HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:33:13 GMT

In article <root.727512141@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>
>>people like james g. keegan jr. who can't find the SHIFT,
>>CAPS or CAPSLOCK keys
>
>I vote this the greatest stretch to try a flame yet this year.  I suppose
>Stephen's never heard of ee cummings?

You mean the poet who actually had something _meaningful_ to say in all-
lowercase? As opposed to the Usenetter whose dearth of capitalization
accompanies an even greater dearth of content? Well, I've heard of both
of them. What, pray tell, do they have to do with each other?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:57:19 GMT

> = hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>But why should abortions be made rare if they are not wrong?  

Think, man, think!  It couldn't be more obvious.
Hint: Should amputations be rare if they're not wrong?

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57989 talk.politics.misc:69818 talk.religion.misc:27577 misc.legal:23317
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Another antiBush Liberal?????
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:07:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan23.225956.29730@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> ] In article <1993Jan14.204608.18758@chpc.org>, rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
# ] # To the best o fmy knowledge, the pro-abortionist or pro-choice movement
# ] # has NEVER advocated the use of force by the government to compell a
# ] # soman to have an abortion.
# ] 
# ] In this country, yes.  Not at all the case in China.
# 
# Let me see if I get this right....
# 
# You Hate George Bush for maintaining the 
# Most Favored Nation Trading Status with the PRC
# because this Clearly Establishes that BUSH
# supports China's Mandatory Abortion Policy???????
# 
# drieux

No.  Bush doesn't think deeply enough to make the connection.

I don't hate Bush.  I think very little of him, but I don't hate him.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57175 alt.politics.homosexuality:9962 talk.religion.misc:27162
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:10:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality

In article <C15zAB.AGM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
> In article <18429@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> >The Catholic church is in direct violation of the Tax codes that
> >give it exemption from taxation. As a religious tax exempt
> >corporation, they are specifically prohibitted from direct lobbying
> >of adherants or officials for political purposes.
 
>    Are you sure you aren't just making this up?  The way I understand
> the tax code, churches may not endorse or oppose political candidates,
> but may do so as far as concerns other political issues, such as
> proposed laws.

Churches are given tax exemption as 503c corporations.
if you are interested you can call the IRS and have them send you
the relevant documents that describe the differences between
a religious tax exemption and a non-religious one.

> >The church may set whatever standards they wish for their moral code,
> >but they may not engage in poilitical activities that range beyond
> >their front doors.
 
>    According to you and who else?

Go look it up.
LUX ./. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:54:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.074055.11945@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.033340.21571@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Without a law, there is nothing to enforce. In order to get (would-be) 
>>criminals concerned about enforcement, you first have to pass laws; those 
>>same laws you keep insisting are useless.
>
>Oh come on, Kevin, lots of tyrants have had their will enforced without
>benefit of law.  

Is that what you prefer? Myself, I'd rather have laws to dictate exactly how 
force will be applied in society. At least that provides SOME measure of 
tyranny-prevention. If you just let force erupt out of control, eventually
you get tyrants, of various shapes and sizes. Look at Somalia.

I distinguish between "force" and "enforcement", by the way. "Force" is just
a general term. "Enforcement", on the other hand, implies the use of force
towards a particular goal. Laws reflect goals for which it is valid to use
force. Democracies pass laws which reflect their people's ideas of what goals
are valuable and what aren't. It actually works, Galen. You'd be surprised.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:16:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.165434.23402@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.074055.11945@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>>Oh come on, Kevin, lots of tyrants have had their will enforced without
>>benefit of law.  
>
>Is that what you prefer? Myself, I'd ...

[Kevin's fantasy deleted]

Of course I didn't say anything even remotely like that.  

>I distinguish between "force" and "enforcement", by the way. "Force" is just
>a general term. "Enforcement", on the other hand, implies the use of force
>towards a particular goal. Laws reflect goals for which it is valid to use
>force. Democracies pass laws which reflect their people's ideas of what goals
>are valuable and what aren't. It actually works, Galen. You'd be surprised.

The validity of using force in concert with goals, whether legal or not has
implications I won't get into right now.  Of course, I didn't bring up
"force" at all, and I certainly didn't try to contrast it either "enforcement"
or anything else.  

Oh, and Kevin, this is for you:


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back to you, Larry
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:58:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

A repost of:

>Date: 24 Sep 92 18:31:05 GMT
>Message-ID: <nyikos.717359465@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

>In <1992Sep22.235824.36109@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>om> writes:

>>In  <nyikos.717180262@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pet
>er Nyikos) writes:

>[addressing Ron Bense:]

>>> Bottom line: I believe that even the faintest awareness of one's sensations
			   ^^^^
>>And that awareness isn't possible before 28 weeks.
      ^^^^

>Careful what you say, son.  If your "that" goes with mine, you have
>just slandered me, and you know it.

Um, that would be libel, now, wouldn't it? :)

And how is it defamatory? (Unless, of course, you're claiming that you
are younger than 28 weeks of age, which would explain much, like your
lack of coherent thought, mis-statements, and all the time available
to you to respond ad nauseum like you do.)

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:31:22 GMT

In article <1ji7tmINNfnv@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>
>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>
>>What did man B do that man A did not -- given that the woman's choice
>>was unilateral in each case?  What is the source of his obligation,
>>and is it something he caused?  If he caused it, then how -- if man A
>>did not?
>
>Lets try a little analogy here:  You earn $1M and do not report it to 
>the IRS.  Some beancounter at the IRS decides to audit you.  You end 
>in hock for back taxes + fines, etc.  John Doe also earns $1M and does 
>not report it. He does not get audited.  He gets off scott free.
>
>Are you exempt from paying just because John Doe didn't get caught?

Bad analogy...

Regardless of your political views on taxation, you must acknowledge that the
IRS "beancounter" is duly authorized by our current system of government to 
exercise control, via the decision to audit or not to audit, over whether you 
and/or John Doe will be "in hock" or not. Furthermore, this control is exercised
WITHOUT the "beancounter" having any personal stake in the outcome of 
whatever decision he makes -- if he DOES somehow have a conflict of interests, 
he must recuse himself.

In the case of paternity child support, however, the woman is NOT duly
authorized (except _de facto_, by a temporary legal aberration) to exercise 
control, via the decision whether or not to abort, over whether the father of 
the conceptus will be "in hock" or not. And, even if she WERE duly authorized,
she has a SEVERE conflict of interest problem, since if she decides to have
and keep the child, then whatever child support expenses aren't covered under 
his liability remain for HER to assume. Her decision is clearly tainted by 
self-interest, and cannot therefore necessarily be relied upon as the best
decision for society as a whole.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: RE: Left Wing Anti-Abortionists
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:39:16 GMT


In article <20JAN93.15572146@vax.clarku.edu>, hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

|>In a previous article, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) wrote:
|>> 
|>>I oppose abortion simply because I feel it is wrong to take another life.
|>>Any life.Its just wrong. 
|> ^^^^^^^^
|>
|>But are you, or are you not, a vegetarian?
|>
Heather.....

Why do people always take me so literally?
I mean Human life. Animals are put here to feed us and clothe us.
I do not support game hunting just for skins or just for the sake of
seeing how many deer you can kill...But if you are going to use the
meat and skin than it is OK. 

OOHHH!!!! I forgot the question...No I am not a VegHead(no offense intended
it is just my nickname for Vegetarians. I respect Vegetarians for there own
reasons and personally I don't think being pro-life has anything to
do with a vegetarian.
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:15:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.230439.22483@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>This is absurd.  Since Paul freely admitted to having been a mass
>murderer before his conversion, why on earth would he have concealed
>something like his past sex-life?
Chapter and verse, Suzanne? "Persecuted" doesn't do it, either.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Phooey hangs "Kick Me" sign on his back
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:18:55 GMT

Oooo, I almost missed this!

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> Go ahead and call me anal-retentive, Chris.  And tell me: when you
> addressed me with the words, "Yo! Shit-fer-brains," were you being
> anal-retentive, or maybe suffering from diarrhea of the mouth?

Gosh, such low-dud questions; how should I answer?  Hmmm.  Peter, do you
really want me to remind everybody of a conspicuous lapse of reasoning
on your part?  Sheeesh, you're beginning to sound like Steve Franklin.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:42:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.052258.14213@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.012006.20871@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her 
>>>>that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>>>made such a statement. Or retract it.
>>
>>Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
>>abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
>>cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.
>>
>No Kebbin. Work on your reading skills. He quite specifically is
>talking about an abortion performed during a full term labor.

That falls under "at any time", does it not?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Suzanne admits that she lied about her newsserver problems
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:59:44 GMT

Will PHoney follow suit?

In article <1993Jan20.195032.8073@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>I never go away, you jerk.   I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you
>nuts.  And I'm glad.

Does anyone else remember Suzanne claiming that she didn't
see repeated requests for documentation?  She said each time
that her newsserver crashed.  Now she says she never goes
away.  Is she lying now, or just admitting that she perfected
Nyikos Excuse #1 a long time ago?

Susan




Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57352 talk.religion.misc:27256 alt.atheism:26810
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:32:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) says:

[Is a fetus a human stuff deleted]
As to the "conceive and bear a son" line not
>showing humanity, what does it show?  

It shows that God has foreknowledge. I don't think there's a Bibilical
account in which God says "conceive and bear a son" with a subsequent
record of a woman miscarrying. God knew that pregnancy would go full term
and that the child born would be a boy.

From the moment of conception the only thing that is
>added is food and protection.  All of the genes and dna that are needed, color
>hair, eyes, sex, etc., are all present?  

Another, very important thing is needed: air. As I've posted before (and
another person did too, I think), throughout the Bible the beginning of
life is associated with the first breath, and the last breath is associated
with death.

If humans deserve to be protected, AND
>THIS THING IS HUMAN, then why shouldn't it be protected?
>(Just because it can't talk back?)

The woman who is pregnant is unquestionably alive and has rights.
Whether the fetus is human is a subject of endless debate--which
shows no signs of ending any time soon. Therefore, let those who
believe fetuses are human take care of those little things, and
let those who believe they are not human do as their consciences
dictate.
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
*Linda Zinn                         When you point a finger at someone,     *
*au500@cleveland.freenet.edu        you're pointing three back at yourself! *
**********Wanted: Books by E.D.E.N. Southworth; cattail dinnerware***********
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:17:23 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>> Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right
>> to bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>
>I think you're going to have a long wait ahead of you.  For months
>now, I've been trying to get a pro-choicer to explain why abortion
>is morally justified even when it violates the child's right to 
>bodily autonomy.  I got a bunch of kooky explanations, but none 
>that really distinguished between a newborn infant and a child 
>who's still in the womb, or that didn't reduce the woman to a 
>fetal container.

Can you explain why abortion is morally proscribed even when it
DOESN'T violate the fetus's right to bodily autonomy?  I suspect that
I too am in for a long wait.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:56:45 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?

A mysterious "pro-life" advocate appears and says:
On 19-Jan-93 in Something's Missing!?        
user cs225 student@eng-nxt09. writes:
>       It seems to me that the last person to challenge the authority and  
>the omnipotence of God (i.e. our dear friend St. Lucifer) got a one way  
>ticket on the Quad bus to hell.

Christians and their god are certainly a paragon of how see the role of
authority in life.  I think it was only right that anyone who challenged
Stalin got a one way ticket to the Gulags, if Stalin was nice enough to
let them live.  

On 19-Jan-93 in Something's Missing!?        
user cs225 student@eng-nxt09. writes:
>**NOTE: before anyone rides me for judging others let me just say this:
>	I codemn no one who has made the choice to have an abortion even
>	though I am a pro-life advocate, yet I beg anyone who has made
>	this choice, or is about to make this choice to put your fears of
>	immediate future aside and contemplate where you will be spending
>	the afterlife.  Can any inconvienience caused by unwanted
>	pregancy compare to an eternity of pain and anguish?

My glorious friend in the pro-life movement did forget to mention that
all you who voted for Clinton had better repent before god has his way
with you.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58500 talk.religion.misc:27811 misc.legal:23507
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Into the Breach, one more time
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:25:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <C1G7uJ.GKB@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Yup.  It's not supported by the Bible.  It's recognized that it was
> >a part of that culture, and the New Testament includes sections that
> >tell slaves that they have the best chance of persuading their
> >masters by behaving in a loving manner. 
> No.  If the Bible was opposed to slavery, it would have said so.  Instead, it
> told slaves to try to 'convince' masters to let them free, thus implying that
> masters have a legitimate right to the decision, which indeed supports the 

Telling slaves to run away in the Roman Empire would have been extremely
foolish.  It was NOT comparable to such actions as the Underground
Railroad in the U.S., where slaves were being moved to a civilized part
of the world where slavery was illegal.

> existence of the practice.  Recognizing the practice merely entailed saying
> "there are slaves."  The above quotes support slavery by legitimizing it in 
> the dictates of God.  Silliness.

No, a failure on your part to recognize the reality of Christianity's
extreme minority status in the Roman Empire in the first century.

> >(Keep in mind that slaves
> >under Roman law had more freedom and rights than they did under
> >American law -- even more than "citizens" did under Soviet law.)
> Why is this relevant?  A slave is a slave.  And actually, Soviet law had a 

Because the circumstances of a Roman slave were, in some respects,
not terribly much worse than being a free employee.

> 'bill of rights' as extensive as ours.  It was never enforced, mind you, because
> the government was so corrupt and single-minded, but it was in the black-letter
> law.  And why does it matter if Roman slaves 'had it better than most.'  It 
> seems you are preparing to concede that the Bible did support slavery, on the
> grounds that it wasn't such a bad thing afetr all.
> ______________
> Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus

No, my purpose was to remind people that the conditions of slavery
in the Roman Empire (unless enslaved for a serious crime, and made
into a gladiator or galley slave) were nowhere near as severe as the
conditions of American slavery.  Our emotional reaction to the word
"slavery" is much more serious because of the terrible abuses of
American slavery.

In any case, remember that slavery was a humane response to the
traditional way of dealing with prisoners of war -- who were usually
killed before the institution of slavery was developed.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.