HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:52:58 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>I will try and write more simply in the future. You see, his logic felt
>that by isolating some of the actions of the Christian church hundreds 
>of years ago he could hack at the credibility of the church NOW.

You are correct (!).  The past record of the Catholic Church cannot
be used to prove that the Church is mistaken now in its belief that 
abortion is wrong.  However, neither is there any evidence to support 
that Church _is_ correct.  Given its past record it is not unreasonable
to infer that the Church is _likely_ to be incorrect.  Since adhering
to the strict tenents of the Catholic Church would impose hardships
on many people and would restrict or eliminate many rights enjoyed by
many people, it seems that we should expect something more convincing
than just the possibility that the Church may be correct - especially
in light of the fact that there appears to be no evidence to support 
its veracity.

In short, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the
strong, but that's the way to bet."

>   I said do not judge individuals. The word of God is hardly an 
>individual effort, but is supplemented by the most powerful force 
>in the universe, and interpreted by some of the greatest minds. 

But the word of the Church has not been shown to be the word of God.
Looking over the historical record it is clear that many times in the
past the word of the Church has most emphatically _not_ been the word 
of God.

Furthermore, even the greatest minds are fallible.  Even DesCartes, 
who made enormous contributions to philosophy and mathematics, made 
a fatal error in his attempt to prove the existance of God in his 
"Meditations".

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: darcy's hypocrisy (was Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!)
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:25:00 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >-> >i think you're just flaming susan because she's female.
-> >-> 
-> >-> As Larry has already noted, isn't this at odds with the
-> >-> official TSAKC party line that I'm flaming Susan as part
-> >-> of some "net.vendetta"???
-> >
-> >it sure is. of course, i posted such when i replied to
-> >larry's post and admitted my error. would you like me to
-> >repost a copy of that reply? you did miss it, didn't you? in
-> >it, i agreed with the obvious: that you are, in fact, flaming
-> >susan garvin as part of your net.vendetta.
-> 
-> In other words

why do you need other words? don't you understand what i said?
you can tell me if you don't. as i offered, i'll be happy to
repost a copy of the reply you seem to have missed. you did miss
it, didn't you?

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:41:51 GMT

brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:

>In <1992Apr1.175526.29257@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>Of course the fetus is alive, and of course it is human.  But that does not
>>mean that it's "rights", if any, are more compelling than the woman's.

>Prehaps we need some finer positional distinctions that
>pro-life/choice/abortion/force. It is nice to see the humanity of the
>fetus acknowledged by some.

I don't think it's necessary.  Whatever the "humanity" of the fetus is or
isn't, that is not the issue.

>>In fact, they are not at any time more compelling than the woman's.

>It is difficult to see how this can be characterised as a statement of
>fact, rather than opinion or moral/ethical values.
>Perhaps it came down from the mountain chiselled in stone?

I don't believe that fetal rights can be more compelling than the woman's
rights because it is the woman who is the sentient person in the picture.
The fetus is not capable of making the kind of decisions that the woman
is, and therefore cannot force the woman to give up her rights as an
individual.

Rights, in this country at least, are handed out on a hierarchical basis.
That doesn't mean that it's right, but that's the way it's done.  Children
do not have more rights than an adult.  You would force a _fetus_ to have
more rights than a woman?  Ludicrous.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14825 alt.abortion.inequity:692
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Thank You Bill for Apologizing
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:00:45 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
] 
] Does marital conflict in intact families have negative consequences for 
] children?  Of course it does.  Do children of divorced famlilies always
] have functional impairments?  Of course not.  Some research indicates
] that when the non-custodial parent is non-antagonistic and frequently 
] available to their children, the emotional consequences are relatively 
] insignificant.  But *that is not the norm*.  The battle often continues
] for years.

Thank You bill for conceding that your fun filled citations
of studies that cover a period five years after a divorce are
functionally irrelevant to the matter of the impact upon children.

I accept your apology, long, circuitous, and painful as it
must have been for you to make it. I am so glad that you are
willing to deal with reality.

Now can we get on with the discussion. It is NOT the divorce,
qua divorce, that is the 'cause' of the problem. It was the
failure of the marriage to develop a functional positive familia
support system. Those families that hold to the form of families
without the substance thereof are equally likely to lead to stress
related complications for their family memebers.

In like manner, as you have conceded, If the parents continue
their various forms of 'kampf'{struggle} after the divorce, then this too
will add to the complications that the children will have to deal with.

Which leads us to ponder the case of your 'intact families' and whether
or not along the course of this 'longitudinal study' any of those 
families also divorce. This would of course lead to even more questions
about the relationship of 'divorce qua divorce' as the root of the
problem, as you had originally alleged your study established.

As I am sure you are well aware, as children grow up they also come
to the sudden brilliant flash that their parents were not always 
half as Stoopid as children at times Presume their parents to be.
And one wonders, what influence that has on children as they come
to the age of understanding.

In my own case it was the matter of bringin home 'improvisational jazz'
tape cassettes, and having my father say, "Yes, but some of the best
jams were never recorded." 

HELLO? Is that MY FATHER saying that? What? You mean that at some
time between the end of his childhood, and my arrival as his beloved
son, that well, you know, Father actually did, well, you know, those
sorts of things, that well, like we vets have been, well, you know....

ciao
drieux




-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:16:36 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
>In <EJONES.92Mar31153007@umassmed.ummed.edu> ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu
>   (Erik Jones) writes: >
>Steve Franklin wrote: >>

>> No matter how much you try and inanimate the fetus, and tell the 
>> girl
   ~~~~
>>Woman.  Get it through your skull.  Woman.  Women get pregnant, BOY.
>>Women have to make these decisions, BOY.

>Girls frequently get pregnant, Erik.  Unless, of course, you would
>characterize 13 year old females as women.  Most of them wouldn't
>consider themselves women.  Most of their parents wouldn't, either.
>In fact, I can't think of anyone (yourself excepted) who would.

>Use of the term 'girl' is not intrinsically condescending.  It quite
>often applies.

Bill, if you'd bother to read instead of trying to light matches, you'd
have discovered that they were not specifically talking about teenage
girls, but about pregnancy and abortions in general, in which case the
term 'girl' is derogatory.

Ron

PS you shouldn't use damp matches
   they only sputter. :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:56:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.132046.483@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
>dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The existence of the fetus is not sufficient to deny the mother's 
>> right to determine her own set of morals. The mother could remove
>> the fetus from her womb without killing the fetus and still 
>> satisfy the two principles in the stated premise. 

> If this does not require the mother to be responsible for what
> action the fetus takes after being removed from the uterus, is
> this not the same as allowing for abortion. Both remove the
> fetus from the uterus, one simply recognizes that once that
> action is taken, the fetus typically responds by dieing.

No, an abortion is generally designed to kill the fetus regardless 
of whether the fetus is viable or not. The fetus does not get an  
opportunity to live. In that sense, an abortion is like killing a 
person who stands a good chance of dying in the near future.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:06:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Apr6.190634.25027
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr6.183500.26747@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <17621@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
> >In talk.abortion, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> >
> >>Why is everyone looking for / volunteering to be *ex*girlfriends; I
> >>need a *current* girlfriend...  :-)
> >
> >Second that :]
> Third that.
> And I don't want to hear any crap about how if I weren't such an asshole
> I could get a girlfriend.

Maybe you guys could form a club or something?

And no, Eric, I don't think it's because you're an asshole by any means.

I think it's because you're a Yalie.

I think they're just deconstructing your appeal.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:17:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr8.191701.243
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <31241@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr7.185312.23197@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
 
|> >The laws do not force anyone to act in any fashion. They simply state
|> >the penalties that will be incurred if an individual takes an action
|> >that is prohibited by the law. 
|> 
|> True of course.  As you will see from the rest of my post - that is what I 
|> meant. (see the 4th and 5th paragraphs of my post).
|> 
|> >Do the laws that restrict speed limits, keep you from speeding, or
|> >is it the consequences that occur if you get caught that keep you
|> >from doing it?
|> 
|> It's the consequences.
|>

Thus, the law is not forcing an action, it is your fear of the 
consequences that prevent you from performing an action. This
is counter to your inital premise; that laws force action/belief
upon individuals.
 
|> >I may disagree with a law (the method), but not the belief 
|> >behind it. 
|> 
|> Why can't I disagree with the belief?
|> 
|> If I believe that it is OK for me to kill anyone, and the murder law
|> is based on a belief that it is NOT OK to kill anyone, surely I 
|> disagre with the belief behind the law?

You can disagree with the belief that a law is based on. Again,
this shows that your premise that laws force belief is flawed. However,
my comment was in reference to your statement that if a person 
disagrees with a law, they disagree with the belief the law is
trying to codify.

Also, is a law against murder really based on a belief that
it is wrong for me kill someone else  or is it based on a 
belief that it is wrong for someone else to kill me. Big
difference between the two, and IMO the later is the more
probable.

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: keegan@calyx.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:58:16 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
-> >-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the
-> >-> possibility exists that the potential father, and/or the
-> >-> state, might get an abortion veto-power, then certainly
-> >-> the LESS RADICAL possibility of giving this power to a
-> >-> neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as a compromise
-> >-> position.
-> >
-> >this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak like
-> >you kevin. now you seem to want so badly to lessen women's
-> >control of their bodies that you want to give that control to
-> >a "neutral adjudicator."
-> 
-> Keegan, do you understand the difference between
-> 	"X is a possibility"
-> 		and
-> 	"I support X"

why do you call for a "neutral adjudicator" to make decisions for
what a woman can and can not do with her body and it's contents,
kevin? don't you think that decision should be left to the woman?

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:02:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.010427.16284@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.234100.29233@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.230053.15012@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>And I'm sick of being called a murderer and a Nazi too, so what?
>>
>>That maybe both sides should quit it with the Nazi comments already?
>'eh Nora. Relax, eh?
>
>I'm not particularly fond of being called a Nazi, but it
>doesn't bother me any more than being called a murderer. I'm used
>to it--it's just the way things are.

Don't be so hard on yourself Eric :-). There are plenty who will do 
the job for you...:-)
>
>-Ekr
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
>My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:13909 talk.religion.misc:6257
From: tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly continues Being AntiChristian
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:01:38 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr3.145801.19006@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
>My aunt had a miss carage about 2 years ago, they had a funeral in the
>Methodist (United Methodist I think).  Now what?  This line of reasoning
>might just as well die.

This line of reasoning was about the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH - not the Methodist
church.

tk
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:34:53 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <oeR4iB4w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
>one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
>to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
>travel to any state that still allowed them.
>
>What is the problem with that?

The problem is that constitutional rights and civil liberties do not become
null and void by crosing a state line.  The right to control one own body
and make reproductive decisions is more fundamental and important than the
right to play blackjack.

-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: loris@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:02:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr12.120236.16881
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr7.190628.12162@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Apr6.231713.15643@adobe.com>, by kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall):
>> In article <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>> 
>>>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>>>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>>>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>>>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>>>
>>>Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>>>even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>>>
>>>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.
>> 
>>  1/4 million?  All news accounts I have heard so far put the LOW estimates
>>  at 1/2 million and range as high as 1 million.
> 
> 
> The two major networks that I saw, ABC, and either NBC or CBS (don't recall
> which) both reported "a quarter million"

the national organization for women (now) made clear at the march that the media
consistently underestimates marches for women's rights...that's why now 
tried to have every marcher sign in at the march...when i let the march at 
5:30, far before everything was counted, the number was 750,000...if you 
were at the march, you could easily tell there were far more than 
250,000...it's hard to believe, i know, but the press can be wrong...trust 
me, i'm the executive editor of a newspaper...mistakes in the press happen 
all the time...
> 
> 
>>  And 1.5 million *people* died of abortion?  NOT!  
> 
> 1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:17:26 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <kuu8keINNrpu@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
            emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>> Have you considered the implications of what will happen if population
>>> growth continues unhindered?

>> That sounds like an argument for protecting the lives of humans
>> who have yet to be born. Hmm, that argument sounds familiar...

> Please explain yourself. It appears to me to be a good argument for
> limiting the number of humans to be born.

...so that the lives of unborn humans can be protected.
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:57:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr15.205714.24589
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) says:

>> Steve, clue #1 has to do with basic economics, a subject you're weak in.
>> Except for cases where one or the other spouse is in the top 10% wrt to
>> income,  it takes _two_ paychecks to maintain an acceptable standard of
>> living in the U.S.  I'm not talking about ski trips to Vail or a power
>> boat in a private slip, I'm talking about a non-leaky roof over one's head,
>> food in the fridge, clothes in the closet, and bills paid.

> not true.........America is not necessarily YOUR neighborhood.

Considering that I live and work within walking distance of the Mississippi
River on the 45th latitude, I'm afraid that America is indeed my neighborhood.
I suspect I've seen more of it than you have.  (Disney World doesn't count.)

> If your statement were true, the poverty rate would go SKY HIGH
> because there are TONS of single parents making ends meet.

As a matter of fact, 20% of American children live at or below the official
poverty line.  That's POOR, Matthew.  35% of homeless people are women and
children.

> Economic woes are relative. A relative minimiun is not necessarily
> an absolute min.

This little tidbit made the front page of the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Since 1973, parents under 30 have experienced a 1/3 decline in real buying
power.  When you have a 1/3 decline in your buying power, Matthew, the rent
money has to come from somewhere.  Second job, third job, you get the idea.

As the saying goes, "Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts."

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:06:16 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET writes: Suzanne Lucia writes
>franklin
at ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>| I have a lot of respect for Suzanne's posts, not because she is pro-life
>| but because she is fair.

>Yet another guy who falls for those blonde-haired-blue-eyed types ...

Maybe his hormones will kick in yet.....

Ron
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: cj.pensive.gif: a rerun (was Re: The Voices of Women)
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:10:11 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

In article <1992Apr15.225742.17676@odin.corp.sgi.com>
	cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
-> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> |cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
-> |#Well, gosh, I could always repost that gif.  I have
-> |#one of Keegan, too.
-> |Oh, pretty please.  Both of them.  
-> |Besides, proof that you don't look like a fetus would help
-> |my credibility rating.
-> 
-> By popular demand... a uuencoded gif.
-> 
-> --------cut here--------------------------------
-> begin 644 cj.pensive.gif

feh.

many of us have seen this one before. we want a -new- one.

trust me. i speak for the hoards on this one.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15144 soc.men:8423 soc.women:8947