HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Steve Adams blows it again (was: Finkelstein & souls) 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:47:45 GMT

In <adams.724610957@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

The title alludes to a post I tried to do, "Second reply to Adams on
biblical homicide/abortion."  My netserver said it had been posted and
even showed it on my "index", but I have gotten zero feedback on it.  I
will repost it under the title, "Abortion and Religion II: biblical attitude."

>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>>>basis for legislation.
>>
>>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>>Here are a few
>>
>>"Thou shalt not kill"
>>"Thou shalt not steal"
>Neither of these have ANY religious requirement as a basis.  Depriving
>someone of their life of property does not require a god to call it a bad
>thing.   They can stand on their own without religious backing.  They are
>rational.

>>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>This is garbage law.  It's a leftover from the theocratic past...and most
>BlueLaws have been overturned as unconstitutional.  This law can't stand on
>it's own without religious backing.

>>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>Government interference.  These laws too, should be overturned or repealed.

Could Steve Adams be contemplating conversion to the Latter Day Saints, or 
Islam?!

Don't go away yet: this is NOT what the subject line refers to.  However, 
it *is* my personal opinion that Steve blew it here too.

>>In some states adultery is illegal.
>Government interference.  Repeal them.

>>All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
>>good laws.

>Only the laws against killing and stealing are good.  And guess what?  They
>don't need religion for them to make sense.

Hey, Steve, how come you did not take Loren to task for using the word
"killing"?  We've had a heated discussion about this one before, and I am
of the opinion that "commit unjustifiable homicide" is a better
translation, while you seem to be of the "commit murder" party. 
You even accused me, totally without cause, of ignorance, and when I tried
to advance the discussion into this gray area, you deleted my words.

Yet here
you even use the word "killing" yourself, despite the obvious fact 
that it can be applied to a fetus as well as to a born human.  You have,
on the other hand, stoutly asserted that sometimes abortion is the 
responsible thing to do, then in the same post turned around and 
said you were personally opposed to abortion.

When will you get your act together, Steve?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.194313.8277@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian 
Kendig) writes:
> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> >
> >John - You've called a spade a spade.  Obviously Brian can't sleep with 
> >the pro-abortion label on his head.  Don't be suckered-in to this clap 
> >trap word game.
> 
> I can sleep quite well, thank you.  I'm just trying to set terms
> straight, as the original poster was apparently trying to do.
> 
> I am NOT pro-abortion.  I believe that abortion should only be used as
> a last resort; it's something I wouldn't want anyone to go through.
> 
> The point of my post was that allowing something does not necessarily
> mean being in favor of it.  I allow open-heart surgery, neo-Nazi
> demonstrations, abortions, and loud ties, but I personally wouldn't
> enjoy any of them.

This is silly, of course.  Pro-abortion means obviously you favor its 
availability.  This is the issue, is it not?  Why do you insist on 
discussing the pleasantness of the procedure as if it were a hotly debated 
topic?   I have never ever heard even the most vociferous anti-abortion 
advocate claim that a pro-abort "enjoys" abortions.  

I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is 
to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use 
certain words in certain situations.

-Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:36:08 GMT

In article <nyikos.725734675@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>1. Why do so many pro-lifers say of a pregnant woman seeking abortion, "She
>shoulda kept her legs crossed?"
>
>ANSWER:  I have never heard of a pro-lifer say anything even remotely 
>resembling this, not even on talk.abortion.  On the other hand, I regularly
>see pro-choicers lampooning pro-lifers by depicting them as saying this.

Peter, I've seen many pro-lifers say things like "she makes her choice when 
she has sex". Other than being slightly more polite, how is that essentially
different from "she shoulda kept her legs crossed"?

								- Kevin
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Date: 25 Dec 92 17:46:26 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec25.042418.4549@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>No, Muriel, any human organism which _could_ function outside of the womb
>is by definition "capable" of bodily autonomy. This is, in fact, why 
>viability is such an all-important dividing line.

Please explain the relevance of this dividing line to abortion.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:24:53 GMT

> = (Doug "Liar" Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Eric Postpischil writes:

>> since defending one's bodily rights requires directly "violating" the
>> rights of another, it is wrong to do so.  

>So if a pregnant woman drinks alcohol and takes drugs,
>thus 'attacking' her child and violating the child's
>right to bodily autonomy,...

Oops!  The *fetus* has no right to bodily autonomy, Dougie!

>...does it follow that the child should have the right to 'abort' the woman?

Of course not.  I'm surprised you'd even suggest it.

The *fetus* has no rights!  Were you thinking of Ireland, Dishonest Doug?

>> For example, if a burglar
>> enters a person's home, does the homeowner not have a right to fight off
>> the burglar simply because that would directly "violate" the burglar's
>> bodily rights?  

>Yes, the homeowner has the right to fight off the burglar,
>because the burglar committed an immoral and illegal act.   
>The mere existence of an innocent child in the woman's womb
>is neither immoral nor illegal.  

Nor is it illegal to suck that little bugger right out of there!  Either
that, or puree that little parasite.  Or maybe bathe it in acid.  My personal
favorite is crushing its little head with a pair of tongs.  (The preceding
was in anticipation of the Witless Wonder's fake emotionalism.)

Are you under some delusion that your waning fanatical movement of religious
idiots was GAINING GROUND?  

Au contraire, schmuck.  



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Doug the Coward  (WAS Reconciling OT with NT)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:51:44 GMT

> = (Doug "I Attack Posting Privileges" Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Carrie L Johnson writes:

>> IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!

Proving the term "shithead" is kind in Doug's case...

>And if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.

Hey, have you gotten Dippold's posting privileges revoked yet, weenie?

Davey "Yummy Mummy" Rasmussen used to do the same thing!

And you're the same type of woman-hating, christian-defending atheist.

Curiouser and curiouser.

P.S. - Anyone find it curious that Liar Holtsinger is too chicken to state
what he would replace Roe v. Wade with?  




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:51:00 GMT

In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
> Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
> In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
> Nelson) writes:
> 
> ....
> > In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan 
> Idler) w
> > What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
> > dies?  What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
> > Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
> > or self-induced abortion?
> Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than 
> now -

Have you any support for this assertion?  Does your support take
into account the change in number of abortions?  Does your support
also note any changes in the relative safety of abortion versus
childbirth, and does your support take into account changes
in the relative safety of childbirth from then to now?  And
while you're at it, define "then" and "now."

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:02:59 GMT

In article <nyikos.725128086@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Pro-abortionist: one who actively opposes anything that makes life more
>difficult for abortionists, even if women were to benefit from the 
>restrictions.

>[This includes ...

>requirements that women be tested for pregnancy before D&C etc. are 
>performed, etc.

If I know I need a D&C for medical reasons (other than abortion), I do
not want a pregnancy test performed and do not want to be informed of
the results if one is taken.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 04:57:52 GMT
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

In <1993Jan1.022332.536@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.051334.12145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
>>>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
>>
>>Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might not agree...
>
>True, but in the context of the article from which you quoted, "beneficial
>ways" mostly denoted natural gestational processes.

First you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
interference."  Then, in the article I quoted, you attempted to restrict
"interference" to detrimental effects.  Interference is interference.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:03:15 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|>keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
|>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to patrick:
|>
|>>> Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
|>>> address still a mystery to the net?  Why? Your old
|>>> nemesis, Chaney, once said she was flamed off the net
|>>> by the politically correct pro-choicers. 

|>> Siren was originally a group of four people who decided
|>> to post in a specific style. when three of the four had
|>> departed, the last of the original group tried to carry
|>> on the personna. she failed. she wasn't up to it. she, for
|>> one reason or another, never posted in her own personna,
|>> whatever that was/is. Siren wasn't chased from the net.
|>> she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
|>> her failures.
|>
|>You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
|>could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 

oh come now dodie. you stoop that low in just about
every post you make. plus, you'ne no doubt embarassed
your hero PHoney, who raised the subject. i suppose you
and he think it's better to just lie, eh?

             
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: about chasing people off the net
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.230807.5753@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1992Dec30.223948.20790@crd.ge.com> 
}keegan@crd.ge.com writes:
}>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to patrick:
}
}>> Ask Siren if you can.  You can't?  Why not?  is her
}>> address still a mystery to the net?  Why?  
}
}> Siren wasn`t chased from the net.
}> she, like many others, appeared to be unable to cope with
}> her failures.
}
}You're one ugly bastard, Keegan.  I never thought anyone
}could stoop so low as to flame someone who's passed away. 

As opposed to one who would chastize another in her name.  Or one
who would taunt others because they are unable to contact her.

I guess you have to take "low" in context...

--
       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: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Susan sinks to a new low. [Was: Meet P...]
Organization: Clairvoyance Ltd.  Don't knock -- we KNOW you're there.
	<CORWIN+.92Dec29170048@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<PATRICK.92Dec30145321@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <1240@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:32:12 GMT

In article <1240@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   Ha.  Patrick said everything that I would have.

   I'll have to talk to him about this.

I knew you'd say that.

:-)

--PLH, what can I say?  Great minds think alike, sometimes...


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:13:49 GMT
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

In <nyikos.724972656@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>....in his usual flaming style, always without giving a clue as to what
>the flaming is justified by.

The stuff that was posted previously, obviously.

>I missed out on all the
>really substanitive arguments due to netserver failure, and all I'm
>hearing are trivial little echoes

So perhaps you're the only clueless one.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 05:23:16 GMT

Me:

>What is your position, then, on harvesting organs from neonates with
>no chance of survival?
>As an example, consider the fairly recent media case in which an
>anencephalic newborn's parents wished to donate any usable organs to
>infants on the waiting lists.
>The NRL groups took it to court and prevented the transplants on the
>basis that the infant was not yet dead. Technically true, since it
>(like most anenchephalics that are not stillborn) did have a brain
>stem. of course, it had zero chance of survival.
>Would you have supported the parents right to donate the organs?
>

Petey Ny:
>Not fully, until the baby was legally dead.  After that, no problem.
>
>A non-fatal organ donation, such as that of one kidney, would have been
>acceptable to me.  Ditto small blood donations, etc.
>
Well then, lets look at this case...
From the one anencephalic baby, we could have harvested 1 heart, 2
lungs, 2 kidneys, a liver suitable for ressection to provide
transplants for as many as 3 others, bone marrow, and 2 corneas.
Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. Bone marrow had
not been matched yet. Neither had corneas, but they are relatively
easy to match.

Since people who call themselves Pro-Life took steps to halt any organ
donations until after brain death, this is the outcome:
The recipients for the heart, both lungs, 1 kidney and 1 liver section
are now dead. The other kidney, liver, and bone marrow recipients are
still waiting and hoping. The corneas were eventually used.

This is why it's wrong to take medical decisions into the courts.
Here's some info for you.
An anencephalic baby has no brain above the brain stem. The brain stem
is enough to maintain "legal" life (i.e. no brain death) until other
body systems fail completly. There is zero chance for survival. None.
Zip. Nada. At most, we can keep the baby alive for a few days, and
cost the parents a few hundred thousand dollars. By the time brain
death occurs, and the "Pro-Life" people decide it's Ok to donate the
organs, they are not usable. 
So, you and your "Pro-Life" friends can and should consider yourselves
responsible for the deaths of 4 children. Born, wanted, otherwise
healthy children who needed a transp
Hope you're happy with yourself.

--
                  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.
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:42:56 GMT

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:

>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.

>There is no state-sponsored church in the U.S., and no one is
>(legally) a member of any church at birth. Donations to any of
>the countless different churches and other religious organizations
>are entirely voluntary (modulo any hypothetical effect of
>brainwashing).

Well, I think the "church" in question could say if you don't "donate" 2% or
whatever, that you are no longer a member.  The government won't help determine
what that 2% would be and won't help collect it and will not allow the member
to be *forced* to pay--barring possible legal contracts?--but the church can
probably kick out anyone that doesn't follow their guidelines.  (not that any
in particular *do*)    8-)

-Rob
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53085 alt.fan.q:702
From: q@access.digex.com (The Omnipotent)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.q
Subject: Re: Thought for the day
Date: 27 Dec 1992 17:49:26 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec12.231358.18006@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Why not bring it up here?  This newsgroup is dead anyways.
>Why doesn't somebody send out the rmgroup?  

Because this group is NOT dead, you ignorant toadie.
>
>> -- every time he attacks me in here, I re-direct the follow-ups
>> back to talk.abortion.  
>
>Like the coward that you are...

You got that damn straight.    Wussie weenies who can't face me on my own turf
are beneath my contempt.

>> I suspect he doesn't want to appear there because
>> too many people are wise to his act.
>
>No, I've appeared there when I want to discuss abortion.  Your 
>racist remarks have nothing to do with abortion, coward.

There is no place for racism, OR for opposition to a woman's right to her
own reproductive control.  So bloody well there!

>> (Q would have fun with him, for sure...)

Actually, only "pity" comes to mind.  Not "fun".

Q

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53880 alt.society.civil-liberty:7216 talk.politics.misc:66061 alt.war.vietnam:705
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Setting the DeClassed Part of the Record Straight
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:41:25 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
] >In article <1992Dec30.093734.12396@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >>So what am I?
] 
] drieux is my evil twin.  he is just sad that as a 
] GrenadaInvasionLybiaAirRaidEraVet

Minor Clarification Here, Toady of the IdeologicalDeviationalIsts!

That's:

LebanoGrenadanLibyanEraVet,

And Yes, we are Being Repressed by the Revisionist Powers
that have taken over the AFL/VFW!!!!! You Know how it is,
Talk about a RealWar[tm] and all those VVA types go off 
about the Struggle to get their Tax Exempt Status, and
what it took them to get a Bronze Star for making viewgraphs at MACV!
{ laugh monte, its a JOKE .... }

] there wasn't time for
] the HitleriteCommieFascistLiberalReactionaryBallPointPenUsers
] to properly organize a HomeFrontFifthColumnUprisingRevolt
] with AppropriateFashionStatements.  

Just Because You have been able to successfully maintain
Your DraftBaitStatus is nothing to crow about....

] As a result he has found
] employment as a tax fattened parasite (much to the family
] shame - we've told his mother that he's running numbers on the
] waterfront.) and is trying to cover his shame by his defense
] of TraditionalFamilyValues (whatever they are.)

Funny I thought we were all telling Mutti that I was 
WhiteSlaving In Jakarta rather than that I was living in
California. Does This Mean I can now give up my mailbox
forwarding service there?????


ciao
drieux

ps: Other Operational Status Information Available
Upon Request and Certification of Need to Know Status
at the Level of the Appropraite Clearance within the
Properly authorized specification as Laid down in
OpNav 5510S series documentation.

ObTalkPoliMisc: Its a Shame to have one's brother come out
so forth right about his confusion about TraditionalFamilyValues.
But You Know How those BleedingHeartWimpLiberalTypes are....




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra