HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:23:39 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr08.162313.825@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
> writes:

>>In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Fran
>klin) writes:

>[One of the worst analogies about a chicken GOd were deleted from here
>so that you wouldn't be insulted by it's sub-human logic and intelligence]

>>Are you happy about this?
>   No... Pleasantly amused at your attempt at wit and example though.
>You have much to learn on the net...

Steve, if I was a brick wall, I'd really be worried, because if you
walked into me, I'd get a headache since you would repeatedly walk into
me again and again. Fortunately, I'm not and I can get out of your way
so you can walk over the cliff....

As for anyone having much to learn from the net, you could start by
rereading Adrienne's chicken god post and let it sink in a little. Be
open minded, (creak the door, let in a little fresh air) see the analogy.
Basically, and let me spell this out for
you, your religion is to her, like the chicken god is to you.

And she is not the only one who believes that way, as I fully agree
with her.

>>Steve, I happen to think that your religion is a sack of shit.  I happen to
>>think it's pure drivel and foolish, and backward, and idiotic.  And I'm
>>entitled to that opinion.  But being a tolerant, fairminded soul, I decide
>>it's really YOUR OWN BUSINESS what you believe.
>   Great. I can't say anything to this. Conservative meets the
>secular humanist (back from my first post). But, what happens when
>secular humanists decide that society is hindered by mentally
>handicapped people... Are you goin to deem that they are not human

Where, o where, has any pro-choicer EVER advocated the death of a living
human being (one who has been born and is sentient)?

>>Self righteousness just twists my knickers the wrong way.  Maybe it's a
>>character flaw others share -- know it, learn it, live it, Steve.

>   Live it? Hardly.. Learn it? Already have... Shove it? Plan to...
>Later Adrienne - when you would like to discuss the rationality behind
>ABORTION, rather than what turns my crank, then feel free to place
>a little thought into your posts. Until the - stop letting your 8 year
>old brother help you type your articles...

"Shove it" - exactly the reason people here want absolutely nothing
to do with your religion or anything it espouses.

And you wonder why people call you a hypocrit.....

>   steve (who was too rude and already apologizes)

Steve, who has no reason for living and must have everything handed
to HIM as HE thinks it should be, or HE will get pissed and take away
everyones chocolate pie.

No apologies accepted here Steve.

Ron

Yes, I am going to post a response to your answers of those last three
questions.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:18:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.013357.29903@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:


>OK....let's take a moment and assume that it isn't a child.

>Well then, is it living at all??????
>It has a heart, brain waves, and for a certain time before birth,
>it could survive without its host (remember, we assume it's a parasite)
>To me, that means living.

So what?

>MaThiEu a. LeWis   

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:39:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr15.213949.18150
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr15.194237.16141@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.121631.11834@cs.yale.edu> 
>           rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>> No, the pro-choice stand is not valid even if the fetus is a human being. 
>>> Killing a human life, and refusing to support that life, are two totally
>>> different moral concepts.
>
>> Yes, but the point of abortion is not to actually kill the fetus,
>> but really to remove it. Killing it is incidental--i.e. it will
>> die as a result of removing it it, and it's safer to kill it before
>> you remove it.
>
>The ends do not always justify the means.
Yeah, so?

> If I wanted to obtain
>someone else's property, I could possibly (a) kill them outright, 
>or (b) surround their property and prevent them from escaping,
>thus slowly starving them to death (among other methods). 
>In my opinion, you cannot attach the same moral significance 
>to those two acts, even though the end result is the same. 
Why? The end result IS the same. Suppose you were to strangle
them, thus technically not killing them outright, but merely
depriving them of oxygen. It strikes me that the two
are morally similar.

>Your argument above is that killing a fetus is "safer" and perhaps 
>more convenient for the mother; I could argue that killing a person
>to obtain their property is "safer" and more convenient to me than
>any other method. 
And if the person was going to die as a result of removing them
from their property, I would argue that the acts are morally
equivalent. 

I don't see the moral difference between removing the fetus
and therefore guaranteeing it's death and killing it then
removing it--except that one is substantially much worse
for the mother. Nor does your analogy clear things up. Why
don't you just try to explain the difference.

>No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
>the fetus.
I never tried to argue that it did not.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
 If it's in the machine, I eat it. If it's not in the machine, I don't eat it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: Where do they Get their Theology?
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 00:38:31 GMT

In <1992Apr11.222040.10539@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>I can understand that you are most likely NEW to your
>understanding of 'christianity' and it would serve you 
>well to actually learn to READ the Bible before you 
>make blanket statements that are Patently False.
   Tsk tsk tsk Droo. I am not NEW to my understanding of Christianity
but if you could please help me find YOUR understanding of Christianity
since you are obviously an authority on it...
   In any case - not a blanket statement...

>ps: which is in short to say, upon what do you base
>your delusion that 'christians' are against capital punishment,
>or is this just more Defamation of Christianity?
1) man is innocent till proven guilty
2) judge not lest ye be judged
3) He who has not sinned may cast the first stone
4) The wage of sin is death yet only through the judgement of God
in his infinite wisdom
5) "But mine enemies...render evil for good" (Is not capitol punishment
an evil for good?)
6) Besides Droo. Capitol punishment incurs an average of 1.5 years of
extraneous court office facilities time in order to convict an inmate
on teh grounds of capitol punishment because of numerou please, and an
assured requirement of undebatable evidence against the man or woman.
So - many have argued that ~40,000 (damn nice prison) per inmate at a
maximum security prison for an average of 40 years you are still looking
at less fees than those induced by the extra law fees. Which would you rather?
Solitary confinement for 40 years, or capitol punishment? Ahh yes, solitary
confinement would be unethical. but killin a man isn't? 

  Hey droo - stop trying to guess what you're up against. not only am
I familiar with the bible but I"m familiar with your type of 
bible-hacker. A newbie to the group I am, but a newbie to your assumptions
I am not.
   ciao yourself
steve

p.s. so much for my break from the group - thanks for flamin me enough
to keep me from getting out of touch...
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:24:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>Hey dickhead!!!!

Another clueless......

>Why don't you tell that to the woman who just had a miscarriage.
>I'm REAL sure she'll agree with you...

I know a woman who works in an abortion clinic who has a lot of trouble
staying pregnant. She's had 7 miscarriages in the last three years or
so. She does not refer to any of them as children.

I know another woman who had her tubes removed (for what reason, I don't
recall) who had an abortion of her husband's child before this happened
because they could not afford a chil at the time.  She does regret the abortion
because it is now unlikely that she will have children. She has a lot
of pain because of this, yet she is still pro-choice.

Any other clueless comments?

Ron
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SNOOPER (Rebuttal and Apology)
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:01:32 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Apr8.202536.21326@hubcap.clemson.edu> conradv@euler.eng.clemson.
edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
>
>
>roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>->         Careful investigation has shown that the Dennis Hall
>-> posts are indeed a fraud.
>
>
>If you spend more time arguing sense in t.a instead of snooping around
> things that dont concern you and taking part in mud slinging feativals ,
>perhaps we can make something out of you afterall-though I strongly doubt it
>                       Conrad C Vincent


>If you spend more time arguing sense in t.a 

If the other person who created fraudulent postings to undermine discussion
on this newsgroup had listened to your advice, then there would have
been no problem in the first place.  I tried to remove a problem
(fraud), not create one.  I do not see active fraudulent behavior
as "things that don't concern" the users of this newsgroup.

>instead of snooping around

I know now that even though my facts were obtained through
perfectly valid and legal public avenues, THE BEST AND MOST PROPER
WAY TO HANDLE A NET FRAUD CASE IS TO REPORT IT TO ONE'S OWN SYSADMIN.
My intentions were good -- I thought peer pressure rather than
authoritative pressure would have been kinder to the other person.
I APOLOGIZE TO ALL FOR NOT FOLLOWING STANDARD NET PROCEDURES.
I do not apologize for my post, however, because I think the
users of this group have a right to know when a fraud is being
perpetrated on them.

> and taking part in mud slinging feativals ,

I slung no mud.  I slung facts.  Re-read my post.  You will note
that my original post was diplomatic enough that it did not unleash a
a flood of flames pointed at the other person.  Speaking of
slinging mud, that seems to be the primary reason for your post, Conrad.

You are right about one thing.  It is time to get back to
t.a. discussion.  I believe the discussion that was going on when
the fraudulent posts rudely interrupted was: "Whether Susan was justified
in posting Kevin Welch's obscene and threatening mail".

My opinion was that Kevin's behavior was completely uncalled
for and therefore justified Susan's exposing it the light of day.
What do you think concerning this issue, Conrad?


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////  -> Mad Max b/y Thunderdome
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:48:47 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr6.004213.26399@cs.dal.ca>, Steve Franklin writes:
|In <m4zth0a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:
|>So how many kids have YOU carried, Steve?
|What a garbage question. I have had no children, and carried no
|children. Does that mean I am not in a position to care. I have no
|right to speak for the unborn? 

Uh, I think Dan King speaks for the unborn on 
this group.

I find it telling that you took Cathi's question to
refer to fetuses, and not to the women who carry
them.  Try not to forget that woman, Steve.  Many
of us here find that she's more important than
brainless blobs of flesh.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:30:05 GMT


In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:

>In article <1992Apr15.012228.6818@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Sure, Steve.  Just like your church minded its own business during the
>>>Spanish Inquisition...got any more fairy tales for us?
>>and HOW many Christians were killed by non-Christian Romans and all
>>those crazy Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, and Vandals? ( I love those names!!)
>You might be interested to know that the Goths were generally
>Arian Christians.
>

Sorry my friend.....not when they invaded back in the 400s AD.

The heretical movement you are talking about didn't come around
until Charlemagne's time.

Take a better history class.


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Technology and abortion
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:46:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr6.184622.26121
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


I am not trying to support either side of this argument here, rather, I am
trying to nullify both sides.  This is based on the conjecture of 
technologies advance, which may or may not occur:


1) Living outside the womb:  If a tiny fertilized egg can survive outside
    the womb on its own in an artificial environment, then there is no longer
    a cost to the mothers body.  With todays technology it is possible to
    cryonically suspend aborted fetuses.  Could these not be preserved until
    our population expands beyond this planet and there is excess space?
    (already frozen fertilized eggs can be revived)

2) Effective birth control:  Effective birth control will exist (if it does
   not already).  A couple seemingly plausable methods are: 
      a) implantation of hormone releasing device
      b) making the egg wall immune to the antibodies employed by the sperm
            (preventing penetration of the egg)

3) Virtual Sex:   When a person has all of their efferent and afferent
   neurons hooked through communication devices, then the communication act
   of sex could occur at a distance (or with a time lag, or with artificial
   sex partners).  These artificial sex partners may be superior to "real"
   sex partners.  Probably, sex would occur with your partner enhanced 
   somewhat, if you wished to do it just with your partner.  A computer
   could generate a model of your partners sexual actions (which are pretty
   much reptilian behavioral response systems anyway)
   
   

It seems that the abortion question could already be a non-issue. (Given
cryonic suspension and later revival is viable)  However, it is clear
that any one of the above technologies would eliminate the issue.  So 
instead of rallying, shooting and blowing things up, support some research.
Both sides can win.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:53:14 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr6.160734.21529@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>BTW, are you willing to reject all books of the bible that endorse polygamy,
>or do you pick & choose bible verses to taste?
   I have a habit - I read the message of the bible, and avoid the
specifics. The concept and value of LIFE is a message. Polygamy,
mentioned in oh so obscure and third-hand perspective is not
what I consider important. God never preaches of polygamy, yet it
is mentioed in the bible because the bible's details reflect the time
and age of the society. The era of Jesus Christ's coming has various
characteristics and beliefs which are smudged all over the bible, but
these are left up to the theologians to interpet. One can READ the
bible, but one must LEARN the bible's message...

>Sound's like you (Steve Franklin, not necessarily Bono) are asking:
>Do you accept my (Steve Franklin's) religion, or are you ... THE DEVIL?
>Care to confirm or deny?  Can I reject your religion and not be in league 
>with the devil at the same time?
   Heh, I feel so close to you by now, you can just call me Steve, okay?
You are free to exercise your right to reject my religion. However, my
belief is that there are rewards to abiding by the bible's rules. 
I myself break these rules everyday inadvertently, and I spend time
each day thinking about and tryin to avoid any mistakes I make. 
   If you choose to think my (our, theirs, whatever) God is garbage,
or create your own God to worship, then of course you create different
restrictions, rewards and punishments that come along with your God. Do
not be concerned with how MY God would deal with YOU, but how YOUR
God would deal with YOU.
   steve (who can just feel it... Michigan's gonna win)
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:46:29 GMT

heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:

>This is untrue.  For most people a woman's right to self-determination 
>is self evident.  I promise that I am not, have never, and will never 
>be in favor of limitting a woman's right to self-determination unless 
                                                                ======
>I feel I have to.  You have nothing but my word on this.  Since you 
 =================
>don't know me I guess that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the 
>truth.

Don't you understand, John, that your small caveat there makes your
entire statement meaningless?  I can absolutely guarantee you that I
won't get out of bed tomorrow unless I feel I have to.

Don't you see why you frighten me?  Many horrible things have been
done in the name of "I had to".  It frightens me that though we've
never met and probably never will, someday you might feel that you
"have to" stop me from doing something that I have chosen to do.
Welch feels that he would "have to" stop me from having an abortion
_even_if_not_having_the_abortion_would_destroy_my_mind_.  Destroying
my mind would effectively end my life, but Welch feels the potential
life of any random fetus is more important than my mind.

This reminds me of a canversation that I had with an acquaintance
that is pro-"life".  His family background was so bad that he feels
that he might have been aborted if abortion had been legal.  In
other words, legal abortion might have once threatened his life. I
tried to impress on him that the reason I am pro-choice is that 
a law against abortion may threaten _my_ life in the future.  There
are those who would happily force me to risk death to give some
random fetus a "chance".

This frightens me, this angers me, this is a large part of the reason
that I am so strongly pro-choice.

>John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
>[Undecided and so open minded that my brain is drafty.  :-) ]

                               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:57:19 CDT


In article <1992Apr13.235109.19484@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis):
> > 
> > exactly......the real problem with abortion is not the act itself....
> 
> Oh face it, some acts are just plain wrong.  Relativism is mistaken.

Like making abortion illegal (is just plain wrong).


> > but the reasons and motivations behind it. 
> 
> Reasons and motivations may well be wrong, but even given all the _best_
> motivations, some actions are _still_ just plain wrong.

I do believe that (most) "pro-lifers" have the _best_ motivations,
but their action (making abortion illegal) is _still_ just plain wrong.


> The road to hell is paved with good intentions, MaThiEu.

I've been praying for you, Suzanne.


> > Humankind is a loser
> > when it comes to, in the words of Spike Lee, doing the right thing.
> 
> Some human beings do very well at doing the right thing, though. 

Agreed.
>                                                                   It
> gets them into trouble with other human beings who have bad motivations.

And some that have good motives.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pro-whatever
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:17:00 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr14.152547.694@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>Most of you people would claim to have an open mind, and then be so
>quick to point the finger at others.
>
>Well....take at look at yourself today.
>Every single one of us is a hypocrite.

Ok, I'll be open-minded long enough to let you explain just what the hell
you are talking about.
--
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"