HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 09:18:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.180859.11706@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>A superficial analysis. Everyone, short of a pure anarchist and/or someone 
>who is completely ignorant of social philosophy, believes in some form of 
>a Social Contract. For those who tend more towards Libertarianism/
>Individualism, the Social Contract tends to be a teensy little thing. For 
>those who tend more towards Statism, Totalitarianism or whathaveyou, the 
>Social Contract tends to be this huge, all-inclusive thing. But in either 
>case, a line must be drawn in every contract where you say "either live up to 
>these terms, or bugger off". Now, when Liberals are whining, it's 
>Conservatives that tend to say this, since it's the Conservatives' version of 
>a Social Contract that's being scrutinized. However, when it's the 
>Conservatives that are whining and the Liberals' Social Contract which is 
>being scrutinized, you're gonna get exactly the same reaction from the folks
>whose Social Contract is being scrutinized, i.e the Liberals. The bottom line 
>here is that "love it or leave it" is pretty much ideology-neutral -- you're
>gonna hear it from WHOEVER'S ox is being gored at the time -- so your attempt 
>to associate it with one and only one side of the political fence is baloney.

You seem to be forgetting that the various claims need to be evaluated 
according to some moral standard.  Your evaluation is based on the idea
that the competing "social contracts" are morality neutral, and they aren't.

The statists are demanding the right to rule the lives of the people.

The anti-statists are demanding the right to be free from being ruled and
robbed.

These views are only equivalent if you cannot judge between the morality of
a thief and his victim.  Can you?

--Brian

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:38:10 GMT

<1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
><1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>|> From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
>|> > forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
>|> > 
>|> >>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>|> >>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>|> >>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>|> >>someone who prefers suicide.
>|> > 
>|> > Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>|> > on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
>|> 
>|> 
>|> Sure, if you stop forcing death on 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.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rfa@Turing.ORG (Robert F. Alexander)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:42:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.180838.838@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
> (John Switzer) writes:
>>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>>
>>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>>
>>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.
>
>You are taking this personally, aren't you Johny boy?
>
>Why don't you keep the money and buy yourself a shirt that
>says: I cannt disagree without being disagreeable.
>
>Have a good day, 
>Satya Prabhakar 
>--
Just as you shold buy a shirt that says "I can't post on the
Net without making a fool out of myself!!"
___________________________________________________________
>I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!


-- 
rfa@turing.ORG    ( KD4QBD )         /      BROADCAST ENGINEER
(804) 296-7697  Hm                   /      WCHV         WWWVV
(804) 977-5566  Wk                   /      Oldies   AlbumRock 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51866 alt.abortion.inequity:5881
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:56:09 GMT

In <1992Dec16.182720.23688@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.152835.22126@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  
>clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu>  
>romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> >
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 	And no tiresome thought processes, either.
>> 	It's amazing.  Do this clueless geek actually think he's the
>> first person ever to jump in here and yell ABORTION IS MURDER in all  
>caps?
>> Does he really expect anything aside from flames like this one?  Is  
>there a
>> point to this sort of juvenile behavior?
>> 	Pinkboy.
>> 
>> The_Doge
>> 

>Well actually I do have my reasons for oppossing abortion, but since most  
>of the pro abortion crowd is so illogical and unreasonable I just thought  
>I'd come down to their (your) level.

Down? Down? Child, even on tiptoe you couldn't shine shoes.

REBel


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:03:11 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
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In <1992Dec16.161647.17734@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
<goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
>LM> Note that Adrienne Regard was falsely accused of forgery not that long ago,
>LM> by Peter Nyikos.  Peter edited a post he made in response to Adrienne, and
>LM> got confused by his own editing.  I don't think it unreasonable to point
>LM> out that Adrienne did not, in fact, write all the lines that some idiotic
>                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>LM> piece of software flagged with her initials.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>HEY YOU!!
>
>I happen to *like* SLMR (okay, okay, *ignore* the damn tagline which it picked
>this time...  <-: ).
>
>To repeat, what happened was that when someone had replied to my message to
>Adrienne, that person's attribution marker was a ">", thus what appeared in
>the reply was ">" plus the "AR>" etc.

To repeat, it places the persons initials before all lines in the post, whether
those lines were written by that person or quoted by them.  This can easily
lead to confusion.  In addition, it apparently strips off article ID's (see
above, where it says "In <1992Dec16.161647.17734@zooid.guild.org> ...".  This
means that anyone can easily look up that article ID to find the original
posting.)  It also seems to strip off the References: line.  I stand by my
original evaluation.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:25:35 GMT

Ahhhhh but you see Mike, much of the US may believe in the Christian
"God" and call themselves Christians but my guess is (and it's just a 
guess) that Suzanne has a very narrow view of what a Christian is and how
a Christian acts, and if someone who calls themselves "Christian" doesn't
believe or act exactly as she thinks they should, they are not a true 
Christian.  

I once called myself a Christian and believed strongly in the fundemental
vies of the Bible and CHristianity....i just never talked about my 
views of abortion and homosexuality....when i finally did say "hey people,
i'm gay and i'm pro-choice", my views of "God" and my belief in 
the Bible had no relevence in their minds, all they could think about is 
how evil and bad a Christian i was because i didn't believe that abortion
was WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG  and that homsexuality was evil....

Now, I'm just guessing at Suzanne's view of Christianity but i've dealt with
people like her most of my life and feel pretty confident in my guess
(my apologies to Suzanne if I am wrong, but please don't just jump on me, be 
honest, what kind of Christian are you?)

I myself am now an an atheist, and i'm happy that way, the people who pushed
me away also pushed my into examining what i really believed and why
i really belivev that, and i found that i don't realy beliveve in 
any diety or higher power.  I also found that i STRONGLY support the right
to choose, not only an abortion but who you love and what you believe....
and, I don't usually tell anyone that they MUST agree with me, i will 
argue my point but i almost never try to force people in to believing what
I do, simply because i ahte it when people do that.  That's what choice
is all about, being able to believe and care about what you care about.

Okay, I've babbled long enough.....
have a great week all
Carrie

IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the opressor; it must be
demanded by the opressed"
                Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his book _Why We Can't Wait_
Be good to yourselves!                                 PRIDE=POWER
cjohnson@stolaf.edu                                    cjohnson@carleton.edu
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE IT!
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A reply to the Reverend
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:25:44 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

At least one other person was disgusted by the Reverend's strong-
arm tactics.  In the tradition of Diana (Catwoman), I'm reposting
it here.

Susan
/begin included article/

From pitt.edu!uunet!hobbes!gorn!deeptht.armory.com!rstevew Sun Dec 20 14:53:21 EST 1992
Article: 39594 of alt.sex
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:51:25 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Dec19.211354.4052@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.125833.18688@ruc.dk> 
>jba@ruc.dk (Jan Bruun Andersen) writes:
>>rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>>imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>
>    [... article about mass rapes committed in Bosnia ...]
>
>>>> I hope this article makes you uncomfortable.  I hope this article makes
>>>> you act.
>
>>> You bet.  I'm gonna go rape somebody.
>
>> Remember folks: The name was Ron Dippold of QualComm. 
>
>  QualComm Inc.
>  10555 Sorrento Valley
>  San Diego, CA 92121
>  (619) 587-1121, Fax: (619) 452-9096
>
>  Description: Two-way mobile satellite communications
>  systems and digital cellular products.
>
>  Irwin M. Jacobs, President
>  Adelia Coffman, CFO
>  John Tannone, Director of Human Resources 
-----------------------------
Indeed, and while you're at it, I will discover and snailmail on any
nit-wit working for a .com who tries to get Mr. Dippold's net
privileges revoked. I will snailmail your boss and tell him or her how
you're wasting company time on alt.sex and making your chair wet. If
you think you can deal with that, then go ahead and violate net ethics
and try to silence someone who is unpopular. I'll use 29 cents on you,
over and over till I get some action! Mister Dippold, if any person on
this net manages to make trouble for you, just write me at the address
below and we'll see if we can't trash them. I don't agree with what
you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it! Think
I'm bluffing? A new roll of stamps and my mailmerge feature stands
ready to alert not only your CEO and board but your bosses all the way
up the line of your "wasteful misuse of company time getting your
crotch funky" on alt.sex if you try to screw over one member of this
group that way. Got it?!
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *

/end included article/

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 14:47:56 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>> 
>>>I never admitted any such thing, and you know it.  I admitted I would use 
>>>lethal force to protect myself against violent, forced sex.  You somehow 
>>>twisted that.
>> 
>>What do you think violent forced sex is?  It involves someone using your body 
>>against your will. 
> 
>Violent, forced sex is a lot more than just using someones body against their 
>will.  In violent forced sex, there is violence (Obviously).  There is a 
>desire on the part of the rapist to do harm.  

What if the rapist is a mentally disabled person who doesn't realize that he 
is causing harm?  Would you still use lethal force if necessary to get him to 
stop using your body?

>There is a definate, immediate threat to the victims health. 

As there is in pregnancy.  

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Totality of that single cell
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:17:16 GMT

In <1992Dec4.044337.313@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Dec3.220324.17955@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>Kevin, Kevin, Kevin.  I can't agree that it both transformed and ceased.
>>Had it ceased altogether, we would not be having this conversation.  Anyway,
>>it appears you and I are saying the same thing, but with different glasses on.
>>To you, the transformation is the end of an existence.  To me, it is the
>>beginning.

Beautifully said, Suzanne.

>To an atheist, no existence is truly static, Suzanne.

I think you are loading the word "atheist" down with excess baggage, Kevin.
I think Larry Margolis has already whipped out his dictionary, the better
to attack you.  Lord knows--oops, scratch that, almost everyone on t.a. 
knows--he needs almost no provocation to indulge in either of these two
pasttimes.

> Everything is in a state
>of flux, in a state of becoming something else. This is no less true for 
>thoughts and people and mountains and oceans and planets and stars and the 
>Universe, as it is for one cell dividing into two. Every thing is, at every 
>instant, ending one existence as it transforms into another.

>I guess we just have different world views, that's all.

Yes, Kevin, and almost every pro-choicer and pro-abort on t.a. is not
of your thinking, otherwise they would cease spewing their volcanic
flames and ash and lava at the Kevin whose existence ended a while back,
as though he were still around.

Note, I am not of your world view, so I do not discount the possibility
that these eruptions are justified, but neither do I see any evidence
that it is not just a bunch of mountains laboring to beget mice.

Peter Nyikos

PS if it is the latter, then I have no objection to aborting the mice. :-)



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:09:36 GMT

I'm posting this for Dan Meehan, VECTR01@VAX.CSUN.EDU. My response
is at the end.

.....BEGIN INCLUDED MESSAGE 

In article <1992Dec15.185721.12223@eco.twg.com>, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>In <11DEC92.05351754@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>

I'm probably replying out of turn, but I couldn't pass this one up.
>
>Here's my latest attempt. I've reworded it as a 3-parter. Enjoy:
>   1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
>      kill them?
>   2) Do any human beings lack this quality? (This would imply that
>      it's not wrong to kill them.)
>   3) If my answers to the first two questions turn out to be
>      different from your answers, do you have any kind of rational
>      argument that might convince me that your answers are better 
>      than mine?
>
1) They are alive.  They have purposes in life.
   They have relationships with others.
   (This is an odd way of phrasing the more common question 
    "Why is it wrong to kill a human?"  You aren't by any chance
    leading somewhere are you?)

2) Dead people.  It may not be wrong to "kill" them,
   but it is kinda sick.
   (This isn't gonna lead to some long, drawn-out argument
    over whether a fetus is "alive" or not, is it?)

3)  That depends on what YOUR answers are.
>
Dan Meehan
P.S.
Feel free to post this to the net.

.....END INCLUDED MESSAGE 

I'm not sure about your answer to 1. My cats meet all three of
the given criteria, but the average fetus only meets one of
them. This wasn't your intent, was it?

You're right that "Why is it wrong to kill a human?" would have
been a better question. However, Mr. Finkelstein isn't prepared
to answer that question, because he has "studied neither law nor
sociology", so I had to ask him an easier one. If _you_ can
answer the harder version, then go for it!

I'm willing to concede that the fetus is alive. Of course, the
mere fact that it's alive doesn't imply that it's wrong to kill
it.

As to my answers: I just posted my answers to questions 1 and 2
in another article on this same thread. My answer to question 3
would be an argument about how the purpose of the law is to provide 
"the greatest good for the greatest number", and how this is
best achieved by using the criteria for personhood that I've
given.

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Doug Holtsinger is a fool
Organization: Clark University
Date: 13 DEC 92 08:20:32 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>> 
>>I never admitted any such thing, and you know it.  I admitted I would use 
>>lethal force to protect myself against violent, forced sex.  You somehow 
>>twisted that.
> 
>What do you think violent forced sex is?  It involves someone using your body 
>against your will. 

Violent, forced sex is a lot more than just using someones body against their 
will.  In violent forced sex, there is violence (Obviously).  There is a 
desire on the part of the rapist to do harm.  There is a definate, immediate 
threat to the victims health. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:10:27 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <BzD0M2.C3M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

[I must have missed the original one--probably expired--so I'm using Adrienne's
post to respond to Loren's.]

>>In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
>>>>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>>>>basis for legislation.

>>>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>>>Here are a few

>>>"Thou shalt not kill"
>>>"Thou shalt not steal"

>>>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.

>>>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>>>In some states adultery is illegal.

>>>All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
>>>good laws.

I agree that religion is one basis for each of the "laws" mentioned.  As
Adrienne suggests below, there are other ways to obtain most of those "laws".

>Certainly laws against killing and stealing are arguable based upon 
>economics at least as much as upon religion.  In fact, religion only
>adopted these laws after discovering their utility in organized society
>that predated the religion.

Killing and stealing can be declared illegal because they *hurt* someone.
(Physically or economically)  Polygamy and adultery can be seen as "bad"
because they hurt someone *emotionally*.  (The other spouse(s) in the case
of adultery, and in the case of polygamy, the person can not give total
commitment to the numerous spouses they way he/she could in a monogamous
marriage.)

As for that closed-on-Sunday "law". Are you serious?  They close grocery
stores and shopping malls on Sundays?  That would be damn annoying.  It is
reasonable for businesses to close the offices on the weekend--it gives the
people time to spend with their families.  It also gives them time to do any
*shopping* they need to do.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work if the whole
society shuts down.  When a offices shut down on the weekend, it doesn't have
to cut into the proffits.  When a store shuts down on any day, it *does* cut
into the proffits.  It also makes it less convenient for people who work
durring the rest of the week to get things done.  In other words, I think that
closing "most stores" on Sunday is a "bad" law that would come out of a
religious base, which is a good reason not to base laws on it.

>Adrienne Regard

Sorry to borrow your post, Adrienne.  8-)

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From:  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>
Subject: Suzanne's Scared of O'Tuama
Originator: steven@jaynes
Reply-To:  Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:45:28 GMT


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.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion