HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: RE: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 18:52:57 GMT


In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
 
>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>Here are a few

>"Thou shalt not kill"
>"Thou shalt not steal"

Loren, do you ever wonder how civilization got along prior to these 
commandments from your god?  Was there like wholesale killing and
stealing prior to then?  Isn't it possible you are being rather
arrogant when you assume these are only religious tenets?

>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.

Do you consider this a "pretty good law" or a "pretty bad law"?

>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.

Do you consider this a "pretty good law" or a "pretty bad law"?

>In some states adultery is illegal.

Do you consider this a "pretty good law" or a "pretty bad law"?

>All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
>good laws.
 
All of these are not based on religion.  There have been laws
against killing and stealing long before your religion ever
existed.  Of course there have been some poorly written 
laws based on your religion, but they are slowly being 
abolished.  

Dan King
From: bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:27:36 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <724473912@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1fpncmINNcrq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu

>>I propose to "fix" my little corner "the problem" by making sure
>>that I communicate with my bed-partner.
>
>Will you ever, even after all the communication you want, let
>your bed-partner decide what to do in a case of unplanned pregnancy?

_We_ have decided what to do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy:
make our family one bigger than it is.

>Can he ever, even after a long communication, trust you not to
>take him to the cleaners in a case of unplanned pregnancy?

I don't quite know what that means.  If we have an unplanned
pregnancy, there will be one more child calling him "daddy" and me
"mama", one more child to love and raise, one more child to spend
money on, one more child to be frustrated by on occasion.  I don't
know what "take him to the cleaners" means in this situation.


--
--Beth Weiss
bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:01:19 GMT

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>>  = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>> = mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) wrote:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>If they found absolute proof that a fetus was not capable of thinking
>>>and feeling until, say, seven or eight months into the pregnancy, would
>>>you still oppose abortion?

>>I honestly don't know.  If something were to somehow convince me that fetuses 
>>aren't human (For example, If someone found a way to prove that the soul 
>>doesn't enter the body until birth) then I would go back to being pro-choice.

>It seems your pro-choice/life postition hinges entirely on speculation
>over when "the soul enters the body".  Is such speculation something we 
>should base laws upon?

If you change the "soul enters the body"--which is a supernatural concept that
is inherently unprovable--to "child becomes sentient"--which is a more
scientifically debatable concept--then, yes, it is something we should base
laws upon.  When "the soul enters the body" is purely speculative because it
is impossible to detect the existance of souls (in the supernatural sense)
*because* they are "supernatural".  "sentience" is not a supernatural entity,
it is a philosophical trait of certain systems--such as adult human beings.  As
it is a "trait" it can be detected through appropriate scientific techniques.
It can't be known positively for all cases because we do not have sufficient
technology or scientific understanding--in fact such technology may not even be
possible due to constraints such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--but in
general it can be determined in most cases, and it can be debated in others.

It may be that "souls" are the actual cause of the trait we call "sentience",
in which case determining sentience (an exhibited trait) would tell us about
when "the soul enters the body".  However, since we can't *know* that "souls"
really exist or cause sentience, it is somewhat irrelevant *when* they "enter
the body".

>-Brian

-Rob
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:59:15 -0500 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: A note

Just a short note to anyone who may be interested -- my andrew account
will be terminated in four days.  However, I have managed to get
accounts for myself at nyx and launchpad, and I will be able to start
making use of them sometime in January. Therefore, I plan to participate
much more in t.a., after lurking (and posting occasinally) for more than
a year. See y'all then, and enjoy yer holidays! :-)


Cheers,
Alison Colman 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons agains
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:55:10 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>If the woman does not believe that she would be able to adequately provide for
>the child, she has EVERY RIGHT to adopt or abort (is the one letter difference
>a coincidence, you ask...?  <-: ).

Will, I suggest you re-count!

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Guilty of (Fill In The Blank)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:50:32 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec12.040230.6182@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>> In <1992Nov21.024458.18269@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.o
>> writes:
>> >margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>> > [Steeves talks about equal opportunity laws]
>> >> These laws were passed in response to a verified problem.  I've seen no
>> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> evidence of such a problem in regards to the laws you want passed.

[Steeves shows no evidence]

>> Can I take it that you have no evidence of a real problem in regards to
>> the laws you want passed?
>
>Hardly!

Are you then simply unwilling to present any evidence?

>And as of this time, the Powers That Be (a patriarchy???  Ha!  If they were,
>they would already have sanctioned Male Choice, wouldn't they? (-: ) have
>chosen not to take statistics on the number of unwilling fathers who have
>been served with paternity suits.

Sounds like you're saying you can't prove that there's a real problem...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:12:16 -0500 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
	<1992Dec7.160650.28276@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
Distribution: usa

>> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:

>> This sounds a lot like the ravings of that Pennsylvania legislator who
>> asserted that women couldn't become pregnant from rape because their
>> rage and fear caused them to secrete a hormone that prevents conception.
>> Susan Garvin would know his name.

This PA legislator's name is Stephen Freind. The man is one slimy s.o.b.


Alison Colman
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 21:25:17 GMT

In a previous article, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) wrote:
> 
>BTW: exactly which religion *is* the OneTrueReligion (tm).  And what makes
>*you* uniquely qualified to identify it?  Could it be ... vanity?
>Or perhaps personal taste?  If you jump off a cliff, why should we follow?
> 
>-Brian

I was not supporting any particular religion.  I was just pointing out how 
some existing legislation is based on religion.  I was replying to someone who 
said religion isn't a fit basis for legislation.  That may be true, however, 
it is still a bases for some legislation.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Suzanne spews logical vomit on the net.
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:57:06 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec18.001750.13308@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) spews the usual logical vomit.  This time the intended victim
is Brian Kendig:

>Since fetuses are children, abortion kills children. q.e.d.

Since all fetus fanatics are fools, Suzanne is a fool.  q.e.d.

>This is an extremely foolish mistake on your part.  Never once, in this
>newsgroup or anywhere, have I offered religion as my reason for being
>anti-abortion.  That does not exclude my right to hope in a future where
>God grants these children their lives again, but the fact is, I would be
>anti-abortion even if I were atheist.    Simply because I have seen the
>bloody pictures and know a pile of dead children when I see them.

It is true that you have never offered any basis other than blatant
assertion for any of your beliefs.  However, it is false to say that
you have not made it clear on many occasions that your baseless,
blatant assertions are based on fundamentalist Roman Catholicism.

>Excuse me.  I am very considerate of others.  I am not, however, ever going
>to be apologetic for being pro-life.   It is the correct position to hold.

This from a woman who said that sluts who have sex but do not wish to
have children deserve to die receiving illegal abortions after she and
her fellow fetus fanatics have outlawed a woman's right to choose.

>Anyway, abortion opposition = a world view based on hope
>        abortion defense    = a world view based on despair
>
>It's that simple.

Anyway, opposition to the right to choose = a world view based Bible
thumping fundamentalist sexism
Supporting a woman's right to choose = hope that an equitable society
that protects the bodily autonomy of women can be created

It's that simple.

>There are people, Brian, who prefer to drown in despair rather than
>live in hope.   Allowing hope into their lives would mean they'd actually
>have to do some work to make the world a better place, and they just can't
>be bothered.

And there is a sick group of reactionary fundamentalists who want to
impose and archaic behavioral code based on ancient mythology on late
20th century America.  Allowing hope into their lives would mean
they'd actually have to allow all persons the individual freedom to
make their own choices, and they just can't tolerate that sort of
freedom for others, especially women.

SJM



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:46:17 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>In a previous article, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>If someone is raping you, occasionaly causing permanent injury, but
>>not physically threatening you, you must put up with the assault if
>>you cannot make them stop without killing them?  No matter how much
>>agony you go through?
>
>That is an oxymoron.  There is no such thing as a non threatening assult, and 
>rape is also physically threatening.  

Let me restate.  I made a mistake.

If someone is raping you, occasionally causing permanent injury, but
not physically threatening your life, you must put up with the assault 
if you cannot make them stop without killing them?  No matter how much
agony you go through?

>Someone can not be raping and assulting me without putting my life in danger.

No?!?  What are YOU made of that you'd die merely from being raped?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: DODIE spews the usual logical vomit.
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.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 02:50:28 GMT

In article <34217@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

[Dougies bilge and a good rebutal by Stephen deleted for space.]

>There is no assignment of risk.  It is a right of refusal without
>regard for consequences.  In the case of a non-viable /z/e/f/, there
>is no risk to the /z/e/f/: Removal and death are perfectly correlated.
>In the case of viable /z/e/f/s, I have no problem with the argument
>that there should be attempts to save the life of the /z/e/f/ as long
>as the right of A to refuse B without regard for the consequences to B
>is honored.  Thus, if there are equivalent procedures in terms of the
>consequences to A, I see no reason why the procedure that helps to
>save B should not be chosen.  More importantly, I see no reason why
>the medical profession would not impose this procedure as a matter of
>good practice.
>
In actuality, I belive you will find that we do exactly this. I have
never seen an exception in my own experience, nor have I ever seen a
ducumentable case of any (legal) setting in which this stricture is
not followed.

[More deletions. Predictably, DODie is sounding stupid, and Stephen
continues to correct him. Read the original if you're all that
interested :) ]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Religion == Law??? (was Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice))
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:05:37 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>Here are a few

>"Thou shalt not kill"

	The King James mistranslation. More properly, "Do not commit murder".

>"Thou shalt not steal"

	Modern English: "Do not steal".

	It is interesting that those who commit these acts are not
commonly thought of as religious offenders (if that is the term).

	And has anyone EVER been excommunicated from some church on
account of being a gangster (let's say)?

	It must be significant that in the Catholic Church, one is
automatically excommunicated for getting or performing an abortion.

	So the Church apparently thinks that abortion is worse than
being a gangster or a hired thug.

>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>In some states adultery is illegal.

	Unwarranted laws and religious taboos. Why not outlaw pork?

>All of these are based in religion.

... I think that a few of them make pretty 
>good laws.

	And some of them bad laws.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:52:23 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>I never admitted any such thing, and you know it.  I admitted I would use 
>>>>lethal force to protect myself against violent, forced sex.  You somehow 
>>>>twisted that.
>>> 
>>>What do you think violent forced sex is?  It involves someone using your body 
>>>against your will. 
>> 
>>Violent, forced sex is a lot more than just using someones body against their 
>>will.  In violent forced sex, there is violence (Obviously).  There is a 
>>desire on the part of the rapist to do harm.  
> 
>What if the rapist is a mentally disabled person who doesn't realize that he 
>is causing harm?  Would you still use lethal force if necessary to get him to 
>stop using your body?

Makes no difference.  My life would still be in danger.  Whether they realize 
they are causing harm, or not, they are still being violent, and endangering 
my life.

>>There is a definate, immediate threat to the victims health. 
> 
>As there is in pregnancy.  

The last time I looked, pregnancy was not considered a disease.  Pregnant 
women can be considered to be in good health, so your statement is inaccurate. 
There is not a definate, immediate threat to the womans health when she is 
pregnant.  (If you need to, you can get a dictionary, and lookup definate and 
immediate.  It may help you understand)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:45:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.185322.3653@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Ah, but encountering a burglar in one's house in the middle of the night
}is really NOT analogous to being pregnant. 

True, but you probably should have stopped there.  I suspect you attempted
to explain why.


}                                                                  When dealing 
}with pregnancy, that's a whole different situation. The growing fetus can be 
}monitored, tested. The medical risks are known and be accurately measured in 
}any given case. Where there is a serious known risk, the woman can be 
}hospitalized so that, in case of sudden crisis, professional medical help 
}can be summoned within seconds. 

I see your conception of medicine is as fantastic as your legal knowledge.

ps  Kevin, I work where they make doctors.  I work with "almost doctors,"
full-fleged doctors and medical equipment every day.  The picture is hardly
as you present, although many people would like it to be that way.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:17:15 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) wrote:
>> 
>>Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent "person".  There are cases
>>where the deliberate killing of an innocent *human* is not "murder".  For
>>instance, severely brain-damaged coma patients who will never "wake up".  It
>>is reasonable to allow them to die (stop life support, thus "killing" them),
>>even though they are still *human*.

>What if the brain damaged coma patient is healing (Somehow), and is expected 
>to, eventually, wake up.  Is it murder then?

If we *realized* that they were "going to wake up", then we have a larger
responsibility to keep them alive.  From what I understand of what it "means"
to be in a coma, I do not believe that most coma patients are "people" at the
time.  They *were* a person in the past, which gives us a responsibility to try
to bring them back if it is possible.  If it is not possible, either through
biological or medical limitations, or due to limitations of resources then it
can not be "immoral" for us to "give up".  Thus even if they were "expected"
to wake up, it would not be "murder" to stop life support (under the conditions
where it is currently allowed in certain states, at least).

Some will complain that this takes rights away from someone for being in a coma.
On the other hand, it means that a person directly responsible for putting a
person in a permanent coma is guilty of murder.  It is when the rights were
lost (when they went into a coma) as a result of the actions of someone that an
immoral act occurred.  It is the person who is responsible for the coma that
has taken the rights away from someone.

These are, of course, only my opinions.

-Rob
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 09:53:26 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BzD0M2.C3M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
>>>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>>>basis for legislation.
>>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>>Here are a few
>>"Thou shalt not kill"
>>"Thou shalt not steal"
>>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>>In some states adultery is illegal.
>>All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
>>good laws.
>All you did is provide some examples of religion being used as a basis for
>legislation -- so where's the explanation of *why* they're good laws?

Scuse, please, but where did he do that?

Certainly laws against killing and stealing are arguable based upon 
economics at least as much as upon religion.  In fact, religion only
adopted these laws after discovering their utility in organized society
that predated the religion.

Now, the individual quirks of law that he points out ('in parts of New
Jersey'??????) certainly exist.  The question is, would they survive 
constitutional challenge?  In a whole lot of cases, nobody cares enough
to spend the bucks to bring it to court.

Note, also, that laws against multiple spouses is a law AGAINST religious
beliefs, too.   Gee, what does that do to his claim?


Adrienne Regard


Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:18:51 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Law vs. religion

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 16-Dec-92 Law vs. religion by Ray
Fischer@netcom.com 
> Sounds like you are confusing morality with religion.  The two are
> not, after all, quite the same thing.  (and according to some people,
> the two have no relation whatever)
>  
> By the way, what does the Bible have to say about insider trading?

But Mr. Fisher, christianity is clearly against almost anything yucky. 
I'd be surprised if the pope and the grand inquisitor ratzinger have not
found a christian basis to condemn insider trading in their new
catechism.  

Too bad they can not find a christian basis to condemn yucky feudalism.

Michaeloomis