HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Abuse of Scriptures, and Violation of Rom 13
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:25:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan19.230909.16941@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>> Would you like to clarify what you mean by these 'free zones'?????

>> In Houston during the Republican convention, some judge (it must have
>> been a state judge; it wasn't a federal judge) issued an order
>> prohibiting prayer within X feet of abortion clinics.  A number of
>> clergymen and others willfully violated this order inasmuch as it was
>> a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.  These individuals were
>> arrested, charged with contempt of court, and thrown in jail under six
>> month sentences.  It took an emergency appeal to the Texas Supreme
>> Court, which ruled that the anti-prayer order was indeed a blatant
>> violation of free speech, to win their release several days later.

> Hum....

> So when 'prayer' is used as a Harrassing Tactic in an effort to
> Blockade Clinics, in direct Violation of a Court Order to stop
> Blockading a Clinic, this is your Great Conspiracy???????

The big problem here is that prayer _WASN'T_ being used as a harassing
[learn to spell, Andy] tactic in Houston, otherwise the charge would
have been "harassment" (or something related to it) -- not "contempt
of court" for violating a patently illegal order forbidding prayer
issued by some sorry excuse for a judge.

> Would You now Like to deal with the Matter of The Federal Government,
> In Direct VIOLATION OF THE BIBLE, has outlawed SLAVERY?

It might come as a surprise to you (being as apparently scripturally
illiterate as you are) that the Bible does not mandate slavery.  As a
matter of fact, devotion to Biblical precepts demands a steadfast and
principled opposition to slavery -- which is essentially what fueled
the anti-slavery movement in this country prior to the civil war.

> Or is your Commitment to defending the bible Limited soley to those
> Occurances when the Point of the Discussion is Blockading Clinics?

The point of blockading clinics is not oppression, but rather defense
of the innocent human life of the unborn.

> ps: How do you defend these PAGANS who are In Direct VIOLATION of
> Romans 13??? as being Anything Like 'christians'????

Let the pagans defend themselves.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:23:19 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>What do you think we have right now, Dennis? With the current laws, well-off
>>single men are MAGNETS to the women you describe -- spend a night of pleasure, 
>>get impregnated by him, and rake in huge child support payments for 18+ years. 
>>What a deal! What a racket! *Any* child support scheme that's based on 
>>parents' ability-to-pay is going to affect people's choices of biological co-
>>parent to some degree, yet any child support scheme which ISN'T based on 
>>parents' ability-to-pay is pretty unfair to low-income parents. It's the 
>>eternal trade-off. I think my proposal is at least a better compromise than 
>>the current system, since the economic incentives/disincentives are 
>>quantitatively smaller, and thus _less_ likely to affect anyone's choice of 
>>biological co-parent.
>
>You make it sound like the man has no choice in the matter.

I agree, Michal.  He can abstain forever, or stick to cunnilingus.

Don           :-|
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57998 talk.politics.misc:69830
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:15:39 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <vhl3s2a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>> And I've often wondered -

>> If God actually did consider one thing to be THE MAJOR SIN, do you
>> suppose it would be a sin of hate, or a sin of love?

>Conceiving a child which will ultimately be murdered within a matter
>of months is certainly _NOT_ a sin of "love" by any stretch of the
>imagination.

Toodles is right for once!  I've never, ever heard of "conceiving a
child" being defined as a "sin".

>The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis

Indeed they are.

                    -rocker
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:31:00 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1993Jan22.171126.11425@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <C0xMKq.AsE.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
[Susan comments that Randall Terry and the Pope teach their followers
various distasteful things, and lastly that they teach them to hate.]

>> (Thanks to Suzanne for illustrating
>> this last similarity so well.)
>Please explain to me how avoiding contraception or abortion is "hateful"?
I doubt that that is what Ms. Garvin believs is hateful about you.
Just as first-pass guesses, I would suggest that what makes her
think you are hateful would be saying things like
(approximately)
Women who have sex before being married are lower than prostitutes
because at least prostitutes get paid.
Gay men hate women.

>problem.   As you well know, I have posted many times where and how
>other people can learn to live successful, self-determined, lives
>without messing their bodies up with contraceptives or slaughtering
>their children with abortion.
Yes, and whenever anyone asks you for any real details you evade
the question. I will repeat the appropriate question about NFP
yet again. You have repeatedly claimed that NFP has a success rate
approaching that of oral contraceptives, and posted some statistics
which, although not peer reviewed, support this to some extent. What
you have not, and seem to refuse to do, is posted the percentage
of time which one must abstain from intercourse to obtain such
effectiveness. Will you please do so?
-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: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:02:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan21.002902.20917@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>Yeah.  Actually, I have been a little surprised at all of this negativism
>before he asssumed office.   I remember back to President-reject Bushs
>first 100 days, when he hadn't even filled his cabinet yet.   Clinton
>might not be doing everything 100% right by everybody,  but moss
>ain't growing on him either.

Rush is incensed that Bush lost because he threw his support toward him 
(he had previously spoken rather glowingly of Pat Buchanan) after Bush
invited him to sleep in the White House.

Granted, Limbaugh would have supported whoever the GOP picked at its
convention, but in his show after his PJ party with the Prez, he was
ebullient over George Herbet Walker Bozo.

Dan
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:56:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.070216.21618@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>In your opinion, were Paul and the other apostles not "good Christians."
>
>Yes, they were, because they were in no way enlightened by the knowledge of
>today. 

What knowledge?  The knowledge of seducing spirits which were to come in
the last days?  Certainly the apostles did not have all of our scientific
knowledge, but they did have knowledge about morality and the character
of God.  I can't really buy into the idea that those who lived in
previous centuries are primitive and we in this century are more intelligent
and refined.  The apostles knew God.  Paul knew God.   I would venture to
say that there are very few men on earth today (at least percentage-wise) who 
have had visions and revelations of God's nature like the apostle Paul.
Over the years, society has not gained a more perfect knowledge of morality than
the apostles.  

>On abortion: the Church will probably never hail the act of abortion, but rather
>more accept it as a necessary Evil. 

Church organizations may accept it, as I am sure, some already have.  That
does not mean that all of God's children will accept it.  Some portions of
the RCC may accept it (I suppose that is what you mean by the church) but
that will not change the mind or teaching of Christ on the matter.

>On death assistance: It is just a matter of time before the right to die will
>become a human right in equivalence with the right to live. The Church will
>probably also adapt to this and perhaps even be pioneers in this field. 

Same as above.

>On homosexuality: In the light of the scientific facts, that homosexuality to
>some extent is inherent, the Church will probably accept these as equals to
>heterosexuals. 
Ditto.

>At this very moment you and I are dying. Slowly, but inevitably. In some sense one
>can say that life is a suicide mission. By the time we are 60 the genetic clock
>will have shut down all major activity to sustain life. From then and on we live
>on our "spare tank", slowly burning up from the inside, rotting, disintegrating -
>dying... For very, very many people this final stage of their life is a horrible,
>painful and depressing experience. It's like running out of air and desperately
>trying to breathe. God couldn't possibly demand people to go through anything
>like this, could he? On the contrary, he would probably encourage people to avoid
>this final stage if possible.

No.  that is not the case.  GOd gives a long life as a blessing.  Look at the
Scriptures.  Maybe people would not consider growing old in this society
if people still had respect for their elders.  Instead, our society is 
obsessed with youth.  (too open another can of worms.)  

Link Hudson.




>
>
>Onar.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:59:15 GMT

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>
>> [ The "choice" wordplay ]
>
>"Pro-choice" is as much a political euphamism as "pro-life"; the
>pro-abortion crowd is after that right only, and the anti-abortion crowd
>is only interested in banning abortion, the facts be damned.

I consider "pro-choice" shorthand for "pro-abortion-choice."  One can,
and many do, support womens' right to an abortion, while feeling that
abortion is a Bad Thing.  Labelling these people "pro-abortion" is
simply incorrect, just as people who want to enact anti-abortion laws
but not anti-suicide laws are not "pro-life."
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "This sounds like a semantico-psychological backwardization of the
  real world image."                                   - Dave Bloom
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57985 talk.politics.misc:69813 talk.religion.misc:27573 misc.legal:23311
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:48:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan22.172357.2535@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <13931@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >This assumes that rational thought is involved with those pregnancies.
> >I doubt it.  You are assuming that abortion was legalized, and this
> >caused the decline in public morals.  I think it's quite the opposite --
> >the decline in public morals dramatically increased pressure for
> >easy access to abortions.  Prohibiting it won't improve morality in
> >this country -- but improving public morality by persuasion will
> >dramatically reduce the demand for abortion.
> 
> >Persuasion, not laws, is the key.
> 
> Wow, I almost agree with something Clayton wrote.

I should look at carefully, then.

> Except the part about "decline in public morals."  Sex is not immoral.
> It was a *change* in public morals.  Not a decline.

It was a DECLINE in public morals, because the result was a dramatic
increase in STDs, including the emergence of AIDS from an obscure, unknown 
disease to one that kills tens of thousands of people a year; a 
dramatic increase in unwanted pregnancies, which even if you have
no moral concerns about it at all, you must admit it is a terribly
inefficient form of birth control; dramatic increases, especially in
the ghettos, of illegitimate children without a stable family, and
as a result, an enormous number of women and children dependent on
AFDC.  That's not a DECLINE?

> David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
-- 
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.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:58:17 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 19-Jan-93 Re: PAS or Post Abortion
Sy.. by Peter Nyikos@math.scarol 
> As Meg Greenfield put it in _Newsweek_ a good number of years back, talking
> about dishonest polemic: all your opponent has to do is say "There is no
> evidence that..." and you are cooked.
>  
> So was NancyJo Mann, founder of WEBA and living counterexample to the
> benighted statement made in JAMA.

    Of course, it is possible to feel immense guilt if you feel you should.
That fact that there do exist women who so brainwashed that they would
feel guilty about having an abortion has no implications for either the
morality of abortion or the feelings of a normal woman who has an
abortion.  I wouldn't be surprised if one of the NancyJo Mann's of the
Victorian era managed to grow on her palms.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:43:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.211348.18894@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <C19po4.87y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.213023.24642@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>: The pope, 
>>...
>:  continues
>: to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.
>
>>   How?
>
>	By not allowing women to have the opportunity to have
>leadership positions. Will a woman ever be a priest? Bishop?
>Archbishop? Cardinal? Pope?
>

If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
will be taken as men.
There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
the natural differences between them.
If a man can carry a baby to term, he is a woman and not a man.
So, the church, as an institution, has posts which are for men and 
posts which are for women. 




>	I don't think I'd want to bother the Church about this sort of
>thing if I could possibly avoid it, but if they meddle in others'
>lives, then I think that they are fair game. As the saying goes, your
>rights end where my nose begins.

So, because the Church does something which is wrong, you have the
right to do the same thing to them
Great!




>
>-- 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

AAP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:46:31 GMT

brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes ...
>Your stance seems to indicate that rights are attained upon that moment
>when the fetus can be proven to be able to survive outside the womb, if
>I paraphrased correctly.  My current counter-argument is that this is a
>bit too arbitrary of a line on which to base something as valuable as a
>human life.  An aside:  How exactly does one prove viabilty outside the
>womb?

Well the obvious answer is to remove the fetus from the womb and see
if it survives.  This has the added benefit of solving the women's
problem as well.

And while viability may well be somewhat arbitrary, there is NO line
that is otherwise.  Every dividing line between rights and non-rights
is going to be somewhat arbitrary.  The next best thing may be to pick
a line that accomplishes the most good.

>  My stance, in that light, is non-religious (unless
>someone can point out any flaws in my reason):  A fetus' liberty is as
>equally valuable as that of anyone else, and furthermore, when one or
>the other's liberty must be compromised, the law should choose the least
>restrictive course.

But you haven't been arguing for the liberty of the fetus.  You've
been arguing for the right of one person to use the body of another.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:29:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.222055.29638@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.064203.8902@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.012307.19435@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon
>>Storga) writes:
>>
>: <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo
>>Pinkas) :
>>
>: >So, because the Church does something which is wrong, you have the
>: >right to do the same thing to them
>: >Great!
>: 
>: Sometimes the only way to get through to an oppressor is to oppress them.
>: That's the golden rule, isn't it?  The Pope treats certain people a
>: certain way, he must expect to be treated that way back.
>: 
>>Trouble is, by hacking away at Catholics and Catholicism you don't oppress the
>>Pope in the least.  You just build up more animosity against Catholics.  You
>>know, those people that the Pope oppresses?  Oh well, we're getting kind of
>>used to it..... 
>>
>>Oh, and the rule you are thinking of is, "Do unto others as you would have
>>them do unto you."  Somehow, you mistakenly stated the "eye for an eye"
>>philosophy.
>
>	And what should be done about violators, O Golden-Rule Expert?
>
>	If you don't agree with "if you punch me in the nose, I'll
>punch you in the nose" justice, then what kind of justice would you
>prefer?

Am I the one that mistakenly switched the Golden Rule for the Eye for an Eye
rule?  No, I don't believe that was me.....

So, O Great Demi-Diety of Wisdom and Justice, how do you do so well at
extrapolating my beliefs simply when I corrected your phrasing of the Golden
Rule?  The Golden Rule isn't based on enforced justice, but what you can
personally do to be just.  Big Difference.

Twerp.


-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:47:46 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>God has warned us of many things but we still ingnore him. What makes
>you so sure that he has not warned us against abortion?(not saying that
>he has its just that I haven't read to much of the Bible yet but I feel
>that abortion is something he would not support).

Can I ask you something?  Can you tell us *why* you believe in God?  I don't
mean why do you believe in *God* (as opposed to Buddha or Allah or whatever);
I mean why do you *believe*.  Why do you believe that God must exist?
I have to ask this because you expect everyone to follow the moral dictates
of your religion.  Not everyone affected by your expected moral rules believes
in your religion.

>-Jeffrey Price

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:16:05 GMT

In article <C1C4nn.JB3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[about "schizophrenia" (in common usage) ?= "MPD" (the proper medical term)]
>
>>I never said "schizophrenia" was "medically" correct, Mark. Are you such
>>a medico-geek that you can't see the rest of the world that exists outside
>>of the medical realm? According to the OED, "schizophrenia" has, in general
>>usage, the meaning I gave it. T.S. Eliot and George Orwell have used it in
>>the same way I did. It may be "incorrect" in Stethoscope-Land, Mark, but 
>>the word can have a different meaning in other contexts.
>
>In other words, everyone is using it wrong, including the compilers of the
>OED.  ;)
>Actually, dictionaries describe the way the words *are* used, not the way they
>*should* be used, so OED is not necessarily at fault.  ;)

Heh. Sarcasm noted. Most linguists I've met have nothing for disdain for
self-styled "language purists" who attempt to impose their ideas of how
people "should" communicate, on the rest of us. That disdain usually turns
to outright loathing when a specialist, whether it be from the field of
law, medicine, computer science, physics or whatever, attempts to usurp
terms in the common lexicon with their particular flavor of jargon. Let 
jargon stay jargon, I say. If I wanted to talk in medical jargon, I would 
have gone into medicine. But I didn't.

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57899 talk.politics.misc:69752 talk.religion.misc:27548 misc.legal:23282