HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:30:07 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.222451.6926@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <1ebg8lINN3rh@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>>[...]
>>>When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
>>>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
>>>you have to prove your case.)
>>
>>The second statement is incorrect.  And it is trivially easy to prove that
>>someone else's body is involved during some abortions, just as it is
>>trivially easy to show that another person's body is involved in your rape
>>example (hint: no need to submit a rigorous topological proof in either
>>case).
>
>No, Frank, CJ's statement was correct.  Just because your definition of person
>includes fetuses and you wish that ours would too, we are not incorrect
>when we use the standard legal definition.  Your personal definition of
>the term can include anything you like and you are free and welcome to
>try and convince us to accept your definition, but your wishing it
>does not make it so.  

Firstly, I'm not tying to convince you to _accept_ my definition - I just
want to you to accept it as _reasonable_.  If you would then catch on to the
fact that it is as reasonable as _your_ belief, that would be startling
progress.

Secondly, there _isn't_ any "the legal" definition of personhood - that's
just some sand thrown around in abortion debates.  Born or naturalised?  Nope
- that's an American citizen you've got there, there are more kinds of people
than that.

>For example, you may think of your pet dog as a member 
>of the family and you may firmly believe that it has a soul and as much worth 
>as any human person, however, it is still not legally a person and I am not 
>wrong for refering to it as a non-person.  

If the American state naturalises my pet dog (it's done stranger things) will
you _then_ call it a person?   How far are you prepared to take this
fictional legal definition of yours?

>Sarah McCabe

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:25:04 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov20.174446.10649@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>And if you wish to quibble over the wording of the question, please reconsider
>just expediting this issue by answering the ultimate question:
>
>       In your opinion, does a woman have an unconditional, absolute legal
>       right to abort at any time in her pregnancy, for any reason?

Since Roe v. Wade clearly allows for restrictions, the answer is obviously No.
Did you mean to ask if she *should* have such a legal right?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!! [Start with yourself]
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:26:14 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>
>>> I agree, we should leave innocent female human beings alone,
>>> including the ones who haven't been born yet.  
>
>> Say Doug, why do you keep throwing in the word "innocent"?  Does it
>> have any relevence?  Is it opinion?  Or is it (as I suspect) merely a
>> trite emotional ploy to bolster a flimsy case?
>
>I thought most people would understand the meaning of the
>word "innocent".  It's meant as a qualifier. 

I know what innocent means, thank you, and I didn't ask what it meant.
I asked why you keep using it.  It looks like a trite emotional ploy
used to distract from a lack of any real substance to your
propaganda.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48011 talk.religion.misc:21125 alt.atheism:21272
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:27:03 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
>do appear to be quite different):
>
>He mellowed.

Evolved!

>:)M^2

Chris Lee
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Summary: Clueless fundies -- gotta love 'em...
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:07:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: William's Marsh, North Swamp

In article <1992Nov18.012733.8794@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

[a whole lot of religious-inspired delirium deleted, until this point:]

>Believe what you will.  I don't care.  I am only obligated to tell you the
>truth.  The rest is up to you and God.

Who puts the obligation upon you to "tell the truth"?  Whoever it is,
they're bound to be disappointed with your performance so far.  You've done
nothing but parrot the same line ad nauseam -- "what I say is the truth!" --
with no, none, zero, zip, nada substantiation whatsoever.  Have an adult
teach you the distinction between fact and opinion, and when you get the
hang of that, come back and say something.

(...and if you don't care what we believe, why spend so much time spouting
your drivel?   Clueless fundies -- gotta love 'em...)

--PLH (amazing, how so few can be so loud-mouthed and so bigoted about
something they so fervently think they believe in, yet actually know so
little about...)

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: ProChoice Question
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:33:20 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

I have a simple question for pro-choicers:

   You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
   authority that grants you this right?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:35:38 GMT

In article <1eoo4uINN4go@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Do you realize
>>that taking out a murder contract on one's lover or divorced spouse is in 
>>many ways _significantly_ less burdensome than paying 18+ years of child
>>support, and that a growing number of men are awakening to this reality,
>>and choosing to exercise that "option"? 

This is an amazingly shocking idea, if it's true.  I suppose
if cheerleading is such an important thing, well, what can we expect...

>I don't see how murdering the mother lessens the burden on the man.
>Hypothesizing that he's not caught, wouldn't it just further burden
>him with all the parenting responsibilities, both financial and 
>care-giving?

I suppose he could give the child up for adoption.  He could
certainly send them to daycare and school with less cost than 
the standard support guidelines.  The point is valid, that having 
the ex-spouse out of the way could likely make life much easier -- 
but what a disgusting idea.  I hope it's not really a growing trend.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49071 alt.abortion.inequity:5252 soc.men:19761 soc.women:20126 alt.politics.clinton:17613 alt.politics.bush:13997 alt.activism:19079 talk.politics.misc:61251 misc.misc:3858
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is not unrestricted abortion-on-demand
Keywords: Holtsinger lies
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:16:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Nov21.061148.123045@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In <1992Nov21.023245.24449@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) lies:
##In article <1992Nov21.013356.38066@watson.ibm.com>
##margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
###dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) lies:
####margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#####dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) lies:
##
###### Abortions can be legally performed all the way up to the
###### point of birth for virtually any reason.
##
##### This is a lie.
##
#### No, it's the truth: abortions can be legally performed all the
#### way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason.
##
### Not in the 30 or so states which have restrictions against it.
##
##The states can't enforce a law which is unconstitutional under
##Roe v. Wade, because it would be challenged if the state attempted
##to prosecute a doctor for performing a post-viability abortion:
#
#Note that the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989 has a number of
#third-trimester restrictions.  Some sections of the act were found to be
#unconstitutional (in PP V. Casey), but of course the third trimester
#restrictions weren't even challenged.

Note further that the trimester system was effectively abolished
by PP v. Casey, so all of Holtsinger's lies about Roe are not
really worth arguing about any longer.  He hasn't yet noticed
that first trimester abortions are not available "on demand"
in many states as of right now, and that the Supreme Court has
upheld these restrictions.  Oh, well.  The religious right is
known for its bigotry and hatred, not its intelligence.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 22:28:05 GMT



I hate religious discussions, but I am getting tired of reading
Frank's claims that the punishment for unrepented Original Sin
is Limbo.  I was raised in a Christian church which taught that
all humans were born tainted with that sin, and that the 
punishment for not accepting Christ was eternal damnation.  There
was no concept of limbo.  (I had always believed that Limbo
was a Roman Catholic construct - perhaps I am wrong in that
belief, but I do know that it's not common to all forms of
Christianity.)

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 03:09:11 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Nov14.214406.23543@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
|> How to reconcile the Old Testament God with the New Testament God, (they
|> do appear to be quite different):
|> 
|> He mellowed.
|> 
|> :)M^2
|> 
Not from the Jewish perspective.

From the Jewish perspective, the "OT" God judged
us for our actions, not our beliefs, and had
mercy on the righteous of all nations.

The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
casts the unbelievers into an eternal fiery hell ---
the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I agree that these are quite different,
but it doesn't look like mellowing to me.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:11:11 GMT

In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.
>No flame intended.  Just fact.
In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:23:40 GMT

In <BxAwDF.I83@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <83132@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>Patrick, I think you're being too hard on Jeff here, not that I'll say
>>anything, as we pro-choicers never disagree...

>We don't?  You go to that school that's beat us in football every year since
>1965 -- and that's not good. :-)  (Watch Nyikos and Holtsinger leap on
>*that* -- ooh, dissension in the ranks!) 

No shame to lose to Texas.  I am a bit surprised at how far back the
losing streak extends, since the first time I ever heard of Rice was in
connection with its football team.

Now THAT'S not good. :-)

PJN
 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:18:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted

In article <nyikos.721974002@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <_3s1=gk@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> 
> >peter honey, you just quoted someone other than susan
> >garvin as if the person you were quoting were susan
> >garvin. what you just did could be referred to as
> >forgery.
> 
> Show me where I did that.
> 
> >as i told you when you lied about adrienne regard
> >posting a forgery,
> 
> I never *said* she posted a forgery.  What does ?!?!?!?!? mean to you?
> 
> > then apologize to
> >adrienne for lying about her.
> 
> I never lied about adrienne.
> 
> Peter Ny.
> 
> 

Peter, why do you folow-up a posting if you're only going to
lie throughout?  You did accuse Adrienne of forging a posting
simply because you couldn't understand the attributions
lines and you also made a recent posting in which you said
all kinds of your usual idiotic things about Susan Garvin's
statements, except it wasn't Susan Garvin's statements you were
responding to, it was J. Greenfield's.  For a supposed
PhD, you sure are a dope.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sniff, sob.  Jim's putting me in his killfile.
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:23:29 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov20.141840.10285@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes: 

>I participate in talk.abortion to develop my own views by dealing with
>the views of others.  There's a limit to how much I can get out of
>dealing with an ill-tempered dogmatist who fails to respond to what is
>said.  So I'm adding your name to my (very large) kill file for the
>group.

Finally, an area of agreement between me and Jim: his views certainly
need, to put it kindly, `development.'  However, I have some problems
with the rest of what he writes: For example, I have trouble spotting
what he perceives as ill-tempered about my comments to him.  I think
I've been quite polite to him given that he wants to punish women for
engaging in consensual sex by forcing them to carry any resulting
pregnancies to terms.  Additionally, the idea that he would call
someone else dogmatic is amusing.  I wonder if Jim's large killfile
reflects an overly inclusive (Hey, Bill O., what about paranoid?)
definition of `ill-tempered dogmatists?'

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:04:50 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes ...
> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>A law specifying one is to drive on the right hand side of the road does
>>not automatically determine that driving upon the left hand side of the
>>road is immoral, painful or full of suffering.
>
>The purpose of the law is to reduce accidents (pain and suffering) and
>annoyance (minor pain and suffering).  I can't understand why you
>think that purpose has nothing to do with morality.

Does that mean you think all the people in G. Britain, New Zealand,
Australia, and Japan are not moral?  Because they drive on the left
side of the road?

>In the case you mention the considerations include possible economic
>losses (from disorder or from enforcing order), possible losses in
>civility (people saying nasty things about each other), risks of
>tyranny if the government has too much power, the possibility that
>free speech will permit people to develop their capacities and find
>truth, and so on.  All these considerations can conflict.  It seems to
>me that the thing to do is to choose the outcome that looks like it
>will make human life best.  What does any of this have to do whether
>economics and morality are fundamentally different things with
>fundamentally different goods?

It's starting to sound like you definition of "moral" is whatever
people (or you in particular) _want_.  Assuming this is not what you
mean, perhaps you could clarify?

And if "moral" is used to describe that which will make human life (in
aggregate) best, how do you justify the suffering that would result in
a general ban on abortion?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: ray fischer and credibility
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:15:34 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>->As an example note that I
>->never said anything about banning abortions.
>
>an example of what? you haven't showed i claimed you
>had.

----------------
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->I would not object to some restrictions on abortion.

are you referring to just your access to abortion, ray,
or to everyone's access to abortion?
----------------

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:45:52 GMT

In <1992Nov16.205155.9951@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com 
   ( Steve Novak) writes: >
>> = Scott @Brandeis:

>>Let's see, in the OT God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable wrath 
>>and unimaginable love. 
>
>...and an unimaginable vengeful asshole who murdered whole cities because 
>of the sins of a few (including, for you crocodile tear-droppers, many
>"innocent babes" and other exalted types of human life).

Absolutely.  Who does He think He is, anyway?  God?  He has no *right* 
to destroy what he created.  Doesn't He know about our Rights?

>>In the NT, God is portrayed as capable of unimaginable
>>wrath and unimaginable love.  Yep, they are different.
>
>How would you know, since obviously you haven't READ it?  Just picked a
>few smarmy quotes so you could create an arrogant .sig.

Your presumptuous criticism seems far more arrogant than his two quotes.  

>>	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
>>	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
>>	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
>>	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
>>					 who need no repentance." 
>>		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]
>
>This is pathetically preachy; pull your head out of your Christian ass and
>try living with the rest of humanity.

My experience with the "rest of humanity" suggests that they're not
nearly as hateful as you seem to be.  Perhaps you should take your 
own advice.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:24:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
> 
>    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
>    authority that grants you this right?

RIghts are not granted.  Rights are recognized.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 23 Nov 1992 11:26:09 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov19.192808.662@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.

If only the "no evidence for foetal sentience" folks could realise that.

>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmin
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:56:21 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <1992Nov21.185116.14567@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>Do you seriously expect me to believe that you thought "dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu"
>and "dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu" were two totally different people, Larry?

Actually, I had no idea what his userid was; I generally go by the name
(which, as I pointed out, was missing).  "dsholtsi" I could guess was
Holtsinger; "dsh" could be any dipshit.  Also, look at the time I sent the
note - it was about 4 in the morning.  That's one reason my patience was
low and I didn't feel like taking the time to educate whatever clueless idiot
was posting that crap inappropriately.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion