HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:58:40 GMT

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

] "Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a 
] violation of the right to live which God has bestowed
] upon this nascent life.  To raise the question whether
] we are concerned already with a human being or not is
] merely to confuse the issue.  The simple fact is that
] God certainly intended to create a human being and that
] this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of 
] his life.  And that is nothing but murder."
] 
]                      Bonhoeffer, "Ethics"   Hanged by
] 		     the Nazis in 1945.


1. so you consider romans 13:1 to be JUNK?


2. do you generally support Assasins?


3. do you generally consider MURDERING the head of state OK?


ciao
drieux


ps: for the slow reader this one should be a little simpler.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:43:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov5.195956.27302@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bx8wxx.6Dz@cs.psu.edu> 
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>>> Choose a point that marks a time when the pregnancy becomes more
>>>> than a private matter....
>>> Congratulations!  You've just lined out the basic idea behind Roe v Wade.
>> Not at all.
>> Roe v. Wade *allowed* the state to decide to prevent abortions 
>> after viability, because of a compelling interest.
>Roe v. Wade does not permit the states to prohibit post-viability
>abortions which are necessary to preserve the woman's ``health''
>or life, where the term ``health'' is given a very broad interpretation,
>which includes emotional and psychological health.  
>> It did not say that the state *must* prevent abortions after viability,
>> or must deduce that its "compelling interest" *requires* banning abortions.
>> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.
>Actually, Roe v. Wade does not allow a state to prohibit an abortion 
>on the day before birth, if that abortion is necessary to preserve
>the woman's ``health''.  In essence, Roe v. Wade is unrestricted
>abortion-on-demand, all the way up to the point of birth.  
>>Don
>Doug Holtsinger

Doug knows where he stands.  I agree with him.  I dislike the notion of
abortion-on-demand myself.  I do not think, however, that the legal system
should be used to impose morality.  The law exists for the protection of
society, not as a vehicle for forcing one person's notions of right and
wrong upon another.

Your argument will be that that is fine and well so long as an innocent
(fetus) is involved, and we will stalemate, for I do not believe it is the
state's business to defend fetuses.

-dave
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Test, please ignore
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.keegan.automaton.test
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:14:05 GMT

Begin testing of the Keegan automaton, version 1.0.  

Ms. Bartley.  Pro-choice.  

End of test.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Keegan excludes anyone from being prochoice if they support restrictions on abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:11:09 GMT

In article <LABACH.92Nov6121215@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.181758.22530@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
>(Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>
>> In article <csh1y=n@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James Keegan Jr.) writes:
>> >dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> 
>> >> James Keegan has disqualified anyone 
>> >> from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not oppose all restrictions
>> >> on abortion. 
>> 
>> > this statement is not correct. 
>> 
>> "that is why i thought it important to point out
>> 	that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>> 	legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>> 	third trimester."
>> 		<1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>
>
>Of course, clueless one, "restrictions" on abortion are not the same as
>"legislation" on limiting abortion.  You seem to be trying to read as
>much as possible into a statement for the purposes of twisting it.

The fact remains, however, that Keegie, one of our resident net.label.cops,
would disqualify someone from the label "pro-choice" merely because of 
differences between their view on third-trimester abortions and his own. 
Third-trimester abortions, as has been posted numerous times in this group, 
amount to about 0.000067% of all abortions performed in this country. The
percentage seems a tad, er, insignificant to warrant such a heavy-handed 
"orthodoxy" purge, doncha think?

>I don't personally know any pro-choice advocate who thinks there should
>be legal restrictions on abortions.  

Do you think such a view could be at least compatible with pro-choice?

Have you met Ms. Bartley?

>Many, myself included, think there
>ought to be only medical ones.  Any restrictions on abortion should
>be a matter of medical concern rather than of law.
>
>In any case, since Keegan is not forcing anyone to stop using the label
>"pro-choice" even if he thinks that it is inaccurate, ...

He continually posts insulting followups to such people's articles,
accusing them of all manner of "lying" and "hypocrisy" and whatnot.
So, while it's technically true that he's not _forcing_ anyone to conform to 
his view of what "pro-choice" is, that's not for lack of trying; it's only
for lack of EFFECTIVENESS in achieving his apparent goal.

>...a statist dipstick
>like you who wants the law to force women to become birthing machines
>can only make claims about others being "fascist control freaks" in the
>most ironic of senses.

What about the pro-choicers who have criticized Keegie for exactly the
same behavior (albeit not quite with as much passion as Doug has here)? 
Does our criticism qualify us as "fascist control freaks" too?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: twisting words(about Thans for life)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:51:12 GMT

In <1992Nov2.223133.8359@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>>  When a woman
>> is pregnant and that is ruining her life (no, this doesn't happen in *all*
>> cases, but it does in some and those are the cases that are important to the
>> pro-choice position) the pro-lifers would PREVENT her from getting "help"
>> (ie an abortion) to put her life back on track?

There are other kinds of help, from crisis pregnancy centers, to help women
carry to term if that is what they would prefer.  Just how "pro-choice"
is this person at rice.edu?  Pro-choice-for-abortion?


>twisting is twisting when it is not true.  I think life is very important. 
>Even clinton said himself that he thinks abortion is a very bad thing and
>should be avoided if possible.  I wonder why he said that.

Maybe he hates it the way Bush hates broccoli? :-)

All kidding aside, if that is the way he feels, why is he so gung-ho
on FOCA, federal financing of abortions, federal funding of fetal 
harvesting, etc.?

Peter Ny.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:39:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov5.155055.28256@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: 
>It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
>economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion. It seems
>that few voted 'for'  WClinton (or even 'for' Perot) but did this as a 
>vote *against* Bush.
>
>I'm curious to hear what you all think about the issue of abortion and its
>effects on the presidency and other implications such as the dangling
>supreme court.

I saw some of the detailed election analysis in Wednesday's NYTimes.
The only available information on your question suggested that
abortion helped Bush: Among those voters saying abortion was the
decisive factor, a large majority supported Bush.

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47495 news.admin.misc:302
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:47:12 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: 0bfba78bd024885f476c0755f623fa0c

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
>>>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>>Subject: Keegan demonstrates his tendencies towards controlling people
>
>
>I present as an alternative case, to my former concerns:
>
>Note, if you will that Doug Holtsinger's post here has
>a 'correct' "Path:" line that does specify an ncsu.edu
>host in it.

Doug is posting from his csl group workstation.  It feeds to taco, the
main ncsu news machine.   There aren't any UUCP map entries for taco or
rock(.concert.net) since they aren't particularly concerned with uucp
connections (and are doing all their transfers via NNTP or other
internet based services.)

It would be *nice* if NCSU decided to update its set of maps so that the
main news host appeared in the uucp maps, but "the maps" are getting
quite out of date in some ways.  There are literally tens of thousands
of sites that have news and mail connections that don't appear in "the
maps" since they are already in the internet DNS database.

Try looking up rock.concert.net and taco.ncsu.edu via nslookup or
something.

Casting aspersions on NCSU because you are technically out-of-date is
hardly conducive to you (already lacking) net.reputation.
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us  news%wolves@cs.duke.edu  ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:32:32 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>
>>... does there exist
>>anything which you would call a "person" but which lacks a brain?  If
>>so, then how is this thing similar to an adult human person?
>
>Sure there is.  A zygote or early embryo lacks a brain, and I would call it a
>person.  It is similar to an adult human person in that it is human, has two
>human parents, and that it was conceived.

Everything you've said up there is already a given.  Any zygote of
species X is similar to an adult of species X in that it is of species
X, has two parents, and was conceived.

>It is also similar in that it
>appears at the same point, or better, on the evolutionary scale.

What do you mean by this?  A zygote is as biologically advanced as a
simple cellular organism, and an embryo is as biologically advanced as
lower animals.

>Another
>similarity to an adult human is that given a fair chance, it will one day
>be free.

Again, a given, applicable to any animal.

>>Sure, it might be possible to fashion a computer brain.  But then the
>>computer's logic circuits would function in the same capacity as a
>>human brain.  Can you think of anything which lacks any sort of brain,
>>organic or cybernetic or electronic or what-have-you, yet still
>>appears to have consciousness?
>
>A soul.

Please define "soul", and explain why you feel that humans have them
but that nothing else does.

It really sounds to me like you're making "person" synonymous with
"human".  I don't define it this way.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 01:35:36 GMT


dod>In article <1992Nov5.220140.3204@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov5.211028.24662@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk> has admitted that methods that would be used to deliver a
dk> non viable fetus live would be more expensive, take longer and
dk> be more painful.  Yet he still feels that it is worth it for 
dk> some bizarre reason.  
 
dod>Please provide evidence that I "feel that it is worth" using
dod>abortion methods that would simply remove a child from the womb,
dod>rather than methods that would kill the child.  
 
I feel no special need to supply such evidence Reverend.  I know
how you want to control women's abortion decisions.  I don't 
think you are really fooling anyone by pretending innocence.  
I do have some quotes from you that would lead most thinking
people to the same conclusion that I got from your posts.  I
guess I might as well post them here just in case there is some
newbie who would actually be fooled by your innocence act.
 
dh>In article <1992Oct28.023221.5574@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

dh>But, in fact, killing a born human being who is inevitably going
dh>to die is homicide.

dh>After 16 weeks, the fetus is killed through a D&E procedure because
dh>it's cheaper, faster, and less painful.  Expediency, not safety,
dh>explains why these fetuses are killed and not just simply removed.

dh>But in most instances, abortion is not just the removal of a
dh>human being from the womb; it is killing.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos, Butthead for forced birth!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 22:18:40 GMT

In <31821@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720066352@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 
>>In <31555@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>
>>>In article <nyikos.719532992@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes a passage
>>>characterizing me as a butthead.  I will now return the favor in
>>>discussing his post:
>>
>>Hey, it was you who used the word "butthead" in the part I deleted.
>>I was merely returning the favor.

BTW you were guilty of failing reading comprehension
 when you said I called you a butthead.  I said you
had made "buttheaded comments."

>I believe you are mistaken about my using this particular terminology.
>Butthead is not a frequent insult of mine.

And I never used the term in my life before I used it in the post to
which you allude in your first message.  It
is an asinine term, like so many I throw back in the face of the
pro-choicers I first heard them from.  I would never use it against
anyone who did not first use it.

>Your claims to the contrary notwithstanding, there is nothing about a
>right to bodily autonomy that permits infanticide.  You seem to be
>responding that from the point-of-view of the /z/e/f/'s experience,
>infanticide is preferable to abortion.  However, this has nothing to
>do with why the woman has a right to choose abortion.  The woman can
>abort a /z/e/f/, even at the consequence of its death, because it is
>in her body.  If an infant somehow entered the body of any man or
>woman, they would have the right to remove it, even at the risk of its
>death.  

That's your opinion.  I have yet to see a legal opinion anywhere 
except in talk.abortion that agrees with you.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: late term abortions (was "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Organization: .
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:29:43 GMT

In article <markts.721341555@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>i say 32,767. this way we can still compile terminated_viable_lives
>as an integer. 

If 32,767 is the largest positive integer your system supports, then its
time to get a new system (mine uses 48-bit integers with an option to
use 64-bits).

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47754 news.admin.misc:322 comp.mail.misc:3675
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of abortion legislation (was Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:44:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.033615.29303@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1992Nov8.233052.18819@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}> No "pro-life" type has yet provided any examples
}> or statistics that legislation of any type would bring about the
}> changes they seem to desire.
}
}I doubt that anyone could demonstrate that any particular piece
}of legislation would be effective for bringing about change. 

Maybe you doubt it Doug, but many others don't.  In fact, (I forget which
two cities are involved) gun control legislation has made reference
to places in Canada and the US.  Death penalty advocates often drag
up statistics about the effect of their legislative ideas in debates
about that.  As a matter of fact, there was quite a bit of debate
recently in this country regarding the effectiveness of particuliar
legislation regarding the economy.  Many provided statistics, both
those that showed that their proposal would work and those that showed
that their opponents would not.  Did you really mean to say what
you did, Doug?  I'm a bit shocked.

}I do recall hearing something about the birth rate dropping
}after Roe v. Wade, but I could be wrong.  

And I seem to recall that the Berlin Wall came down after that decision,
but like you say:

}But even that is
}not an indication that abortion legislation is effective,
}since correlation does not imply causation.  

}I tend to doubt that abortion legislation would bring about 
}large immediate changes.  Any legislation which deals with 
}values is not likely to bring about immediate changes, but 
}legislation always has the potential to shape values over 
}the long-term. 

Like laws against murder (laws people often want me to be aware of).
They certainly have shaped values over the long term -- NOT.
And laws that enable slavery (slavery is not possible without
enforcement legislation which empowers someone to enforce the
belief that someone can own someone else) certainly did shape
values over the long term, resulting in acceptance of that 
idea -- again, NOT.  Or how about laws which prohibit cutting
down particular trees, no matter whose property they are on.
Those laws don't shape values over the long term, if fact, they
are sometimes poorly understood by some.

And don't even try to tell me that legislation involving trees,
murder, and slavery does not involve values while legislation
involving abortion does.  I'll admit to being pretty stupid but
not that stupid.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:19:58 GMT

In article <1defqoINN4ue@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

[Debate over Adrienne's claim, "The man has *no* legal obligation 
 until a child is born," clarified by, "There is no legal responsibility 
 for some man, unrelated to the woman, to pay for her care, her feeding, 
 her survival before or after the birth of the child.  His responsibility 
 for child support only beings when the *child* exists, which is at birth."]

[now, re "Family Services Act"]

>While *some* states depart from this, MOST of the states support MOST of
>the stipulations in the Act.  

Do any of these stipulations say that an unmarried man is *not*
liable for pregnancy/childbirth expenses?

Or do these "MOST" states support a set of +positive+ stipulations saying
X is responsible for Y under condition Z?


>My claim is also that, as a general rule, judges would NORMALLY not
>require an unmarried man to asusme pregnancy/birth expenses, unless there
>were factors within the relationship that were presented to the court and
>were compelling enough for a judge to decide to do so.

Two unmarried people have sex once, resulting in pregnancy.  There 
is no other relationship between them.  They both agree that the child
is theirs (or tests show it).

Under the law, CAN the judge order the man to pay pregnancy/childbirth
expenses?


>Judges get that kind of latitude.  It's part of being a judge.

This defeats your argument.  The more latitude a judge has to assign
liability to a man, the more support there is for saying a man is liable.


>But as a *general* rule, they do not do this.  Because as a *general* rule,
>there is no presupposition within the relationship that the man should for
>some reason shoulder these costs.
>
>Now, do you disagree as to what the GENERAL RULE is, or not?

I don't have any statistics at hand to judge yes or no.

The "GENERAL RULE" is not relevant, though.  The question is whether
an unmarried man is liable or not, for expenses before birth and/or
related to the woman herself.


If the police only check the parking meters once a day,
you won't be excused by telling a judge that the GENERAL RULE
is that you can park there free.  You are liable.

You are liable from the moment you park, not from the moment 
you get a ticket or the moment you start paying.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:10:50 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
# >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# 
# >> But a child is killed during an abortion, the child is not 
# >> just 'left to die'.  You can't escape the fact that during
# >> the vast majority of abortions, the child is intentionally
# >> killed by the abortionist. 
# 
# > ... instead of being left to die a slow death of oxygen deprivation.
# > Is this more 'humane' to you?
# 
# I'm simply pointing out that an unrestricted abortion right does not
# follow from the right to bodily autonomy.  That says nothing about
# a 'humane' death.  I'm not defending killing and leaving persons
# to die; that's the job of the pro-choicers. 

I see we're heading for a flame-war over the nature and origins of
rights, Mr. Holtsinger -- but before we go headlong into such a
tedious subject, I'd like to know why this is such an important
subject for you...

Here's a question for you:

	Why do you care about the existence of a right when you're not
	prepared to support restrictions on the exercise of it?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken