarily 
>define "significant risk" as being "X times more dangerous" to
>the woman's health. How can you possibly defend a particular
>choice for the value of "X"?  
Define significant to be statistically significant.
I.e. you can be confident at say the 95% level that the
risk is x times more dangerous when x>1.
I'm interested in certainty, not size.

-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:50:32 CDT

In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.

Oh, it's nothing, really. We manage.

>Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  These supposed 

I deny it.  Murder is illegal killing.  Abortion is legal here.

>"Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.  To me, the

Not really.  Pro-choice folk support the option of a woman
to obtain a safe, legal, abortion.  Abortion kills an embryo
or a fetus.  These are different from 'little babies', which
are small persons not located inside another human.

>ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of abortion are the ones
>that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights are more important 
>than human's.  

You mean, it surprises you that folk who have compassion for
women would also oppose the death penalty for adults or the
eradication of endangered species?  

>              I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders
>Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this country's
>last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.  If this country
>is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, and it will not be pretty.

You know, you _do_ frighten me.  But not the way you probably
meant to.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:55:22 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul22.211859.27171@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Richard Pitts) writes: 
>>You are quite correct with respect to ladders, mirrors and so forth.
>>However, you have neglected one aspect of the word fear.  Also, do you 
>>recognize any other source (e.g., the Bible) other than yourself as a 
>>conduit for conveying knowledge and understanding or do yourself?
> 
> Why would a set of outdated writings, full of mistakes, translated into
> pablum, written *2000 years* ago, and filled with unlikely fairy tales
> be given credence by an avowed atheist?  (Or even anyone else?)  The bible
> contains some nice philosophical points and moral guidelines, but that god
> depicted in the Old Testament seems like one twisted cookie to me.
> 
> I mean, what *else* from 2,000 years ago is given credence by modern man?

Ummmmmm...  how about fossils/geological/paleontological evidence etc?
 
>>>And why should anyone revere an imaginary being that behaves like an
>>>asshole?
> 
>>Could you given an example of this and explain how it pertains to the
>>discussion.
> 
> Get a copy of Loren Petrich's Satanic Verses if you're too blinded to
> note biblical inconsistencies yourself.  Here's some excerpts:
> 
> ----------------
> 
> God decides to alughter all but 8 of humanity in Noah's Flood.  Think there
> might've been a few innocents there?

But all humans are born sinners, dontcha know?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: State Teaching (formerly: Pro-Choice Position?)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:15:03 GMT

In <23wx=9+@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
   (rocker) writes: > 
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>I don't disagree with your contention, but why is acceptable to include
>>the teaching of this value in a public curriculum, and unacceptable to 
>>include other values?  Abstinence, for example.
>
>Did Mr. Cochran ever state that the concept of abstinence should be
>entirely excluded from public education?  

No, I simply used abstinence as a controversial example.

>I don't know, but I don't
>believe that sex education classes should consist of nothing but the
>phrase "About sex - don't have any."

Neither do I.

>And I'll state again that I have never encountered a sex education
>class in any public school that did NOT teach that abstinence was 
>the absolute ideal.  Has anyone else?

No, but it's often acknowledged to be impractical and/or unrealistic.

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Meet Mr. Fly-Swatter!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 02:31:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.211358.5944@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.184858.241012@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan "Blow-job for Free... blowing smoke, that is" Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.164954.3957@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

Note the attribution lines carefully.  Very carefully.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS AND PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:44:22 GMT

<1992Jul9.155124.24608@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) said:
>><1992Jul7.192300.11581@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
>>jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
>>>In THEORY homosexuality is just fine.  Two people of the same gender
>>>who just so happen to be sexually attracted to each other.
>
>I fail to see why this is "theory".
>To me, it seems quite "experimental". No, having sex and loving someone is
>not the same thing.
>However, this is not the first time I see some religious person saying:
>To be attacted to someone of the same sex, or even to love someone of
>the same sex, is not a sin. To practice homosexuality/bisexuality is a sin.
>
>Now, loving or being attacted to someone of your same sex, at least to me,
>is the same as "practicing".
>
>So, if you are religious, and you find out that you are homosexual/bisexual,
>you can be part of a GBL organization, be vocal for GBL rights, even be
>attacted to a person of your same sex. However, you should marry someone
>of the opposite sex and have sex with your wife/husband only. Then, you are
>saved. Right???

What strikes me as being extremely hypocritical of these religious folks
is that their "savior" told them that even thinking sinful thoughts is the
same as committing them (see Sermon on the Mount).  Yet they say it's ok
to have homosexual thoughts, just don't act on them.

The stench of hypocrisy gets stronger everyday.


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 all.
-- 
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
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: ABORTION PILL
Organization: .
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:03:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.192956.9021@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by nick@cmn10.Stanford.EDU (Nick Porcaro):
>> 
>> Hi.  As a pro-choicer, I'm curious to know what people on both sides of  
>> the fence think of the "Leona" controversy. I'm from the same hometown as  
>> she so I have a different angle on this. I'd like to hear others'  
>> opinions.  Let me assert that I feel she did what was right for her, and  
>> that I was waiting for someone to do this, curious to know what the  
>> results would be.
>
>I think it is horrible of her to be using her own child as a political
>football.  And then she intends to kill it anyway.  She is proving herself
>to be a remarkably cruel mother.

Poor Leona.  First, she's "less than a prostitute because at least a
prostitute gets paid" (not exactly an inducement for a pregnant single woman
to carry her fetus to term).  Second, her attempt at honesty has only
resulted in an increased risk of death either by surgical abortion or
carrying to term and she gets accused of playing "political football".
I find it interesting, that Suzanne, who can't be bothered to stay at
home and raise her own daughter or act as either an adoptive or
foster parent, simply to enjoy a more comfortable life style, condemns
an individual couragous enough to risk her life for her convictions.

Maybe if Suzanne would assume the responsibility of rearing her daughter
instead of foisting it off on others and using the time to post hateful
messages to the net, she might learn something about courage, sacrifice,
and risk.
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion