HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:51:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov17.035838.10565@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus) writes:
>What foetid, smelly rotten RUBBISH is this? If this fundie moron had actually
>read his supposed prophecies, he would notice that they all predict a 
>militaristic messiah. The jews of the time of Jesus had this idea, as did the
>jews at the writings of the alleged prophecies.

>etc...

Being rude serves no purpose except to make you seem a fool. Perhaps you 
might want to extend some of the respect to James that he does to atheists?
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:10:57 GMT

In article <1ehm2iINNid0@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>
>>In <1992Nov19.081823.17677@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith) writes:
>
>>>In article <1992Nov18.010714.1505@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>>>
>>>>What can you possibly mean by saying that rape has nothing to do with
>>>>sex?  The contrary is true as a simple matter of definition.
>>> 
>>>Jim, it continues to be a simple matter of definition the other way.
>>>How do you define sex?
>
>>I'm somewhat lost here.  I thought rape=sex+force by definition.  How
>>else can it be distinguished from other forms of assault?
>
>>As far as defining "sex" goes, I'm not sure that it can be given a
>>very succinct definition.  Dictionary definitions include "the sum of
>>the structural, functional and behavioral peculiarities of living
>>beings that subserve reproduction by two interacting parents and
>>distinguish males and females" and "sexually motivated phenomena".  In
>>connection with defining rape, the latter definition seems the more
>>pertinent.
>
>That's exactly the point.  Rape is *not* sexually motivated.
>Rape is motivated by violence and intimidation.  That's why 
>little children and old women get raped. 
>
>I suggest that the difference between rape and other forms of
>assault is largely an arbitrary one.
>
>						--  Michal


Before I get flamed I would like to first say that Rape is vile and 
violent.

For the longest time I have believed that Rape had nothing to do with
sex.  This belief made a lot of sense.

Now I do have an idea to bring forth though......and I will explain
where I am coming from when I finish.

Men assualt more men, men kill more men.  These are violent acts.  Killing
is the most violent act there is.  So why don't men rape men more?  I mean
if it were truly an act of dominance of force then wouldn't men rape men?  It
just seems like rape would be just as horrible for a man (I am Gay so I am
not talking about man on man sex).  So why aren't these violent men, who
kill and assualt men, also raping them?

I believe it is because most men aren't sexual towards other men.  

I believe that we should allow a little sexuality, a little hormonal 
difference in to our discusions about men and our behaviors because
they are a part of us.  And I beleive that these things are important because
they are part of what make us different from women....good and bad....

Bil Snodgrass III

No I don't buy into the dogma of mainstream society.  I question everything
so I can search for answers....not blame.
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Pro-life...conclusions?
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:33:48 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov20.032352.9297@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <3159@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays):
>> Sometimes abortions fail and children get born.  This shows that
>> abortion is wrong.
>> 
>> Sometimes contraceptives fail and children get born.  This shows that
>> contraceptives are wrong.
>> 
>> Sometimes people fail at abstinence and children get born.  This shows
>> that abstinence is wrong.

>Sometimes people fail at using twisted logic to make a point.  This 
>shows that the quality of the original assertion has everything to
>do with the success of the argument.  It might not be wrong, but it
>sure does make the poster look silly...

And sometimes people fail to use logic at all.  I have seen the first
statement presented as an attempt to dissuade people from getting
an abortion.  I see no logical difference between the first,
second and third statement.  What difference do you perceive between
these statements?

Perhaps I am being silly.  I would suggest that you show how I am
being silly, rather than simply assert it.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:18:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.014640.18971@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

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

>>>> 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.  The
>> four sources which I provided prove this fact.  

> The some 30 states with laws restricting abortion iin the
> third trimester prove you incorrect.  

No, it only proves that some states have laws on the books
which are unconstitutional.  Many states have failed to
remove their old abortion laws after Roe v. Wade was
handed down.  The existence of a law doesn't mean that 
the law can be enforced without being challenged. 

> The Roe v Wade
> opinion states that you are wrong explicitly.  

No it doesn't. 

> An interpetation
> of health by a law professor writing an article for a law journal
> is neither law nor fact.  Tushnet's opinion does not carry the
> force of law, and the facts bear this out.

Mark Tushnet didn't write an interpretation of the term ``health'',
he quoted a Supreme Court decision.  So did several other authors,
in the sources which I provided.

>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:09:33 GMT

hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:

> I just galnced through this group for the first time, and I sense a lot of
> hostility...You can all beat me down however you want, but it is nothing
> compared to the silent holocaust going on every day in this country.

[--more ranting deleted--]

I bid 50 pazoozas for this one!!!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power."  -- Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:35:10 GMT

Followups are directed to alt.stupidity, which is really the only
appropriate group for this character.

In article <1992Nov22.185028.10080@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:

>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <1992Nov21.222825.4882@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>>
>>>If she knows that she's drinking enough to impare her judgement, beforehand,
>>>then she IS giving consent; knowing she won't give it later.
>>
>>Yeah, and if you get drunk in a bar and wake up naked in an alley somewhere,
>>you gave your consent to being robbed, too, right?  Idjit.
>
>No

Thank you.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48252 talk.religion.misc:21287 alt.atheism:21426
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 17 Nov 1992 16:53:03 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

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

No it isn't - and you should try living with the rest of humanity yourself,
if you can see them through your blind anti-religious bigotry.  

>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 

-- 
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: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:45:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.221931.97865@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I'm glad you enjoyed my post to soc.singles, Mr. Margolis.
>> Despite your threatening e-mail to my sysadmin, I shall
>> continue to post to soc.singles.

> This statement is not correct.

Are you saying that you didn't contact my sysadmins?
Or that your e-mail wasn't threatening?   You e-mailed 
the postmaster at 'ncsu.edu' that someone should have
a talk with me about my posting to soc.singles.  The 
sysadmin e-mailed me a copy.  Shall I post your e-mail 
to prove it?  

You know, the really funny thing is that you didn't
contact me first via e-mail -- you went straight to
the NCSU system administrators.  What does that say 
about you Margolis? 

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Franklin University (Columbus, OH)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:02:02 GMT

In article <adams.722185897@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>From article <1992Nov16.030911.25233@watson.ibm.com>, by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
>>> 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.
>>> |> 
>>> 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
>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
>A (minor) nit...Lutherans are catholic.  And so are Eastern & Greek
>Orthodox and Anglicans.
>
	Your nit needs to be picked a bit more...
	Evangelical Lutherans are QUITE protestant...
	Tho, I do agree the Missouri Synod-varieties are Catholics without a pope...

						=Mblwb+Kpblca=

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:53:22 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1eha68INNslc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>,The life is a forseeable (even if not probable) consequence of the
>,[sexual] activity, life is valuable, and destroying life is bad.

>Why?

I assume the "why" refers to the assertions that "life is valuable,
and destroying life is bad."

Life in general is valuable because it is the condition for the
realization of all other values.  Particular lives are valuable
because each is irreplaceable -- one life does not substitute for
another.

In addition, each of us views his own life as possessing a unique
value and so can't reasonably deny that unique value to other lives.

Possibly someone might reject all this.  If he did, what superior
principles could he point to to guide action?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48154 talk.religion.misc:21224 alt.atheism:21368
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
From: jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus)
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:42:20 CST

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>   The New Tesament CANNOT be reconciled with what you refer to as
>the 'Old' Testament, and I refer to as the Bible.

I disagree.

>  The whole idea
>of the New Testament was that the OT was replaced, not augmented.
                                          ~~~~~~~~

>   I am a Jew.  As a Jew, I have no use for, or interest in Jesus
>or Christianity.  As the focus of the NT is on Jesus, the form of
>the NT is 'biographical.'  The OT is a narritive of the growth of
>the human race as a moral species.  It is the story of God trying
>to teach us right from wrong.
>-- 
>   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
>may not be both."
>                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament.  Many of the prophets
(esp. Isaiah) told of the promised Messiah, who was fulfilled
in every detail in Jesus.  (I only have a NT with me, otherwise I would
quote some verses.)  I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this,
because I believe that you are still expecting the Messiah to come.  I am
also interested to understand why.  Feel free to email me at
jsm@aeg.dsto.gov.au if you don't wish to discuss this over alt.atheism.


Yours in Christ,
James.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:54:28 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

] frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
] # It's pretty clear to all of us, I think, that cancer is always unwelcome, and
] # pregnancy isn't.  I don't imagine women will voluntarily place cancer cells
] # in their womb anytime soon, and I don't believe you do either.
] 
] I have several benign cancers I am in no hurry to have removed.

And, given that along with all the OTHER wonderful
changes my body goes through once a month, I get a
24-48 hour bout with cramps bad enough to disrupt
my sleep, and work, and generally make it impossible
to function the first 2 days of menses, I have MANY
times longed for my PAP smear to come back showing
cancer cells - so I could HAVE a hysterectomy and
STOP the cramping and bleeding.

Diana

p.s.: not to mention that if I had to have the
full ovario-hysterectomy the PYM would probably be
ecstatic - I wouldn't always want *SEX!* - it
says here in VERY small print...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:33:44 GMT

>> APK
> Ted Krueger

>>Uh, just one thing Paul...  Isn't Pro-Choice the middle ground?
>>Pro-Abortion  <----->  Pro-Choice  <----->  Pro-Life

>Yes, Pro-Choice is the middle ground, but not if you give only 
>one person a choice.  For pro-choice to be the true middle ground, 
>you must give everyone involved a choice: the mother, the child, 
>and the father.  The pro-choice movement in america ignores two 
>of the people involved.

Well, when I had my abortion, Ted, I asked the father and he agreed to the
abortion.  I asked the fetus and it didn't reply, so I took that as
indifference.  I am part of the pro-choice movement in America.  How did
I ignore two of the people [sic] involved?

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:56:32 GMT

In article <sgcnaes@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
}
}dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
}|ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
}|>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
}|>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
}|No there is not.  At least not legislative. 

}What do you call Roe v Wade, then?  Or do you agree with
}Holtsinger about Roe?

I don't know what anyone else calls it, but I think it is a judicial
decision, not legislation.  I know some people will try to educate me
that courts legislate, in addition to the legislature, but I admit
that I'm pretty hopeless in my belief.  Oh, and I don't agree with
Holtsinger either, if it isn't very obvious...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:39:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted




In article <ar110=m@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
##In article <nyikos.722267650@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
##nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#
### [.. Jeff Greenfield's post ..]
#
### BTW I am curious to know whether Susan endorses the words I mistakenly
### attributed to her.  They sounded quite in character with the other
### things she has written.
#
##Of course she does endorse Jeff Greenfield's bogus arguments.
#
#Trying to control women again, Dougie?

It won't work, if he is.  I'm still here, and I'm still capable
of speaking for myself.  I wonder why DODie thought otherwise.
(Perhaps he sent some threatening e-mail of his own...)

#Or are you just trying to harass Susan off the net?

Oh oh, rocker, I think you've uncovered his secret desire.  Of
course, impotent idiots like the Reverend are incapable of
such actions.  Only radical extremist feminists like you and
me are able to harass people off the net.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:42:21 GMT

In article <1eqfqjINNiqq@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1ej3u6INNiht@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>#In article <1egokhINNghu@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>[doctor needs to kill almost born foetus to save mother]

>#>I don't understand this.  If a woman and infant are in a car-wreck, and there
>#>is only time to cut one free and save them, do you have a gut reaction to
>#>someone who makes a snap decision to save the infant?  I only have a gut
>#>reaction to the car-wreck.

>#Frank, in the car-wreck, does the rescuer face the fact that one (the fetus)
>#is the *cause* of the imminent death of the other (the woman)?  That
>#*might* have something to do with it.

>Firstly, It was Ms. Bartley's statement that she would have a gut reaction
>against any doctor who would not give PRIORITY to the woman that I didn't
>understand, not a doctor intervening to save a mother.  In future, please
>quote me in the correct context.

My gut reaction is partly for Adrienne's reason....  More, I guess
(it's honestly hard to tell) because if you sacrifice the fetus for
the woman, you've got a woman (and maybe her husband) with a dead
baby.  If you sacrifice the woman for the fetus, you've got a baby
that's either an orphan or has a father who has to know that his wife
would still be alive except for this child.

>Secondly, it can be argued with equal validity that the *woman* is the cause
>of the imminent death of the *foetus*.  So your point does not change my
>perception that the woman and child are equally important.

Cluelessness alert!

If the woman had never existed, neither would the fetus.

If the fetus had never existed, the woman wouldn't even be in danger.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:58:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Nov23.065102.162651@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <1992Nov21.114912.5747@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> >
> >I just read in our local paper that a local celebrity, noted for his picketing
> >of the local Planned Parenthood offices and his strong championing of
> >fundamentalist causes is being investigated by a grand jury for sexually
> >molesting three children........
> >
> >Hmmmm....  That's why he's anti-abortion!  More available kids!
> 
> If you have more information, please post it.  I'm sure Peter Nyikos would
> consider this an indictment of fundamentalists and anti-abortion protesters.

I wouldn't be so sure.  Remember when he discussed those who
bomb abortion clinics as part of their anti-abortion beliefs,
he started by saying that maybe it was the staff at the clinics
who did the bombing.  When confronted with the fact that in
some cases the criminals were caught and found to be staunch
anti-abortion protestors, he said maybe they were actually
pro-life supporters trying to smear the anti-abortion side,
this despite the fact that at least on is an official of
O.R.  So maybe he'll claim this guy your discussing is a
pro-choice supporter who pretends to be anti-abortion so
that he can molest children, get caught, and smear the anti-
abortion crowd.

Dean Kaflowitz