HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:11:07 GMT

In <mkc33g_@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>In <q_-3=rq@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>>Perhaps we have a fundamental communication problem here.  This is the
>>>best guess I can come up with.  So let me ask a question to clarify
>>>the basis of this discussion:

>>>When you use the term "absolute ethics", do you mean a single,
>>>comprehensive moral or ethical code which defines the ethical
>>>action in every situation for every person?

>>That's what *I* mean. 

>Then why didn't you address the remainder of my post, which was predicated
>on this assumption?

Rest assured, it was NOT because I found it irrefutable. I'd dredge it 
up if I knew how.

>                    -rocker

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:07:15 GMT

From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
> 
> 	The Catholic Church has a hierarchy. Priests give orders to
> laypeople. 

No, in fact, not.  Priests and lay people are in a mutual feedback loop,
according to the section on Vatician II's definition of the structure of
the Church, in the St. Joseph's Daily Missal.


> Bishops give orders to priests, archbishops to bishops,
> Cardinals to archbishops, and the Pope to Cardinals.

All of these are priests, and priests, in following the Good Shepherd's
example, are the servants of the flock.   (Point of fact, the Pope is
chosen by the Cardinals.)


> /Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
> /lip@s1.gov

I just don't understand the fascination non-Catholics have with things
Catholic.   It does make me think it is something of value.

S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:07:53 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 <1993Jan23.073158.1474@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.174606.22838@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (craig sivils) writes:
>>
>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of
>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school
>>>private or public of their choice.
>>
>>Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
>>dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
>>PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.
>>
>>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
>>should pay for religious instruction...
>>
>Why is it that ... people are stuck with public schools
>that teach their children what to think rather that how to think?  The truth
>is that anyone who doesn't like the way their kids are being taught, but don't
>have the money for a private school basically get told, "Tough Shit.  We'll
>teach your kids the way we see fit."

Why do you think the state should pay for your kids' religious indoctrination?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Holtsinger: offspring of Kaldis & Chaney
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:29:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


In article <1993Jan26.182707.16362@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <vc7ql58@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
#
##dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu writes:
#
### I think I'll start posting there more often, and e-mail
### you my posts so that you can re-post them here in talk.abortion.
### How does that sound to you?  
#
## Well, Holtsie, it sounds like email harassment & terrorism to
## me.  If you do any such thing, I'll be in contact with your
## system administrators.  Consider that a warning.
#
#OK, I promise that I'll e-mail you (and Garvin) my posts from 
#alt.flame.  [text deleted]

I do not want to receive any further e-mail from you, Holtsinger.
I, too, will contact your system administrators if you carry
out your threat.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:21:26 GMT

In article <74214@cup.portal.com> 
L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

>	Copied without permission from:     
>	The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
>
>	CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
>
>	By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons
>
> By executive order, Clinton:
>
>	- Ended a five-year ban on fetal tissue research, which scientists
> believe holds the possibility of benefiting patients with Parkinson's
> disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Huntington's disease, spinal cord
> injuries and other conditions.

This is an incorrect characterization of the Bush administration's
policy on fetal tissue research.  There was no ban on fetal
tissue research as the paper suggests.  Rather, the Bush 
administration prohibited the federal *funding* of fetal tissue
research which used the remains from *elective* abortions.  
Researchers could obtain federal funding for research which
used the fetal remains from *spontaneous* abortions. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:45:19 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.93Jan23214534@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>"Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
>> language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
>> Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
>> a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
>> a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
>> not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
>> that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
>> was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
>> Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."

> A lawyer is an Officer of the Court.  As an Officer of the Court, they
> are bound by the rules of judicial conduct, which includes obeying a
> judge's order.  If a lawyer disagrees with a ruling, they have the option
> of appeal.  To ignore a ruling and usurp the system is contempt.  

You're missing the point.  The judge on the case *ordered* the
lawyer not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''.
Do you think the judge's order was appropriate?
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer [preoccupations]
Date: 27 Jan 1993 08:29:10 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.aero.org
Summary: would resources be better spent elsewhere? You bet!
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <C1HLEn.92H@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> 				   ... On the other hand, even the supposedly
>pro-woman abortion advocacy groups themselves admit that their preoccupation
>with legalizing abortion has left them taking a back seat to the pro-life
>sponsored support systems.

	Since abortion *is* legal, a more accurate statement would
	make the point clear that the "preoccupation" (a loaded term,
	leading one to suspect the wielder has no potent arguments)
	is with keeping other groups from making abortion *illegal*
	again.  There's no argument from me that resources would be
	better spent on support systems for pregnant women, if those
	anti-abortion forces were no longer at work (I'm strongly 
	against government involvement in forced childbirth).
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson)
Subject: Re: Letting gays into the military and Pres. Clinton
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:35:44 GMT

bond@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Robert S. Bond) writes:

>Dear President Clinton:


>	After the election you promised to focus in on the economy "like a 
>laser beam."  So far, you have been in office for almost a week and the things
>you appear to be focusing on are controversial issues such as abortion and
>letting homosexuals into the military.  Perhaps it would be wiser to spend
>your great political capital on something we all can agree on which is 
>improving on the economy.  When that job is done then you can concern yourself
>with the other issues.


Maybe it's just that you aren't hearing about anything that's not
'controversial', since the news media happens to love to rabblerouse.

I dunno, I'm not him.
-- 
Operated by professionals, do not try at home, see your dealer for details.
Your mileage may vary. Call before digging. Best if eaten by date on package.
Apply only to affected area. Batteries not included. Member FDIC.
Michael Masterson                                   mmaster@parnasus.dell.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:32:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.220813.12535@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.173003.23723@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.055119.15266@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan24.000916.20341@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan23.181412.6771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>In a thread he no doubt can't follow at all, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>>>>>(Mike Cobb) blurts out another inanity:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>>>>>>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>In order to have bodily autonomy, as it relates to legal protection
>>>and the issue of abortion, it is first neecessary to be a person.
>>
>>Why? We legally protect the lives of some animals, trees, whole ecosystems, 
>>etc. I see no reason why personhood must be a prerequisite to legally 
>>protecting a fetus'es BA...
>>
>I guess you missed the part where it says 'and the issue of abortion'
>Kebbin. Or are you now prepared to present evidence of a law which
>prohibts the abortion of a non-human species?

I was drawing a legal analogy from non-abortion laws to abortion laws, Mark. 
Fact is, we protect the "autonomy" of all sorts of life that doesn't qualify 
as "a person". So your assertion that "it is first necessary to be a person" 
would appear to be full of shit.

>I predict you'll try to weasle out ofthe question, probably by
>deleting this portion of the article.

_What_ question? :-) 

Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between choosing one's words
carefully when accusing someone of a criminal act, on the one hand, and making 
fine linguistic distinctions between various forms of psychological personality
disorders in the midst of Yet Another Abstract Net.debate, on the other, I 
think you have some seriously screwed-up priorities there, Mark...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:15:31 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <C1F7A5.D7A@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <C1D6qo.8rv@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>>>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>>>>>>>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Man A and man B have acted identically.  But only man B can be "fined"
>>>>>>(and indeed possibly imprisoned).  Why the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because man B has a child that he is obliged to support.  Man A does not.
>>>>
>>>>You've restated the problem, not answered it.
>>>
>>>In case A there is no child.
>>>In case B there is a child.
>>>
>>>If there is no child to support, there can be no child support.
>>
>>Okay, now suppose:
>>
>>Man C with woman E, condom breaks, E aborts;  another woman C aborts.
>>Man D with woman E, condom breaks, E aborts;  another woman D has child.
>>
>>
>>The law states that any man must support the child of a woman
>>who shares his last name.
>>
>>Man C must not pay woman C;   man D must pay woman D;
>>the two men have acted identically.
>>
>>
>>Your "answer" explains that this law is fair and just:
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>> If there is no child to support, there can be no child support.
>
>My answer explains why there is no child support owed in case A or in
>case C.  It says nothing about the fairness of the law.

Okay, good soldier Schweik.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The ultimate pro-choice argument [long]
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:17:07 -0500
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <markp.727719437@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>From article <1993Jan14.175105.8271@netcom.com>,
>>by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
>
>
>>> survive?  Don't give me the standard line about "letting nature take
>>> its course," because we don't live in the Stone Age any more.
>
>The z/e/f was placed in a state of dependency by (among others) the person
>on whom she depends. The patient needing blood etc. was not.

That's not necessarily so.

Suppose I go rob a 7-Eleven, and in the process, I shoot the
clerk. There are several eyewitnesses, and a security camera
can prove that I was the one who robbed the store, and that
I shot the clerk. As if that wasn't enough evidence, I was
also filmed in the act at close range by an amateur photog-
rapher.

I am captured at the scene, and taken directly to the police
station, booked, and placed in holding.

The clerk is rushed to a hospital, where it is discovered that
he is in need of a kidney transplant, because the bullet shat-
tered on his spinal column, and destroyed both of his kidneys.
All of the damage to his body is a direct result of my earlier
actions.

It is discovered from earlier medical records that the clerk and
I have the same blood type, and that our bodies are compatible
enough for me to make a good organ donor, if not an excellent
one.

Still, even though I am the direct cause of this man's problems,
and possible loss of life, I am not legally compelled to donate
any part of my body (whether I need it to survive or not) to
help save this man.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57815 talk.politics.misc:69640 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13771 talk.religion.misc:27489
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are you pro-choice on education? (was Re: Pro-)
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:23:25 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1993Jan21.201613.27707@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>Why isn't the best education for your child considered
>a part of the important life choices that a family should be able to
>plan for? We are not speaking of choice in education as a "right", but
>that choice in education is simply good social policy that
>is in the best interests of the children and the families involved.

The best education is at the best school...in any given geographical area, 
only one school can be the best, so evrybody would choose that one - but it'
s too small to take all, so some don't get their choice.
This is the problem with your idea of choice - it actually denies choice to 
more people than it gives choice.
So it's fairer to have one school system for everybody and strive to make it 
equally good evrywhere, and a damn sight better than it now is in most 
places.

            All creatures will make merry   (on pain of death)
    Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England    (44|0)61-275-6033
From: z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:28:19 EST
Distribution: talk
Organization: Cornell University


>>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>>
>>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>>
>>>What did man B do that man A did not -- given that the woman's choice
>>>was unilateral in each case?  What is the source of his obligation,
>>>and is it something he caused?  If he caused it, then how -- if man A
>>>did not?
>>
	( Pretty good analogy concerning taxes and IRS deleted )


> No.  But consider your analogy.  John Doe is not immune from paying.
> He is a criminal, and until the statute of limitations expires, he
> can be fined and put in prison.
> 
> Man A and man B have acted identically.  But only man B can be "fined"
> (and indeed possibly imprisoned).  Why the difference?
> 

The difference is that MAN A's baby died before any financial obligation came
due.  If MAN B's child should die before his financial obligation is finished
he will no longer have to pay.  The cause of death of the child is irrelevant. 

> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


Melanie S Hirananadani

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Because Petey-Honey asks so nicely
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:40:44 GMT

In article <93022.230728ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:

   The sources for the following statement
   "90% of pregnant women will suffer post partum depression, 10% to
   a degree they require hospitalization and/or medication"
    <92232.202409Admn8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
   are:

Linda, how could you, a mere woman, hope to tell a big, strong man like
Herr Doctor PHoney anything? 

   Baby Blues, Janice Dineen, Toronto Star, March 23, 1991
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 woman.

   The New Our Bodies, Ourselves, The Boston Women's Health Book
                                             ^^^^^
     Collective, 1984
 women.

   Your baby & child, from birth to age five, Penelope Leach, 1977
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 woman.

   I recognize that Nikios is incapable of accepting that birthing
   babies is not a walk in the fields of happiness for all women,
   even for those women who want children.  

Come on Linda.  All your sources are from women.  Where does a MAN
like Herr Doctor say anything about this.  After all, who would know
more about women's happiness than men.

If it was said, a woman obviously plagiarized it from a man.

Gosh, sometimes women just want so much, like they're real people or
something.  

(heavy sarcasm for the moronically inclined)

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  S2/6 b g- l z n+ o+(+) x+(+) a-(-) u-  v j+ 
                    B0/1 h f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

If you have, after buying three cars from the same company, found
they're all lemons, why would you listen to anyone who would try to
convince you to buy a fourth?

The same thing applies to this issue.
   Steve Chaney, on why he does not date African American women
   1/14/93
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Congrats, Ladies...RvW is 20 and thriving.
Organization: TheNews 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:09:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.203108.20472@advtech.uswest.com> Steve Novak
<steven@advtech.uswest.com> writes:
>Thanks to this ruling, women are not subject to the whims of men when it
>comes to controlling their own bodies by allowing women the freedom to 
>choose an abortion when deemed necessary - except in the third
>trimester, when restrictions except for health reasons come into play

"Health reasons"? In a contract this is often referred to as the 'fine print'. 
What are the exclusive health reasons allowing abortion?

BTW, despite the admission above, many so called "pro-choice" Americans have no
idea that a second trimester unborn child can be aborted for so simple a reason
as being "deemed necessary".  

- Paul
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Little Eddie Simmons shows off his misogyny.
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:01:46 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <C1JC78.4rF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
writes the usual pro-force devaluation of the lives of women in the
course of injecting his bias-laden drivel into Adrienne's chiding of
Paul Brinkley:

Deletia to get to the essence of a typical pro-force devaluation of
the lives of women:

>As of right now, this is Mother vs. Unborn Baby.  Either one is killed,
>or both live and one has 9 months of discomfort (not including the
>actual birth).  

The essential misogyny of the pro-force position is captured by the
reduction of the experience of forced pregnancy to `9 months of
discomfort.'  Let's analyze the contents of the 9 months of discomfort
and assess the appropriateness of the label for the experience:

Economic costs: (1) Lost wages.  (2) Lost career advancement
opportunities.  (3) Employment gap on the resume.  

Emotional costs: (1) Trauma of being forced to use one's body to host
an entity that you do not want.  (2) Enduring unwanted and eminently
avoidable changes in one's body.  (An observation that the emotional
effect of living with unwanted changes in one's body might be an
unpleasant side effect of forced pregnancy has no necessary
relationship with the motivations for terminating said pregnancy.)

Health costs: (1) The mortality risk from carrying a pregnancy to term
and bearing a child is many times higher than the mortality risk.  (2)
The risk of temporary disabling conditions resulting from carrying a
pregnancy to term and bearing a child.  (3) The risk of permanent
disabling conditions resulting from carrying a pregnancy to term and
bearing a child.

I have little doubt that anyone who said that such risks to persons of
color was little more than discomfort would be branded a racist.
Hence, I have no trouble with the conclusion that anyone who writes
with such disdain for the lives of women is a misogynist.