HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:53:49 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
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, 13 Jan 93 01:58:10 GMT

In article <markp.726853812@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>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.
>
Because it gives me pleasure watching you squirm away from the
questions directed at you. I'll repeat.
Feel free to try and provide us with a single example of an "absolute
ethic" since you are so certain they exist.
Be prepared to be laughed at when it turns out to be not-so absolute.

--
                  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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:18:52 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29511@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
]>> Mark

[...]

]>>I have no "punishment theory."

>>Seems to be what your opinion is based on. Nothing else holds water,
>>no matter how you try to disguise it. What else accounts for the fact
>>that you'd allow elective abortions in the cases of rape and incest
>>(where incest may have been consensual) and not for other pregnancies
>>that do not threaten the life of the mother? (A free clue to go with
>>your marshmallow, the fetus doesn't care how it was conceived, not
>>does it care whether it endangers any other lives, as a matter of fact,
>>it doesn't care about anything.)

[...]

>>Please do. I'd like to see an argument from you. It would be much better
>>than Blatant Assertions [Tm] garbage you've been spouting. (That's a
>>statement made without any backing, and offered as an argument in the
>>hopes that your opponent will be so flabbergasted by your seeming intelligence
>>to spout such nonsense that he'll take it at face value.)

]All you're saying is that YOU can't imagine a state of mind other than
]"punishmnet" that would result in my beliefs. That's a failing of
]your imagination, not of my beliefs.

No, Mark. I'm saying there is no other logical explanation for your
stance. Take another look at that first paragraph, will you?

]Can you respond to what I've said, not just your pop psychoanalysis of
]what I've said?

Well, you know Mark, there is a prerequisite for that, and that is that
you've said something. That was the point of my last paragraph, you
haven't said anything.

(You give them definitions, and still they do not comprehend...)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:02:59 GMT

steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>>>[I haven't commented on the aspects of christianity that are so silly to
>>>me as to be laughable...but really, it's the way Xtianity is *twisted*
>>>to fulfill hateful agendas that just PISSES ME OFF.  Not that people
>>>practice it.)
>
>>There are some notable, exceptions, eh?  One or two, perhaps?
>
>Exceptions to people twisting Xtianity?  Of course.  Probably the
>majority of christians.  You just don't HEAR about them much (except you
>:) because they purposefully enjoy their own faith and leave others
>ALONE.

Which is of course what we're supposed to be doing.  Now, if I could only
get the 'two Pats' to re-read the Bible and practice what Jesus said...

 -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: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:46:43 GMT

In article <bob1.726256611@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <ueff8ho@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>>---
>>psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) snipes:
>>|>>|> >You are a bitter person Muriel.  
>
>Paul, to my recollection you haven't been posting here for very
>long. Of course, you may have been lurking in the shadows for
>some time, but there is no way to tell.
>
>However, if you work at it really hard, you might achieve the
>level of humanity that Muriel has shown, so it might behove you
>to cease making snap judgements. Just a thought.
>
>>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>|Sorry Paul. We women in this group are used to being called bitter.
>>|Say what you mean. What you mean is Muriel doesn't agree with you and
>>|doesn't know her place. [...]
>
>>I like to use this particular quote in these cases.
>
>>---
>>C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
>>"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that
>>differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." --Rebecca West
>
>I'd tell you some of the things I've been called, but I normally
>don't use such language.
>
>REB
>
REB

I'm not sure why you left off the invective Muriel rattled off just prior to me
making that comment.  I don't doubt her humanity, but I'm surprised at how
quick people are to jump to name-calling as a first resort.  I'm sorry, but
that sounds pretty bitter to me. 

-Paul


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:43:41 GMT

In article <tb+32ab@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

}Why does this remind me of someone beating their spouse, screaming
}"Why do you make me do this to you??"

Well, actually, no, it reminds me of Doug Holtsinger, except that
I'm not sure he has a spouse.  I think he claims to have trees,
though.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:36:27 GMT

In article <dm82w+_@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>
>
>>RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
>
>>In article <28DEC92.21004829@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>> Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away 
>>rights 
>>> from the pregnant woman?
>>> 
>>> 				.... Heather.
>
>
>>Heather -
>
>>Nice "trick" question.  
>
>Didn't look like a trick question to me, just a simple inquiry.  One that
>you are working _extremely_ hard at avoiding.
>
>                  -rocker
>

I just don't understand why the rhetoric of the abortion debate is considered a
non-issue. I have directly answered her question, three times now.  Please, if
you know of any answer other than the one I've given, I really would be
interested.  

- Paul

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55022 alt.pagan:15196 alt.drugs:20791 alt.magick:6726
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan,alt.drugs,alt.magick
Subject: Re: Looking for info on abortifacents
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:05:49 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> The Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade,
-> is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
-> pregnancy.  

not only is this statement not correct but it has
repeatedly been debunked in talk.abortion, which may
be one of the reasons mr. holtsinger (dodie for those
who read t.a.) often posts his false claim to other
newsgroups.

for any of you who may be interested in dodie's
credibility rating, ask in t.a.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:27:28 GMT

<1993Jan7.194710.935@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio):
>> |   margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>> |
>> |   > Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.
>> 
>> Sheesh, Larry.  Marry an atheist.  No way in hell is any child of
>> *mine* going to be raised Christian, either.  

Yeah, I'd let my wife raise any children of ours as Pagan/Atheist with
respect for others religious decisions.

>Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.

Speaks volumes abouit your own courtship, eh?

>Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
>Or how 'bout best man?

Free shot anyone?

>> My own Christian 
>> childhood is to thank for my vehemence in this matter.
>
>Then it wasn't Christian in the first place.

Typical response.


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
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:38:49 GMT

psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:



>RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)

>In article <28DEC92.21004829@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>> Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away 
>rights 
>> from the pregnant woman?
>> 
>> 				.... Heather.


>Heather -

>Nice "trick" question.  

Didn't look like a trick question to me, just a simple inquiry.  One that
you are working _extremely_ hard at avoiding.

                  -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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 16:16:04 GMT

In article <markp.726627079@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>>
>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>
>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>
>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>
>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death
>
>which is perfectly true.
>
And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?

--
                  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: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and e-mail
Organization: ChaneyBusters of 77036-2409
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:47:09 GMT

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:16:02 GMT, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:

>In article <1ihjggINN4a3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>I will not *bother* showing you the *courtesy* of sending further e-mail
>>to make up for your flaky newsreader, or your foolish vanity for about 
>>another .... hmmm ..... nearly 3 months.  And *that's* assuming you actually
>>manage to apologize for _your_ slander of me, idiot.

>SLANDER?! SLANDER?! Oh, pleeeeez, gimme a break! 

Yeah, I know -- *you* think it's perfectly all right.  The rest of us don't
have the history of being a Usenet sociopath like you do, though -- and
we're quite a bit more honest about everything than you are, so we tend to
look at such actions as yours a bit differently.  If you don't like that --
oh, well.  Learn to live with it.

--PLH, time will take care of this little problem, anyway...


--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Getting the Slavery Analogy back on track
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:04:39 GMT

In article <1294@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>The slavery analogy fails to show that "If you don't like
>abortion, don't have one" is an invalid argument for the
>same reason that it fails as a general abortion analogy.

Oh, goody! Exchange one blatant assertion for another. Progress.

>People who believe otherwise are ignoring the intrusion on
>the rights of the pregnant woman that an abortion ban
>entails.  

Emancipation was likewise an "intrusion" on the "rights" of slaveowners.
To invalidate the analogy, it's not sufficient to just point to the 
"intrusion" that is caused by abortion restrictions; one has to also 
demonstrate that slaveowners never _had_ a moral "right" to own slaves,
so therefore the "intrusion" of emancipation was a justified intrusion.

								- Kevin
From: 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: March for Life
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:01:29 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54421 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11772 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:99
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:19:29 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes to kebbie:
-> You seem to think that female people are incapable 
-> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.  
-> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or 
-> not they stay pregnant because you think your 
-> views are so superior.

people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
to as a "pro-forcer."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:46:12 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan9.113651.26973@fuug.fi> an5200@anon.penet.fi writes:
>I don't even want to be IDENTIFIED as a pro-lifer in the next four years

That's why you're posting a bunch of lies anonymously.  Coward.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:17:55 GMT

In <ueguljc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>---
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>|Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
>|to bodily integrity and personal autonomy. [...]

>Oh, really?  Can you show me the contract she signed when she had
>sex?  Can you show me exactly where the US Constitution says that
>people who have sex give up these rights?  

It's not a contractual or a Constitutional, but a biological consequence.

>Can you explain to me
>what "inalienable" rights are in this context?

Here's this nonsense again. "Inalienable rights" clearly doesn't mean
"rights whose full exercise is never forfeited under any circumstances" --
if it did, imprisonment of any sort, for any reason, would be prohibited.

____________
Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:41:13 GMT

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.

>How long have you had this fetish for controlling the lives of
>others?

My fetishes are much more pedestrian.

>>>non-leather-wearing fruitarian.
>>
>>Sorry; should have said "human lives".
>>
>No, should have stayed in bed.

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

Mark Pundurs
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome : -)
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:54:55 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu>,
by jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE):


> Guess what I'M BAAACK....Had a great Christmas and So far a great
> New Year...Wish the same for the rest...

Hey, thanks!

[Deletia. Headache.]

> OK I have been a little ambigous in the past on my views but I have 
> the Jeff Price condensed view on abortion here today and will post.

> 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

Jeff....Jeff.  Oh, Jeff.  You and I are on the same general side of 
this issue, so instead of "flaming" you, I'll just tell you that
I have no idea what the first sentence is trying to say, and the
second one is logically bankrupt as well as fraught with potential
preposterousness.  Have you considered the infinite array of idiotic
ideas about which you could say, "you can't prove otherwise so it
must be true"?  Based on a few months of experience on t.a, I predict
you're about to see a truckload of them...

For the second time in the last 2 days, I must say to another "pro-
lifer":
	You're embarrassing me.

> 2. A person has a right to do whatever they wish so long as they don't
>    infringe upon another person...now the baby is using the body of the
>    mother we can say it may be removed...BUT...this will result in the
>    death of the fetus. So the lesser of the 2 evils must be followed and
>    the life of the fetus is more imp. than the choice of the mother...in
>    the event of life threating situation both lives are equal and it is 
>    then a personal choice.
>    BTW (correct if wrong) almost all forms of abortion do not remove the 
>    fetus but they kill the fetus. If you just seek removal how can you
>    justify killing first then removing? 

OK.  But why couldn't you edit this before posting it?

> 3. Conclusion...abortion by todays standards is murder and must seen as
>    such with the penalty required by law imposed on both the doctor and
>    mother expect in above said case of life threatening.

Come on.  Try an editor.  I'd be happy to make some suggestions.

> 4. I am officially anti-abortion...I seek the end to abortion on demand
>    as we have it today. Still pro-life...all life must be protected hense
>    my view on abortions, against the dealth penalty, and against destructive
>    military action (ie. Nukes)...Somalia OK because we are trying to save
>    lives even if we do end up killing a few...The same with abortion
>    of course a few women will die perfoming illegal abortions but we
>    will save many more.

Whoa.  Count me out on this part.

Jeffrey, let's be careful out there.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:27:30 GMT

In article <markp.726627079@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>>
>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>
>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>
>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>
>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death

Okay, Mark, let's say for the sake of argument that consent to sex IS
consent to becoming pregnant. Now, please explain to me why it's
consent to STAY pregnant for a full 9 months...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion