HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:29:39 GMT

In <PATRICK.93Jan11124309@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:53:15 GMT, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) said:

>>In <PATRICK.93Jan10095527@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>>>On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:49:58 GMT, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) said:

>>>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>>>pointless or self-contradictory?

>>>It's almost as pointless as those who *do* believe in absolute ethics trying
>>>to impose them upon those who don't...

>>By definition, absolute ethics apply to everyone. (You seem to
>>think, "Don't impose your ethics on others" applies to everyone -- you
>>coercive fascist, you!)

>Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, Mark -- you're taking shots in the
>dark, and missing, as is to be expected.  It'd be nice if everyone else
>*would* refrain from imposing their morality on others -- but why should it
>happen?  Everyone has their own set, which may or may not coincide with
>someone else's.  Me, I don't impose my morals on anyone -- until someone
>tries to force theirs on me, at which point I'll defend myself and mine.

And if his morality says that forcing his morals on others is right
and proper, then he'll see your resistance as an imposition on his
morals.

Relativism saws off the branch on which it sits.

>>>--PLH, never miss a straight line
>>(or think in a straight line :-) )

>Yeah, yeah, yeah -- at least I can think in something more than binary
>terms...

>--PLH, calling Dr. Daystrom...

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:41:39 GMT

In <1993Jan12.022734.2897@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726793936@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>[Deletia]

>>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so 
>>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.
>>
>Ho hum, I guess it's another week, and time to point this out again...

Again?

>Consent to possibility of pregnancy != consent to remain pregnant.

You're half-right; at this point, it's vital (no pun intended) to
ask whether the z/e/f has the right to life. New thread, anyone?

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Followup-To: alt.idiots
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:56:42 GMT



Oops - I replied to one of this person's posts before I saw that
he was a raving anti-Semite.  


I knew he was twisted from his defense of endangering the lives of
innocent people, but I had no idea he was this far gone.

Susan
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:59:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan8.234624.9919@ncsu.edu>,
by dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
> In article <1993Jan8.221548.28016@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>> Here it is!  I found it!  James Keegan wrote a post called "anti-
>> choice morality" based (in part) on this atrocity.  He suggested
>> that the failure of pro-life folks to condemn Suzanne's behavior
>> was evidence for some sort of moral compromise.  Now I see why.

>> Suzanne: your comment is sick.  Your vindictiveness is unhealthy.
>> I think an apology is in order.

> Allow me to clue you in to a little game that the pro-choicers
> like to play.  The game is called "enrage the opposition".  The 
> idea is to hurl as many insults and hurtful remarks at Ms. Forgach
> as possible so that she'll respond in kind.  When Ms. Forgach
> does respond with small flames, she gets accused of being
> "hateful", "sick", etc..  

> Often times, the game is played in which a pro-choicer verbally abuses 
> Ms. Forgach for no apparent reason other than her views on abortion.

Am I to believe that there is no other reason?  Why is my experience
on t.a so much different?  There are plenty of bullies on t.a.  Need
we legitimize them by playing their juvenile games?  I promise you
this: if I see Ms. Forgach or anyone else get flamed for simply
taking one side or another, I'll object forcefully.  Would you like
to try to convince me that this is (or was) the case?  Like Ross Perot,
I'm all ears.

> Ms. Forgach then responds with a small flame, and the pro-choicers 
> gang up on her and blow her small flame way out of proportion so as 
> to portray her as being more wicked than the Wicked Witch of the West.
> In this particular example, we have Patrick Humphrey as the antagonizer, 
> who has insulted Ms. Forgach on numerous past occassions. 

A small flame.  A little, teeny-tiny insult.  Just a cute little
joke about the father of someone's kids.

> I feel that Ms. Forgach has received such horrible treatment from
> pro-choicers that they really don't have any moral standing to accuse
> her of being "hateful".  They are the ones who are "hateful", IMO. 
> I'm actually kind of surprised that Ms. Forgach has been as polite
> as she has been towards these people.

I've not been a part of the thread, so I don't know to what extent
Ms. Forgach's statement was provoked, or to what extent it was
"appropriate" in the context of the dialogue (not to be confused
with debate).  My revulsion at her remarks is unchanged.  If I
must also condemn her tormentors, so be it.

Let's not make so many excuses for ourselves, Doug.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: The Plot Thickens...
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1993Jan12.151252.8025@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:11:53 GMT

On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:12:52 GMT, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) said:

>Steve Chaney wrote:
>>>> #1 - Chris Lyman has threatened to remove my access by sending my
>>>> sysadmin a copy of my .sig of Patrick Humphrey. 

>Patrick Humphrey wrote:
>>> Uh, Steve -- last time I looked, Chris was in Minnesota, not Sacramento.
>>> He can't remove your access. 

>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Stop playing dumb, Patrick.  It's the same kind of talk your kind uses 
>> daily when saying pro-lifers want to force women to give birth.

>Yeah, Patrick, why _play_ dumb when you have Math Whizzes like the Perfesser
>_working_ at being dumb?  Remember, he's a professional so don't try this
>at home!

I wouldn't think of it.  If his dumbness works for him, great --
unfortunately for PHoney, I outgrew *that* before he was out of CMU...and
I'm not going to be 40 for a couple of years yet...:-)

>Hi, Peter!  Missed you!  Ready to play Specious Speculations again?

Place your bets:  what are the chances of PHoney's news machine having a
major malfunction requiring a weeks-long shutdown, now that his
administrators are aware of what he's up to?  I'd have to lay some pretty
short odds on that, myself...:-)


--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Non-abortion related flame of Dean Kaflowitz. Hit 'N' now if not interested.
Followup-To: No.followups.please
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:30:20 GMT


In article <1993Jan4.195713.6641@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Suzanne Demitrio asks "Doctor" Peter Nyikos:
>> >Do you always use 'first' to allude to 'second'?  Ever coach Little League?
>> 
>> No, and no.
>
>I'm happy about the second, because children should have
>coaches who know the game.
>
> I say this because "Doctor" Peter Nyikos then wrote:
>
>> There is a special rule in baseball that if the catcher drops the third
>> called strike, the player can run to first.
>
>No, you stupid, stupid man.  The rule is that if the catcher drops the
>third strike, whether it is called or swinging.
>

Actually, drops is wrong. That should read "fails to catch and maintain 
possession of the ball before the ball hits the ground and first base
is unoccupied"

Note that if te catcher never touches the ball, or if he catches it on 
a bounce, the batter is still entitled to attempt to reach first base,
if it is open.

Moral of the story:
Don't flame and then post something incorrect.
You might look stupid

Robert Johnston

PS- I am not 100% sure about 1st base having to be open, but this in
no way lessens dean's other errors.

PPS- When I say no followups please, I mean it. This disscusion 
does not belong here.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:59:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220222.27916@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>> In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com>
>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>> [Deletions]
>
>>> I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>> AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>> for more than a few years.

> A commentary on the relative value of human life.  

The statement which you've quoted above, like so many other
statements quoted by pro-choicers, has been taken out of
context.  From the reference line, it appears as though
either Mark Cochran or Keith Cochran quoted Mr. Punders
out of context, but I can't find an article which matches
<1993Jan8.190010.13178@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>. 

Next time, please take the time to *check* the original
articles before you flame somebody--in 'rn', you can hit
'^P' and it will take you back through the thread. 

Here's the original context, in which it is very clear
that Mr. Punders is using an analogy to disprove his
opponent's argument:

----
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

> I think a woman's life is worth more than that of a
> conceptus.  2/3 of all zygotes will never make it to term
> because of natural factors.

markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

ANALOGY:
I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
for more than a few years.

----

>Steve Matheson 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:29:36 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu  writes:

> >I have said over and over again that I would in each and every case counsel
> >against abortion, except when the mother's life was in danger, or in cases
> >of rape and incest.  Even in the last two, I would personally have a
> >difficult time recomending abortion.
> 
> I can see why you have difficulty.  I really don't understand how someone
> can hold that abortion is murder, and that it is wrong to commit murder,
> and still hold that it is okay to murder unborn children who are the 
> product of rape or incest.  Is it okay to exterminate grown adults who
> are the product of rape or incest?  James Robinson's mother was raped and
> had him.  I am sure that many would agree that the world is a better place
> because of James Robison, especially the thousands of children and adults
> in Angola and other nations whose lives he helped to save.  People who
> are the product of rape have intrinsic value and can make contributions
> to society, too.

Personally, I'm also glad that we aborted the potential
     murderers, rapists, Hitlers, etc., when we had a
     chance to.  I think the world is now a much better
     place because of it.

> Link Hudson.

SRM
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 18:23:37 GMT

In article <C0GDvn.DxE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <PATRICK.93Jan4205438@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
>patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <C0CAu1.Moo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>   >
>>   >   Baby, adult, no difference.  Murder is murder.
>>   >Of course -- babies and adults have both been born, nitwit.  Fetuses and
>>   >embryos haven't.  Why all the difficulty with such simple English?
>
>Maybe its because they use the very 'uncommon' definition of child in that
>radical underground dictionary, Webster's Ninth Collegiate.
>
Perhaps, since it is a medical issue, you should consider using a
medical dictionary. Of course, you won't do that, since you would then
have no rational for clinging to your "definition" of child.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:37:10 GMT

In <1993Jan8.190010.13178@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>[Deletions]

>>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>for more than a few years.
>>
>You have an awful lot to learn, don't you?

>When you are ready to leave HappyBunnyLand and try living in the Real
>World (tm) then come talk to us.

You have an awful lot to learn, don't you?

Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged persons: I
hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high) value as any lives. The
above statement originally followed someone else's statement that z/e/f's
should be less valued because many didn't survive til birth. This
is an example of reductio ad absurdum, Mark: disproving a proposed 
principle by showing it leads to obviously wrong conclusions.

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: NA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:21:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.064021.24124@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
[deletions]
|> Governments certainly decide which people fall under their protection -- I
|> can give scads of examples, domestic and exotic -- and the distinction is
|> often based on fairly arbitrary criteria -- location, for example.  The
|> *nature* of the people involved may have nothing to do with it.  My
|> pro-choice position doesn't say that the pre-born child is fundamentally
|> different from the born child; it says that the latter lives in a place to
|> which our government's influence properly extends, and the former does
|> not.  
|> 

This is a very interesting point. However, if a pre-born isn't fundamentally
different from a newborn then I think society would be within its rights 
to extend legal protection to the pre-born even at the cost of denying certain
rights to the mother (who is already legally recognized is a member of this
society and subject to its laws).

I guess I want to convince society in general that the pre-born has value and deserves
protection and if the major concern against this is that they don't live
on U.S. soil yet I think I could actually succeed.

|> > I think almost all of societies rules in some way address a collective
|> >morality or set of ethics 
|> 
|> I don't -- but then maybe I've done too much history.
|> 
|> Saying that laws reflect moral ideas is *very* different from saying
|> that all moral ideas should be made into laws.  The abortion question, on
|> a public level, asks not, "What should I do?" but rather "What should my
|> government do?"

I most definitely did NOT say that all moral ideas should be made into law.
I said almost all rules/laws have a moral or ethical component. Moral beliefs
that do not involve competing rights are almost always wrong and doomed to 
failure when made into law. However, if there is no fundamental difference
between a pre-born and a new born, society would be well within its rights
to assign rights to the pre-born and weigh his/her right to life against the
mothers rights.
 
|> 
|> >BTW I agree that abortion is usually socially and economically advantageous
|> 
|> You agree with whom?  I never said that, and I don't think it's true.
 
I inferred from your deleted statement,
   |> Whether it's 'OK to terminate' is a matter of private morality; I'd say
   |> no, not ever.  But I want to see abortion kept legal as a women's freedom,
   |> and as the best of several bad choices given shitty socioeconomic realities.
that if it were the best choice there would be some socioeconomic advantages.
Although I see now that all the choices may be disadvantageous. Although
it seems almost certain to have an economic advantage. 
I apologize for misquoting you.

Mike
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:40:21 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <C0JyMu.LGB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kahlers@ncsa.uiuc.edu writes:

>I think who 'counts' is not an arbitrary question.  

I think you didn't read my answer.

Governments certainly decide which people fall under their protection -- I
can give scads of examples, domestic and exotic -- and the distinction is
often based on fairly arbitrary criteria -- location, for example.  The
*nature* of the people involved may have nothing to do with it.  My
pro-choice position doesn't say that the pre-born child is fundamentally
different from the born child; it says that the latter lives in a place to
which our government's influence properly extends, and the former does
not.  

> I think almost all of societies rules in some way address a collective
>morality or set of ethics 

I don't -- but then maybe I've done too much history.

Saying that laws reflect moral ideas is *very* different from saying
that all moral ideas should be made into laws.  The abortion question, on
a public level, asks not, "What should I do?" but rather "What should my
government do?"

>BTW I agree that abortion is usually socially and economically advantageous

You agree with whom?  I never said that, and I don't think it's true.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                    suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:30:05 GMT

> = (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>> = (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>This reminds me much of the RCC in the period of the Inquisition. If

>   You must be very old!   By the way, which Inquistion are you
>referring to?  Roman, Spanish, ...?

Playing stupid won't get you far in t.a., Creps.  Neither does knee-jerk
defense of the R.C.C.

>>your beliefs don't match those of ours, or we don't like you, we'll
>>have a pagan roast. (after some nice stretch therapy, of course, and,
>>if you're lucky, we'll even throw in a pendulum!)

>   Could you please provide some documentation for all these
>practices, such as _what_ was done, _by whom_, _to whom_?

Gads.  Bense has obviously read up on the Spanish Inquisition.

You're at a university.  Instead of posting juvenile retorts, go to your
school library and *read* about the Spanish Inquisition.  Or take a
world history class.

Sheesh.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Yooo Hoooo, Loren?
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:45:06 GMT

(Sung to the tune of "Sweet Gypsie Rose" if anybody else is old enough
to remember that song...)

Say has anybody seen our,
L Finkelstein?
He never made much sense but,
He sure could whine...
He knew, nothin 'bout nothin,
But look at him post!
Say has anybody seen our,
L Finkelstein?

Anybody wanna add the next verse?


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: dodie's lies: are they significant?
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:06:27 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> > We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
-> > remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
-> > lifers. 
-> 
-> And we're still waiting...

what, if anything, is the significance of dodie's
repeating this statement when he's dodged questions
from me and several others calling on him to support
his statements? 

he has yet to prove such a statement was even made
by any pro-choicer. i've asked him do do so on three
separate occasions. patrich has asked him to do so
twice. mark cochran has asked him to do so at least
once, perhaps more.

i wonder if he's really this out of control
emotionally. i certainly hope he owns no firearms.

see your therapist dodie. soon. before you hurt
yourself or someone else.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:56:07 GMT

From article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
> 
> In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
> a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
> 
> #I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
> 
> Nice trick, Heather.
> 
> Susan


Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".

Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54803 talk.religion.misc:25628 alt.atheism:25466