HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:37:14 GMT

In <1993Jan8.220302.19457@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726525430@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan8.190010.13178@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>>[Deletions]
>>
>>>>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>>>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>>>for more than a few years.
>>>>
>>>You have an awful lot to learn, don't you?
>>
>>>When you are ready to leave HappyBunnyLand and try living in the Real
>>>World (tm) then come talk to us.
>>
>>You have an awful lot to learn, don't you?
>>
>>Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged persons: I
>>hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high) value as any lives. The
>>above statement originally followed someone else's statement that z/e/f's
>>should be less valued because many didn't survive til birth. This
>>is an example of reductio ad absurdum, Mark: disproving a proposed 
>>principle by showing it leads to obviously wrong conclusions.
>>
>I'm aware of what you were *trying* to show, but you did a very poor
>job of it. Your statement about survival time for AIDS patients is
>incorrect, unless your definition of "few" is considerably longer then
>the average.

Which doesn't affect the substance of my analogy in the least.

>As for reductio ad absurdum...
>You seem to be doing fine reducing your own arguments to absurdities,
>we don't need to help you.

How so? (You've yet to indicate any examples.)

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
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 15:50:12 GMT

In <1993Jan12.023817.3315@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726774645@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>[Mr. Delete Key is happy...]

>>I believe that absolute ethical standards exist. (If I thought ethical
>>standards were intrinsically subjective, it wouldn't make sense for me
>>to argue with others in favor of my standards.) But I'm by no means
>>convinced that the standards I presently hold completely correspond
>>to the absolute ideal -- just that they're closer than any alternative
>>I've seen. Show me better standards than mine -- and demonstrate that
>>they're better -- and I'll joyfully adopt them.
>>
>Feel free to try and provide us with a single example of an "absolute
>ethic" since you are so certain they exist.

Feel free to try and explain why you bother debating ethics, since
you seem to beleive that absolute (i.e., universally correct) ethical
standards don't exist.

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
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: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:40:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.180611.6506@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.040806.5057@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.012155.3218@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan4.010225.29075@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <PATRICK.93Jan3183146@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan3.221447.8469@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>   In article <1993Jan3.183600.13294@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>   [Entire totally non-abortion related article deleted]
>>>>>
>>>>>   DODie, what the hell is this crap?
>>>>>   Why do you find it necessary to bring your religious arguments from
>>>>>   soc.singles to t.a? Neither of them is appropriate, but if that
>>>>>   concept is beyond the ability of your feeble mind to grasp, then at
>>>>>   least leave the dammed thing in the group where it started.
>>>>>   Do you practice being this stooopid, or were you born this way?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd say he puts in quite a bit of practice at it -- for a good example, try
>>>>>fingering his account at eceyv some time.  Really cute .plan, if you ask me.
>>>>>(Not quite the artwork of Chaney's, but you can tell he exercised his single
>>>>>neuron to the limits in producing it...:-)
>>>>>
>>>>Well, I'm sure he practices, but don't you think it takes a certain
>>>>inborn (or more correctly, inbred) trait to be capable of such
>>>>astounding feats of stupidity?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or, even more correctly, crossbred.
>>>
>>What do you think he is? Half monkey, half chiwuaua? (Or whatever that
>>little rodent looking dog is called...)
>>
>
>I'll agree with the chiwuaua bit, but I wouldn't give doug too much 
>credit by claiming him to be part primate. Seems to me that he should be
>part sloth. Spends 22 hours a day unconsious, moves at 1/3 of a mile
>per hour, and has the intelligence of a doorknob. Yup, that's doug.
>
And yaps constantly, with each yap sounding almost exactly like the
others... I think we may be getting someplace here...
Ok, who's the twit at NCSU that let the beast out of the experimental
breeding labs???

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:41:06 GMT


olling an innocent in defense of your life?
t article <1993Jan8.215056.2812@midway.uchicago.edu>,
eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:

>In article <C0FBKp.BzK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
>writes:

>>I will give you a moral absolute.

>>Murder is wrong.

>Lovely.  Now, define "murder" (as something other than "wrongful
>killing of a human", so as to avoid tautology) so that we know
>precisely what you're claiming.

>Which of the following is murder?  Which are not murder but still wrong?

>Killing in cold blood?
>Killing while intending to only injure?
>Killing an attacker in defense of your life?
>Killing an attacker in defense of another's life?
>Killing an attacker in defense of a pet's life?
                                
...

Being bludgeoned to death with "A fetus is a person! Is not! Is too!
Is not! What about AIDS patients? Is not! Is too! Who cares? That
child ain't yours! Shut up! Why don't you?"

[smileys for the humorless]

Tep--boy, I love this newsgroup (-;

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 18:43:52 GMT

<1993Jan7.225030.6082@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article <1993Jan7.023419.11909@Princeton.EDU>, by datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper):
>> <1993Jan6.225301.2016@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
...
>> (Life's full of tough choices, inn'it?) Can an anencephalic baby even
>> have an identity beyond numerical identity, or is it merely a mass
>> of biological tissue shaped like a human being?
>
>She had her own identity.  Her parents even agreed with that premise enough
>that they named her.  She was never "Baby XYZ", "Baby 978", or even "Baby Doe".

I bet you forgot that even ships and planes are named.

>She was "Baby Theresa" and she was a human being.

I think they missed a great opportunity to perform a human brain
transplant.  What a chance for research.


Gordon
-- 
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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 23:55:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.063657.20201@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[Deletions]

>I'd say most prominent would be all the photographic, videographic, and
>sonographic images now available to anyone brave enough to look.  What
>they all show us is a child of great beauty and grace, the future of
>the human race, something of of great value.
>
Suzzie, I'd say it's a safe bet I've seen more of this 'photographic,
videographics and sonographic images' then you ever will. I still see
a fetus. What you are seeing is purely the result of your
fundametalist rightwing fetus fanatic idiocy.

>I
>demonstrated that it is absurd to think that Christ himself would assist
>in any abortion.  Instead He would provide for the needs of both the mother
>and the child.  Which btw is just what a great many pro-lifers are doing.
>(And many of them are Christian too.)
>
Nonsese Suzzie. You didn't demonstrate any such thing. You merely (as
usual) proclaimed your own version of truth and expect the rest of the
world to buy into your delusions.
So how many unwanted deformed crack babies have you adopted Suzzie?
And how many of their mothers are you letting move into your home so
you can support them?
If your answer is zero, you will be exposing yourself once again as a
lying hypocritical bitch.

>Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.
>
Ah, and you consider your hate filled attitudes to be such an
emulation? Makes me glad I'm an atheist and don't need to emulate
"Casper the friendly ghost" (used without permission, but I don't
think Madja will mind :]  ) the way you do.

>
>Suzzie Forgasm


--
                  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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54117 talk.politics.misc:66213
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:36:17 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>     "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
>appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
>of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
>considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).

Well, if you hadn't said "definition", I would have let this go, but...
According to Funk & Wagnals Standard Desk Dictionary:

child:  1. An offspring of human parents.  2. A boy or girl, most commonly one
between infancy and youth.  3. A descendant.  4. A childish person.  5. A
product of a specified condition, quality, etc: a child of joy.

(4 and 5 obviously don't apply in this case)  I looked up offspring, and it
is similar with no specific mention that the unborn would be considered.  The
second definition implies that the unborn really *don't* satisfy it since they
are not in the range of infancy to youth.  (I also object to the phrase "unborn
person" since it is a contradiction, except *possibly* very late-term ones.)

If you insist on using "child" to refer to the unborn, please remember that it
is only by a stretch of the definition (a reasonable one, but still a stretch)
and not by a specific definition itself.  On the other hand, calling them a
fetus is excatly the definition.  The poster was using more precise terminology
to clarify the distinction between a person (who is born) and an unborn human
being (I hope you don't find that "dehumanizing").

>     C. Perttunen

I do not oppose the death penalty, either.  One reason is this:  A person
murders a dozen victims. (a serial killer)  When we finally catch him (most
serial killers are men, though a few are women) we throw him in prison where
he gets food and shelter for many years at our expense.  There is the chance
that we will be unable to keep feeding all the prisoners and some will have
to be let out early, and that serial killer *could* be one of them (though I
would hope the conditions of the sentence would make that impossible).  This
does not sound like a very good system.  It would be better to kill him and
stop having to provide for him.  Since he hates life so much that he killed
others, he has no need of his own life, and we have no need of him in our
society.

On the other hand, our legal system is by no means perfect.  (It is about the
best you can have; perfection is impossible.)  There are times when someone
is wrongly convicted--or more often, a guilty person goes free.  That is why
the death penalty is not appropriate even in many cases of murder.  When the
evidence available takes some thought and debate (ie, it isn't immediately
obvious) it is not proper to give a sentence of death.  (usually, they allow
all sorts of appeals, which helps, but still...)

-Rob
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reading Skills...
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:14:58 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>4.  The Drieuxster is dumb as a doughnut.

A casual examination of the evidence suggests that this statement is not
correct.  Self-reflection, Doug???

 -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: 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.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:06:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.040034.20167@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.031610.14505@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan9.232819.14083@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>>>>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>>>
>>>Useless answer. A pro-lifer could just as easily say
>>>
>>>"Is a fetus sentient?"
>>>Certainly. Just give birth to them if you doubt it...
>>>
>>Could say? Looks to me like one just did...
>Look again. Without your psychological astigmatisms this time.
Quit your whining and accept what you are Kebbin...
>>To which I could reply
>>*You* give birth to it and ask it yourself.
>Relevance?
Since you expect others to give birth to them, you should be willing
to as well.
>>Of course, this overlooks the simple fact that by the time you give
>>birth to it, it is no longer a fetus.
>In *EXACTLY* the same way that your answer overlooks the simple fact that
>a person who has been woken up is no longer asleep.
>Why is it so difficult for you to admit a simple mistake? Is this an ego
>thing?
>
Nope, not at all Kebbin. I admited it was a poor answer when I replied
to another article in this thread. I also corrected the mistaken
answer to include examples of people carrying on conversation while
sleeping, quite intelligently. One example I used was that of a
hematologist I had occasion to discuss a patient with at 2AM. He was
quite responsive, and remembered none of it the next day. He stated
that he must have slept right through the conversation.
Now that I've admited (again, just for you) that the original answer
was a mistake, are you ready to admit your countless mistakes?
You can start with schizophrenia vs MPD, them move along to some of
the others.

--
                  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: 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.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 14:39:53 GMT

In article <markp.726547273@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan9.001443.13479@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726532818@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan8.205944.28139@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <markp.726525430@dragonfly.wri.com>, markp@dragonfly.wri.com
>>>>(Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>
>>>>>Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged persons: I
>>>>>hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high) value as any lives.
>>>
>>>>*Any* lives? Let me guess. You're an anti-death-penalty,
>>>
>>>No; I value murder victims' lives too highly for that.
>>>
>>>>anti-euthanasia, 
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>So you not only wish to control a womans right to control her own
>>body, but you wish to control the right of an individual to end
>>his/her own life. No doubt the "pro-force" label fits you just fine
>>then. 
>
>The term "euthanasia" is ambiguous; let me clarify. If a person suffering
>a terminal illness, and in full possession of their faculties, chooses
>death, I don't think the law should interfere -- although it's a 
>deeply misguided choice. Most of what passes for euthanasia these days
>(hypothetical and actual) falls well short of this standard.
>
Euthanasia: From the greek "easy death"
The pracitce of killing individuals (as persons or domestic animals)
that are hopelessly sick or injured for reasons of mercy.

What part of that do you find ambiguous?
Your qualifiers at the end ofthat paragraph make it abundantly clerar
that you would like to impsoe your views on us here, too.


--
                  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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:45:44 GMT

In article <C0pL2v.98z@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.184804.14179@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>Well, I know it's a nice thing to do and all that, and several people
>>recommend it, but I can't find "God's law to protect the innocent."
>>Could you tell me where it is?
>
>I was speaking in general terms.  Off the top of my head I can think of the
>command in James to assist the fatherless, but there is probably something
>even better I could show you in the prophets with some time.
>
>Link]

Try Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 for slightly different viewpoint on prioritizing
born vs. unborn. Enjoy!
Sue


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
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.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:37:08 GMT

In article <C0FE8G.EDC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

[Deletions]

>I think the problem here, Mr. Kendig, is that morals, by nature, require
>one to believe that those who do not follow those morals are inherently
>inferior to some extent.  In other words, we live by a certain set of
>morals.  When we see others violating those morals, it is quite
>natural to assume the mantle of superiority.  
>
No Eddie. While this may be true of *your* particular set of morals,
they are not true of everybodies. My own set of morals requires that I
*not* try to run other peoples lives for them. What you ar edescribing
is not "natural" to the concept of morality, it is simply your way of
defending your desire to make choices for others.

>Why is my repeating "abortion is murder" any more stupid than those
>who keep saying "abortion is not murder", or those who keep saying 
>"stop oppressing women by taking away their reproductive rights", etc.?
>
Perhaps because the "abortion is not murder" and the "oppressing
women" arguments have been substantiated by mountains of evidence,
while you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support
your claims? Nah, that's too obvious an explaination...

>I apologize sincerely if you feel any of my remarks were too sharp.
>
How about apologizing to those of us who find your remarks too dull
for words?

--
                  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