HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:42:45 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <lefty-091292143713@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.221915.22794@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
>ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
>> 
>> I also find the "cogito, ergo sum" argument a bit tiresome.
>> Few people would argue that a tree or a rock thinks, but they
>> certainly exist. (Don't they???...........8-)
>
>You might want to consider reading something by Berkeley or Hume before you
>continue babbling in this vein.
>
>You might also end up sounding like less of a halfwit.
>
>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

You might also sound less like a halfwit, Lefty, if you learn
to recognize sarcasm....
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52045 alt.abortion.inequity:5925 soc.men:21209 alt.dads-rights:2961
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Male Choice (1)
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:45:27 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The Piranha Club

The traditional view of women's (and men's) sexuality is that it is a *bad*
thing.  There should be a punishment for that (unwanted pregnancy) and 
therefore women should not have abortion rights.

The main-stream feminist view of men's sexuality is that it is a *bad*
thing and therefore men should be punished for that.  They should risk
all their future when they have sex.  One break in a condom should be
enough to destroy a man's life, they are not worth so much compared
to women's lives, after all.

Women who had sex before 1972 tell about the fear of unwanted pregnancy 
every time they had sex.  Today's feminists tell us how good it is that
men have to risk 25% of their income every time they have sex.  That 
would force those bad men to stop having free sex, which is a good 
thing, at least by feminist standards.

I'm pro choice for women, regardless of the situation of choice for men,
because I don't want to repress anyone, but good feminists want to 
force their morals on us, because they *know* that in the long run
they will create a better society that way.  Here, for example, our
long time fighter against men's choice hits again:

In article <1fo09kINN7o4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Don and Steve were both commenting on RESTRICTING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO
>ABORTION (this *is* talk.abortion, isn't it) *if* men didn't gain so-called
>'male choice'.

Bad MCPs want to restrict women's choices if men will have no choice.

Most good feminists, like Adrienne, fight against "choice for men," even
when women's choice is pretty secured (like after the last election and
and Supreme Court decision).

That's what equality means, at least in feminist terms...

Hillel                                            gazit@cs.duke.edu

"In soc.women, a woman's perspective provides the basis.  Not a man's."
                             --  Adrienne Regard  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:33:06 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 <1992Dec13.224010.19321@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.070300.63800@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>> Letting a person die is not morally equivalent to killing them.
>>>>> I cannot kill a person who requires blood, marrow, or kidneys,
>>>>> but I can refuse to support them if I was not responsible for
>>>>> their condition.
>
>>>> Um, Dougie, you can refuse to support them even if you _were_
>>>> responsible for their condition.
>
>>> Um, "Leftie", if you cause a person to require blood,
>>> marrow, or kidneys, and they die as a result, you can
>>> be charged with homicide.
>
>> On the other hand, if it was an accident (say, an automobile accident, or
>> birth control failure) you won't be charged.
>
>No, you can still be charged with a crime, albeit a lesser
>crime than homicide.

You *can* be, if you're at fault.  But I believe that you *won't* be if
you were being a responsible driver and took all reasonable precautions.

>Besides, your reasoning completely fails in cases where abortion
>is used as a means of birth control.

Do you accept that it's valid if the couple took all reasonable precautions?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:45:13 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1fpncmINNcrq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>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?

Can he ever, even after a long communication, trust you not to
take him to the cleaners in a case of unplanned pregnancy?
From: nuge@ct.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Religion == Law??? (was Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice))
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:14:31 GMT
	<16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> <1992Dec17.010537.4902@s1.gov>
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI

In article <1992Dec17.010537.4902@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I.
Petrich) writes:
> 	And has anyone EVER been excommunicated from some church on
> account of being a gangster (let's say)?

        Public behavior like that does fit the guidelines in Canon Law
for doing it, but I don't know if it's ever been done. Excommunication
is threatened a lot more than actually carried out. Many of the
'threats' are sadly inappropriate.

> 	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.

        No. Imposed penalties are separate and distinct from a
teaching regarding serious sin or lack of it. There is no church
teaching that says abortion is worse than being a gangster or a hired
thug. Both are clearly sinful.

	Being excommunicated isn't much worse than being in a state of
serious sin, since reception of the sacraments (except Reconciliation
of course) is forbidden in each case. If one chooses not to bother
with the Church anyway, neither matters.

        The main difference is that excommunication is more formal and
daunting, and normally can only be lifted by a bishop. Interestingly
that's not usually true for abortion: most bishops have given priests
in their diocese faculties to lift the automatic excommunication for
procured abortion.

        BTW the requirements for the automatic excommunication for
procured abortion are such that, according a priest friend, it's often
not incurred at all.

	I would expect that many Cathoic theologians agree with Fr.
Richard McBrien of Notre Dame that it's time to get rid of the
excommunication associated with procured abortion. It's inconsistent
with how other sins/evils are treated.
--
Jim Nugent

nuge@ct.med.ge.com

nugentj@ct.med.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: RE: Finkelstein & souls
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 00:01:09 GMT


In article <16DEC92.21251759@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|I was not supporting any particular religion.  I was just pointing out how 
|some existing legislation is based on religion.  

You actually completely failed to show that your examples were
"based on" religion.  Your examples coincide with the beliefs of
a few religions, but you failed to show that they are the result
of the religions.  Would you care to make an attempt to do so?

You will probably have an easy time with the blue law example
you gave.  Blue laws, though, are an excellent example of just
why religion isn't a fit basis for religion.  Since many states
have already repealed their blue laws, seems like many people
agree.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:26:11 GMT

In article <1goin9INN1b3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.155723.17181@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>
>
>Whereas men have responsibility
>for children (i.e., feeding, clothing, and educating, either in person or
>by paying a proxy) so do women, likewise, bear the responsibility to feed
>clothe and educate their children, up to the point where they relinquish
>their children to the social services set up explicitly for the purpose
>of continuing the feeding, clothing, and educating of children whose parents
>cannot or willnot continue to do.

Men do not, however, have the same post-conception options for controlling 
their child-support liability as women do, Adrienne. And THAT is the inequity. 
Sure, once the child is born and the mother takes custody, the laws are 
superficially "equal". But that's like saying if I own two automobiles, and 
you own none, and you steal one of mine, that it would be OK to legally 
condone that, since the result is that we each have one automobile, and that's 
"equal". Equality is a noble goal, but not so noble that we can trample all 
over people's fundamental rights in order to achieve it. The end does not 
justify the means in this case. Also, I don't find it acceptable to impose 
"equal" responsibilities without allowing equal or at least comparable choices.
Right now, women have more financial choices and "equal" (in the superficial 
sense explained above) financial responsibilities than men. That is clearly an 
inequity.

>>Ahem, but weren't the problems of sexual harassment and certain other problems
>>experienced by women, first discovered by *anecdotal* evidence.  The evidence
>>was then researched, and in many cases was found to be true. 
>
>I'll be quite happy to review the further data when it arrives.
>Please feel free to post it.
>
>Until that point, I think the proposals made to this net do more harm
>than good, and cost society more overall than the status quo.

Do you have "data" that the proposals are harmful to society, Adrienne? Or 
are you so much of a hypocrite that you would demand "data" for an assertion 
in one sentence, and then blabber some completely unsupported, 
unsubstantiated assertions in the very next sentence? 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 21:14:38 GMT

In a previous article, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) wrote:
>In <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into
>>>>a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.
>>>
>>>Well, let's see...
>>>
>>>An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
>>>life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
>>>and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
>>>is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
>>>egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
>>>human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
>>>a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.
>>
>>That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an
>>unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.
>>It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized.
> 
>I hate to clue you in, but by the same reasoning a fertilized egg will
>never develop into an adult, either.  It might become an embryo, but then
>it wouldn't be a fertilized egg any more...

Except the fertalized egg will grow into an embryo...adult.  There is a 
difference between growing into something (fertalized egg -> Embryo), and 
being changed into something by outside forces (unfertalized egg -> fertalized 
egg)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Aaargh!  What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
X-To: GALEN J. HEKHUIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:00:00 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
GJH>        TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
GJH>            T         S             A       A      K  K     C
GJH>            T         S             A       A      K K      C
GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
GJH>            T                S      A       A      K K      C
GJH>            T                S      A       A      K  K     C
GJH>            T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC


Aaayyiiee!!!  Now *you're* even saying this!  :-)

My GOiD, it's more of a plague than the GOiDS!  :-)

Seriously though, what *does* T.S.A.K.C. stand for?  I have asked this
question of James Keegan about a zillion times, and given the lack of an
answer, you'd think that it was some sort of national secreat!  (Well, perhaps
he did answer, but the message got clobbered when ZOOiD crashed, as it did
several times during the occasions when I have asked him).

Just curious...  Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Excuse me, but is this my 15 minutes?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Still waiting...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:50:16 GMT

I notice that Mr. Holtsinger has yet to comment on why it is he hasn't
yet taken a position on legislation or pending Supreme Court decisions
that might restrict a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

I ask again, as politely as I know how:

Mr. Holtsinger, what do you say to criticisms that your rhetoric
against abortion rights rings hollow because you refuse to take a
position supporting or opposing any legislation that would change the
status quo?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51938 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10073
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:08:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.


 (John Switzer) writes:
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.

You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?

Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.

Have a good day, 
Satya Prabhakar 
--
______________________________________________________________
I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1gdgfbINNi0r@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Dec13.025057.4547@wkuvx1.bitnet>
	<1gg7gdINN5md@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:29:26 GMT

<In article <1gg7gdINN5md@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
<   haydedr@wkuvx1.bitnet (Ross Hayden) writes:

<>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
<>> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
<>> 
<>>>> disingenuous idiot,
<>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<>> 
<>>>...And *all* this, just because I stole a single word from Heiner Biesel and
<>>>used it too much!  :-)
<>> 
<>> No, I think you stole some of his idiocy too.

<>This sophomoric comment is about on the level of what I expected from her.

<Actually, I'll take that as a complement.  It's been a long time since
<I was a sophmore!	;-)


	May one assume that Peri would take "puerile" as a complement
	as well?

	Followup set appropriately....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 12 Dec 1992 20:01:47 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>DB> signed,  another disingenuous idiot,
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>...And *all* this, just because I stole a single word from Heiner Biesel and
>used it too much!  :-)

No, I think you stole some of his idiocy too.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Will Steeves confused about removal versus killing.
Date: 20 Dec 92 14:22:38 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec19.010225.22045@zooid.guild.org>
goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes the usual confused,
`we-poor-men-have-it-so-bad' nonsense:

>So are you REALLY saying that it's wrong for a woman to have an abortion when
>ONLY the MAN, who is "one parent," wants the child and is willing to support
>the child?
>
>Or, not to sound *too* bitter, would you not consider that "killing," but only
>when it's the man who doesn't want the child, does it become "killing"?
>
>Don certainly WAS right in calling this a strange twist on the pro-choice
>position!

All parents regardless of gender have the right to refuse to have
their bodies used to support their progeny or potential progeny.  For
example, a father can refuse to donate a kidney to his five year old
child, even if he is the only donor with an acceptable match.  If the
child then dies, there is no crime.  The father's right of refusal is
not affected by the desires of the mother, although he is free to
consult her and take her wishes into account.  Similarly, a mother may
refuse to have her body used as an incubator for a /z/e/f/.  If the
/z/e/f/ is not viable, when it is removed, it dies.  As with the
refused kidney death, there is no crime.  The mother's right to refuse
to have her body used by the /z/e/f/ is not affected by the desires of
the father, although she is free to consult him and take his wishes
into account.

I wonder if this explanation to Will might stop his whining about how
disadvantaged men are by abortion rights or will he threaten to kill
me for failing to respect him?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: Darcy babble
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:57:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.180938.3278@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Everything you write is whiny, Kebbin.
>Now, who's forcing you to read my posts? 

Most of the time I don't, dear, you are stupid, boring and banal
beyond belief.  But every now and then, I like to look in on what-
ever circle of netters is beating you to a pulp this time and get 
in a few kicks myself.  Just to keep in practice, you understand.

---------------
It's too bad you're too deeply insecure to ever see the merest
possibility that you are not now perfect, nor have you ever been (nor
will you ever be), and that you are not now, nor have you ever been
right.  You are made sufficiently incompetent by your subjectivity to 
your own woes and biases that everything you touch turns to shit.  You
are unwanted, and rightfully so.  You set yourself apart for derision 
by your own words (if not actions), and then have the gall to complain 
when you are attacked by others who try to live within the tight 
confines (to you) of reality.
				-- John Woods
				<1992Jan7.183556.7161@jfwhome.FUNHOUSE.COM>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:33:22 GMT

In <1992Dec16.012953.12556@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <15DEC92.13393418@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu show us yet again that he
>>does not know the difference between his fantasies and reality:
>>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>
>>>No.  If I were entertaining thoughts of sex with you (which I am not) then I
>>>would refrain for the same reason I did last time.  You didn't want me to wear
>>>a condom, and I didn't think that was safe.
>>
>>Loren, you are not a teenage boy any more.  Don't you think it's time to put
>>your fantasies about older women behind you and try to have a real life?

Older women? older women? Gosh, I don't see any older women in t.a :-)

>A:  I think I want to make love to Elizabeth Taylor again.
>B:  You've made love with Elizabeth Taylor before?!?
>A:  No, but I've *wanted* to before...
>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

REBel

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51739 talk.politics.misc:63906 talk.religion.misc:23626
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: New Study: More Post Abortion Trauma Revealed!!!
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:06:28 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec9.204832.2065@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John
Emery) wrote:
> 
> The hope in all this is that there is healing through the greatest
> emotional healer: The Lord Jesus.

John, I'm having some trouble finding the sutra in which the Buddha says
this.  Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,alt.flame