HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:10:31
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec24.225529.16212@netcom.com> <adams.725553012@spssig>
	<1992Dec28.181720.27176@prime.mdata.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: iikkap@mits.mdata.fi's message of 28 Dec 92 18:17:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.181720.27176@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:

   From the post I got the impression that 'donations' to the church are
   completely voluntary in the US. Is this true? Here in Finland, when you join
   the church (as most people do when they are born), you have a set tax you
   have to pay to the church of 2% of income. This comes into play only after
   you are 18, of course.

In the US, there is no government-recognized affiliation with religion
(i. e. the government does not recognize an individual as a member of a
religion).  While donations to religious organizations (as with other
tax-exempt organizations that are not political in nature) are
tax-exempt, there is no mandatory donation to a religious body.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:41:41 GMT

Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: : J H Woodyatt (bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com) wrote:
: : : rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
: : : # Besides, you could look at it in a completely economic way:  in societies
: : : # where capital punishment is executed quickly and consistently for murder
: : : # the number of murders that are thus prevented by this effective deterent
: : : # greatly outnumber the number of executions.  Even in american, where
: : : # capital punishment is in reality hardly a fact, the numbers are about
: : : # equal.  Just ask any law enforcement official.  I was told directly by
: : : # Gates' former assistant chief that this is true in LA.
: : : Aaiiieee!!!
: : : This guy gets my vote for Most Wiggy Conservative Screwhead on Usenet
: : : for the month of December.
: : Riddle me this, batman!  How many executions in the US since 1930?
: : 3500.
: 
: Very nice, facts at hand. For bonus points, riddle me this: How many of the
: 3500 were innocent?
: 

A: Do your own research.

My next question is how significant is the argument advanced by the left?
If 100 murders per year are prevented by fear of ANY kind of retribution
by the justice system, have we not saved more lives than we have taken?

Lastly, we have had Legal execution by the state and illegal execution
by the state.  The harder it has been to perform executions for the state,
the the worse violent crime rates increase over time.

For your bonus points, answer the question: Why don't people murder at whim
in our society?  You get the points if you answer "shared societal moral values."

Have a nice day.

:    Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
: 
: Liberty don't work as good in practice as it does in speeches.
: 	- Will Rogers
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:25:44 GMT
	<1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com>
	<1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec31132631@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<C05C1C.GpI@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: It's on vacation until the 4th.

In article <C05C1C.GpI@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>   mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>   >In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>  >>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>  >>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>  >>
>   >If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>   >I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>   >certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>   >You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>   >difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>   >*another persons* body.

>   Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
>   body.

   >No kidding.  Of course, you fail to consider that it's not a baby that's
   >being talked about in this case, but I digress.

   Baby, adult, no difference.  Murder is murder.

Of course -- babies and adults have both been born, nitwit.  Fetuses and
embryos haven't.  Why all the difficulty with such simple English?

   >   >                  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.

   >   Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance

   >If you truly were, I'd think you'd start a little closer to home...

   Cute... back it up.

Look up a few lines to your last outburst, where you imply you can't tell the
difference between an embryo and an adult.  You're backing it up for me.
(*I* can figure out that much of a difference, and I'm just a ridge-runner
from the coal camps of eastern Kentucky -- so what's YOUR excuse?)

   >--PLH, *real* subtle userid, there -- "vengeanc"...
   >--

   *shrug* Long story... one of my favorite characters.  

Gad.  First Airplane Boy (the late, very unlamented Steve Chaney, in case
you're wondering), and now this...

--PLH, whatever it is in the water in Raleigh must have spread to
Shampoo-Banana... 
--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODie defends Operation Rescue
Keywords: liars, terrorists
Date: 26 Dec 92 22:15:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec26.201022.7074@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#
#I agree, but I think you misunderstood what he was
#saying.  He wanted an unbiased account of Operation
#Rescue's activities, not an explanation of their
#activities from someone who is so obviously biased
#against them.

Why do you think that you need to speak for Mr. Kendig, Reverend?
Do you not think that he's capable of speaking for himself?

He seemd to be asking when and where blockades occurred so that
he could see one for himself.  I'll let him clarify.

#When a reporter writes a book, they are under no professional 
#obligation to give an unbiased account.  Even when they do
#write for a paper, there's no guarantee that the story won't
#be biased, especially on such a emotionally-charged issue. 

No shit, DODie.  

I didn't say that reporters were always unbiased.  This is another
one of your strawmen.  

It is up to you to prove that Hertz's book is "radical pro-abortion
propaganda," though, or to accept the fact that you've given
no evidence.  Be aware that I will point it out if you forge
any quotes, though.

#Can you name one single act of 'terrorism' which the
#group has condoned or endorsed (with references)?  

Sure.  I'll get the page number for you, but there is a report
in Faludi's _Backlash_ on the miscarriage that resulted from
O.R.'s physical assault on a clinic worker.  I'd say that
organized attacks on persons qualifies as terrorism.

I wonder if you think that groups are not responsible for their
acts if they don't publicly acknowledge that they committed them.
Strange rationalization, but it fits with the psychosis that
you've evidenced here.

#As far as being an 'apologist', I am neither a supporter
#nor an opponent of the group.  I just want people to
#receive unbiased information about the group.

We know, DODie, you don't support or oppose anything.  Right.

You've yet to provide any unbiased information on any subject,
much less O.R.  If you really want people to receive such information,
you might try providing some.

I suggested that Mr. Kendig witness a blockade for himself.  Do
you think that he'll get a biased view of the group from watching
them in action?  Are you afraid that he'll recognize you?

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53096 alt.society.civil-liberty:7073
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:10:14 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1175@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
>> recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  

> the comments were not a reply to the newspaper article that 
> you posted, but to your comments describing O.R.'s actions
> as civil disobedience.  

As you've told other posters, I'm not obligated to stick
to the subject.  

> Do you have any documentation for O.R.'s claims that their
> rights have been abridged?  

Certainly, here are just a few examples of prior restraint of
free speech against Operation Rescue:

 "The Los Angeles Times did include a sentence in an editorial
  last year saying that charging [Randall] Terry with conspiracy
  in a non-RICO, Los Angeles case was an ``excessive restriction
  on free speech.''"

  While supporting conviction of the protesters for trespass and
  disorderly conduct, these papers editorialized that using the
  RICO act against [Operation Rescue] was an inappropriate restriction 
  of legitimate political protest--``unfair,'' ``unreasonable,'' 
  ``outrageous,'' ``an abomination.''

 "Most major editorial pages were equally silent when the U.S.
  Supreme Court earlier this year refused to grant a stay against
  an injunction prohibiting Operation Rescue from demonstrating at
  abortion clinics in Atlanta.  Columnist James Kilpatrick, who
  praised another court decision unfavorable to Operation Rescue
  activities, criticized the Atlanta decision as an unconstitu-
  tional prior restraint on speech."

   From: "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
   by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990

> The group sued the city of
> Pittsburgh in federal court - the case was dropped because
> there was no evidence of any of their claims.  In another
> incident, an O.R. member here claimed that he had been
> stun-gunned by the police.  The videotape that they offered
> as evidence clearly showed the officer's "stun gun" to
> be a flashlight.  

So what?  Are you claiming these cases prove that the members
of Operation Rescue have never had their constitutional rights 
restricted?

> Are you defending O.R. because they're fetus fanatics like
> you, or because they're pathological liars like you?

No, I'm defending Operation Rescue's right to free speech.

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:00:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec23.011900.6792@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Patrick "get yer fat black ass down here" Humphrey writes:

Using quotes around that phrase implies that Patrick actually
said that.  I don't believe he did.  I've asked Holtsinger repeatedly
to provide the article number for the quote, but he doesn't reply.
I think it's because the only person who has said "get yer
fat black ass down here" in talk.abortion is named Doug Holtsinger.

Susan
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:01:40 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <C03G0J.H94@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, by psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow):
> In article <1992Dec28.065056.50307@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
> (Larry Margolis) writes:
>> In <nyikos.725150678@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
> (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> >Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
>> >fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.

>> This would be interesting to see you document this, since the dictionary 
>> says:
>> fetus (n)
>> DEFINITIONS:
>>     an unborn or unhatched vertebrate esp.
>>     after attaining the basic structural plan
>>     of its kind; specif : a developing human
>>     from usu. three months after conception
>>     to birth
>> (c) G. & C. Merriam

Gosh, I hate to complicate matters, but I must take issue with this
definition.  According to my human embryology text, the fetal period begins
in the 9th week of gestation when, as the dictionary correctly reports, the
criterion for fetushood has been met: attainment of the basic structural
plan of a human.  I think you'll find that this is embryology's definition
of fetus, and that the dictionary writers were influenced by the popular
trimester system which is numerically convenient but is not based on
developmental events.

>> and the statistics I have show that more than 90% of all abortions in 
>> the USA are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

It would be interesting to see how many abortions are performed before and
after 9 weeks.

>> I know you like neither dictionaries nor statistics; I'm taking bets on 
>> which you'll attack first.  (The odds-on favorite is that you'll run away 
>> again.)

This appears to be a rare case in which an attack on the dictionary is
warranted.  I wonder how many other dictionaries contain this error.

> Larry.....Oh Laaaaarrryyy.  This is the ghost of old Dan Webster hauting 
> you.  Have you looked up the definition of "child" lately, Larry?  You and 
> Peter can run down that path, together.

Aw, gee, Paul, can't you just tell us now?

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 02:02:38 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f 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
Followup-To: misc.test

In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> [.. from soc.singles ..]

What does this have to do with talk.abortion, dipshit?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery analogy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.163240.15733@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:

}    Fetus                                 Slave
}    -----                                 -----
}    Considered by some to be the          Considered by some to be the
}    property of the woman.                property of the slave owner.
}
}    Denied personhood by some.            Denied personhood by some.**
}
}    Abortion abolitionists say            Slavery abolitionists say
}    person.                               person.

     Abortion to save the life of          Slavery to save the plantation.
     the mother.                            
   
     Abortion often allowed in             Slavery allowed in certain
     cases of rape or incest.              circumstances.

oops.

Granted, there are some parallels, but slavery makes not a good analogy 
to pregnancy or abortion.  There are some rather obvious differences, as
pointed out above, that make the two situations unlike enough that
using one as a basis for arguing the other is often invalid.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to use a desert island...

--
       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...
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:14:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <aidler.725568793@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) 
writes:
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}>In article <aidler.725417 859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA 
}>(E Alan Idler) writes:
}
}>}The child has *no* advocate and no voice -- yet faces grave 
}>}consequences.  
}
}>This is quite untrue.
}
}I can't determine which of my points you are challenging.
}In any case, I would challenge your assertion because:

Aside from many people who will tell you that the "child" does
not exist,

}1. who considers the child? (maybe nobody ...)

I do, among others.

}2. the child's entire existence is in the balance.

Once you have conceded that a child exists, existence is not changed
with or without an abortion.  Life perhaps, but not existence.

}>}                        The physician only receives a fee
}>}by performing the abortion and is, therefore, in no position
}>}to be impartial.
}
}>I don't think this sentence means what you think it does.
}
}Do you presume that all physicians always act in the
}best interest of the woman or child and never in their
}own self-interests?

Do you think your second sentence even remotely resembles your 
first?   To answer your question posed in the second 
sentence, certainly not.

}>}Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
}>}ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
}>}is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
}>}evaluate the situation.
}
}>How did we ever get along before "states"?  Btw, Virginia is a 
}>commonwealth, would they have to change if they were to provide
}>a truly impartial tribunal?  And does that leave Canada Right
}>Out?  Or would you like to claim a la Kevin Darcy that "*only*"
}>means something other than singular, in this context...
}
}1.  state == government in general (in this instance)
}
}2.  A formal "court" probably isn't what is required (or
}appropriate) for this process, but I believe the 
}government has a duty to mediate the rights of the
}mother and child.

OK.  Then you think that government is the "*only*" (your words)
possible provider of impartial ajudication.  Its not a new
thought, it isn't very original, nor is it very bright.

You might not know this, but the US government (among others)
has stepped in to mediate the rights of the mother and 
"child."  There have been several court decisions
which speak to this.  Were you unaware of this, or just
unhappy about the decisions several have reached?

--
       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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:17:18 GMT

In article <C01HI5.MGB@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.174213.2484@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> 
> > In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) 
> writes:
> > >Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then 
> than 
> > >now -
> > Care to provide evidence to support this? Here, try this:
> > Total morbidity for D&C and Suction abortions: 8.8 complications per
> > 1000 abortions, or 0.88%.
> > Total mortality for D&C and suction abortions: 4.0 per 100,000
> > abortions, or 0.004%.
> > Compare that to complication rates as high as 20% from illegal
> > abortions.
> > (Source: _Maternal Child Care_ 14th edition,
> > Reeder/Mastroianni/Martin)
> Unfortunately, as you so deftly ignore, the total number of women killed 
> is greater now that abortion is so ubiquitous.  But I know, its not the 
> women you care about, its the amazing effeciency and precision of todays 
> techniques.

You still have provided no source for this assertion, nor
have you responded to other questions regarding number of women
killed from childbirth, relative mortality affects of abortion
and childbirth, etc.  You do acknowledge, it seems, that any
change in the total numbers of abortion-related fatalities,
assuming you are speaking of legal abortions, can be attributed
to the much greater number of legal abortions.  I think you
might also include information on the rate of fatality from
illegal abortions as a percentage of the whole.  Oh, and you still
don't explain what you meant when you spoke earlier of "then"
and "now."  I presumed you meant "then" as "pre-Roe v Wade"
and "now" as "post-Roe v Wade."

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Idiocy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:50:24 GMT

In article <1136@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I predict that you'll learn about some of these points of law
> some day, though.  Not everyone is as forgiving of libel and
> slander as I am.

Gee, you know there's a certain someone who had often
complained about libel and slander... I guess some 
people are more alike than we realize. :-)


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion