HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:50:53 GMT


--- recap --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> = Brian Kauffman
>> >  = Franklin
>>    = mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>     = cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:

>> >>BTW, are you willing to reject all books of the bible that endorse 
>> >>polygamy or do you pick & choose bible verses to taste?

>> >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. 

>> So polygamy is *mentioned*, but it's *not important*, whereas
>> abortion is *not mentioned*, but it's *overwhelmingly important*.
>> Very logical.

>        This is an interesting hodgepodge of juicy issues. Before
>commenting, I'll identify myself:
>[...]
>        How does polygamy enter the discussion?  Under some circumstances 
>[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Genesis god appearently had no problem with sex slaves in addition to wives.
But don't get hung up on polygamy, the point is the bible tends to have:
 o a lot of virtuous holy laws
 o a lot of silly and/or stupid holy laws
 o a lot of endorsements (or tacit endorsments) for some virtuous things
 o a lot of endorsements (or tacit endorsments) for some reprehensible things
 o a lot of handy little verses that seem support a conflicting ideas 
 o no clear statement about aborting zygotes [1]

Thus envoking bible verses to support your favorite cause almost always 
involves picking & choosing bible verses to taste.

Eg. According to Leveticus 
 o god appearently has a problem with charging interest on loans.
 o god appearently has a problem with being homosexual.
 o god appearently has a problem with menstruating women.
 o god appearently has a problem with eating clams.
 o god appearently likes burnt animal sacrafices.

Now, bible quoters frequently have a MAJOR CONSISTANCY PROBLEM, eg. they 
may invoke the verse that denounces homosexuality as 'an abomination of the 
almighty god' but try to ignore or explain away the verses that cause
serious credibility problems.

So don't get hung up on god's indifference to owning sex slaves, 
the point is the INCONSISTANCY of invoking only your pet bible verses
when there are plenty more verses that you won't accept and defend.

-Brian

[1] if I'm wrong here, please enlighten me with unambiguous documentation.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Isn't Adoption an escape from responsibility?
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:59:13 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr11.020116.7847@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>
> Advice for today : Never wear red underwear.
>
> Reason : When there's a fire alarm, you have no time to get dressed, so...

Corollary: never wear underwear.  Then you don't have to worry about the color...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Interesting clarification
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:33:01 GMT

wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
] 
] Significantly lower academic performance was measured *five years* 
] subsequent to divorce in one study (Mulholland, Watt, Philpott, and 
] Sarlin, 1989).  The acute effects of parental conflict would likely 
] be significantly reduced by then.  That seems to suggest that the 
] absence of a parent, rather than family discord, is a legitimate 
] factor in poor academic performance.  

You Presume that the study might conclude something that is
useful for you to presume it will show.

You may be aware of matters like DelayedStressSysndrome
that a lot of the brothers, and sisters, who cam home from 'Nam developed
outside of your your five year window of opportunity....

You, like many a fine VA AdminDweeb would like to presume
what you will. and feel more than free to do so.

But try not to confuse your presumptions of what the
data shows with what the data shows.

that it is a clear fact that Adult Children of Alcoholics
are STILL working through complications of their Parental Problems
LONG AFTER your five year window of opportunity leads one
to wonder if you are not just flatly whistleing in the DARK!


ciao
drieux


ps: it is dangerous to make a study say things it does not
say, and that in opposition to KNOWN FACTS....





-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: State Penn
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 08:46:49 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)

In article <+44tn#a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) says:

>What is the value of a man?
[value of man post]
>So does anyone have any objections to this plan?  When can we get
>started?

One thought:  when a woman is pregnant, she is risking her life for
her own child.  The man in this scenario wouldn't be.  He would
be risking his life for strangers who are external to him.


Joy Haftel               "But were there ever any
JKH107@PSUVM                    Writh'd not at passing joy?"
                                    --Keats
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:41:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <92105.155340ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.173440.21579@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin writes:
>>In <92101.130850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham

>I guess we'll have to wait and see how Audrey does in the next
>round
   Hehehe, audrey doesn't have a flying chance I am afraid. Especially
after what the NDP did to Ontario. THe radical views of the NDP will always
be just that: radical. Widely unaccepted. SOrry...
   steve
-- 
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: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:05:11 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:

>> A fetus is no less human than any other human life. If it is not a human 
>> life, then what is it? All humans should have the same right to existence. 

> A human life? Do you mean human tissue that is alive, or do you mean a
> living person? 

Living human tissue.

> If you mean human tissue, do you believe that your appendix
> has the same rights that you do? 

The concept of rights is a relationship between humans, it is not a 
relationship between parts of the same human.

My appendix has the right to exist, just like any other part of my body.
It should not be killed by other humans without my permission. 
I may kill my own appendix, since it is part of me, and not part of
another human.

If my appendix is removed, then my appendix should still have the right 
to exist, if the tissue is alive. It should not be killed by other humans
without my permission, but they may leave it to die from a lack of 
support.

> What is your definition of person? 

Personhood is a subjective judgement, therefore it is not the best measure 
for defining rights. Rights should stem primarily from existence, not 
personhood, because existence is more readily determined.

> Why is an eight week old fetus equivalent to a twenty-three year old?

The fetus has the same right to exist as any other human life. No human
can judge the value of another human, because it is a subjective judgement.
If it is your opinion that a fetus does not deserve rights, then that is 
still your opinion. Only the fetus can place a value on its own existence.

> I don't extend rights to all that is "human". Humanness covers a wide span
> of possibilities. I extend rights to "people". The fetus does not qualify.

What gives you the right to place a value on another human life?
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:35:03 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr07.063103.7375@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
|cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>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 has just made himself a candidate for the 
|first experimental post-partum abortion.

I find it telling that my request not to forget the
women involved in abortion produced a response
which advocates murder of an adult human being.
Is thinking about the woman so painful that you
find violent outbursts preferable?
 
---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Distinctions of this kind are interesting because they notify us
about the limits of our empathy."  --Brian Eno
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: We want lots of life
Organization: .
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:37:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.005633.4108@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.204623.29426@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

<They all write about "Baby Theresa", a female human infant born with no brain>

You know, there's one aspect of this "Baby Theresa" deal that you all seem to
be overlooking:  She would have made a perfect girlfriend for David Rasmussen!

Sure, he would have had to wait until she attained the age of consent (and 
obtaining consent from an entity that doesn't have a brain is problematic, I
recognise), but nookie later is better than no nookie at all.  You know, it
just goes to show there's someone for everyone!


-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:10:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: shinobu.1992Apr7.181031.22988
Reply-To: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|In <1992Apr6.214941.6913@shinobu.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>Stop being an asshole, Franklin, unless you *want*
|>people to flame you righteously.
|   Heh... If you want to take me on, the do it by email in the future,
|as everyone else has seen fit to do. I take an awful lot of crap because
|of my views. 

No.  I didn't criticize you because of your political views.
I criticized you because of your condescending rudeness.
You deleted your offensive comments.  I reproduce them here 
for your edification:

In article <1992Apr6.185821.7399@cs.dal.ca>, Steve Franklin writes:
|Don't flatter yourself or your colleagues dear... [...]
|I don't get your point... tsk tsk, we're off to a bad start here
|Debbie...Oh, I mean deb, just deb.

Do you want to address issues?  Or would you rather sling
mud?  It's up to you, Franklin.  If you continue posting
like you did above, you'll be inevitably flamed.  Do you
want to generate flames?  

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief." 
--Austen
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:20:21 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1s2tzbh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>>PS Just out of curiosity, why do you call yourself "rocker"?

>Oh bleah.  This has been asked twice now, so I suppose I'll answer.
>It's customary in the local chapter of the ACM (of which I am an
>officer) for people who use computers extensively (especially the
>realtime conferencing) to take a psuedonym.  Since I was a professional
>bass player for some years before attending college, I chose "rocker".
>I don't capitlaize it because when I'm typing fast I don't use caps.

>There. One less "Unsolved Mystery" in the world.

>                         -rocker

	
	Yeeeesssssss!!!!!! I'm now one step closer to understanding all
the great mysteries of life. Thank you for enlightening all of us. :)
By the way "ROCKER" (I like the caps better), I agree with your statements
about abortion but I'm still very much against abortion. :(   Sorry!!!

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
				       (Pro-choice/ANTI-ABORTION)


  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:15:38 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes ...
>Sure gets tiring to see this != crap.  These Pro-Deathers think that using
>mathematical symbology will cause their arguments to magically become
>logical.  Here's one for the unthinking child murdering masses:
>
>I'm not a Catholic (just to nip that bigoted argument in the bud).  But you
>people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:  

My, you ARE a bit of a hypocritical bigot, aren't you?  First you 
accuse Pro-Choicers of using emotional rhetoric then start throwing
around words like "murder" and "unthinking".  Keep it up.  You and
the recently departed Steve continue to advance the Pro-Choice cause
with your inflammatory diatribes.

>You will DIE one day.  The creator is going to want an explanation as to 
>your actions.  Are you prepared to answer why you aided in this modern day
>holocaust?  It's not too late to start using your head.

I do use my head.  Do you?  Why should first-trmiester abortions
be made illegal?  Convince me using reason (i.e., no superstions
please).  And if you cite some authority be prepared to establish
the qualifications and trustworthiness of said authority.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:20:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.192102.4711@hubcap.clemson.edu>  
conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes..... 
> 
> 
> >The past record of the Catholic Church cannot
> >be used to prove that the Church is mistaken now
> >n its belief that abortion is wrong. Given its 
> >past record it is not unreasonable  to infer that the Church 
> > is _likely_ to be incorrect
> 
> Catholics believe that the Pope's support of the heliocentric
                                    ^^^^^^^ You mean denial?
> theory was outside the realm in which a Pope could expect 
> divine guidance in his rulings . Abortion has moral and
> religous overtones - the domain in which a Pope's ruling 
> is guided by Divine will.
>  

Are you trying to tell us that no one else _but_ the Pope at that
time believed the geocentric theory? If you think of it, the issue 
did, in fact, have religious overtones: the earth's being 
at the center of the universe would be evidence that they were 
"God's chosen people." Of course, some of them now think that they
have been "chosen" to decide that all feti must be carried to term,
regardless of whether the woman or the fetus itself wants to. 

My friend, this is not an attack on your church. It _is_ an attack
on your feeble backpedaling.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:02:38 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 <kum6mnINNspg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
> writes:

->Well, lets see. If the population size is already to big as Ron indicated,
->and the rate of population growth goes negative, then it would
->logically follow that this would be a good thing, right?

>   No Eric... YOu see, things as momentous as population growth
>are aexceptionally difficult to turn around. Once we hit negative population
>increase, things will start to hit us. We will buckle financially as
>we have insufficient manpower to handle our produce. It will also
>cut into our socio-economic structure which requires a specific
>population to sustain it. You see, maybe we are a billion over, but
>once we shrink enough, we DON"T STOP. We keep right on going. Numbers
>like these are only swayed by HUGE variables. The one that is causing
>the decrease is technology and  is never goin to go away.

And what, may I ask, and I may, makes you think you have any clue as
to what goes on in the world?

I like the way you ignored all the factors I gave, and just blatantly
assert that these mysterious factors are difficult to turn around once
they go a direction you don't like.

Although, what you don't like really doesn't matter to many of us here,
now, does it?

Numbers like these can be swayed by very tiny variables, take the black
plague, for instance. It killed off more than 20% of Europes population
in something like ten years.

Or what about the coming to america of the white man. The disease he
brought with him killed of tens of thousands ( if not hundreds) of Indians
Population swings can be affected by factors as small as whether a particular
mutation of a bacteria or virus makes it highly contagious and deadly.

Read Stephen King's "The Stand", the first section of the book gives
a rather chilling picture of how a biological agent can kill off large
segments of the population. While fiction, I could picture this happenning.

Stop these damn blatant assertions.

Ron
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15182 alt.flame:6793
From: keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: -new misrepresentations- from darcy (was: Re: The Value of a Man (repost))
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:35:03 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Kellmeyer sez:
-> 	All "pro-aborts" _obviously_ support weakening of child-support laws

does he? let's see some proof.

-> Cathi sez:
-> 	All "pro-lifers" _obviously_ support being visibly tagged and being
-> 	required to put their vital organs up for raffle

does she? let's see some proof.

-> (Paraphrases, of course)

of course. why would you quote someone when you can paraphrase
them and misrepresent their meaning?

        "I do *not* want to discuss any child support issues in
        alt.flame any more.  Not "Re: Hillel", not "Re: Paying
        for Pleasure", not any of them."
	<1990Nov10.170334.5406@cfctech.cfc.com>
	kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)
--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Many Men! So Little Time! (Was: March in D.C.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:46:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Apr15.194640.5649
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr15.003258.4670@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>don't put words in my mouth. look up slut in the dictionary. It will
>probably say something about sleeping around. It's up for
>every person to decide what "sleeping around" is. If someday I have
>another sex partner, which I hope is never the case, then I guess i will
>be a slut. And in my eyes, so will be my ex-girlfriend.

     Incredible. Whether your current girlfriend will be classified as
a "slut" or not depends on whether or not YOU have another sex partner.
Good thing you're not into controlling women or anything...BTW, just
took your advice and looked up "slut" in the dictionary. No ref. to
sleeping around, I'm afraid. In fact, the prime meaning is "a slovenly,
dirty woman." Now don't go having sex with anyone else and getting your
girlfriend dirty, will you?

                               MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:46:57 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:

] (special note to drieux-a woman who really cared about you would
] NEVER demand that you do that ikky sex stuff, knowing that she 
] might be risking your life.)

No, no - THIS woman would still demand that he do the ikky
sex stuff - she's been "fixed" (err - or is that "broken"??),
so there's no chance of risking his life.

Yes - I know even surgical sterilization isn't 100% effective,
but I had mine 13 years ago, so I think I can safely say that
it functioned as advertised.  Besides - I'm a ProblemOLDERWoman,
remember?  There comes a point where we really look FORWARD to 
menopause.

Hey - y'know, rocker, I LIKE your plan!  Older women will be in
GREAT demand due to a TRUE natural inability to have children!!

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:03:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: acf9.olson.703177420
Organization: New York University

buckmr@vccsouth28.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

>orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>>Know how many abortions would be stopped in the first week if RvW were
>>overturned? NONE!  ...

>Only 7 states have made it certain that Abortion will be legal there is 
>Roe v Wade is overturned. There are a number of states where abortion 
>would be illegal instantly: Utah, Louisiana et al.

Alabama is an interesting case:  their state constitution explicitly 
prohibits abortion to the extent allowed by the Federal Constitution.
I'm not certain whether that provision requires enabling legislation.


david
Newsgroups: talk.abortion