HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Into the Breach, one more time
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:39:40 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall be your slave for six years,
>#  but in the seventh year he shall go free and pay nothing."  (Exod. 21:2)
># 
># "When a man sells his daughter into slavery, she shall not go free
># as a male slave may."  (Exod. 21:7)
># 
># "Such slaves as you have, male or female, shall come from the nations
># round about you."  (Lev. 25:44)
># 
># "Make your slave work, if you want rest for yourself;/if you leave
>#  him idle, he will be looking for his liberty." (Ecclus 33:25)
># 
># "Slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling...."  (Eph 6:5)
># 
># "Slaves, give entire obedience to your earthly masters, not merely
># with an outward show of service, to curry favor with your earthly
># masters...."  (Col 3:22)
># 
># "Tell slaves to respect their masters' authority in everything, and
># to comly with their demands without answering back;..." (Ti 2:9)
># 
># Um, Clayton?  You were saying something about the Bible and slavery?
># --

>Yup.  It's not supported by the Bible.  It's recognized that it was
>a part of that culture, and the New Testament includes sections that
>tell slaves that they have the best chance of persuading their
>masters by behaving in a loving manner. 
No.  If the Bible was opposed to slavery, it would have said so.  Instead, it
told slaves to try to 'convince' masters to let them free, thus implying that
masters have a legitimate right to the decision, which indeed supports the 
existence of the practice.  Recognizing the practice merely entailed saying
"there are slaves."  The above quotes support slavery by legitimizing it in 
the dictates of God.  Silliness.

>(Keep in mind that slaves
>under Roman law had more freedom and rights than they did under
>American law -- even more than "citizens" did under Soviet law.)
Why is this relevant?  A slave is a slave.  And actually, Soviet law had a 
'bill of rights' as extensive as ours.  It was never enforced, mind you, because
the government was so corrupt and single-minded, but it was in the black-letter
law.  And why does it matter if Roman slaves 'had it better than most.'  It 
seems you are preparing to concede that the Bible did support slavery, on the
grounds that it wasn't such a bad thing afetr all.
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
NextMail to: 				mci41087@sumter
Bitnet mail to:				IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More insults and misattributions from PHoney.
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:16:16 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.728235892@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual set of
insults and misattributions:

>In <30177@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>
>>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>Alden Hackmann) writes:
>
>>>Are you complaining because I am talking about something other than
>>>abortion?
>
>>Merely your rambling, insubstantial posts....

Well, PHoney, what exactly was written by whom here.  If the way you
have used the (>) to attribute is correct, your comments to Ron make
no sense:

>I have yet to see a post by you that even *attempts* to be substantial,
>Ron.  I have seen posts where you *pretend* to attempt
>to be substantial, like when you questioned me closely about my
>credentials, saying the reason you asked was, you wanted concrete info
>from me that could be easily checked; then later it turns out you were
>lauging at me all the time.

Blah, Blah, Blah deleted.  Then the insult:

>Get a life, Ron.  Preferably your own.
>
>Peter Nyikos

PHoney does not seem to be following his own advice that posts with
insults should go to Alt.flame.

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:13:48 GMT

In article <C19po4.87y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.213023.24642@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
: The pope, 
>...
:  continues
: to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.

>   How?

	By not allowing women to have the opportunity to have
leadership positions. Will a woman ever be a priest? Bishop?
Archbishop? Cardinal? Pope?

	I don't think I'd want to bother the Church about this sort of
thing if I could possibly avoid it, but if they meddle in others'
lives, then I think that they are fair game. As the saying goes, your
rights end where my nose begins.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 19:58:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.194212.16340@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>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:

[Deletions]

>> 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.
>
While being very careful not to mention the 20% failure rate of NFP...

>> 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.
> 
It is truely amazing how idiots leap to erroneous conclusions.
How do you get from a desire for the availability of as many options
as possible to the desire for one particular choice Suzzie?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:40:15 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <2579@blue.cis.pitt.edu> kmaloy+@pitt.edu (Kate Maloy) writes:
>I am a coauthor (with Maggie Jones Patterson of Duquesne University)
>of a recent book entitled BIRTH OR ABORTION? PRIVATE STRUGGLES IN A
>POLITICAL WORLD, published by Plenum Press. 
>...We have
>found, for instance, that when women describe their personal experience
>with the need to choose, they virtually never use the language of the
>political debate.  They do not mention rights, and they rarely ponder
>when life begins.  Instead, they consult a moral standard that has to do
>with matters of human responsibility, relationship and caretaking.  (Many
>of you will recognize the research of Carol Gilligan, Mary Belenky and
>others in this--and we both cite and confirm their findings.)  Their
>concerns are the same regardless of whether they choose birth or choose
>abortion, and these concerns have to do with the quality of their
>relationship with the man, their ability to love a child, their financial
>and psychological resources, their employment status.  They all regard
>the need to choose between birth and abortion as a complex matter. 

Ah!

Economics, eh?

Gee, where have we heard that before?

>do not subscribe to the blacks and whites of the debate.  They also do not
>reflect the anger and judgmental qualities of the debate; rather, they
>tend to respect the choices of others who have been through this, even 
>when their choices differ.
>All indications are that the abortion rate is
>not affected by the law--only by policies that address the real-life
>concerns of people who must decide this matter, finally and irreversibly,
>about one or more real pregnancies. 

The point being, I think, that we, here in talk.abortion, aren't arguing
the politics for the hell of it, but because the proposed change to the
politics of our country would reduce the individual's ability to make these
private decisions based upon their important criteria.  

Arguing for the legality and safety of abortion is not an endorsement of
abortion per se, but support for a freedom for the decision making of women
who *do* see shades of grey, who do respect the choices of others, who don't
need the blindness of public policy to futher muck up their lives.

Great to hear of your book, though.  Sounds like it would be good reading.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:38:51 GMT

In article <nyikos.727992914@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >   Ron Bense
> >   agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  Documentation
> >   on request.  

Ron Bense has already posted that he did not agree with you.
I just thought I'd point that out in case your news server
had a convenient problem and you missed it, "Doctor."

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:15:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan14.074343.13799@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <1993Jan9.063657.20201@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|> 
|> >                                                 There are plenty of
|> >non-religious reasons available for being pro-life, so that no one need
|> >lean on any mystic, unseen, unexplainable, religious idea to be so.
|> >I'd say most prominent would be all the photographic, videographic, and
|> >sonographic images now available to anyone brave enough to look.  What
|> >they all show us is a child of great beauty and grace, the future of
|> >the human race, something of of great value.
|> 
|> What those videos and sonograms show is a fetus which barely resembles a
|> human being, let alone a child.  A fetus is an ugly thing, with veins
|> and organs visible through the skin, a head much too large for it's body,
|> webbed digits, eyes on the side of it's head (sealed shut), with a pulsing
|> conduit of flesh sticking out of it's stomach.  Let's put it this way, if
|> an adult walking down the street had even half these characteristics I
|> doubt you'd be referring to them as "beautiful and graceful".

	And because the unborn child, in your VERY humble opinion, is "ugly," it
does not and should not have a right to life.  Gordon, in all this time, you
haven't changed.  You still have that singular ability to unfailingly miss the
point, to throw mud, to bring up red herring non-issues.  You're really a master,
and your talent is wasted on t.a -- you ought to be making real money on
Crossfire or something.
	Gordon, very old people are ugly in some people's MOST uninformed
opinions.  That doesn't make them non-persons.  Some people think Jews are
ugly; some people think Scots are ugly; some people think blacks are ugly;
heck, some people even think Native Americans are ugly.  
	Don't use such a pitiful argument again.

Steve
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57255 misc.legal:23064 alt.abortion.inequity:6653 alt.child-support:4654
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: 22 Jan 1993 01:55:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.015926.4173@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>Births are already recorded, as are abortions, and many miscarriages. How
>much "reporting" do you think the proposal would mandate that couldn't be
>obtained from medical records right now?

Except, of course, for the minor issue of privacy of medical records.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:49:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <C1JAnF.3FM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>In addition, since babies are routinely saved ar being born at only five ve
>months, I would consider any third trimester abortion a late term abortion.
Hmph. I know of no documented case of a 20 wk fetus surviving. Do you
have one?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:44:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <bob1.727989549@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1993Jan24.164519.12254@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>You're missing the point.  The judge on the case *ordered* the
>>lawyer not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''.
>>Do you think the judge's order was appropriate? 

>Yes.

I agree.  The choice lawyers would, if they were as obnoxious as the pro
lifers, be barred from calling the OR people "pro-force fetus fanatics" and
"woman enslavers".

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:50:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.060325.12053@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.055219.28814@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>Ooooh, Markie Poo, shouldn't you be in here flaming Teddi to a crisp for
>>implying that the only difference between men and women is a penis? I mean
>>there are chromosomal differences, hormonal differences, differences in 
>>musculature, etc. etc. Surely the Medical Elite wouldn't let such 
>>NastyEvilIkky "incorrect" medical (mis)statements pass without a strenuous
>>objection, would they?
>>
>Poor Kibble. Can't tell the difference between a specific example and
>an incorrect diagnosis, can you?

I was attempting no "diagnosis", Mr. Medicine Man.

>Teddi used a valid term as an example of anatomical differences
>between the male and female body.

An "example", eh? Well, by the same token, I could say that "schizophrenic"
is just an "example" [sic] of a term used to describe MPD. Does that make
everything better now?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Is it ever wrong?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:36:39 GMT

In <6019@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.001645.22769@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>>In article <19JAN93.20185693@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>Why aside from medical hardships?  A woman carrying to term is facing a risk 
>>>of death.  She is also facing risks of pain, discomfort, and serious threats 
>>>to her health.  Does this mean nothing to you?

>>So women should never have children, because there might be
>>discomfort or complications?  

>No, it means that since they will suffer, they SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE TO
>GO THROUGH THAT OR NOT.  Why is this so difficult for you?

Because he is typical of the mysoginist males who glibly pontificate
on this topic. It makes as much sense as my saying that for me,
childbirth is painless. Since I'm never likely to endure the process
it certainly is painless to me. Realize, Teddi, that these types who
claim all this moral indignation over abortion are simply disgruntled
males, upset by the fact that women are beginning to enjoy some rights.
Since that is an unpopular view, they cloak it behind their great
moral anguish over the unborn.

>Jeez.

>--Teddi
>------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------

The Grouch

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:50:23 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>It can be argued that since a 8 1/2 month fetus doesn't _need_ to
>>derive sustenance directly from the mother, that it is therefore a
>>person.
>>
>Get your terms straight Ray. As long as it *is* a fetus, it *must*
>derive sustenance directly from the woman.

Are you arguning that the only rlevent criterion for personhood is
whether or not said entity is or is not inside a mother?  That
regardless of any other considerations, a fetus is not a person until
after it is removed from the mother?

>Ray, it should be obvious that the feeding baby could be fed by
>*anybody* since there are plenty of alternatives to breastfeeding. Or
>is your definition of 'person' so simplistic that it only takes one
>factor into account? Mine certainly isn't. As for your last statement,
>I'll say it again. as long as it is a fetus, it must take all
>sustenance directly from the woman.

Which is a largely meaningless statement.  It is a tautology and as
such is pretty useless.  A proto-human of 8.5 months gestation need
not take all of its sustenance from its mother.  In most cases it can
be removed from the mother and be given sustenance by another.  Does
the fact that it does receive sole sustenance from the mother make it
a non-person?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie?
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 01:36:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.205304.12308@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Liar Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.041418.9199@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Liar Holtsinger) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>> Any attempts to get me to
>>>> violate ethical and legal standards is gong to be ignored.
>
>>> Cochran, I have a newspaper article in front of me which names
>>> Baby Theresa's neonatalogist, along with the hospital where he
>>> works.  
>
>> Post away DODie. I'm not going to violate ethical and legal 
>> standards for you or anybody else. 
>
>Naming the hospital wouldn't violate ethical or legal standards.
>It's public information, Cochran.  Since you've refused to name
>the hospital, I have to suspect that you're lying -- you really
>don't know the physicians who were associated with Baby Theresa's
>case.  This is in addition to your original lie that organ donor
>recipients had been found for Baby Theresa's organs.
>
I have only your word that the information is public knowledge DODie,
and your word is certainly *not* good enough. You have too often be
shown to be lying for me to take your unsupported word on anything. If
you have information, post it. Otherwise, retract your claim that I am
lying. Not everybody is the sort of pathological liar that you are,
DODie.
And despite your claims to the contrary, I still have more faith in
the words of people I know, then in some newspaper report you claim to
have dredged up.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:06:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.172920.12113@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article <C0xtt6.F3u.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
## In article <1993Jan15.211701.5938@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
## #From article by ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Thomas):
## # 
## ## Does anyone believe there is such a disease characterized by depression,
## ## nightmares, etc., which could last for a liftime?  This theory is being
## ## touted on another board by Anti-choice folk.
## ## 
## ## Chris
## #
## #Yes, of course.  Why else would programs like "Project Rachel" be growing
## #so large so quickly?
## 
## How large?  How quickly?
## 
## Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is Suzanne.  She won't have any actual
## data to back up her claims.  Never mind.
#
#What do you care.  It's mere continued existance in cities across the country
#prove the existence of Post Abortion Syndrome.

In other words, just as I said, you have no actual data to back up
your claim.

Others have pointed out the idiocy of your logic.  

Let's see - no logical or factual basis has been given for
your claims, but you're still making them.  I wonder if you'll
now claim that god told you to write all this.

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.config,alt.config
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Want to adopt
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: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:31:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.164220.26602@clpd.kodak.com> hammond@stimpy.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Hammond (x37516)) writes:
>I realize that this may not be the appropriate forum for this post but here
>goes...
>
>My wife and I would like to adopt a baby.  We are in our very early 30s and
>are financially secure.  If you know of someone that is pregnant and would
>like to consider adoption, please put them in touch with us.  Of course 
>we would pay all of their legal and medical expenses.
>
>Thank you,
>Kevin & Lynn 
>Call Collect: (716) 723-3585
>
>-- 
>--
>Kevin Hammond
>work phone: 253-7516 email: hammond@serum.kodak.com
>home phone: 723-1295



Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer resources
being used for non-company purposes?

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =