HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Minor Moments in math and epistemology
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:50:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: wetware.1992Apr11.195007.7956
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck" writes:
[ discussion with D. Knapp on the matter of concurance between the opponents] 
] Well, I am glad you agree because it's very true.  If you want to get
] technical, 1 + 1 = 2 can not be presented as fact.  It's all relative
] (ie. the "Addition Postulate" vs. a theorem or scientific law).  It is
] accepted as fact.

1. please note that we have four tokens in the string

	"1 + 1 = 2"

and will need to make a whole series of definitions before we
can all agree that the string is not only syntactically parsable
but also semantically evaluable.

please note that to get to the concept "Addition Postulate" we
have a JOLLY LOT of work needed, especially if we are to be able
to use this "Postulate" across a multiplicity of number systems
so that we can also resolve such cases as:

	"1 + 1 = 0"

	"9 + 1 = a"

both of which are syntactically correct within their respective
systems, and semantically evaluable as well."

2. The horror of Turning to Mathmatics in the hopes of presenting
a Notion of Moral Absoluteness is that one runs directly into the
fundamental debate of whether or not Math is descriptive of reality
or merely derived from reality. We need not return to the argument
between the Geometers and Pythagorous and the problem of resolving
the diagonal of a unit square in a system that contains solely 
whole counting numbers and the ratios thereof.

3. Part of the fundamental argument in the abortion debate has to
do with precisely the problem of resolving not only the axioms and
primatives of the system, but also resolving the meta theory by which
to utilize these tools.

4. IF there is but "One Way" then obviously there is either 'decimal
or NOTHING' in the discussion. {A position I fear that will lead to
come logical problem for those of us using computers that deal with
both binary and hex based notation systems....} Which leads us directly
into the conflict of what do we really mean when we argue against moral
relativism... Is it really MORALLY RELATIVE???? Or is it merely a case
that within the context of the semantically evaluable statements this is
some proposition not evaluable outside of that system????


ciao
drieux

ps: Please Pause Long enough to think a little before you worry
about the 'vagueness' of the post. If any of the big words bother you
feel free to consult a dictionary. If any of the technical points cause
confusion for you feel free to discuss them with any of the literate
persons who deal with theory.


-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: pquince@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Quince)
Subject: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:58:16 GMT

The abortion issue and debate is very much a smokescreen for
social inactivity.  Consider:  If even a small fraction of the
amount of effort that has been put into the tedious battle over
pro-life, pro-choice, screaming red in the face legalizations
ad infinitum had been directed to preventive education programs,
thousands upon thousands of unwanted pregnancies would have been
averted and, at least for those people, the issue would be moot.

As a solution, I suggest the following self-moderated heuristic
for participation in the abortion debate.  Let none of us spend
any time worrying about or arguing over abortion until we have 
each put in 100 hours of community service educating students 
on birth control (or related activity).  Thereafter, each additional
ten hours of community service entitles us to the luxury of one
hour of participation in the debate.  Not only will this improve
our quality of life, it will also result in more awareness on the
subject and more credibility when we do argue.

It is much easier to argue about a problem than to take real steps
toward a solution, as a general rule.

pquince
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:40:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Larry
>Kevin
>> Ron


>> >OK, it has a tail, an extremely oversized head, and is generally similar
>> >in appearance to a melted wax figure, a sort of blob. It is human (so
>> >is your blood) and is parasitic, does that make it a person? Not to
>> >me.

>> Gee, did I say it was a person?  IIIIdon'tthinksooooo.

>No, you said "it looks pretty human".

Right.  "Human" in that sense is used as the adjective to describe a 
relationship that the fetus shares with it's mother.

>> What's your point?

>His point is that you're wrong; it looks like any other foetal mammal, and
>nothing at all like a human being.

Ah, we look like animals too.  But we're human, and that makes the difference.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:32:42 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:

>Mary Anne Warren:

You can spout whatever you want about this person, I think she might
need to be informed of what you're doing to her reputation, however.
Maybe she'll sue you for libel, or assassination of character, or maybe
just plain misquotes.

>"It is probably inappropriate to describe a woman's body as her property,
>since it seems natural to hold that a person is something distinct from
>her property..."

And this couldn't possibly be taken out of context, could it? The inter-
pretation I get from it is that her body is something much more than
mere property to her, since it cannot be stolen from her in the sense
that it is taken away from her physically. Another case for an extremely
twisted persona.

>Face, David.  I was waiting for you to send that one.

I think the only thing you're waiting on is some men in white coats.
I know the rest of us are.

Ron
From: morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: proposal and request for comment.
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:05:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>The term 'parasite'
>fits a fetus amazingly well, since its presence is not symbiotic.

Actually, the fetus DOES do something for the woman but not immediatly.
It carries her genes into another generation so they will, theoretically,
survive her demise.  This brings up an interesting point.  Are seeds and
fruits parasitic to the parent plant?  Are children who breast feed (assume
no other available processed foods) parasitic?  How about marsupials in
the pouch? 

John Morrow
morrow@remus.rutgers.edu
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:29:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron
>Kevin

>>Mary Anne Warren:

>You can spout whatever you want about this person, I think she might
>need to be informed of what you're doing to her reputation, however.
>Maybe she'll sue you for libel, or assassination of character, or maybe
>just plain misquotes.

Hey, I'm just restating what she says in her books.

>>"It is probably inappropriate to describe a woman's body as her property,
>>since it seems natural to hold that a person is something distinct from
>>her property..."


>And this couldn't possibly be taken out of context, could it? 


How could "It is probably inappropriate to describe a woman's body as her
property" be taken out of context.  It is a flat out sentence.  Her statement
is fact to her.  She says it.  No misinterp. here.

>The inter-
>pretation I get from it is that her body is something much more than
>mere property to her, since it cannot be stolen from her in the sense
>that it is taken away from her physically. Another case for an extremely
>twisted persona.

No, she says a woman's body is not her property.  She is saying personhood
is not a subset of property or vise versa.  They are two distinct "bodies".

>>Face, David.  I was waiting for you to send that one.

>I think the only thing you're waiting on is some men in white coats.
>I know the rest of us are.

Hey, I'm Catholic.  I have every reason to fear the KKK as you do.
They hate Catholics.  They lynched them too.

>Ron

kcw


--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- pro-whatever.)
Subject: Re: More words being stuffed in my mouth (formerly: tell me more...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: W A C D T F ... W a s h i n g t o n ,   D . C .
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:48:24 GMT

[Btw, thanks for turning that flamethrower down a notch.]

What: <1992Apr13.222700.24@liebe.uucp>
Who:  kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>   = Jay T Stein 
>>>  = Kevin Brawley
>>>> = me (Jay), replying to:  IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)

>>>> [ me saying that there are pro-choice Christians ]
>>>I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to 
>>>start reading [their] Bible.  There are wonderful insights
>>>as to God's Pro-Life stance.

This smacks of the I'm-right-and-they're-wrong line of reasoning which you
have accused me of before.  In effect, you are saying that if another
Christian disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, then they
must have it wrong and are therefore not really Christian.  I think
that is pretty arrogant.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Brawley thumps Bible! (Film at 11)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:42:58 GMT

In article <18289@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>Here's your case:
>
>Sodom and Gahmorah (sp? it never was my strong suit)

It's Gomorrah.

>Why? Because god destroyed these two towns, killing all within its confines,
>including children and the unborn, for the express purpose of killing
>the sinners. Small children and the unborn are not capable of sin, as
>your religion insists. So god punished the innocent for the guilty,
>making him a hypocrit.

First of all, Ron, you make no friends for your side of the argument
by flaming everyone religious. There are plenty of pro-choice people
and decent pro-life people who are likely to be offended by your need-
less and gratuitous attacks on the Bible and on religion in general.
Second of all, there are those of us  who believe in the Biblical
story you mention without necessarily agreeing with the Christian 
principle you tossed out, so your argument doesn't apply. Third of
all, according to Jewish scholars' interpretations, G-d didn't 
destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the sins of individual people; He
destroyed them because the cities as governmental units had broken
a specific law -- it's a wildly complicated story and I'll explain 
it on e-mail if you're interested; I won't go into it here. Fourth
of all, according to the story, there was only one family of people
who were not guilty in the entire two towns, and they were told to get
out of the way.

>Ron

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:06:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Michele:

I should be easier on people like this, but....

>No, a man has no choice - absolutely no choice -

He has a choice to impregnante his wife/girlfriend.  He makes a choice
in having sex with this woman.  They both choose.  They both assume
the risk.  They both pay the price of carelessness.

Who pays for the abortion usually?  Let's say boyfriend and girlfriend.
They usually pay for half of it.  Hmmm...half...half.  Baby = 1/2 man and
1/2 woman = 1 new individual.  The fetus is part of the man, Michele.  
Realize this and take your fanatic views back to Russia where such liberalism
and communism still exists.

>over whata woman does with her own body, and as
>long as the fetus is in there,

The fetus is not her property.  Her body is not her property.  She cannot
do anything she wishes with her body.  The fetus just sits inside and
grows, eats, and shits.  The fetus is not part of the woman's body.  If it
were, a woman would be born with one.

>it is only under her
>control... accept that men cannot control something,
>for once....
>justly....

heehhe


go home.

Control your legs then.  And keep your pants zipped, guys if you don't
want babies running around.

welch

--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:45:41 GMT

In article <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>	Medically, life begins at conception.  Once conceived, a human
>fetus will be a human, not a frog, fish, or anything else.  Murder is the
>premeditated taking of a human life.
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Without life, there can be no choice;
>without choice, there can be no life.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

But wait! Isn't the sperm and egg alive? Or are they really dead. Oh
I get it...only the embryo is alive, the sperm and egg aren't. Gag!
Be more careful how you define "life".


anne


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question...an answer)
Subject: Re: next
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:19:55 GMT

[I fixed the stray ^H's in this article.  Aside from that, it's been left
 intact.]

Where it was written: <1992Apr10.165236.2061@news.iastate.edu>
Who wrote it:         xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu

>last message MORALITY what was sead about the law is true. how can all
>someone rights as a life only if there wanted be moral to anyone? 
>on adoption there are a lot of couples willing to take children of
>a difrint ethnic back
>ground or with problems thouse that prefere to not have a child with
>a problem mack that prefrenc out of necesity- they dont feel that
>they can handal it. the bigist problem with cross ethnic
>adoptions is the agencys them selv
>they seem to feal that it would cause confusion for the chidren.
>as for back refrincing i just descovered the news and subscribed
>the uther day. you need to pay less head to the medea and look for the facts. 

I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.

>when it comes to an atempt at spelling I HAVE BEEN ATEMTING FOR MOST
>OF MY LIFE TO OVERCOME MY DISGRAFEA AND I FIND IT IRATATING WHIN
>PEOPLE TOSS IT BACK AT ME EXSPECHALY WHIN IT IS ELRELEVEN.
>if you don't know what digrafea is look it up.
>as for sining my name i chouse not to - not just hear but every ware -
>ELF-KIN is my handal the only news group i dont sign with ELF-KIN is alt.evel
>I sign that one with INSANITY RULES!!!
>if you dont beleve me check alt.aquara.
>My real name is ANGELA KAY ROLLING
>i think that on alt.prose i will leve my insignea
>
>ELF-KIN  we are but one race-the human race!
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hear hear.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."  -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]." -- Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:59:34 GMT

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.170236.2629@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>>That would be fine, but as one group is helping out at educating students,
>>>the other group is working to push laws that will limit individual freedom.
>>
>>I presume you mean the Pro-Death faction and their limiting (destroying) the
>>freedom of the unborn child to live.

>No, I meant the Pro-fascist movement and their limiting (destroying) the 
>freedom of the woman to remove a small chunk of unwanted fetal tissue from
>their uterus.

It's a child.

>>>Also, it is simply important to understand the issue. Most of the argumentation
>>>you hear is due to, IMO, the fact that people do not understand the the 'other'
>>>is coming from.
>>
>>I understand perfectly.  Pro-Death people are being extrememly selfish, 
>>power-hungry and barbaric.
>>

>That is the problem. You understand 'perfecectly'.

>Isn't the pro-life movement looking to establish a law that will *force* women 
>to carry a fetus to term?  That sounds more like 'power hungry' behavior
>than a group that is saying 'let her do what she wants.'

Look, this really is simple.  See if you can follow.  The woman is being
"Inconvenienced", "Traumatized", etc. (Pro-Choice words).  The child is
being "Murdered", "Killed", etc. (Pro-Life words).  So your arguement
could easily be used to say:  You are *forcing* death upon babies.
and the Pro-Lifers only want the mother to take responsibility for her actions.

>Selfish? Yes. It is the woman's self who is carrying this non-thinking
>piece of fetal tissue. If she doesn't want to be carrying it in her*self*,
>she has the right (under law:status quo) to have it remove from her*self*.

More simpleness for you:  Legal does NOT equal Right.

>You are saying she is selfish because she doesn't want someone around to 
>decide what she should do with herself?

No.  Listen please.  It is selfish to murder someone because they are
inconveniencing you.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:01:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron
>Kevin B.
>>Judi



>>I have explained my usage of "pro-death" before.  It is not intended as an
>>unprovoked "stab" but as an eye-opener to those who refer to Pro-Life
>>people as Anti-Abortion.  The fetus' are unquestionably "slaughtered".  So
>>I guess you're referring to my saying "babies" as "emotional".

>IYHO

>BTW, unprovoked or not, it is still a deliberate emotional stab. How
>is Anti-Abortion an emotioanl stab?

Hey, call me Anti-Abortion if you want.  Call me Pro-Life if you want.
I'm both.  You're Pro-Abortion.  You are for the existence of abortion;
you're pro-abortion.

>>If it walks, talks, acts like a duck ...

>Gee, you've seen a fetus walk, talk, act????????

I've seen one act.  I've seen one move about.  Seen a new baby walk?
Seen a new baby talk?  I haven't.  But hey, they're not persons either;
let's legalize infanticide now....there NOT persons...

>At 8 weeks, it's not much more than a blob.

No, at about 10 days it's pretty much a blob.  At 8 weeks, it looks pretty
human...maybe that's...because it IS human.  I dunno, Judi.  What do you
think?  Is the fetus human?

>>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ drivel alert

>Actually a true statement.

Actually, sentimental bullshit.  (Come on, Michael Bolton, sing it with
me while we sit on the dock at the bay.)

"When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose."

Scraaaaaaaaaatch  <static>  <bleeeep>

Michael:	Kevin, that tune just doesn't work right.
Kevin:		Well, is it the music, Michael.
Michael:	Somethin' about the lyrics.
Kevin:		How about the following change:  "When a man loves a woman,
		spend his very last dime."

I wrote that line actually.  

When a man loves a woman, he loves everything that comes with her and that
they do together; they are, afterall, together as one flesh, one body
(Hamlet).  Everything they make is both of theirs.  If a man loves a woman,
he loves her and her child.

If a man loves a woman, he loves life.

>Ron

me

--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity