HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Summary: I *knew* there'd be a day like this.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:35:35 GMT

In article <1gnqemINNk5p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BzD0M2.C3M@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <16DEC92.07195794@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
>>>>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>>>>basis for legislation.
>>>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>>>Here are a few
>>>"Thou shalt not kill"
>>>"Thou shalt not steal"
>>>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
>>>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
>>>In some states adultery is illegal.
>>>All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
>>>good laws.
>>All you did is provide some examples of religion being used as a basis for
>>legislation -- so where's the explanation of *why* they're good laws?
>
>Scuse, please, but where did he do that?

I didn't say they *were* good laws, necessarily -- I was wondering why *he*
thinks they're good laws.  

>Certainly laws against killing and stealing are arguable based upon 
>economics at least as much as upon religion.  In fact, religion only
>adopted these laws after discovering their utility in organized society
>that predated the religion.

That could well be -- to be honest, I hadn't looked at it that way, but such
are the hazards of trying to post news at lunch.  :-)  

>Now, the individual quirks of law that he points out ('in parts of New
>Jersey'??????) certainly exist.  The question is, would they survive 
>constitutional challenge?  In a whole lot of cases, nobody cares enough
>to spend the bucks to bring it to court.

Actually, in many of those cases, no one *has* the money to bring it to
court, and prosecute their case successfully.

>Note, also, that laws against multiple spouses is a law AGAINST religious
>beliefs, too.   Gee, what does that do to his claim?

About what Petey Honey has done for honesty, in this newsgroup...:-)

--PLH, always thought blue laws were for the blue noses, anyway...


--
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Date: 18 Dec 1992 05:46:42 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.aero.org
Summary: incorrect assertions and vacuous argument-by-labeling
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <1992Dec18.001750.13308@noao.edu>,
	 forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> ...
>I consider baby killing the heighth of arrogance.

	I consider obfuscation by intentional use of ambiguous
	and appeal-to-emotion labels to be right up there, too.

> ...
>Whether it's emotional, or purely physical, I will not dismiss the mother/
>child bond as lightly as you would have me do.

	followed by the following (which ignores the pregnant woman):

>People who argue for abortion on demand have no hope in the betterment of
>the human condition.  Despite millenia of history, they have absolutely
>no concept that people can and do rise above circumstances, that every
>adversity which is overcome produces new and wonderful opportunities and
>accomplishments, not to mention, producing better, more caring, human beings.
>Because in their hopeless state they cannot think of any other way, they
>mistakenly fall into the trap of killing others to solve their problems.

	This is certainly not true of me, and I do argue for 
	abortion on demand (in truth, I argue against that kind
	of "government" intrusion in childbirth, believing women
	to be just as capable now as they have been for millennia).
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:00:26 GMT

(Steve Shapiro) writes:
>
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes...
>
>>Where I come from, we engage in dialectical
>>discourse without taking out our wallets.
>
>And where I come from we are willing to substantiate our assertions with
>action.
>It is a hollow effort to make assertions without the wherewithall to
>substantiate them.
>It is your perogative and I respect it. Just don't expect me to give any
>credibility to your assertions knowing that you are not willing to substantiate
>them.

Actually, I didn't expect much from you at all ;-)

Satya Prabhakar

p.s. This is becoming irrelevant to the general populace and I shall
     cease and desist from continuing this thread hereafter.

--
______________________________________________________________
Tell me what you pay attention to and I will tell you who you are!
					-Ortega Y' Gasset
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52526 alt.flame:17178
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: DODie's attempts to tell only half the story
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:34:26 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

Gee, seems Susie is perfectly willing to forgive someone who jokes, in 
alt.sex, about mass rape and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder if she would 
be as forgiving of someone who joked about something equally tasteless in 
alt.flame and DID apologize for making a mistake?

								- Kevin
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 14 Dec 1992 08:24:53 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec13.212855.17127@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <10DEC92.17233457@vax.clarku.edu> 
>lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>> No, the woman can kill the rapist because she can reasonably
>>>> believe that her life is immediately threatened.  
>
>>> However, this is not universally true in all states, nor is it true in such
>>> cases as the law which allows lethal force to be used to APPREHEND a rape
>>> SUSPECT who is fleeing the scene.
>
xxIs that an official police rule?  I don't know all the rules involved with 
xx being a police officer, but I always thought that they could only use lethal 
xx force if someone was in actual danger.  

xIt's irrelevant, because the subject is self-defense, 
xnot the apprehension of criminals.  Notice how the
xpro-aborts change the subject after it's been proven
xthat their rape-pregnancy analogy is wrong. 

False.

No surprise, it's holtsinger's reply.


The subject is *not* self-defense.  The subject is rape and the responses
appropriate under the law to an act of rape.   It is you dweebs who insist
that the rapee must feel in imminent danger of death for lethal force to
be appropriate (except, of course, when you don't.  More Holstinger-ness.).
It is the pro-choicers who are posting legal evidence that rape ITSELF
is justification enough for lethal force, regardless of the victim's belief
that their life is in danger.

Who's changing the subject, Doug?

Adrienne Regard


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52007 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10142
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:16:59 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Dec14.171046.15828@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.104035.26545@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>>not care for this.
>>
>>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
>I'll make you the same bet that I've made every other idiot who can ignore
>reality - $100 that at the end of Clinton's 100 days, Rush will still be
>on the TV and radio, with at least as many affiliates that he has now.


You are absolutely right here in that Rush does not need a majority
in order to support his show; if even 10% of America tunes into 
radio / late night on a regular basis, and he captures 10% of that,
he's doing well *ratings-wise*.  Politics-wise is another matter, of
course.

Chris
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
X-To: LARRY MARGOLIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:52:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> In <1992Dec1.214636.21571@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.or
LM> rites:
LM> >
LM> >AR> [...] And he said he'd be perfectly happy to use his vote as blackmail.
LM> [...]
LM> >AR> So did Karl.
LM> >
LM> >And *he* was playing the Devil's Advocate, which you *misinterpreted* as an
LM> >active threat.

LM> No, I'm pretty sure that Karl *is* threatening to take rights away from
LM> women if he doesn't get his way; perhaps you missed all the posts where he
LM> said so explicitly.

Actually, in a recent message, he stated that the right to terminate pregnancy
is only in court judgements, but should be put into law, especially with
respect to the first semester.

This was during an exchange with James Keegan  (BTW, what *does* TSAKC
stand for?  Just curious)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Death has been proven fatal in 99.9% of laboratory rats.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Randy Alcorn's Challenge to Pro-Choicers
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:18:38 GMT


In article <nyikos.724360766@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
 
>	   If the prolife position is wrong, we should abandon it.  If it
>	is right, then innocent human lives depend on our ability and
>	willingness to persuade others of the truth about the value,
>	dignity, and rights of unborn children.  I hope this book will
> 	serve you well in the task of education and communication, as you
>	speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.
 
I was under the impression that the pro-life movement was to pass
legislation.  Here Randy Alcorn only writes about persuading others.
Which is Randy's objective?  To legislate or to persuade.  If it 
is legislation, then I would be very curious how he justifies such
an agenda.  Does he cover that in his book?
 
>Peter Nyikos
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: What a Clown!  (WAS Pro-choicers must condone infanticide )
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:51:26 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Clearly, pro-choicers who support unrestricted abortion-on-
>demand must argue that the child should not be considered
>as a person.  

Clear to you, oh Dishonest One.  My pro-choice position is that
"personhood" can't be determined on a fetus, as you try to blatantly
assert otherwise, and that the question isn't relevant because it's the
*woman* who must be considered, not some potential human being.

>This position implies that newborn infants 
>are not persons, since there is no difference between a 
>late-term fetus and an infant, and hence these pro-choicers 
>must condone infanticide.

Wrong.  A late-term fetus is still occupying the woman's body.

Not even a nice try, Meester Liar.  

BTW, who are you gonna quote out of context this week?
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: fischer, the liar
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:55:19 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->I had assumed
->that nobody would seriously consider the possibility that I and
->everyone else on the net (except Keegan) is a liar.

from what i've read, i don't think anyone considers the
"possibility" that you're a liar, ray. certainty is
probably closed to reality.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:48:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.022530.23407@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes:
|>From article <1992Dec6.205522.11696@nmsu.edu>, by sdoe@nmsu.edu
(Stephen Doe):
|>> In article <1992Dec4.044322.7917@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com
(Gordon Storga) writes:
|>> 
|>>>
|>>>Who created "the big sleep" in the first place?  According to your bible
|>>>your god created death to punish Adam and Eve and all of their creations.
|>>>It compares to you hanging your kid off a cliff by a rope and when her
|>>>arms get too tired to hold on any more and she lets go and falls to her
|>>>death you just say, "Well, it was her choice to let go."  You created the
|>>>death-situation, then blame her for dying.
|>> 
|>> This is one the best metaphors for the behavior of the God of the
|>> Bible I've seen in a long time.
|>
|>
|>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
|>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
|>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
|>someone who prefers suicide.
|>
|>
|>>SD
|>
|>SF
                        
You missed the point: the kid didn't trip, he was pushed.
(BTW I would save the kid regardless of his answer. Does this
make me evil or imperfect?)

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Resolving abortion through legal and moral reasoning
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:28:43 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>> The problem with this approach is that it often places 
>>> societal interests above the rights of the individual.  
>>> People can become enslaved, tortured, killed, etc. if 
>>> that so happens to cause the level of happiness in society 
>>> to increase as a whole. 
>
>> This is excessively simplistic.  You are failing to account for the
>> effects on general freedoms, perceived freedoms, and security.  While
>> it may be true that arbitrarily killing one person could in the short
>> term increase happiness, the effect on the general psyche could only
>> be chilling, since everyone would have to consider the possibility of
>> themselves being arbitrarily killed.  
>
>But even this approach does not protect every individual 
>in society from being killed; it only protects those persons
>who are capable of fearing death.  For example, infants
>could be killed, tortured, etc., if that happened to 
>increase the level of happiness in society. 

Nonsense.  There are plenty of people who who be made very unhappy by
the killing of infants.  Consider all the parents, siblings,
grandparents, and other relatives who would have to consider the
possibility of having a member of their family snuffed.  You are being
too simplistic; you have to consider ALL the effects.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: We can always count on Suzanne for a laugh (Was: Re: kebbin and sex)
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:18:11 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) demonstrates that she can't even handle
a simple syllogism:

>From article by clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge):
>>In
>>which case, ham sandwich bucket and water wings kibbles micturate cups
>>empirically.
>
>Hey, I can prove to you that a ham sandwich is better than nothing!
>
>Nothing's better than heaven, right?
>And a ham sandwich is better than nothing, ain't it!

Sorry this proves nothing.  You've said you would prove it...you simply
stated it.  What you should have written was that you could prove that a
ham sandwich was better than *heaven*, thus the proper format for this
syllogism (which actually is valid deductive reasoning!) would be:

  A Ham Sandwich is better than nothing.
  Nothing is better than Heaven.
  Therefore, a Ham Sandwich is better than Heaven.

>Hey, one way or the other, he is not an atheist any more.   I simply enjoy
>the play on words.
Depends...he may well be in 'hell', since hell is total separation from
God.  Which of course might be *exactly* what ol' Isaac wanted!

>Hey, I've _BEEN_ an unborn child.   I haven't been dead yet.   But you must
>admit that what I said is true.  In fact, no unborn child is an atheist yet
>either.
Let's see.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in God.  Does a
fetus believe in God?  I don't think so.  That would make the fetus, uhm,
hmm, yes, that's it!  An atheist.

 -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: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a fea days ago...
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 02:11:43 GMT

In article <15DEC92.17345152@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) wrote:

[Riiiiipppppp]

>But my point is that the constitution can be ammended.  If the majority wants 
>something that is unconstitutional, all they have to do is elect people who 
>will make ammendments to the constitution.  An example of this is prohibition. 
>When it was ammended to the constitution that drinking was illegal it became 
>unconstitutional to drink. Then, prohibition was repealed, making something 
>that was once unconstitutional legal again.

Loren, after reading your posts all this time, I've come to a
conclusion. Yes, you've convinced me.
I've been convinced by your keen grasp of law, sociology, politics,
medicine, and now, the ammendment process.
I'm convinced clarku.edu should raise their entrance standards.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MURDER
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:47:13 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1992Dec17.043531.10053@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.190927.26788@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
>ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>> 
>>  (Karl Rominger) writes:
>> >
>> >ABORTION IS MURDER
>> >no elaboration required.
>> 
>> Well, just a little.  While abortion does take a life, 
>> murder is by definition the *illegal* taking of a life.
>> Therefore, since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder.
>
>In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
>question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
>question of justice as it relates to abortion.
>
>Karl

But I though you said *no elaboration required*.  :)
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:53:03 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

Let's limit the net to worthwhile discussions, ok?
nuff said.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52379 alt.abortion.inequity:6015
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:04:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>OK. We will inscribe male choice in law. Now, just how do we go
>about doing this?

>	Prior to all sexual encounters a legal form *must* be signed
>	by both parties.

>Hmm? Guess we will have to ensure that all singles bars have copies of
>these legal forms along with the bowl of condoms.

Oh Bob!  You forgot to stipulate the punishment for persons engaging
in sex without having filed the paperwork.  What shall it be?  60
lashes with a whip while manicled in velvet lined handcuffs? Or shall
we go the Islamic route (chop chop)?  Or the Puritan route (a scarlet 
H for Harlot tatooed you-know-where)?  The Sicilian route (concrete
panties)?  The Anglo route (ship them to Australia)?  Or maybe we just 
make them hand-wash all the diapers....

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion