HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:26:25 GMT

In article <m430iB3w165w@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us> cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>        As I detailed in a previous post, I consider that abortion and
>some other crimes were so rare as to be unaddressed in the Law and
>unmentioned as such elsewhere.
In fact, it is thought to have been relatively common.

>        Exodus 21:22-25 comes as close to addressing abortion as
>anything in the Bible, where if someone causes the death of a pre-born
>child, the penalty is execution. (This would make the profession of
>abortionist less attractive.)
This is at best a gross distortion of the text and at worst
outright wrong.
1) Ex 21.22 refers to the accidental striking of a pregnant woman,
causing her children to "come out." Death is not specified.
2) The penalty if there is "harm" is death. Otherwise it is
a fine. "Harm" is read in the Jewish tradition as harm to
the mother, not the fetus.[There are other interpretations
that rely upon the ambiguity in the Hebrew word translated
"harm." compare the LXX.]
3) I know of no ancient commentator who thought that harm
referred to the death or not of a fetus.

It is therefore inappropriate to draw the conclusion you draw
for several reasons: 1) It's bad to accidentally kill animals
in the Bible, but not to do so intentionally--provided they
are yours. One could look at this as destruction of
another man's property. In any case, you cannot extrapolate
from accident to intention. 2) If the traditional interpretation
is assumed(and, I note, the one taken by Jerome) than the
penalty for the accidental killing of the fetus is a fine
as well.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:20:03 GMT

kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.172127.3061@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>You are not going to win any points with the folk around here
>>>by launching your t.a career with a personal attack on rocker.
>>>Rocker is an awesomely fine and wonderful individual. She's
>>>a mother. Whatsamatta wich you, no respect for motherhood?
>>>Sigh. I suppose apple pie and the flag will be next to go.
>>>Does your newsread show headers? Mine does, and the lady's name
>>>is on them: Cathi Cook. A word of unsolicited advice: newbies
>>>do better around here if they lurk for awhile before jumping
>>>headlong into the fray. I was a lurker for about three months
>>>before I started posting. In my humble opinion, Kevin, you would
>>>make a *fine* lurker.
>>
>>>muriel
>>
>>Why of course you would want me to "lurk".  Standard Pro-Death tactics is
>>to scream their opinion while trying to shut others out.  This issue is
>>much too important to sit by until I think YOU approve of the manner in
>>which I post.

>And the "standard" tatic of those who feel it's ok to endanger women's lives
>so they can worship their "Holy Fetus" is to be ignorant, hypocritical,
>closed-minded, and have no clue about biology, logic, or reasoning.
                                                     
Biology?  I don't pretend to be a biology scholar.  But then it's not 
a prerequisite to this issue.  Before you say it is you'd better remember how
many Choicers you'll alienate.

Logic and reasoning?  You don't have a clue.

>I'll give you a hint, Mr. Anti-Choice, you should step back a bit, read some
>of the posts, and think about them.  I did it for 5 or 6 months before I posted
>my first article to talk.abortion, and I think it certainly helped me.

I would not argue with your need to think for 5 or 6 months to form a reply.
My opinions were much like yours until I became a reasoning human being some
13 years ago.  I have had a lot of time to form my rational and balanced
opinion.

>Now, if you'd like a clue, Holy Fetus Worshipper, those of us who feel that
>the woman involved in a pregnancy should be allowed to receive a legal abortion
>prefer to be called Pro-Choicers.  Got it?

Okay, lemmee see, you want to be called Pro-I-Should-Have-The-Option-To-
Murder-Children-When-I-Wanna-ers, right?  Did I not get it?

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:38:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
>People who support both:
>            * legalized abortion
>	              and
>            * weakening current child support law:
>
>                  Eric Rescorla
>                  Gordon Storga
>                  Kevin Darcy
>                  Larry Margolis
>                  Jennifer Brown
>                  E.E. Bartley
>                  Nora Rivkis
>	          Hillel Gazit
>
>Eight so far.  How many more want to join the list?
>Write and let me know.

Define "weakening" in this context, or your stupid list is just so much 
meaningless trash. In fact, PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR DAMN LIST until you 
answer my question. I refuse to be labelled and/or pigeon-holed inaccurately.

(Hillel Gazit? Against the current child-support laws!? What a surprise! :-)

								- Kevin
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Eric's Rasmussen Boycott
Date: 17 Apr 92 09:24:18 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr15.193519.19015@advtech.uswest.com>  steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:
>
> Luckily, DJR's been gone AGAIN for a month or so.  Probably got his head
> stuck in a paddle wheel again :).

Don't you remember, Steve?  That was when he was going on about a quote
referring to "Islam in it's most virulent form", and I mentioned the
jihad, and he said it didn't really exist, and the next day his buddies
from Islamic Jihad did a car-bomb number on an embassy, and Davey was
so embarrassed that he dropped from sight?  He'll probably return as
soon as we all forget about that incident, though.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:32:20 GMT

mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>> Franklin

>>You see, the liberal views of the Usenet audience mean that
>>the pro-choice to pro-life ratio is well below that of national
>>polls. 

>I don't agree with your contention that there are only a handful
>of "pro-lifers" on t.a. because the entirety of Usenet tends to be
>liberal.  I believe that there are only a handful or "pro-lifers"
>on t.a. because "pro-lifers" tend to be educationally and
>socioeconomically downscale.  Fewer "pro-lifers," in general,
>have a college education as compared with pro-choicers, therefore,
>those posting on Usenet from college or from a company they work
>for because they have a college degree are not part of the "pro-life"
>norm.

hahahahahahahahaha.  Talk about having the cake and eating it too.
Okay everyone get this, the money crazed, selfish, conservative,
republican, decade-of-greed, pro-life, capitalists are "down-scale"
as opposed to the poor, socialist, liberal, working class, pro-choice
democrats.

You people switch socio-economic status more often than your underwear.

>The fact that "pro-lifers" as a whole are downscale as compared with
>pro-choicers has been borne out by numerous polls.

Lie.  Prove it.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof/Solution
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:45:05 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.190422.5390@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.153534.2036@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:

>|remove the uterus while you're at it.

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

 Is there any reason you're like concrete wall to sarcasm? I mean, if I call
you a dic*head, do you think I mean it? Oh , wait a minute... maybe that ISN"T
sarcasm... Sigh, I'll have to work on sarcasm more I guess...
   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: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: 128 bit n dimentional numbers, and self aware machines
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:06:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

It seems evident to me that a DNA (human or otherwise) is nothing more
than a large integer value, which when run through a self referential
transformation can result in a complex fractal object. 

A mathematical representation of this transformation would be a
fractal object, such as a Mandelbrot set. The biological representation
of this transformation is what we call complex life.

The correlation of DNA to large numbers has been pretty evident to me
for some time now. A DNA molecule can be represented as nothing more 
than a large binary value. Further, fractal representations of the
growth of some simple life forms can now be generated mathematically.

So what does this have to do with abortion?

If a DNA chain is nothing more than a number, then conception is
nothing more than a semi-random number generator. When a couple has
sex, one possible consequence is that a new random number will be
generated, and if a series of transformations are run on that number
a possible consequence is the birth of a child.

So what is the difference between this process, than if I were to
create a simple program that generates 128 bit numbers? The set of
128 bit numbers is so large that each and every time someone ran my
program, the would be likely to obtain a number that is unique; no
other person is likely to ever obtain that same number from my program.
This number has the potential to create a fractal that the universe
has never seen before, and will never see again.

Lets take this supposition one step further. Lets say that by running
the transformation on this 128 bit seed value, I will be able to 
create a unique, self aware artificial intelligence application. Now
is it wrong for me to generate a random number, and not run the
transformation on that value that would create a self aware application?
After all, by my act of creating this integer value, I have created
a potential being. If it is not wrong for me to carelessly generate
and dispose of these seed values, then why should it be wrong to
generate a DNA random number and not facilitate its transformation to
a sentient being?

/*	1.6mAbortedBabys.c
*
*	Generates a full years worth of aborted potential artificial life forms.
*/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>

#define ONEYEAR 1600000

main ()
{
	int i;
	FILE *Flush;

	if ((Flush = fopen ("/dev/null","w")) == NULL) {
		fprintf (stderr,"Unable to open the toilet lid.\n");
		exit (1);
	}
	srandom (time (NULL));
	for (i = 0; i < ONEYEAR; ++i) {
		fprintf (Flush, "%d%d%d%d\n",random(),random(),random(),random());
	}
	exit (0);
}

emarsh>cc 1.6mAbortedBabys.c
emarsh> a.out

That was quick and easy! Anybody think I'll go to hell for this?

Eric


--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:15:50 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes ...
>I don't claim Pro-Choice = pro-death.  It is a simple response to a
>lack of respect.


>In your face:  If you were truly "Pro-Choice" you would want a state
>by state vote to decide once and for all whether abortion should be
>allowed.  Since you don't want this we can only deduce you are NOT 
>Pro-Choice.  Are you saying that if abortion is illegal that
>1,500,000 woman a year will have suffering and death????

Why state-by-state?  Why not national?  Either way I don't care much.
State lines can be crossed easily enough, although this'd tend to
affect poor people more than the wealthy.  If the goal is saving
lives I'd think a national concensus would be rather more useful.

And are you saying that ending the legality of abortion will end
suffering and death?  What about families torn apart by the financial
strain of too many children?  What about women condemned to 
destitution by an unwanted pregnancy?  What about children who
grow up knowing that they are unwanted and resented by their families?
What about the women forced onto the streets by "moral" parents
who found out about their pregnancy?  What about the women who 
die from illegal abortions?  What about women and men forced to
live together in unhappy marriages because of a moments passion?

No, I'm not saying 1.5M women will have suffering and death.  But
it is not just women involved.  The fetus' life is not the only
one involved.

>So you cannot see the merits of the other side unless someone states it
>politely?  I suggest you re-examine both sides on your own before waiting
>for a polite, uncondescending, non-sarcastic, non-threatening post that
>your mind can work with.  BTW are my posts (which you don't like) any more
>childish than a Choicer accusing me of "fetal worship" and other related
>crap?

"Fetal worshipper", while perhaps unnecessarily imflammatory, may be 
justified in light of some "Pro-Lifers" apparent disregard for any 
of the people involved in their desire to save the fetus/embryo/zygote.
As for the merits of the other side, I've yet to see them _rationally_
stated, much less politely.  Most of the pro-life arguments can be
summarized as "Because I/my church/the Pope says so."  This is hardly
sufficient to be convincing.

>>In what way do you mean they are valid?  In that Nazi's killed many people?
>>Or that the Nazi's were dictators that tried to control all aspects of 
>>people's lives?
>Correct.  Including (but not limited to) the "they are lesser beings and hence
>have not value.  We can kill them with disdain." attitudes.

You missed the point.  Stated another way ...
"Pro-Choice are like Nazis because of all the babies killed"
"Pro-Life are like Nazis because they want to control everyone's lives"

Which?  Both statements suggest the offending group has little regard 
for other people.  Since Naziism is mostly a political philosophy,
any use here is just name-calling and inappropriate.

Ray
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:22:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <92105.164928JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>In article <kum4otINNshs@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
>(Eric Marsh) says:
>>In article <1992Apr13.234140.24953@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu
>>(Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>>>exactly......the real problem with abortion is not the act itself....
>>>but the reasons and motivations behind it. Humankind is a loser
>>>when it comes to, in the words of Spike Lee, doing the right thing.

>>Please explain why humanity is a loser when it comes to doing the
>>right thing.

>It seems obvious to me.  Read the front page of a major paper (the
>_Washington Post_ is good for this) and see if all those murders,
>robberies, rapes and shootouts really show that humanity is a big
>winner.

Seems to me that Matthew was referring to some specific "right thing."
I wanted to see what that specific "right thing" was, and why it was
the right thing. Your response seems very generalized, and not 
particularly applicable to the issue at hand. Certainly people are
not perfect. Thats because we are people. So what?

>Even to tie abortion back into it:  many people say that an underage
>woman should be allowed to have an abortion without her parents' consent
>because the alternative is abuse.  The risk of abuse and the existence
>of abuse definitely exists; surely the abuser is a loser at doing the
>right thing.

I'm having difficulty parsing your response and tying it into the
origional subject. Please elaborate.

>Joy Haftel               "A vague, a dizzy, a tumultuous joy".
>JKH107@PSUVM                        --Southey

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: root@devl3.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifications, further comments (LONG)
Summary: One parent missing, effect on child's grades
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:57:33 GMT
Followup-To: Effect of divorce on academic performance
Distribution: world
Organization: McKee Foods Corporation, Collegedale, TN 37315

In article <1992Apr8.133036.27924@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
>In <1992Apr1.005034.1010@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu 
>   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
>In article <1992Mar31.211345.25643@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com 
>   ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes: >>
>
>>>On the other hand, numerous studies have documented the negative effects 
>>>of divorce on children.  Academic performance has been found to be sig-
>
>Sarlin, 1989).  The acute effects of parental conflict would likely 
>be significantly reduced by then.  That seems to suggest that the 
>absence of a parent, rather than family discord, is a legitimate 
>factor in poor academic performance.  
>
>Bill 

I think our families experience bears out what Bill says.  We are not
divorced, we are not having any discord.  However I have been working
in Tennessee since November while my wife and son are still in Atlanta.
I go home on weekends, but I am still separated from them 5 days a week,
and we have seen a significant degradation in our sons academic per-
formance.  BTW, he's in the eight grade.  It makes sense that a stable
two-parent family is better than a stable one-parent family.

	->  Steven Foster					<-
	->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
	->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
	->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:56:15 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


J.J. - how sweet of you... AN embarassment to the Catholic Church? No,
I think not. I know where MY faith lies. And it happens to fall within 
the confines of the Catholic church. The reason that my concern lies
with the fetus at this time, is because of the blatant abuse it
is receiving. 
_I_ wrote:
> I am referring to the life of the fetus. Not the mother, the fetus.
> That is what is most important to me.

_you_ wrote:
Well, that about sums it up, Steve Franklin, another embarassment to the
Catholic Church.  -J.J.

See? I do not think the rights of the mother have been suppressed and
abused nearly as much as the child. My life will be dedicated to the child
that can't speak for itself. If I don't speak for the fetus who will?

However, your ignorant statement was along the lines that I would expect
from you. NO support to your argument, no message, just a witless
biting article intending to lessen my credibility. Well, I'm afraid 
that your type of "Christian" is more of an embarassment to the Catholic
church, as you breed ignorance and fighting within two groups that should
[be WORKING TOGETHER. You can't just accept that can you?
As someone so adeptly wrote in a letter to me "People get so used to 
fighting, that they can't envision the debate any other way..." So true...
   You know yuou could learn from that J.J.... Well, you could learn from
alot of things, but perhaps you just dont' bother?
   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: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:11:38 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505

mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>Birth control should be made more accessable
>for teenagers. However, do you think that we should place a minimum age
>restriction for selling Birth Control to teenagers?
>(Let say age 15 for the sake of argument)

Why?  By doing so, you are telling 14-year-olds that they have no choice
but to expose themselves to pregnancy or disease if they choose to have sex.
Kind of a puritan attitude, isn't that?

BTW, I think that contraceptives should be freely available to _anyone_
who wants them--at no charge if necessary.

>     Sorry dude. I'll have to disagree with that comment. I don't believe
>that Pro-Lifers want to "ban birth control" and "control women's body".
>Although a few may share that belief, I think we should discount the few
>"narrow-minded" folks out there. The majority of Pro-Lifers are not so dum.

I believe that their leadership wants to ban birth control, because
most of them believe that standard rhetorical shit about "you knew the 
consequences, you shouldn't have had sex" (actually most pro-forced-birthers
believe that, too).  I also believe that although their main agenda
may not be control, it certainly is a direct side-effect, isn't it?--and
they know it.

>      Wrong! Everyone cares about infant mortality,

I think that most people (if not all) would like to see this nation's 
infant mortality lowered, but I don't see many people out there who are
in a position to actually _do_ something about it stepping forward with
programs designed to help the situation.

>       Oh gee... I guess that means all the Pro-Lifer's out there are really
>conspiring on "World Domination" and "Women Domination".

I wouldn't say "all"..... ;)

>Well, got to run. Have a nice day... :)

You too.


Jennifer