HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 18:42:38 GMT

Larry Margolis writes in reply to Kevin Welch:
|I think I'll stick with the dictionary definitions unless you can come up
|with something better than an inference you made from a letter (or whatever)
|that was quoted in a "Bioethics" textbook.

It's pointless attempting to have a coherent conversation
with the Great Wriggling Semanticist, I find.  What
can you expect from a boy who'd write this?

<72158@netnews.upenn.edu>
|So starvation is not the direct cause of death.  Starvation alone
|does not cause death.  Starvation does not cause death.

So I suspect you're wasting your time, Larry.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the 
same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many 
idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will 
lead." --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: questions
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:22:33 GMT

Which cathlics? I'm cathlic, my famlys cathlic, a large number of the people
I know are cathlic. As far as I know they all believe in birth control. I 
have incountered some who think that birth control should not be in the 
schools and are pro-choice.
Why? Why should the man have to pay for his part of an abortion whether he
agrees or not. Why should he have to pay anything at all whin he has no
rights in the mater, no say what so ever. What of men who want the child?
Why should a man have to choise between the woman he loves and there child?
He may loves that child as much as or more then her. Yes the system sucks.
It is the primary obstical between inter cultural adoptions. 

ELF-KIN 	NEVER US THE TERM RACE WHIN REFERING TO ANOTHERES SKIN TONE
		OR CULTERAL BACK GROUND WE ARE ALL HUMAN.-IT IS APPROPRIATE
		WHIN REFERING TO VALCENS,KLINGONS, ANDOREANS ECT ECT.....
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Fun with numbers (was: Re: Moral Absolutes)
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:05:49 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Apr3.074804.10672@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Mar27.160707.8522@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>sco@aero.org (Stacey C. O'Brien) writes:
>
>
>>> The VAST majority of abortions are performed on WHITE women who just can't
>>> be bothered. Fascinating. That's why there's such a dearth of white babies.
>>> Most minority women keep their babies.
>
>>Care to back up your assertions with EVIDENCE, Ms. O'Brien?
>
>Well, she's right about at least the races in question (though I
>wouldn't say a vast majority):
>
>From the 1990 World Almanac
>
>                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
>Reported # of legal abortions  586,760   988,267  1,297,606  1.328,570
>Ratio per 1000 live births      180.1     312.0    359.2      353.8
>Rate per 1000 women aged          13        21       25         24
>     15-44 years      
>			Percentage Distribution
>  Race
>White                            77.0      66.6     69.6       66.6
>Black and other                  23.0      33.4     30.1       33.4
>  Marital status
>Married                          29.7      24.6     23.1       19.3
>Unmarried                        70.3      75.4     76.9       80.7
>
	Actually, leaving aside the insulting characterization of women who
have abortions by the original poster, the data don't actually support her
 position.  They merely show that the majority of abortions are obtained by
white women.  Since, however, a higher percentage of women are white to begin
with, this does not address the question of whether more white women carry
to term than black or "other" ethnic groups.
	The relevant statistic (not cited here, alas) would be percentage of
white (black, etc) women who carry to term.  I throw this out not as a quibble
(well, maybe a bit) but as a warning about how easily even the simplest 
statistical data can be misinterpreted.  In this case, the data don't directly
contradict the poster's original assertion, they just don't support it.
>-- 
>"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily.  All other "sins" are
>invented nonsense.  (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)"
>                                       - Robert A. Heinlein
>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

Chuck
No .sig.  No lead.  No foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Unplanned Parenthood Quote
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:52:00 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.224944.8676@polari.com> peterd@polari.com writes:

>>"No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone
>>or a Porsche.  She wants an abortion as an animal, caught
>>in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.  She must be met
>>by our willingness to help her if our assertions that we
>>value life, or that we support her choices, are to have
>>any menaing at all."

Ouch.  That quote is nasty, brutal...and alas, oh so true.

>   Yes, and the solution with the animal is : remove the traps
>that force the animal to have to gnaw off its own leg. 

Beautiful.  No argument here; remove the need for abortions and we'll all
be happy, I hope.

>Well,
>in society, we must remove the stigmas and concepts of the unwanted
>child so that a mother doesn't feel pressured into an abortion. 

Agreed to a point; there are some cases where a child, or simply a 
*pregnancy*, are simply not a good idea.  Sure, removing the stigma of,
say, single parenthood will help, but until you're able to remove poverty
and physical pain from some pregnant women, you'll never eradicate abortions
entirely. 

Now, Steve, I think the basic difficulty between your philosophy and mine,
based on past experience, is that I want to see the needs removed, but 
until such time, I feel it unfair to remove the option.  You, on the other
hand, appear to think "well, let's try to get rid of the causes, but for
now we might as well outlaw abortion if we can and worry about the causes
later."

Is that a reasonable assessment of your views?

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it also is a 
process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."
			--Allan Sandage
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: A Small Dose of The Real
Organization: The Ohio State University
 Sauby) writes:
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:27:53 GMT

The General Social Survey is a survey conducted every year that measures public
responses on a wide range of social, political, and economic questions.  They 
have been done since 1972; the database they have collected is quite
impressive.  The GSS is widely used by sociologists and political scientists, 
and is held to be one of the best available data sets available.

It IS possible to take a sample of 1000 and generalize to a population of 250 
million; the mechanics of this are complex and inappropriate for this board's 
discussion.  If you want to know the nuts and bolts, go to your local political
science/statistics department and ask them, or send me email.

The GSS takes great pains to make their samples as respresentative of the 
general population as possible.  This includes representation for minorities 
and other groups that are traditionally "undercounted".  (The sole exception to
this is the homeless and others who have neither telephone nor snailmail 
address; as most researchers know, these people are impossible to reach.)  
Again, the specifics of how this is done are complex; for more information, 
consult your local political science/social science statistician.

I hope this helps.  By all means, keep asking questions!  That's the only way 
good discussions get going.

--Bill
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Brawley thumps Bible! (Film at 11)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:06:04 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

In response to Chris Lyman, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) blabs:

>"nothing in the Bible that indicates the God is pro-life."  You are wrong.
>You presume "God" is taking "bloody vengance against innocent people".  I
>will supply the Pro-Life scripture.  YOU supply the BVAIP scripture.

Kevin I will supply you with one case. This is all I need to show that
god is a hypocrit and lier as bad as satan, since he is omniscient and
cannot make mistakes.

Here's your case:

Sodom and Gahmorah (sp? it never was my strong suit)

Why? Because god destroyed these two towns, killing all within its confines,
including children and the unborn, for the express purpose of killing
the sinners. Small children and the unborn are not capable of sin, as
your religion insists. So god punished the innocent for the guilty,
making him a hypocrit.

Ron
From: etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: just another view
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:13:16 GMT
Reply-To: etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennesee, Knoxville
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

I apologize for posting this in alt.abortion.inequity rather than in
talk.abortion. I was reading this group and forgot that it wasn't
talk.abortion. I will repost it in the right place.

Thank you.

Jennifer Finger
jenn@msr.epm.ornl.gov or etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: MORALITY
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:51:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.220602.29741@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr11.170740.2821@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>
>>>>There are a *lot* of infants up for adoption, sir. (please also post your 
>>>>name) They are just not white, healthy ones. The market is bad for those
>>>>who are not white and healthy.
>>>
>>>Tell that to the "liberal" judges who often won't allow white couples to  
>>>adopt black children due to the possible "problems".
>
>>Tell *us* where this happens? It didn't happen to my brother who just adopted
>>a non-wasp child.
>
>Well, gee.  Since it didn't happen to your brother guess it just doesn't
>happen anywhere, duuuhhhh.

Did I imply that? I thought I just gave an example of where your statement 
wasn't true.


I had never heard of what you mentioned above and I am still very interested in
seeing some examples of that.


>>Where did you come up with this 'liberal judge' examples.
>
>>I have never heard of this. In fact, I am thinking of some others I know who
>>*have* adopted black children and while they were lauded for being so brave
>>to have a black child by one group in our city, they were chastised by another
>>racist group.
>
>I can't believe you actually read anything on the subject. 

What you believe about my reading is irrelevant.


> I will not waste
>time "suppoting" something that is common knowledge.

If it was indeed 'common', I, and the people who I am discussing your posts with
might have seen it.  We, and nobody I have asked, has ever heard of the examples
you state. I am simply asking for you to support your statments. What progress
can be made if nothing that one says is verifyable?

> Would you be stupid
>enough to waste your time "supporting" that a WASP family actually was
>allowed to adopt a non-WASP child?

If you asked me to support that statment, and I am trying to convince you of it
I am obliged to support that, yes.


I would not refer to your reasonable request for me to supprt my assertions as 
'stupid'.


-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Article Attribution Game
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:16:06 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr14.185328.27343@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, David Knapp writes:
|Jay T Stein writes [about the great Wriggling Semanticist, Kevin Welch]:
|>Obviously you have no interest in whether or not I respect anything you
|>might have to say.  But I'll make a humble guess that I'm not the only
|>one who thinks that you're acting like a child.
|Maybe time to vote on just not debating with him. Personally, I give up.  

You might have a point.  How can one have a meaningful
discussion with someone who uses semantics to wriggle
away from every point you make?  Consider the slippery
sophistry of a boy who would rather argue that "there's no
such thing as accidents" rather than admit that some
women don't deserve their pregnancy-punishment, or
who would say something like this:

	"So starvation is not the direct cause of death.  
	Starvation alone does not cause death.  Starvation 
	does not cause death."

Welch is not a person who uses the English language
in a comprehensible manner.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch
From: etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: just another view
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:52:07 GMT
Reply-To: etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennesee, Knoxville
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

As I write this post, I tell myself, "You are a fool to step in here."
I don't know why I am. Guess I just wanted to share my thoughts on the
subject.

First off, let me say that I understand both the pro-choice and pro-life
positions. Both have their merits. I do not like to ally myself with
either position because I do not agree with the focus of their arguments.
I do not believe the focus should be on the worth, humanity or rights
of either party involved,  the woman or the fetus. 

The problem, as I see it, is the current view of the role of government.
I believe that the purpose of government is simply, and only, to
to maintain the structure of the society it governs. The government
should protect its members from outside threat and should protect its
members from threat from each other. And nothing else. Some may argue
against this, but I see no way that a fetus can be considered a member
of society. Therefore, the protection of the fetus is beyond the
jurisdiction of the government. (Just in case anyone asks, no, I do not
think animals are members of society. They should not be protected by
government. For the record, I feel strongly that animals should be
treated humanely. I simply feel that this is not the function of
government.)

Obviously, many people are in disagreement with me. Their definition of
government is quite different. This, I believe, is the true issue, defining 
the role, purpose and function of government. I hope I have explained well
my view on this issue. It is difficult to put into words. 

I will be happy to answer any questions regarding my views and I will be
happy to discuss them. I will not respond to flames.

Thank you.

Jennifer Finger
jenn@msr.epm.ornl.gov or etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:35:21 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, Bryon S. Lape writes:
|Medically, life begins at conception.  

Your support for this controversial statement?
 
|Murder is the premeditated taking of a human life.

Do soldiers in wartime murder?  They certainly
take human life.  Why do we not prosecute them?  
(Hint: your definition is lacking.  Society sanctions 
some life-taking, and condemns other life-taking.)

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"She knew not how to reconcile two such very different accounts of the 
same thing; for she had not been brought up [...] to know to how many 
idle assertions and impudent falsehoods the excess of vanity will 
lead." --Jane Austen
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Group by definition....
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:14:03 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu

From The Random House College Dictionary, 1980, Random House, Inc.

	inequity - 1. lack of equity; unfairness.  2. an unfair
		   circumstance or proceeding.

	So what IS this GROUP for?  It seems to me most of the traffic is
tuff discussed on talk.abortion.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism knows no colour.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 01:15:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.124446.20160@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>"Sonny, we got a report that she was about to let a potential human
>> life be menstruated away.  Now, go home, and be sure not to
>> masturbate, or we'll nab you for genocide."
>
>*knock* *knock* *knock* HELLLLOOOO. Are you for real? Life doesn't occur
>until AFTER conception fool...

Hmmm...Another person who feels that ova (ovum?) and sperm are dead, and then
miracously come to life just in time to fertilize...

>   *sigh* don't they ever learn?

Well, it's pretty obvious you haven't, fool.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, Linda, and Larry.  Damm Proud Of It, And FWA!=
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Morals, choice, all that irrelevant stuff
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr02.075229.1498@liebe.uucp>
	<1992Apr2.154225.10093@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
	<1992Apr04.004657.7173@liebe.uucp>
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:57:06

In article <1992Apr04.004657.7173@liebe.uucp> 
kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>> People with your point of view (morals) have murdered 30,000,000 children
>>> since Roe v. Wade.  As I recall thats roughly the same number that Hitler
>>> could claim at the end of WWII.

>>Them's fightin' words, Kevin.  PROVE that abortion is murder.

>That is ridiculous.  When human lives MAY be at stake we should default to
>assuming they are until it is PROVEN they aren't human.  I win again.

>Kevin Brawley

	I'll ask you again, Kevin. What is the value of an entity without a
nervous system? Without a brain? Without any brain function? Without any
myelin sheathing? Why does it rank above the well-being of a person with
*all* of those qualities?

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- currently no fees)
Subject: Hah hah!  Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:19:05 GMT

From the Gospel of: <92100.132608IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
According to:       IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)

>It is my belief that the only way the pro-abortion advocates can rationalize
>the killings of millions of babies a year is looking upon the fetus as a
>lifeless lump of tissue.  By doing that, it is easier to say, "legalize
>abortion" for, by your logic, how can one kill what is already dead?
>Unfortunately, you are lying to yourselves.  The fetus is a life.  When the
>medical profession can stop swaying with public opinion and declare this
>fact to be true, then perhaps the pro-abortionists will pay attention to
>the consciences that have been bothering them for so long.

Good one!  Excellent flame bait.  No doubt some here will take you
seriously, but I for one just wanted to congratulate you on a joke
well-executed.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."  -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]." -- Gaylord
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Morals, choice, all that irrelevant stuff
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:54:19 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>camurphy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cindy) writes:

>>>>i want protection from your "morals."  people with your point of view have
>>>>done horrible things to people with mine.

>>>People with your point of view (morals) have murdered 30,000,000 children
>>>since Roe v. Wade.  As I recall thats roughly the same number that Hitler
>>>could claim at the end of WWII.

[...] deleted own comments about Kevin B.'s point of view killing people

>Of course you're wrong Ron.  Did you assume that I would like everyone who
>sinned to be killed?  Are you assuming I am Catholic AND subscribe to the
>aforementioned atrocities?  Are you assuming I would let such a silly post
>go by unridiculed?

Silly???

All I indicated is that people with your point of view have committed
many attrocities (The Pro-life arena appears to have a majority of catholic
members) the ones listed were some I happened to remember but I'll add
one more - the Salem witch trials - which was perpetrated by christians
but I don't remember if they were catholic or not.

I was just supporting Cindy's case a little bit, and you, by lack of
anything other than pure rhetorical questions have failed to answer
to any insinuations made.

Answers to your questions:
1) I never indicated this, only that people with your point of view
have killed other people in the past, for sins or whatever.

2) As far as being catholic, no, christian, yes - most likely.

3) If you find serious topics such as the wanton murder of human beings
for daring to believe other than you silly.....

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion