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: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:18:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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.
-- 
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
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Mark Purdurs, waiting for a response!!!
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:01:21 GMT

In <30180@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>Mark,

>    Well, you've had about 12 days to think over the z/e/f post. I still
>haven't seen a response. Do you need a repost, or do you need more time
>to think about your reply?

Repost, please. I had to take a week off from t.a to do my employer's
bidding (I promise it'll never happen again! :-) ).

>Ron

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- your name may vary)
Subject: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:09:32 GMT

What: <1993Jan24.203827.24969@rotag.mi.org>
Who:  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)

>>    = gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
>>>   = forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
>>>>  = (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Kevin Hammond's article asking about adoption, posted from Kodak ]
 
>>>> Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer
>>>> resources being used for non-company purposes?
>>>
>>>For Pete's sake.  Kodak takes a very dim view of .signatures, posted every
>>>day attached to political opinion articles, in which the author claims to
>>>speak for Kodak and all it's subsidiaries.
>>>
>>>THAT is what got Dan Bredy in trouble.
>>
>>Not according to the original response from Kodak.  It was using company
>>resources for non-company business.
>
>Sounds like a fairly vanilla corporate response. What the REAL reasons are,
>is anyone's guess...

Precisely.  I have no doubt that that "official" excuse is transparent at
best, but if they are going to cite official policy as a reason, then they
can reasonably be expected to be consistent about it.

>My problem is not with Kodak, who after all has the legal and (IMO) ethical 
>right to determine the use of its resources, CITING ANY JUSTIFICATION THEY 
>WISH, OR NONE AT ALL, 

That's true, but if they're going to issue a vanilla corporate response
they should expect to take heat for it when they don't enforce it fairly.
I don't object to the inconsistency being pointed out.

>but with interlopers like Mr. "Justified and Ancient" 
>who seems bent on insuring that if Dan Bredy doesn't have his net.access, 
>that by golly everyone else who works at Kodak should be punished by losing 
>their net.access too (as if their collective misery was going to help Dan a 
>bit)!

Interesting how people have different interpretations of things, Kevin!
Before I read your response, I honestly read Keith Cochran's article as
a request to *restore* Dan Bredy's access, not restrict everybody else's.
But then, I try to be optimistic, so I will guess that Keith's intent was
clsoer to my guess than yours.  'course, I'm sure he'll tell me if I'm
wrong. :)
--
But still I fear and still I dare not speak for Kodak.

     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:05:11 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:

>>     Why not "You are now pregnant with a son..."?  How about
>>     Psalm 22:11:

> stuff deleted.

>>          You shall conceive and bear a son...

>>     Again, why not "You shall conceive a son and give birth..."?
>>     Perhaps the reason is that the actual person whom the fetus
>>     becomes does not become so until the birth has occurred.  As
>>     you've noticed, when talking of the soon-to-arrive child, God
>>     (or his messenger[s]) and others did so in future tense, not
>>     present ("You will conceive and bear a son" rather than
>>     "you will conceive a son and bear him" or "he will be righteous"
>>     rather than "he is righteous" {if God knows him, then God
>>     knows him to be righteous}).  Why?  Because, it would seem,
>>     the fetus is not a person until the actual chilbirth.

> What about Luke 1:36, "And behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also
> conceived a son..."  not "she hath also concieved that which will be a son."
> but, "she hath also conceived a son.  Why is John called a son even before
> he is born?  Because unborn children are persons.  That is why he is c
> called a babe before he is even born.  That is why he could be filled with
> the Holy Spirit before his birth.

All you've shown is that the Bible is inconsistent.  Considering that most
of these histories were written down anywhere from 25 to 900 years after
the events portrayed, how can we claim to know God's intentions wrt abortion?

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo"
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:25:57 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
 <1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
 <93025.203043KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <1993Jan26.063222.15317@netcom.com>

In article <1993Jan26.063222.15317@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
says:

>Apparently because of your bigotry you don't realize that very few
>people think abortion is a good idea.  It's just that a lot of us
>think that forced pregnancy is a worse idea.

Bigotry, yeah right.  You're more bigoted against pro-lifers than I am against
anybody.  There are a hell of a lot of people here who (as far as I can tell)
feel that there's nothing wrong with abortion, since there's no "person"
involved.  I would just like to understand why these people really want there
to be fewer abortions, other than the inconvenience of making the trip to the
Planned  Parenthood Clinic.

I understand (but disagree with) those who believe abortion is wrong, but
shouldn't be restricted by law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:24:01 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan19.221445.3469@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>
>>>> I read in todays Boston Globe (1/15/92) the story of an 8 (yes 8) year old
>>>> Mexican female who birthed a health 7.04 point boy by Cesarian Section.
>>>> This little factoid is one of the best arguments not only for abortion,
>>>> but for sterilization.
>
> [...]
>
>> I want to hear what you will say when the "camp of the saints" decide
>> to migrate northword over a 2000 mile unfortified border and inflict their
>> disgusting reproductive habits on the rest of us.  If that little girl is
>> any indication, our soon to be new visitors will breed 10 generations a
>> century and you and I will have to pay for it.
>
>Why are their reproductive habits more disgusting than ours?  If that little
>girl is an indication of anything, it's that child molesters are everywhere

Huh? How do you know that the father wasn't the mother's 9-year-old "boyfriend"?

I mean, as ubiquitous as child molestation appears to be, I imagine "playing 
doctor" is still pretty popular too...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:38:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.064139.9795@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan18.042845.19695@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>probably a good idea to have both parent's blood/DNA particulars on file
>>anyway,
>
>I think that there are some privacy issues involved here...

Quite apart from this Tax, the state has every right to determine the correct 
parentage of children born in its jurisdiction, Larry. Since when have people
had the "right" to lie about such things?

"Privacy" is not a magical incantation which can dispel every legislative
change you don't happen to endorse, Larry...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: control
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:51:30 GMT


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

>In <1993Jan16.213852.4702@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes ...
>>>
>>>*sigh* But what if you put them there in the first place!

>>Barring a few examples of people who've paid to have an embryo
>>implanted, most babies are not put into the women's uterus.

>Cute. What if you caused them to be there in the first place?

Ah, so we move farther down the chain of causality.  Now, the woman has
merely done something which "caused" the baby to be there.  Well, now,
if we move another step or two back, the woman who was raped has done
something that "caused" the baby to be there.  (Gone out of the house,
stayed in the house, said "hi" to someone, etc.)  So how far down the
chain do we have to go before we release that woman from responsibility?

Or is it a matter of percentages?  While it has been posted that the
average act of heterosexual intercourse has a 2-3% chance of resulting
in pregnancy, presumably the woman's action of leaving her home had a
much lower chance of resulting in rape which resulted in pregnancy.
However, if it's a percentage game, I have significantly lowered my
chances of getting pregnant by using birth control.  So how low does
the percentage have to be before the woman is released from responsibility?

Do you see why I'm unconvinced by the "because she willingly had sex"
argument?

>Mark Pundurs

                     -rocker

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Loopback, Say What?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:03:14 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Trivia contest time folks:

>When the New Testament speaks of 'the scriptures'
>is it a forward reference to the time when the
>New Testament will be Cannonized?

>ciao
>drieux

I know! I Know! Pick me!

When the New Testement speaks of 'the scriptures'
and is read in a fundementalist church, then the 
references are to the Schofield Annotated King James
New Testament.

When it is read in a romanist church it references
the Duay paraphrase of the Vulgate translation
as revealed in the catechism.

When it is read in the True Church, it is understood
that it means primarily the canonical books of
the Jews in the first century, usually taken to be
the Sepuagint(LXX) in greek and the Masoritic texts
in hebrew, know collectively as the old, or first,
covenanat.

chus
pyotr

p.s. do I win a Noh-Prize?

p.p.s.  Would you care to comment on the secularists
elimination of the god given right to the six day
work week?
r
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:13:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.120500.2137@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> By education, ensuring the availability of effective, affordable
>> contraceptives, and by education.
>The most effective, most affordable "contraceptive" is to time sexual 
>intercourse so that you do not have it during the 5 days each month 
>when it is possible to conceive.
Really? Oral contraceptives have a 99.9% method effectiveness.
Do you have peer reviewed studies that show that a 5 day a month
abstinence has a 99.9% method effectiveness? I've asked Ms. Forgach
for this numerous times, but she has refused. Perhaps you will
do better.

>I agree that we cannot completely stop promiscuous behavior.  I do 
>think that requiring those who are promiscuous to be responsible for 
>their actions is not too much to ask.  That is, they should be 
>responsible for children they concieve by carrying them to term
>and then either raising them themself, or giving them to loving 
>adoptive parents.
Huh? I think that abortion IS a responsible way to deal with
an unwanted pregnancy.

-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: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:02:08 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student) writes:

>> [--fire and brimstone sermon deleted--]

>> May I ask a question, as one God-fearing Christian to another?

>> Is God playing some kind of "gotcha"-type game?  I mean, if
>> getting or administering an abortion merited eternal damnation,
>> don't you think God would have explicitly warned us?

> Does this mean you are not a God-fearing Christian?
> A yes answer requires no further explanation.
> A no answer, i.e. that you ARE a God-fearing Christian, does.  

> For instance, isn't Christianity an anal-retentive religion in your
> eyes?

For heaven's sake, Peter, why would you set me up with a straight line
like that?

Do you believe that God playing some kind of "gotcha"-type game?

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: The ultimate pro-choice argument [long]
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:17:17 GMT

>From article <1993Jan14.175105.8271@netcom.com>,
>by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):


>> It's all well and good to say, "You're killing a human being just
>> because a woman doesn't want to spend a few months carrying it!"  But
>> there's a lot more to it than that.  I know this argument has been
>> rehashed ad nauseum, but a lot of people seem to be ignoring it: if
>> you're going to let a fetus use a woman's body when it needs her in
>> order to survive, how can you not let a person who needs blood or
>> organs or bone marrow use your body when he needs you in order to
>> survive?  Don't give me the standard line about "letting nature take
>> its course," because we don't live in the Stone Age any more.

The z/e/f was placed in a state of dependency by (among others) the person
on whom she depends. The patient needing blood etc. was not.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:27:51 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

In article <1993Jan26.045023.6010@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>It can be argued that since a 8 1/2 month fetus doesn't _need_ to
>>>derive sustenance directly from the mother, that it is therefore a
>>>person.
>>>
>>Get your terms straight Ray. As long as it *is* a fetus, it *must*
>>derive sustenance directly from the woman.
>
>Are you arguning that the only rlevent criterion for personhood is
>whether or not said entity is or is not inside a mother?  That
>regardless of any other considerations, a fetus is not a person until
>after it is removed from the mother?
>
Hardly, Ray. It was *so* clever of you to delete the portion of the
article in which I pointed out that this is only a small part of the
personhood issue, and an even smaller part of the whole abortion
issue.

>>Ray, it should be obvious that the feeding baby could be fed by
>>*anybody* since there are plenty of alternatives to breastfeeding. Or
>>is your definition of 'person' so simplistic that it only takes one
>>factor into account? Mine certainly isn't. As for your last statement,
>>I'll say it again. as long as it is a fetus, it must take all
>>sustenance directly from the woman.
>
>Which is a largely meaningless statement.  It is a tautology and as
>such is pretty useless.  A proto-human of 8.5 months gestation need
>not take all of its sustenance from its mother.  In most cases it can
>be removed from the mother and be given sustenance by another.  Does
>the fact that it does receive sole sustenance from the mother make it
>a non-person?
>
Nope, nor have I claimed that it did, despite your creative use of the
delete function. Personhood is only a portion of the abortion issue
(feel free to delete this again). The woman's bodily autonomy is also
a part of it.
>-- 

--
                  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: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:02:31 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan26.183133.5938@netcom.com>,
by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

> hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:
>>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:

>>> I support the right to choose to have the _fetus_ _aborted_ (please
>>> lose the emotionalist buzzwords).  If she wants to abort a fetus for
>>> some reason that I don't like, then that's just too bad for me, but I
>>> have no right deciding when abortion is 'okay' or not, and I have no
>>> right putting the woman on trial to decide whether or not she's
>>> telling the truth when she gives her reasons for wanting an abortion.

>>  Do you also support the right for the new mother of a two week old
>>  baby to terminate it's life?  If not, why not? 

> Of course not!  Because the mother can get rid of the infant by just
> giving it up for adoption.

What if she can't, Brian?  What if the baby is a crack addict and a
member of a racial minority?  According to Mark Cochran, this baby
hasn't a prayer of being adopted.  Does she retain the right to
abort the baby?

> When you balance the right of an infant to
> live against the right of a mother to not be bothered, it's rather
> obvious that the infant has quite a bit more at stake.

"The right of a mother not to be bothered"?  What if it costs the
mother her life savings?  Her job?  Her home?  Is it still obvious
that "the infant has quite a bit more at stake"?

> But in abortion, we're balancing the right of a fetus to live against
> the right of a woman to control her own body.

In the case of the 2-week-old, we're balancing the right of a neonate
to live against the right of a woman to control her own life.  Do you
contend that it is self-evident that a woman's right to liberty and
the pursuit of happiness are less important than her right to control
her own body?  Does the mother retain the same rights when she's in
labor?  What if a full-term fetus needs to be delivered by C-section,
*stat*, to save her life, but the mother doesn't want to proceed?

These arguments have everything to do with the right of the government
to make laws, but nothing to do with the morality of making the choice
to abort.  And they depend completely on the assumption that the e/f
can be viewed, legally and morally, as an intruder with NO right to
claim support from the mother.

In my opinion, your position is not nearly as strong as you'd like
me to believe.

> If she wants to get rid
> of the fetus, she should certainly be allowed to; it is unfortunate
> that this results in the death of the fetus.

If she wants to get rid of the 3-year-old, she should certainly be
allowed to; it is unfortunate that....

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:20:55 GMT

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?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion