HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:09:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.181412.6771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In a thread he no doubt can't follow at all, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>(Mike Cobb) blurts out another inanity:
>
>>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>>
>In order to have bodily autonomy, it is first necessary to be a
>person. 

This is a ridiculous statement. All living organisms have varying degrees of 
bodily autonomy. Only some of those organisms have their bodily autonomy 
legally protected.

								- Kevin
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:49:12 GMT

In article <lmdaugINNiol@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.090905.26462@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <lm8oeeINNgrg@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>>
>>>You've got a good point.  I could say, "Well, if they WANT to, LET them
>>>assemble!"  :)  Of course, that would be ludicrous.
>>>
>>Yes.  It might be worth exploring _why_ it's ludicrous.
>>Even if fetuses had such desires and were capable of
>>communicating them, it would be imposssible to grant 
>>them such a right without removing the rights of the
>>women involved to move about as they please.
>
>Similarly, it would be impossible to grant a pregnant mother the right to
>abort without removing the "right" of the unborn child to exist and make its
>way to maturity.  We are right back to choosing between two rights.
>
I don't think the z/e/f has rights.  Nature aborts
more than half of all fertilized eggs.  I don't
think such an iffy entity should have the right to 
exist at the expense of someone else's resources.

>If you do not believe that that unborn child is an alive American citizen,
>though, I can see how argument would hold.  Is this your position?
>
A z/e/f is, of course, alive.  It's not a citizen until
birth.  The Constitution is rather clear on that.

>>>Perhaps what I should have said is that they should have the same
>>>protection under the law as everyone else, rather than the same liberties/
>>>rights.
>>>If you see a problem in THAT statement, let me know.  I'm struggling with
>>>this issue the same as the rest of you...
>>I do see a problem.  Give fetuses the same protections
>>as 'everyone else', and you automatically place pregnant
>>women in a category where they enjoy fewer rights than
>>all other born persons, and they have _less_ protection
>>under the law than 'everyone else'.  
>>
>>That's unacceptable.
>
>Again, if you give pregnant women the full rights normally entitled to them,
>you would automatically place unborn children in a category where they enjoy
>no rights whatsoever, no protection under the law.  That seems even more
>unacceptable.
>
Not to me.  But then, I value women just as much as I
value 'everyone else'.  Do you think a woman is _more_
different from you than an embryo?

>However, you did say "born", which puts your argument on different ground.
>Is it your position that unborn humans are entitled to no protection?
>
I think a z/e/f is entitled to as much protection as 
the host wants to give it, and is able to give it.  I
personally would find it immoral to carry a fetus to
term without paying proper attention to diet, prenatal
care, etc.  I would find it much less immoral to abort.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: NCSU
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:20:31 GMT

The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
the pro-life position.  The label implies that pro-lifers are
opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy", which is false.
They are opposed to an action which results in the death of an
innocent human being.  If it were possible to transfer the child
to another person's care without killing the child, then few
pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".

The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
pro-choice position.  Pro-choicers not only want the right to
choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:42:12 GMT

From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
> In article mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> #In article garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> ##In article rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
> ###I read in todays Boston Globe (1/15/92) the story of an 8 (yes 8) year old
> ###Mexican female who birthed a health 7.04 point boy by Cesarian Section.
> ###This little factoid is one of the best arguments not only for abortion,
> ###but for sterilization.
> ##
> ##child survived the birth.
> ##
> ###Bob Kolker
> #Sounds to me like a good argument for education and stringent
> #prosecution of child abuse laws. I hope both the children survived the
> #birth and will live healthy happy lives.
> 
> Well, as usual, the poster commented on the health of the infant
> but not on that of the mother.  

Sheesh.  You have no way of knowing that.  Both were children.  Since
the initial poster in this thread commented that the baby was a healthy
boy, it would be reasonable to assume this other person _was_ indeed
commenting on the health of the child-mother.


> I hope the little girl is still
> capable of having children when she grows up.  

What could get in her way, but the mandatory sterilization folks?


> I hope that the
> pope, who encourages the practice of denying children sex
> education and denying everyone access to birth control

Oh for Pete's sake.  This is the same pope under whose auspices millions
of mothers take their pubescent daughters to Natural Family Planning
intro courses presicely TO learn sex eduation - to learn all about their 
bodies, where babies come from, self respect, and how not to have babies
if they don't wish to.

> and abortion, is proud of the latest addition to his family.

I for one welcome them to the human race, even if _you'd_ have wished
abortion on them.
 
> Susan

S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:46:30 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan26.025305.24483@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose) writes:
>
>Who says christians are a bunch of prudes that think having sex for fun is
>sinful?

That's a generalization; the fundies say that, not all christians.

>The problem comes in when sex is abused.  It is the abuse of sex that is
>wrong or immoral.  Pick your life partner wisely--choose one who has wisdom
>and love and good character--one who you would want to be the other parent
>of your children.

Absolutely.  But remember - try before you buy!  :-)

>Play around before marriage, and you may be
>haunted with memories of past partners after marriage.  Or you may marry the
>wrong person to cover a pregnancy.  Or you may murder your child to cover it.

Nonsense

>But I doubt reality presents this as much as it does
>the concerned christian who cares about the wrongful manner in which sexuality
>is treated in the classroom--one that displays sex as a rite of passage where
>one becomes impassioned, screws, and then throws away the relationship the
>moment where passion leaves and the couple is no longer in love.  This "normal"
>behaviour is to be repeated by all "normal", "healthy" teens and adults with
>little or no consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

I doubt that this is what's taught by *any* sex-ed curriculum.

>Abortion is something that is considered to be
>preventing a baby from coming into existence

That *is* what it does.

>All this sounds good to a point--and that point is the point of reaching
>reality.  Sex is dangerous outside monogamous relationships.

Nonsense.

>It is not healthy
>psychologically since it forms unhealthy expectations, unhealthy relationships,
>passes diseases, causes unexpected pregnancies, leads to abusive relationships
>where one partner demands more than another would prefer to give, etc.

All nonsense.

>People, when will America become America,

When politicians stop bending to pressure from the religious right, who
are attempting to make this country into a theocracy.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:56:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.025305.24483@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose) writes:
>: > ...  The fact that sex is used for pleasure 
>: > is sin--it should never be used for self-gratification!

	Says who?

	In my belief system, sex for the fun of it is no sin.

... Don't put too much hope in condoms unless, of course, yours
>happen to be made of stainless steel because regular condoms break.

	Baloney. _If_ condoms are used carefully, they won't break.

	And I'd like to put in some words for alternative forms of
sex, like masturbation and oral sex. Masturbation is the safest sex
there is -- no transmission of STD's or causing unwanted pregnancy.
Oral sex may not be perfect against STD's, at least when unprotected,
but it cannot cause pregnancy.

>In these ongoing quarrels, I often hear mention made of fallen preachers.

	Look you guys, if you can't keep yourselves well behaved, when
why lecture the rest of us?

... Abortion
>is something that is considered to be preventing a baby from coming into
>existence--something done if all other birth control methods fail.

	So abortion is a sin because it allows people to get away with
having sex for the fun of it.

	That's like lightning rods are a sin because they represent an
effort to defuse God's wrath. When there was an earthquake in Boston,
a leading clergyman explained that it was due to the people there
thumbing their nose at God by putting up those "iron points" which had
been invented by Ben Franklin.

... Sex is dangerous outside monogamous relationships.

	What about a series of steady relationships? All I would ask
is that one should be on friendly terms when not having sex. And
that's a _lot_ different from marriage (ever hear of unhappy ones?).
Admittedly, if one has sex with only one person all of one's life and
one's partner does the same, then one can't transmit STD's. But that
appears to be contrary to human nature to expect such a thing.

  It is not healthy
>psychologically since it forms unhealthy expectations, unhealthy relationships,
>passes diseases, causes unexpected pregnancies, leads to abusive relationships
>where one partner demands more than another would prefer to give, etc.

	And there is no such thing as a marriage with unhealthy
expectations, a marriage featuring unhealthy relationships, a marriage
that can transmit diseases, a marriage with unwanted pregnancies, and
a marriage with abusive relationships? What planet have you been
living on, buster?

... And,
>once you come to the point of having your own baby, as my wife and I just did,
>it is hard to hold your daughter in your arms and look into her lovely eyes,
>and realize that just a few days beforehand, it would have been legal to kill
>her in cold blood!

	And you could have been celibate and prevented her from ever
existing. Therefore, celibacy is a sin.

	[A lot of religious blather omitted...]

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyz.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has 
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 04:41:41 GMT

In article <C1DzJx.FLt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>[...]
>P.S. Anyone hear anything about a group of pro-life and pro-choice (tried to 
>give them both the most positive names) people getting together to work for 
>children's rights?  If so, please send info.  Thanks!
>
	Well....there's a group called Common Ground that started here in
St. Louis as a cooperative effort between Reproductive Health Services and
(I believe) Missouri Citizens for Life.  While agreeing to disagree on the
whether or not abortion should be legal, the heads of the two groups decided
to get together and see what problems they could argee to work on in tandem.
Interestingly enough, they found several: pre-natal care for poor women,
education about birth control and STD prevention, economic and job assistance,
etc.
	True Believers on both sides didn't like it, but I understand the
initiative has caught on elsewhere as well.  I'll see if I can find more
information on it.
The_Doge
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A new lie from PHoney
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:22:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.728076896@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[everything else deleted - PHoney is obviously going to continue to
lie about what I said, and I'm enjoying watching him]

>Susan, for the benefit of readers, is at CMU just as Scott Safier is.

This statement is not correct.

Susan
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 27 Jan 1993 09:35:44 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan26.090905.26462@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <lm8oeeINNgrg@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>
>>You've got a good point.  I could say, "Well, if they WANT to, LET them
>>assemble!"  :)  Of course, that would be ludicrous.
>>
>Yes.  It might be worth exploring _why_ it's ludicrous.
>Even if fetuses had such desires and were capable of
>communicating them, it would be imposssible to grant 
>them such a right without removing the rights of the
>women involved to move about as they please.

Similarly, it would be impossible to grant a pregnant mother the right to
abort without removing the "right" of the unborn child to exist and make its
way to maturity.  We are right back to choosing between two rights.

If you do not believe that that unborn child is an alive American citizen,
though, I can see how argument would hold.  Is this your position?

>>Perhaps what I should have said is that they should have the same
>>protection under the law as everyone else, rather than the same liberties/
>>rights.
>>
>>If you see a problem in THAT statement, let me know.  I'm struggling with
>>this issue the same as the rest of you...
>>
>I do see a problem.  Give fetuses the same protections
>as 'everyone else', and you automatically place pregnant
>women in a category where they enjoy fewer rights than
>all other born persons, and they have _less_ protection
>under the law than 'everyone else'.  
>
>That's unacceptable.

Again, if you give pregnant women the full rights normally entitled to them,
you would automatically place unborn children in a category where they enjoy
no rights whatsoever, no protection under the law.  That seems even more
unacceptable.

However, you did say "born", which puts your argument on different ground.
Is it your position that unborn humans are entitled to no protection?

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:10:57 GMT

Charles M Kozierok (cmk@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
: In article <C16u87.MpI@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >Issuing bonds and defecit spending are not the same thing.
: >
: >[then later]
: >
: >A balanced budget does not prevent the government from issuing bonds.
: 
: are you really sure about this? how do you think the government
: raises the money it spends on misbalancing our budget now?
: 

Positively sure.  Bonds SHOULD be issued for one-time purchases, not
for continuous misbalanced budget defecits.

: they may not be exactly the same thing, but the government uses
: bonds almost exclusively to do the borrowing which causes the deficit.
: 

You got it backwards.  The defecit causes borrowing.  That's the problem.
Borrowing with specific agenda for the money is brilliant.  Borrowing
because you can't manage your budget is stupid.

: --
: charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris)
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:01:32 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:

>>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>>>        Just out of curiosity, Doc.
>>
>>>        Are you planning to rebuild America BEFORE or AFTER
>>>        the fire is out?????
>>
>>Once again, I implore that someone explain this Broward Horne guy
>>to me. He seems to be a few ants short of a picnic.
>>

>       YES, YES, I don't know WHAT the hell I'm doing.
>       Eh, you HAD your chance, Gorman. It's Ripley's turn.

>>Later,
>>Morgan

*Good* explanation.

Later,
Morgan


-- 

John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083

Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
Telephone: (404) 651-2253
FAX: (404) 651-2246

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69370 misc.legal:23156
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:23:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan22.054102.21697@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <14014@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #In fact, the problem is that many people are convinced that the
# #"necessary and proper" clause IS a blank check.  
# 
# This is a strawman argument.  I haven't seen a single jurisprude
# argue this.  What I have seen argued is a broad reading, but this
# argument, unlike Clayton's, is supported by the text of the Constitution,
# as well as common sense (see Marshall's opinion in McCulloch).

What separates a "broad" interpretation from the "blank check"?
I'm thinking, in particular, of the McCulloch decision -- which
seemed to rely heavily on the fact that several Republican
administrations, supposed enemies of the First Bank of the U.S.,
had tolerated it with no apparent objection.

Do you subscribe the view that the 1942 decision in which a farmer
growing wheat FOR HIS OWN CONSUMPTION ONLY could be fined under
authority derived from the interstate commerce clause?  Is this an
example of the application of "necessary and proper" to the 
regulation of interstate commerce?

# #See Hamilton's 
# #Federalist 29, where he makes it clear that people who think of
# #this clause as some sort of blank check are crazy.  He argues
# #that while this includes reasonable actions that are truly necessary
# #and proper, this doesn't mean that the Federal Government's
# #authority is unlimited, as modern liberals seem to feel:
# #
# # It would be as absurd to doubt,
# # that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its
# # declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of
# # the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution
# # of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws
# # necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes
# # would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the
# # alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in
# # cases relating to it.
# 
# And indeed, none of this has happened in the field of taxation.
# The interpretation of "necessary and proper" in Court history has
# followed Hamilton's guidelines.

Gee, do you suppose Hamilton's statement was intended to cover
any possibility besides taxation?

# ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 23:03:03 GMT

alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:

>>The middle class
>>insists that it is maligned and punished for working (and
>>forgets that so much of the budget is returned to them in the
>>form of entitlements like medicare, medicaid, social security
>>and other budget busting programs).

>I am SO damn tired of hearing this cliche.  I am part of the
>middle class.  I do not receive medicare, medicaid,
>I pay INTO social security, and I receive NO benefit from ANY
>budget busting programs except, perhaps, some benefit from
>military protective services.  So WHAT, exactly, am I getting
>for my money??

Have you no parents?  Do they also receive no Social Security
payments and no Medicare coverage?

Will you never, ever be unemployed?  Wouldn't you like to be able
to get some kind of medical care if that happened?

And, the real point is, do you care about anyone but *you*?
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:53:50 GMT

In article <1RZPXB1w165w@missing.kludge.com> pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden) writes:

>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>> Judy does have a point, though. But it merely begs the question. If
>> the free market is killing off large inefficient organizations like GM
>> and IBM, why should we tollerate so much larger and more inefficient
>> an organization as the federal government of the United States?
>
>Careful now...  that's starting to sound more republican or 
>libertarian...  smaller government....  small businesses... less
>government regulations...

Can you please state your beef with republicanism or libertarianism?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton