HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:34:06 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
>>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
>>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?
>
>No -- because medical intervention into the effects of an auto
>accident doesn't violate anyone else's right to life.

Pah.  Nonsense.

Given the cost of medical care these days, to assert that medical
treatment for you won't adversly affect anyone else is extreme
blindness.  The $20,000 it could cost to patch you up could pay for
the delivery of a couple babies or save the lives of a couple hundred
starving people.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54856 talk.religion.misc:25656 alt.atheism:25497
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:50:43 GMT

>> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) signs:
>>> Ron                      Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>>>                          The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>>>                          Make a U-turn to God.
>>> The irony is priceless.

> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) asks:
>> Fine. Now, where's the irony?

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) answers:
> Since you insist on asking, I guess I'll have to explain it to you.
> These are the type of bumper-stickers found on the religious right's
> cars. In addition to this, remember that they think god is great; a
> beautiful concept, and the thing to aspire to (heaven is, anyway). Now
> also remember that hell is suppossed to be a rather unpleasant place,
> torture and all that, you know. On top of all that, recall that the
> bumper-sticker proclaims that the road to hell is bumper-to-bumper,
> while the one to heaven is implied to be empty, indicating that all
> the people would rather go to hell, and wait in traffic for it, than
> kowtow to god. This implies that there must be something rather unpleasant
> about god, and his heaven. If the irony still escapes you, I'll give
> up and let someone of greater oratorial skills, and much more patience,
> explain it further. Perhaps drieux is made of such stuff, and could
> also make it quite a bit more humerous to read.

Ron,

After all the time you spent in traffic court, something should've
rubbed off on you...

The owner of that bumper sticker is advocating that Fellow Travelers on
the Highway of Life break the law and endanger other Travelers by performing
an illegal manuever.   There is also the suggestion that if you actually
whip that U-turn in heavy traffic, you'll meet God sooner than expected.

Hope this helps.


-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:16:34 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan4205438@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <C0CAu1.Moo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

....

>   >
>   >   Baby, adult, no difference.  Murder is murder.
>
>   >Of course -- babies and adults have both been born, nitwit.  Fetuses and
>   >embryos haven't.  Why all the difficulty with such simple English?


Maybe its because they use the very 'uncommon' definition of child in that
radical underground dictionary, Webster's Ninth Collegiate.

 - Paul

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:57:14 GMT

markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>And until you also
>>start living by the same standards you apparently wish upon women, I'm
>>going to consider you opinions as nothing more than self-serving
>>hypocrisy.
>
>If I got pregnant, I would feel an ethical obligation to carry the
>child to term. (Since you can't read my mind, I'm the only person
>able to evaluate the truth of this statement; so don't bother flaming.)

If you care so much for other people, why aren't you doing more to
save the lives of people worldwide?  Why aren't you contributing most
of you money to charitable orginizations?  Why aren't you working
directly to save people's lives?  Does your "commitment" to life extend
only as far as making someone else do all your dirty work?

Or is abortion "different", because while abortion actually kills, you
only let people die?  If that's the case, how do you justify your
intrusion into the affairs of pregnant women?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:11:10 GMT
 <root.726503770@spssig> <C0Jyxx.L4H@athena.cs.uga.edu> <root.726528897@spssig> <1993Jan9.011454.13091@ncsu.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <root.726528897@spssig> >adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>In article <root.726503770@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>> Yes.  I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and
>>>> to be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>>>> belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception in
>>>> light of my Christian  belief.  
>
>> In the case of a pregnant women, she has a liberty interest in protecting
>> herself medically (both physical and mental), financially and socially.
>> The extent to which she can exercise these liberty interests are limited by
>> the conflicting liberty interest of the unborn child.
>
>This argument from Steve Adams is especially confusing. 
Only to people who can't understand that I have conflicting duties...one to
God, one to society.  Those duties to God are personal, and mine only.
Those duties to society are part of the social contract.  No conflict, so
long as the social compact doesn't force me personally to violate God's
laws.  What others do is none of my business in this respect.  Only
liberty and individual rights matter, and those I will fight to protect.

>First he states that abortion is morally wrong from a 
>religious perspective, and then he goes on to argue that 
>abortion is not morally wrong from a secular perspective 
>(i.e. the woman has a "liberty interest" and a "right" in 
>protecting herself).  How is it possible to argue two sides 
>of the same coin here?  
Because of the above.  In other words, those morals I impose on myself I do
not impose on society without a non-religious cause.  Hence, since it is a
demonstrable deprivation of liberty to kill someone without cause, murder
should be illegal.  Similar for rape, robbery, etc.  But, as is the case
with a death caused by self-defense, the conflicting liberty interests have
to be resolved.  In self-defense, there is no crime.  For pre-viability
abortions, the liberty interest must remain with the woman.  After
viability, the state *may* exercise some restrictions to protect the
liberty interest of the unborn child.  But most certainly not at the
expense of a woman's life.

>>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       
>Is that anything like a "borg"? :)
I can't repeat in public the first thing that comes to mind, so I'll settle
for "Get bent".

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:46:26 GMT

Oops, I expressed a thought rather badly; I'd better clarify before
the flamethrowers are through warming up.

I wrote:

> A conclusion about rape/incest could probably be inferred since his
> syllogisms deal with _consensual_ sex.

I meant that conclusions about pregnancies from _nonconsensual_ sex _could_
be inferred from assumptions about consensual sex by switching the polarity
of the assumptions.

Or something like that.  I'm too tired to think clearly right now.

Aw, go ahead and flame me.  Operators are standing by.

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Peter Nyikos, Coward (was Re: Netserver problem: newer is not necessarily better)
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:12:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <root.726178744@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
#It gets worse, now.  I just got some mail from a net.friend, who I've been
#conversing with for some time.  Seems Herr Doktor sent him some mail
#slandering and defaming me.  And it appears, to my knowledge, that Nyikos 
#saw the discussion I was having with this person over the last few days, so
#he's slipped up.

Did you really believe he was telling the truth about his news
server?

He'll probably claim that someone sent him the articles in question.
He's a practiced liar - he tries to cover all bases.  

My personal theory is that he's realized that he is not capable
of convincing anyone on the net, so he's decided to quit responding
to specific arguments and instead just post his lies and innuendo
and hope that someone else defends them for him.  

#I wonder if he's ever heard of ethics?  

I wonder if he realizes how many anti-abortion people quit posting
to t.a. because he embarrasses them.

#Jeez, what a coward "Dr." Nyikos is.

That he is.  I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Susan


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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:06:13 GMT

In article <C0GDHp.Dsw@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>There is a tremendous ignorance,
>still with regard to human development.  Gut feel is not a basis for life and
>death decisions.  
>
This may well be the first rational thing you've posted. Of course, it
goes totally against your arguments in favor of restricting abortions,
but you've never been terribly good at consistancy or logic.
Keep on posting, so we will always have ready examples of just how
much ignorance there is, wrt human development.

--
                  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: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:39:27 GMT

In article <root.726853301@spssig> 
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>> Yes.  I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and
>>> to be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>>> belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception in
>>> light of my Christian  belief.  

>> I am assuming that you believe
>> abortion is not "wrong" on secular grounds since you
>> appear to have no secular reasons for being opposed to 
>> abortion.  Is that correct? 

> Correct.  In fact, I believe that soley based on a secular view, and
> within the ramifications of individual liberty (one of the major trains
> of though of our founding fathers) there are no good reasons.

Now here's the part where I am confused.  You say that 
abortion is wrong from a religious perspective, but 
it's not wrong from a secular perspective.  I think
you're mixing two different definitions of the term
"wrong" here. 

>> I want to know whether abortion is "wrong" for others. 

> As I have repeatedly said, IT'S NOT UP TO ME.  It's up to each person 
> to decide for themselves.  

That is besides the point.  If abortion is "wrong" for you,
but not "wrong" for others, then that is your own personal
preference, it is not morality.


> -Steve


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:14:47 GMT

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

>>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>However, some pro-choicers in t.a have claimed that the z/e/f's humanity 
>>>is irrelevant -- that human or not, the z/e/f can ethically be evicted
>>>by the mother from her womb. Do we agree that this pro-choice argument
>>>is wrong -- that the z/e/f's right to life is the crucial point?

>No.  Because if the z/e/f were granted a right to life, that does not
>necessarily presuppose it can accept it's right to life at a COST to another
>human being.

>If you want to do such a silly thing, grant *me* the 'right to life'.  

I don't need to. As a reasoning, free-willed individual, you already
possess the right to life.

>And
>then see if it's OK within the realm of that 'right to life' for me to demand
>your liver.

Only if I have, through voluntary actions, made your life dependent on
my liver.

>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:59:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.161604.3155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726627079@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>>writes:
>>
>>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not
>>>>>equal consent to nine months of pregnancy.
>>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple
>>>>biological
>>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy ->
>>death)
>>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>>
>>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death
>>
>>which is perfectly true.
>>
>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?

Of course he would, unless he were the victim of rape or incest.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:35:39 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29570@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>Another Big Swinging Dictionary.

Maybe you should check with one, once in a while. It might improve your
word skills, as well as help you realize what in the hell some of us
are talking about. (Or perhaps I shouldn't start a battle of wits, you
appear unarmed)

>>You propositions are
>>logically inconsistent and have no supporting basis.

>No; your equating contraceptive failure with security precaution failure
>has no basis. The action of chance is a basic fact of this reality;
>the action of a rapist is contingent.

Then equate it with a car accident, Or any other type accident, wherein
a limb becomes severed. There is a possibility of re-attaching said
limb. Should it be done? Not according to your philosophy.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:03:49 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>Blame Mother Earth.  Long before you or I were here evolution wrote the
>rules.

Evolution invoked to ban abortion...  interesting tactic.  Of course most
people know that evolution is driven by natural selection--the concept that
out of each generation, only the best (and some of the lucky) survive.  If
humans still followed the "laws" of evolution, there would be no laws; it
would all be *survival*.  Sounds real cozy!  I don't think you'll get very
far saying "that's how it was meant to be" because of evolution.


>Big deal.  A nuclear physicist has no more credibility when discussing
>abortion than a bus driver.  Both are speaking completely out of their
>fields.

Most of the time, a nuclear physicist has a university education and has a
lot of experience with interpreting direct repeatable evidence.  A bus driver
on the other hand may also have a university education, but mostly has
experience driving around from point A to point B.  They don't often deal with
physical evidence and reasoning about what it means.  Guess which one I would
find more credible.

On the other hand, if the bus driver also had a medical degree...

>Anyone who can read, and is willing to do so, is perfectly credible
>discussing this.

Anyone who blindly believes anything they read is as irresponsible as those
who print anything they want.

>Edward Simmonds- Honest, but getting depressed about it
>                 Standard disclaimers

If I had *your* kind of "honesty" I'd be depressed, too.  8-P

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Beats me.  I just work here.
	<1993Jan8.175341.7057@coopsol.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:30:25 GMT

On Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:53:41 GMT, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) said:

><1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>>In article vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>>I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>>>> 
>>>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>>>> 
>>>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>>> 
>>> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>>> haven't seen any such activity -- 
>>
>>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

>Crude, Suzanne.  Have you ever "looked" at Patrick's wife?  Are you
>implying that she is a lesbian who got herself pregnant by the "teaspoon
>method"?

Well, she *did* state that she was lower than a prostitute at one time,
because (gasp!) she had sex with me before we were married...

>...
>>> Or are you saying you
>>> really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>>> really did that.)
>>> 
>>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>>
>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>>wife.   

>Are you saying that children are just property that are owned by their
>biological parents?  Are you saying that people who adopt are never really
>the parents of the child and should not be respected as such?

Well, the child in question in this case considers herself to have *two*
sets of parents -- and I'll bet that in itself gives Suzanne a nervous
twitch or two.

>>        I hope it drives you crazy.

>How loving.  How Christian.  You actually hope that a man who marries a
>divorced woman would be driven crazy by memories of her ex-husband.  Is
>this what your "real" Christianity teaches you?

Whatever her "real" Christianity teaches her, it ain't getting into *this*
family, because we have the real thing -- and I think that's part of her
problem.  She's upset because we've got it, and she doesn't.  Such is
life...

--PLH, now, if the kid would quit causing *me* all the gray hairs...

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:31:44 GMT

In article <mb#3!pd@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>>James: remember, I don't care what you think.

> that's ok. you did quite nicely here. 

Hey moron, we haven't yet heard your opinion of the
pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-lifers.
Why so silent on the subject?  Maybe you approve
of such remarks?  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: JJ Software
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:34:59 GMT

> Your denial of the facts do not make what you have posted truthful.

> The FACTS are that not one single person who is homosexual" has ever been
> cured at anytime in the history of man upon the face of this planet.

> And that is the reality of your 'cures'.

you use "is" in "who is homosexual".  Did you mean "was"? 

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc