HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:09:58 GMT

<Bxu6A7.97n@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) said:
><BxqA3H.J4y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) :
>>As an example of that, suppose that there is only a single living pig left in
>>all the world.  We have a responsibility not to wipe out that species and so
>>we make it illegal to kill pigs (back when there were a few more).  Suppose
>>this pig lives on a special island that no one is allowed to travel to.
>>Suppose, now, that a person is lost overboard in a storm and ends up on this
>>island.  Suppose all the vegitation is either posionous or non-nutritional and
>>that all other animals are either impossible to catch or are not good to eat.
>>Are you going to tell us that this person does not have the right to kill that
>>last pig for food?  The *person* has a right to live.  The pig does not.  The
>>person *should not* kill the pig, unless there is a *good reason* (like he needs
>>it for food and that's all there is, or the pig was attacking him and would
>>have killed or seriously hurt him).

The person does not have a right to kill the pig.  The person might go
ahead and kill the pig any way, but it doesn't mean that person had a
right to do so.

>Very minor nitpick, but if there's only one living pig left in the
>world, essentially, we already HAVE killed off the entire species; one
>needs two, one of each sex, so that they can reproduce, in order for
>them to remain a viable species. . .

Actually, you need quite a few more than just two, for a viable population.


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: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: ray fischer: lover of free and open communication
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:33:25 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes to DODie:
->How do we keep you from reponding to future articles?

why don't you volunteer to moderate DODie's moderated
talk abortion group. then, you can censor whomever you
want.
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:21:10 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.060234.6206@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes ...
#>However you missed my point completely.  If we allow for *any* sub-class
#>of humans, we devalue our humanity to ourselves.  I feel that this is a
#>big mistake, witness the previous examples, as well as the growing racism
#>and division in European countries (Arian nations, et. al.).
#
#While this is a good point, it depends on a circular definition and so
#is largely worthless.
#
#How are we going to decide what is a human being and what isn't?  You
#assume that anything concieved of people is a person, but that 
#assumption has been shown to be largely arbitrary.  If I define as 
#human anything warm blooded, then your argument could just as well be 
#used to argue for equal rights for turkeys (and just in time, too!).

Every definition has been shown to be largely arbitrary.  Your argument is
equally circular, and equally worthless.  It could be used, and has been, to
justify the worst atrocities in living memory.  Which is worse,  letting
turkeys in - or leaving people out?

#Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
-- 
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:31:32 GMT
Summary: I beg to differ

In article <1992Nov18.145407.12748@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> > Hey, let's make this a real, official vote.  Y'all email your
> > votes to me at cbnewsj!decay and I'll post the results in two weeks.
> 
> Let's think about this, Dean.  Jim Keegan feels that the Perfesser is still
> too new to be an honest-to-goodness net.idiot, and that he hasn't accrued
> enough disrespect in other newsgroups.  I think he has a point.
> 
> At this stage of the game, the net is still very young.  We have all the
> time in the world to annoint our net.gods and goddesses, as well as
> net.idiots.  If we settle for electing the Perfesser as group.idiot
> (preferably by acclamation), he'll still have a bigger title to shoot
> for and won't be tempted to rest on his laurels.

I disagree.  The "Doctor" is currently being a bonehead in talk.
religion.misc and alt.atheism.  I'm expecting him to show up
in talk.origins any day to expound on the theory of creationism
and the flaws of evolution.  Besides, from what I've gathered
he's older than our other representatives and I think that ought
to count for something.  It takes talent to live so long and be
such an idiot.

> > Remember, if you don't vote for the council of net.idiots, you
> > deserve the representation you get.
> Like our forefathers might have said, "No idiot-ation without
> representation."

Or as the "Doctor"  probably says as he reads attributions, "Duh?"

Dean Kaflowitz

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: New Catholic Catechism: A first in 426 years
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:30:42 GMT


I want to know what it says about slavery.

For that matter, I suppose I'd like to know what the old one said
about slavery.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:59:44 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>In article <adams.721594875@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>    If you can convince people to follow your moral standards willingly,
>> then there is no problem.  But to write Christian moral standards into law
>> is wrong.  The New Testament tells us that no man is saved by the law, nor
>> can we be.  Passing laws making certain sins illegal does nothing to
>> further God's cause, nor does it prevent the sin.
>
>That scripture taken out of context was refering to the LAW of God not man.

Not so!  Paul *was* referring to the "Laws of Moses" when he wrote about
this.  There is no justification in following the law, for to gain such
justification, you would have to follow it perfectly, and you cannot.  As
such, laws are meaningless in terms of salvation...

>>    Work instead to educate people as to *why* they should willingly follow
>> the strict moral code you propose.
>
>I propose nothing.  I only act as God tells me.

Fair enough.  Just don't propse laws based on any such alledged communication.

 -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: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:36:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.162934.1161@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
>>>> provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
>>>> on-demand?  

>>> There were about a half-dozen refutations of your sources last summer, Doug.
>>> J. Greenfield in particular showed how the meaning of the texts you quoted
>>> changed completely when restored to their contexts.

>> I remember Jeff Greenfield as being the only person who attempted to
>> address my sources.   None of my sources had been taken out of context.
>> Jeff Greenfield made that accusation because he knew he had lost the
>> argument, and he was getting desperate.  He couldn't debate me without
>> slinging dirt. 

> Liar.  Susan Garvin saved those posts, in case your memory needs refreshing.
> I had them saved too, but deleted them before I realized that you'd become
> trapped in endless recursion on this issue.

So what?   You saved a bunch of garbage.  Jeff Greenfield didn't refute my 
sources.  He ignored three of my sources, and he presented a single source 
in support of his argument from an author who has held conflicting views on 
Roe v. Wade.   Face it, Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
throughout pregnancy.

>>>> Are you telling me that Kathyrn Kolbert, attorney for the ACLU
>>>> in PP v. Casey, is a liar?

>>> No, I am telling you that you are a liar.

>> I'm simply quoting Kathyrn Kolbert, attorney for the ACLU.  You're calling
>> her a liar.

> I wish I'd saved all the posts demonstrating your lack of reading skills.
> First you had trouble discerning the difference between "want" and "deserve."
> Now it's "you" and "Kathyrn Kolbert."  

But when I quote Kathyrn Kolbert, how can you call me a liar?  I'm quoting
her, right?  So how can I be lying?  Tell us how that works.   

>>>> Remember, these people support abortion rights, and they say that women
>>>> can obtain abortions during the third trimester for very broadly defined
>>>> ``health'' reasons.

>>> Indeed.  It's been pointed out before that less than 100 abortions are
>>> performed in the U.S. after the 24th week.  The source of that tidbit of
>>> information is the Alan Guttmacher Institute. 

>> There are several thousand abortions performed annually after the 21st week 
>> of pregnancy (viability starts at around the 22nd to 23rd week).

> Viability in how many cases?  

Why does that matter to you?  How many post-viability abortions must
be performed before you would support restrictions on abortion?  Give
me a number. 
 
>Chris Lyman  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:11:54 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>which reminds me, you will be answering my questions,
>won't you?

Nope.  As your clearly only interested in pointless arguing, I see no
need to respond further to any questions of yours.  If anyone else is
interested, I'll be glad to continue the discussion.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 6
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:55:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.065357.18024@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>
>You've never given a comprehensible explanation for your references to
>punishment and similar things.  Also, the issue is not whether I'm
>willing to sacrifice something but whether legal compulsion is
>appropriate to keep someone else from sacrificing something.

Doubletalk. As far as I can tell, you are proposing that women be forced to 
sacrifice their bodily autonomy. Sounds like punishment to me.

>To repeat myself: the motivation for forbidding abortion is that the
>z/e/f has value.  

And the woman's bodily autonomy doesn't?

>The reason for an exception in the case of rape is
>that the law does not command that all good things be done -- it also
>requires that the person commanded to do the good thing be someone who
>may appropriately be assigned the obligation.  A common basis for
>obligation is that people are responsible for the forseeable
>consequences of their voluntary actions.

Given that abortion is currently legal, the "foreseeable consequence" of 
becoming accidentally and/or unwillingly pregnant, all other medical/social/
economic factors being equal, is to obtain an abortion. So, you see, I don't 
disagree about the basis for the obligation, but I do disagree over the nature 
and extent of the consequence you propose. Can you give me a defensible reason 
to change the consequence into something more burdensome than it currently is?

							- Kevin
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 19:13:28 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    What am I?

In article <1992Nov7.204720.21534@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>In article <92305.222922ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:

>> [a self-absorbed Mein Kampf-reminiscent "manifesto"]
>
>>So what am I?

>A waffler.

I'll add that to the list Kebbie.  So will you now
be referring to me as a radical extremist waffler?

Oh and your dismissal of my personal views on abortion
as a "manifesto", am I to assume that that was an
insulting and inflammatory remark?



Linda
--
I have a telephone, a computer and an address, and I'm in business, eh?
No one has a handle on me.  That's the important thing.
  Clair Culhane, prison rights activist, age 74, Nov. 8, 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:25:02 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>->>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
->>->>->Funny - she doesn't *look* shrewish...  :-)
->>->>her .gif had me fooled too, for a while.
->>->Larry has seen CJ in person
->>then he doesn't have an excuse, does he?
->An excuse for what, Mr. Keegan?

do your own homework eric. you're responsible for your
ignorance. you can't expect me to tutor you all of the
time.

btw, do you want to imprison women who have banned
abortions?

do you want to prevent rape victims from having
abortions?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.204552.28166@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Nov16.205155.9951@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com 
>>...and an unimaginable vengeful asshole who murdered whole cities because 
>>of the sins of a few (including, for you crocodile tear-droppers, many
>>"innocent babes" and other exalted types of human life).
>
>Absolutely.  Who does He think He is, anyway?  God?  He has no *right* 
>to destroy what he created.  Doesn't He know about our Rights?
Not a matter of rights. It's a matter of the OT God being a complete
dick. If infanticide is wrong for us, how much more wrong for
a supposedly perfect God, creator or no.

>>This is pathetically preachy; pull your head out of your Christian ass and
>>try living with the rest of humanity.
>My experience with the "rest of humanity" suggests that they're not
>nearly as hateful as you seem to be.  Perhaps you should take your 
>own advice.
I've met Mr. Novak. He didn't strike me as hateful. Perhaps you should
pull the beam out of your own eye, Mr. Overpeck.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:46:07 GMT
Keywords: Nyikos and attributions

In article <BxvDH0.Jtz.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> Again, I hope Dean won't mind if I join in showing Nyikos what
> a fool he is.

I don't have any problem with that.  But gentle readers, do remember,
nobody does that better than Peter himself.

Dean Kaflowitz

Nobody does it better
Makes me feel sad for the rest
Nobody does it half as good as you
Petie Baby, you're the best
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:14:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Organization: Grass Valley Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe.gvg.tek.com

In article <1992Nov17.173850.14175@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <1ead9cINN8a5@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> >>     One can not reconcile the OT God with the NT God without throwing out
> >>all logic and rationality.  That is one of the reasons that I rejected 
> >>Christianity.
> 
...stuff deleted...
> 
> If someone points out that OT actions seems to show God not acting good, and
> you reconcile the OT and NT gods like you do light as particles/waves, you
> would be saying "God acts good sometimes and acts non-good sometimes".  I have
> not yet seen a theist claim this.
> --
> "the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
> the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
> disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler
> 
> Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Ken, if you could give a few specific examples from the Bible, I would be
glad to respond with some reasonable explanations as to how the OT and NT
are completely consistent. 

In actuality, the OT and the new are intertwined like ivy around a trellis.
In the NT, we see hundreds of old testament prophecies fulfilled, and we
see Jesus say to His disciples, "If you love me, you will keep my
commandments." And at various points in the NT, Jesus affirms all of the
ten commandments of the OT. Further, Jesus himself, when he died on the
cross to pay the penalty for your sin and mine, represented and replaced
the OT Passover sacrifice of a lamb with a final NT sacrifice of His own
body and blood, which we continue to remember symbolically today when we
take communion. And communion itself is a continual fulfillment of God's OT
command to observe the Passover as a sacrament forever... I could go on ad
infinitum.

If you really want to get into specifics rather than making false general
statements, I would be glad to discuss it here. Perhaps you would even
consider reading the Bible yourself in order to verify your statements and
mine?

Chuck Petch
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: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.024428.134895@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

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

>>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?

> Both that I didn't enjoy your post and that I didn't send any *threatening*
> email.

But are you admitting that you sent e-mail to my system administrators
asking that someone should talk to me about my posts?  You don't
call that threatening?  What were you expecting them to do? 

>> You e-mailed
>> the postmaster at 'ncsu.edu' that someone should have
>> a talk with me about my posting to soc.singles.

> It wasn't even clear that it was you, [Holtsinger] - you omitted your name from
> the header.  

What difference does that make?  Are you saying that you would 
not have contacted my system administrators had you known that
it was me? 

> (I'd guess because you knew that what you were doing was
> wrong, but of course that's just a supposition.)

And contacting system administrators is right, huh?  Don't 
even bother to e-mail the poster first, just go right to the 
system administrators -- is that how you normally operate?

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Roger Williams confused about what constitutes a lie!
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:48:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

>In article <BxuA5H.xI@access.digex.com>, roger@access.digex.com
>(Roger Williams) writes: 
>> In article <32561@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> Stephen J Mezias claimed
>> "I wrote none of the above.."
>> However, the truth is that he DID write the following sentence:
>> "The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be."
>> 
>> The thing that tipped me off was his use of "Petie".  Most of his fellow
>> name-flamers use "Petey" or variants thereof.  As far as I am aware, he's
>> the only person to use "Petie".

The fact that there was one sentence in the quote that may have been
written by me does not invalidate my point that carrying attributions
carte blanche from other posts is a mistake: The whole set of
statements was attributed to me.  The mistake I alluded to still
stands as does the accuracy of the admonition about lifting quotes
with attributions from other posts.  I'm sorry about the small error;
I hardly think it qualifies me as a liar since (1) the claims I made
based on the slightly erroneous characterization are all still true
and (2) it is an honest error that I freely admit.

Your confusion about what constitutes a lie is further demonstrated by
your ridiculous attempts to draw an analogy between my error and
Chaney's use of a false account to make incendiary posts.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:13:56 GMT

In article <3156@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
>In article <Bxyv6v.M74@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>The rate of condom failure is about 5%.  If you use them religiously for 10
>>years as birth control your risk of an accidental pregnancy is a coin toss.
>
>Assuming your information os correct, the chance of failure over ten
>years is less than a coin toss:  40.12630607616 %.


This is the second correction that I've seen.

Not intending to flame, but didn't anyone learn in high school 
about significant decimal places?


(In particular, "about 5%" certainly cannot be seen as "5.000000000000".
For those handy with calculators, try 7% and see what you get.
For the overzealous, try 6.6967009%.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged