HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Clarifications, further comments (LONG)
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:47:57 GMT

wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:

Hi Bill, how's it goin?

>On the other hand, numerous studies have documented the negative effects 
>of divorce on children.  Academic performance has been found to be sig-
>nificantly lower in children of divorce (for at least five years after
>the divorce).  Children of divorce experience more depression and anxiety
>than their counterparts from intact families. 

Every time I hear about studies like this my blood boils.  I am interpreting
this to mean that the _divorce_ is the cause of this poor academic performance,
depression and anxiety.  Is this the conclusion of the studies you talk
about?  I would _severly_ question that premace (sp?) that _divorce_ causes 
these things; rather, I would tend to believe that the way the divorce is
handled has MUCH to do with a child's reaction to it, even many years after
the papers are signed.  If the parents continue to quarrel, and use the
children as pawns then you're damned right the effects are devistating.  
However, if the parents try to put aside their differences and get along
like civilized human beings, then I would be hard pressed to believe that
those children suffer so.  

In other words, if the home life, be it a "broken" home or not, is
nurturing to the child, I can't believe the child suffers. 

As you can probably guess, my parents divorced (when I was very young).  The
problems I had (which weren't enumerated above) can be directly attributed
to the neglect I suffered from my natural father, not the divorce itself.

>In general, the presence
>of both parents in the home produces children who are more well adjusted,
>i.e. have fewer social and emotional difficulties, and better academic
>performance. 

While in a "normal" setting I agree, I cannot believe that blanket statements
like this can be (or should be) concluded from studies.  Either the study
group was so narrow to exclude extremes (like abusive or neglectful
families (divorce or not), or that data was ignored.  When folks go around
citing these results without clarifying the type of groups that were studied,
it makes it extremely difficult to see what the actual _cause_ of the
deviate/acceptable bahavior is.

>Given Ms. Steinham's social agenda, the ostensible implication that 
>families are better off without men isn't too surprising.

Actually I question the conclusions drawn in her book about the lowered
child abuse rate during WWII also.  To conclude that the reason for that
drop is less men in families is ludicrous; there were so many other factors
involved during that time which _has_ to be taken into consideration as
being a unique time in recent American history.


Jennifer
From: keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:41:52 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >-> >>>and isn`t harassment against the law, sonny?
-> >-> >>
-> >-> >>Certain forms of harrassment, yes. But, since YOU are
-> >-> >>making this allegation of law-breaking, don't you think
-> >-> >>it's incumbent on you to SPECIFY exactly what laws Welch
-> >-> >>has supposedly broken? Chapter and verse, I mean.

-> >-> > but heck, let's pretend for a moment that this
-> >-> > particular thread isn't just another continuation of
-> >-> > your net.vendetta.  so, you stated "since YOU are making
-> >-> > this allegation of law-breaking.."  see it? it's
-> >-> > included above. now, do be precise in your answer to
-> >-> > this question. where did i allege law-breaking? the post
-> >-> > reads to me, and i imagine to just about everyone else,
-> >-> > like i asked a question, "isn't harassment against the
-> >-> > law, sonny?" does that look like a question to you?

-> >-> Given that Welch had admitted to harrassment, your
-> >-> question amounts logically to the same thing:
-> >-> 
-> >-> "admits to harrassment" + "harrassment is illegal" => "admits
-> >-> to law-breaking"

answer the question kevin: where did i allege law-breaking?

-> >other that you, who said harassment was illegal?

-> You asked the question in the negative - "isn't harrassment
-> illegal?" - which ALWAYS implies a certain state of affairs.

stop dodging the querstion kevin: where did i allege
law-breaking? oh, isn't it a nice day today?


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof/Solution
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:04:22 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr13.153534.2036@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:
|In a previous article, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) says:
|>If this does not require the mother to be responsible for what
|>action the fetus takes after being removed from the uterus, is
|>this not the same as allowing for abortion. 

|remove the uterus while you're at it.

Is there any particular reason why you're advocating
violence against women?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:23:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.221818.18249@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> >>To me, that means living.
> 
> >So what?
> 
> The fetus is also classified as homo sapien sapien. Thus, to 
> end the existence of a living homo sapien sapien has been 
> known up till know as Murder. That's what...

Your remarks here, Steve, are incorrect.  Murder is a legal
term with a specific definition.  It refers to the unlawful
ending of another human life.  Not all killing of humans is
classified as murder.  If someone were to attempt my life,
or indicate that such an attempt was eminent, I could legally
kill that person and not be guilty of murder.  Additionally,
killing an enemy in time of war is not classified ass murder.
When the state imposes the punishment of death on a convicted
killer, that is not classified as murder.  There are, in fact,
many more examples of ending the existence of a living
homo sapien ssapien which are not called "murder."

One more example:  abortion of an eight week old fetus
by a licensed physician in accordance with the laws of the
state in which the abortion took place is not classified as
murder.

Dean Kaflowitz
>    steve (who is listening to the devil's music (zepellin) and enjoying it!)
>     ^^^rebel! 8)
> -- 
> aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
> sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
> qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
> zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:53:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.002114.17357@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>Elizabeth:  Why do you say you are "pro-choice, anit-roe"?

I'm pro-choice but anti-Roe because while I think women have a *moral*
right to (at least early-term) abortions, I do not think they have a
*Constitutional* right to abortions -- and the Supreme Court saying
that the Constitution mandates something which imo it doesn't SCARES
me.  The Supreme Court has tremendous power and its self-restraint is
supposed to be the primary check on this power.  When its
self-restraint slips, I get scared.

---
"We should look to the mind, and not to the outward appearance."   - Aesop

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:16:42 EST

In article <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu
 (Suzanne Forgach) writes: 
> Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
> But she didn't, much to all our benefit.    She made-the-choice to say Yes!
> Had she said no, God would have sent his angel to ask somebody else.

Suzanne, have you heard of an event called the Immaculate Conception?
What you are suggesting is that this event could have been reversed if Mary
had said "No", and/or there were several immaculate conceptions which 
occurred at this time in order to have a backup woman ready in case Mary
said "No". Eric has already shown Mary was given no choice which leaves
me to conclude your post was:
1) Heresy - You really think Mary had a choice (none or many I.C.'s).
2) Hypocrisy - You don't believe what you posted.
3) You have absolutely no idea of what you are posting.
4) You forgot the smiley.

Your previous observation that "Satan causes miscarriages" falls into
one of these classifications also. I continue to wait for a clarification
of this statement. Please explain yourself:) 

> Obviously, somebody who says no to pregnancy now-a-days, via abstinence,
> will remain non-pregnant.

With the obvious exception of rape. Now would a woman using NFP or the Pill
stand a better chance of remaining non-pregnant in this case?  Just something
to tell my daughters. I believe in backups, just like you and God:)
 
> S.F.

Coincidences always amaze me, especially between my two favorite fellow
Catholic posters S.F. and S.F. - J.J.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Big news!
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr12.053925.19066@wam.umd.edu>
	<1992Apr13.235541.25734@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:24:56

In article <1992Apr13.235541.25734@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>Funny..... abortion seems to be used by a certain type of person

	MY GOD! You're right! I never noticed that before! On careful
observation, and with Matthew's inspired guidance, I have discovered
that abortion seems to be used EXCLUSIVELY by PREGNANT WOMEN!

	Where will this discovery lead us?

John
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:54:49 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <13APR92.16520524@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>> mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)

>>What is the consensus on the net for a national abortion law?
>>I am pro-life but think this issue is tearing the country apart.
>>I would like to have it settled. I don't think having 50 different
>>state laws is right.  It just favors those people who have the 
>>money to travel to a state with more liberal laws.
>>My idea of a compromise:
>>	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.

>I can see a couple of problems with this proposal. >
   Me too...

>For one thing, there are 
>some very young and very uneducated women out there who may not realize they 
>are pregnant until well after the 14th week.  Also, for some poor women it may 
   FOr one thing there are some young and uneducated posters out there
who do not realize that even at 14 weeks the fetus is taking form, 
and must be respected and treated like any other human.

How bout this a solution... Rather than wait 14 weeks or more. You're
almost half way there. Why not wait 36-38 weeks. Then you can make
a more educated decision. Look right in your baby's (whoops, how about a
born-fetus?) eyes, and decide whether you should have aborted him/her.
You've saved yourself a stressful and difficult decision, saved yourself
an operation, and brought a life into the world that might have otherwise
been destroyed.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:26:40 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr12.230932.3731@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:
|But I respect everyone's decency here. 

Is this why you called Keith Cochran a "fils du pute"?
Clearly you are using a definition of "respect" unlike
any one I've ever seen.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 05:01:42 GMT


In a previous article, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) says:

>In article <1992Apr16.015353.7074@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>Wish I were eighteen and knew everything, including how people
>would behave if I did something which I am not going to do because
>I don't have to because I am eighteen and know how everybody
>would react anyway so what's the point?
>
>And I wish all the world revolved around me like it does around
>Matthew, and I knew that if I didn't accomplish something then
>nobody else is accomplishing anything either.
>
>And since you know how everyone will behave, you certainly
>wouldn't want to even consider changing.  Oh, those wicked,
>unspecified some people.
>
>For instance, please show me to be a hypocrite as you claimed
>everyone is a hypocrite.

see my point......in the past five days I've proven how easy it is
to get NOTHING accomplished in this group when it comes to serious
discussion. Yet you still desire to continue a foolish net.vendetta
to prove some point about you manliness, debating ability, or your
best bad words to call other people names. If you are SO for
rational discussion, why do you provoke people? Sure....people
provoke you......but when they stop you continue. Some people
(not me in this case) would see this as a little hypocritical
on your part.

BTW, proof of hypocracy:

you're human.......hence, you've been a hypocrite in the past and
you'll be a hypocrite in the future.

It's all a matter of timing.....which is something I NEVER claimed
to know in your case.

Now back to productive discussion please. I've posted 2 fairly
thoughtful posts. Maybe you missed them. I haven't read any 
caustic post concerning myself yet.


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:13873 talk.religion.misc:6223 soc.singles:10486 talk.bizarre:10207
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,soc.singles,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: "Dances with MorallyQuestionableOnes"[1]
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.215620.9119@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Ly
>man) writes:

>>Or perhaps you are still trying to sort out the difference between newborns
>>and management types???

>Take that difference and shove it way up.

My, My, a management type speaks... or makes noise, anyway

Ron.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14403 alt.abortion.inequity:613
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:03:14 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its
>           morals on others.
>
>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

    Fine as a basis for most moral systems, except that there should be
some amount of agreement as to a moral setup; otherwise people get real
confused trying to track the morals of the week...
    Note that this is two premises: 1a) human life should have the right
to determine its morals, and 1b) no imposition of moral structures.

>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals.
>
>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life.

    Small technical point to start here: a premise is just that: an
assumption at the start of an argument. If it depends on previous steps or
premises of the proof, it is a derivation or interiem result. The term
'premise' belongs to those things introduced as a basis of the argument,
and using it for a mix of steps can be misleading.
    The major problem with this argument shows most strongly here. It is the
implicit and undefined term "human life" and the assertion that the fetus
belongs in this class. These are the premises of this step, the derivation
is that given these premises the fetus inherits the properties of the
"human life" class.

>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.
>
>Follows from premise A and B.
    Again, not a premise. Since this is completely derivation, the
terminology is not as important in this step.

>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.

    You haven't supported the definition or premise of step B, upon which
the entire argument depends. I'd be willing to accept both parts of A for
the sake of argument, but B is the core of the abortion debate. Proof by
assertion doesn't make it in this forum.

    Organized a little better, but still the same argument you presented
before, with the same lacks. No support for a) any definition of human life,
or b) inclusion of the fetus into this class, which depends on the
definition of (a).

                                                    kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
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: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:52:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.155422.13276@hubcap.clemson.edu> conradv@snake.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
>conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes ...
>>rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes..... 
>>>The past record of the Catholic Church cannot
>>>be used to prove that the Church is mistaken now
>>>n its belief that abortion is wrong. Given its 
>>>past record it is not unreasonable  to infer that the Church 
>>> is _likely_ to be incorrect
>>
>>Catholics believe that the Pope's support of the heliocentric
>>theory was outside the realm in which a Pope could expect 
>>divine guidance in his rulings . Abortion has moral and
>>religous overtones - the domain in which a Pope's ruling 
>>is guided by Divine will.
>rfischer@cs.stanford.ed writes:
>>Well then, how about an area that DOES have religious and
>>moral overtones?  How about the crusades where the noble
>>Christians invaded, murdered, and robbed the heathen Arabs
>>in order to save their souls and liberate them of their
>>corrupting wealth?
>>Or what about the Inquisition where people were tortured
>>and burned at the stake in order to save their souls?
>THE Inquisition and the crusades were not religous 
>incidents. They were events with political overtones.

Ah, yes.  If you make up enough excuses, you can claim that anything was "not
the Church's fault".

And, since the women's rights controversy certainly has "political overtones",
can I assume that you're stating that the Pope and the Church have no business
mucking about in it???
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:40:48 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>Sorry, but there is a flaw in your thinking there.  "Pro-Lifers" are not
>trying to take away womes rights.  We are trying to protect innocent childrens
>lives.  And if any of those other groups ever started saying they had the
>right to kill other people, you can bet your sweet ass that we would try to
>stop them. 

Sheesh, what hypocritical doublespeak.  This is a person who should
be working for the military.

Abortion foes are trying to take away the right of women to terminate 
a pregnancy and the right to determine what happens to their bodies
and the lives.  Further, you are not trying to protect childrens lives
(at least, not in the general case).  On one hand, a zygote or embryo 
is not a child, and on the other hand, it appears that the anti-abortion
camp doesn't care one bit about the lives of children.  They appear to
be interested only in banning abortion and turn a blind eye to all the
thinking & feeling children that are suffering and dying in the world.

In short, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and has feathers,
don't beleive it when it tells you it's a cow.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:18:18 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

>>To me, that means living.

>So what?

The fetus is also classified as homo sapien sapien. Thus, to 
end the existence of a living homo sapien sapien has been 
known up till know as Murder. That's what...
   steve (who is listening to the devil's music (zepellin) and enjoying it!)
    ^^^rebel! 8)
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA