HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Loren Finkelstein, "dictator," meet C.D. Hall & death penalty
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:17:35 GMT

In <1992Dec17.180448.14467@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

>In <16DEC92.21555384@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>In <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>>>>   1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
>>>>>      kill them?
>>> 
>>>>There is no one quality that makes us "wrong to kill".  There is no one 
>>>>quality that makes us human beings.  It is a whole bunch of things, some of 
>>>>which are not quantifiable.  I just don't think that 
>>>>age/maturity/state-of-development is one of them.
>>> 
>>>I disagree with this, for reasons I've discussed in previous articles.

>>You disagree that there is not one quality?  Could you please tell us what 
>>that quality is, in your opinion.

>No, I agree with the "not one quality" part. I disagree with everything
>else you said. 

>There are two qualities:
>   - The ability to enjoy exercising "human rights" and to suffer
>     when these rights are infringed upon, OR, the potential
>     to have this ability.
>   - The ability to function from day-to-day without causing 
>     people to suffer by infringing upon their rights (whether 
>     intentionally or accidentally.)

A kleptomaniac would seem to fit the second description.  Also psychotics
and sociopaths of various sorts.

>[I don't feel like posting a long definition of "human rights".
>Just assume that it means more or less what you think it means.]

A kleptomaniac would probably think you and 'e are talking a different
language. 

>If something lacks the first quality, then it isn't inherently
>wrong to kill it. This would include non-human animals, as well
>as brain-dead accident victims. 

>If something lacks the second quality, then it isn't inherently
>wrong to kill it, provided there is _no_ _other_ _way_ to keep
>it from infringing upon people's rights. Examples would be unwanted 
>sperm cells, unwanted non-viable fetuses, some unwanted viable fetuses,
>and some criminals.

Well, now.  There are a number of ways of keeping criminals from doing
what they do without killing them.  I wonder what Charles Don Hall has
in mind here, and whom he would include in his category of people it
is not inherently wrong to kill.  After all, a kleptomaniac has lots
of opportunities to steal, even in a maximum-security prison.

Backing up a minute, I wonder when it was legally established that a 
fetus in infringing on its mother's rights.

>===========================================================
>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>===========================================================

Licensed sophist is what I would call him.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: Fri, 1 Jan 93 05:53:25 GMT

In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>
>>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>>>
>>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>>*another persons* body.
>
>Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
>body.
>
I agree 100%! But what does this have to do with abortion? The issue
was Jeff D. hacking and eating his *own* body, not some baby.
Oh, let me guess... You're one of those who claims without any
evidence to support it, that a z/e/f is actually a person?
How sad...

>Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance

Good, I hope you're getting cured of it then.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 23:35:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <c-v2qnm@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[deleted]

> ->Aaargh! What *is* the TSAKC, anyway?!?
> 
> i'm afraid i've decided not to provide you with that
> information.

No, you've just decided to waste bandwidth riding his ass.  Frankly, I don't
see how you're any big improvement.


-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:28:03 GMT
	<1993Jan02.174533.19580@watson.ibm.com>
	<1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Shalom Shabbat! :-)

In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   [.. from soc.singles ..]

   In article <1993Jan02.174533.19580@watson.ibm.com> 
   margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
   >In <C02Con.3vo@cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

   >> I know several people who reject nearly every
   >> aspect of the religion, except for the principle that they must marry
   >> a jewish person.  I really would appreciate an explanation for this.

   > Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.

   Why is that, Margolis?  What do you have against Christianity?  

Maybe he's seen what certain sects of it do to certain of their members,
like a certain couple of CompSci grad students in Raleigh?  Or it could be
that he looks at it the same way I do -- I have no particular use for that
creed, myself.  I don't go out of my way to avoid it -- I just don't
participate, as is my right.  Certain of your sect's "leaders" would gladly
remove that right, if they could -- and they'll try anything to do just
that, sooner or later.  Sound familiar?

--PLH, any religion of mine is between me and my deity -- the rest of you,
piss off.
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:23:19 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec27.225912.15810@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 

>You are confusing the JUSTIFICATION of a right, with the permissible manner
>of its ASSERTION. An assertion of BA rights, as you correctly point out, is 
>justified by the location of the z/e/f; however, the right that may be 
>asserted is primarily one of REMOVAL (i.e. changing the "location" of that 
>z/e/f), not necessarily destruction. That's where you went wrong.

Oh.  So you think viable /z/e/f/s need protection from bloodthirsty
mothers and their doctors?  Or is this merely a pretense for being
disagreeable?

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:22:39 GMT

In <1992Dec23.053148.28798@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

>Michael P Noonan (noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: In article <1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon St
>orga) writes:
>: |> <1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michae
>l P Noonan) writes:

>[all references to the cliff analogy deleted, as well as Suzanne Forgach's
>non-sequitor about "killing unborn children"]

>: |> >First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
>: |> >pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
>: |> >are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?
>: |>
>: |> Sorry Mike, but the three admitted pro-abortioners on this net are hardly
>: |> Christian.  I'd like to know where you get your stats.
>:
>: I admit that I don't have any statistics to
>: flash around,

>This rather diminishes your credibility.

>:               but I know many pro-abortionists that are Christian.  Do you
>: really think that the whole pro-choice movement is run by atheists?

>Of course not, consider RCAR (Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights?) and
>Catholics for Choice.

How about posting stats on membership in these two organizations?

And how about posting documentation that these people are not atheists?

Anyone can call themselves "Religious" and "Catholic" [note absence of 
words like "Roman" and "Greek Orthodox"] in these free-for-all times.

Peter Nyikos

Cc: cash@zeppelin.convex.com, with a request to e-mail me follow-ups.
I'm interested in the stats on membership especially, and wonder 
whether this poster to whom I am following up is not just another
Regardian who impugns other people's credibility while being somewhat
slack about doing the things 'e expects these people to do.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's Scared of O'Tuama
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: Wed, 23 Dec 92 00:19:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.224528.28720@advtech.uswest.com> Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com> writes:
>
>Boy, just when it was getting good.
>
>I'm sure some of you noticed the fawning, nervous "smilies" of Suzanne as
>she struggled to stay on the good side of Ms. O'Tuama.
>
>C'mon, Suzanne!  Tell us more about all those "incredible freedoms" you
>had to get all horny with your MANY male friends, and how this fits into
>the "if you think of it, you're guilty" school of repressive Christianity
>you follow.

It's easy, Steve.  In order to *think*, you have to have a brain.

--
=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???=
=..."And another hundred people just got off of the train, and are looking at =
=us who got off of the plane only yesterday" - SS - "Company"                 =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:55:57 GMT

In article <C031zB.6nE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

}                                                If you are sitting at home,
}watching your color TV and collecting my tax money, I have a right to expect
}you to take all your free time and make something of yourself.  If you
}refuse and instead insist on being a parasite, we cut off your money, take
}your children from you, and let you fend for yourself.  

Darn.  And I didn't see you do a thing about Dan Quayle.

}Edward Simmonds

a certified, raving loonie who can't quite make up his mind whether
the root of all evil is money, welfare, or the International
Leftist (formerly Communist) Conspiracy.  Have a nice life.

pssst.  look behind you!

}


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:23:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.051334.12145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
>>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
>
>Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might not agree...

True, but in the context of the article from which you quoted, "beneficial
ways" mostly denoted natural gestational processes. 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:40:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.154352.1669@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
}In article <1992Dec30.025734.24975@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}|> Umh, without law there is no slavery.
}|>      without law there is abortion.

}You oversimplified.  

Quite true.  I did it for Gregg Skinner's benefit, but I see it
confused you.  Sorry about that.

}Your example pointed out that without law, the
}weak cannot enslave the strong.  I was trying to stress that without
}law, the strong can and will enslave the weak.

Unless they run away.

}So without law, there is slavery of the weak.

If someone forces the weak to return to that state.  Oh, but
there are no laws requiring that.  So without law, slavery
of the weak is possible, but is rather difficult to maintain.
It requires a certain watchfulness, or people acting together,
or something.  Often, it is a law or statute that enables
that condition.  Abortion requires no such legal maneuverings
or cooperation.  Perhaps that (rather fundamental) difference
escapes you.

}You stated there was no slavery of the strong and concluded that
}there is no slavery, period.

Not on your tin-type!  I stated that without law there was no
slavery.  I did not assert that there was no slavery and did 
not conclude that.   I used an example of weak vs strong to
illustrate that usually an external force (often the law)
was necessary in that condition.

}|> In some cases, the stronger can indeed impose its will on the weaker.

}Without a law to protect the weak, this would be most of the cases.
}I think this is proven throughout history.

Your premise may be illustrated by several examples in history, but it 
is hardly proven by it.  Give the strong some credit.

}I am not trying to say that slavery and abortion are equal.  I am
}merely trying to point out that there is precedent for law to protect
}underrepresented parties.

OK.  Examples or satistics have never been cited as to the
protective effect of anti-abortion legislation.  Perhaps
you would like to be the first?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:15:30 GMT

Hi, Liar McHolts!  Have you gotten Dippold's posting privileges revoked yet?

Are you ready to state what law(s) you'd like to see replace Roe v. Wade?

Aren't you ashamed that most people on t.a. think you wouldn't know the 
truth from an umbilical cord?

These topics and more on Oprah!

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = James A. Parker writes:

>> I argue for pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation
>> to provide support to the child.  This is independent of the question of
>> personhood.

>During most abortions, the child's right to bodily autonomy is 
>violated.  

A fetus has no bodily autonomy rights, you Brainless Repetition.  

>If the child is a person, then you cannot support 
>unrestricted abortion-on-demand using the notion of bodily 
>autonomy. 

We can do whatever we please.  Whether a *fetus* is a person or not, the
born, breathing woman's right to choose an abortion is, and will remain,
unfettered.

>> This condones "infanticide" only if there is no cost-effective way to
>> cease providing support short of "infanticide".

>Why does the morality of infanticide depend on the amount of
>money which is necessary to transfer custody of an infant
>to another care-taker? 

Guess what?  It doesn't!                      

Because, the only "morality" of abortions, Liar Holtsinger, is in your fevered 
little mind.





-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:14:23 CST

In article <1992Dec29.182956.21402@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <C00L3K.HwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>
>> Since it is the *pro-choice* reasoning he is
>> saying must condone infanticide, his (Doug's) beliefs can not 
>> be used to back up his argument when it has been repeatedly 
>> shown that many pro-choice positions *can* and *do* distinguish 
>> between the born and the unborn and some can even disallow 
>> infanticide and allow late-term abortions without any
>> inconsistency.
>
>Oh, I agree.  But these pro-choice arguments are often based upon
>factual differences between "the born and the unborn" which carry 
>no moral weight in themselves.  Pro-choicers have stated that
>the child is inside the woman, which is a fact.  Why does this
>fact carry moral weight?  

Because we place a _positive_ value on the woman.  Her life,
her health, her wishes with regards to her body.

For those who place no positive value on women, the fact that
a fetus is inside a woman would, of course, carry no 'moral
weight'.

[deletia]

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: "No Statistics" does NOT mean "No Problem Exists," Larry!
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:36:58 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec24.120032.1855@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>>In <1992Dec12.040230.6182@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org
>>rites:
>>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>>>> In <1992Nov21.024458.18269@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild
>>>> writes:
>>>> >margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>>>> > [Steeves talks about equal opportunity laws]
>>>> >> These laws were passed in response to a verified problem.  I've seen no
>>>> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> >> evidence of such a problem in regards to the laws you want passed.
>
>>[Steeves shows no evidence]
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??
>
>Larry, do I really *need* "statistics"?

[Note that I said "evidence", not "statistics".]
Only if you wish to convince me that a real problem exists.

>Given this paucity of statistics, I *have* shown *many* stories of individuals
>who have been forced to be parents.

The topic, if you'll recall, is your desire for laws regarding "father"
notification.

>Is this not *enough* for you?

I don't see how it's even *relevant*.  If the man is forced to become a parent,
then it's a pretty good guess that the woman didn't abort.

>Then, what is?  And BTW, I'd consider it *quite* hypocritical if you were to
>ask me to show you government-sanctioned statistics or something similar,
>given that the government doesn't keep such statistics.

The only statistics I have show that in about 25% of abortions, one of the
reasons that the woman got the abortion is because her partner wanted her to.
(That was not the primary reason in most of those cases, though.)  So, we know
that at least in those cases, the man knows about the pregnancy.  Now, it's
my *belief*, although I don't have any numbers to support this, that in
*most* cases, the woman discusses it with her partner, and that in the cases
in which she doesn't, it's because of a reason for which you would excuse
"father" notification.  Therefore, I don't see a need for a law.  Since you
evidently do, I'm asking you what makes you believe that such laws are needed.
If you can't show a need for a law, how can you expect to get support for one?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:03:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec24.023729.15109@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1142@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.  
#
#Nobody threatened Humphrey, Ms. Garvin.  

Yes, they did, DODie.  I know that you can't help lying, but I
don't see any reason to encourage you in your illness.

#Humphrey is a
#big boy now, I'm sure he can handle Mr. Nyikos' humorous
#suggestions.  Humphrey sure isn't afraid to threaten other
#posters, so if he does feels threatened, I'm sure he'll
#lash out incoherently like he's done on other occasions. 

Does Nyikos give you a biscuit when you lie for him, or
are you doimg it for the sheer thrill?

## Of course, if he follows through on his threat, you already have
## the evidence that his only intention is to harass you.  
#
#Oh, so now we're collecting evidence?  

I have no idea what you're doing now, Reverend.  Please exclude
me from your fantasies.  

#Gee, that kind of
#reminds me of someone we used to know.... The similarities
#keep growing...

No, DODie, I'm not like you at all.

See your therapist.  Don't worry that it's a holiday - many
people have psychotic breaks this time of year.  Your therapist
is not doubt used to emergency appointments.  Some medication
will probably help you through this period - at the very least,
you'll quit making those funny sounds as you pace.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights