HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Retransmit....
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:19:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan23.232730.29958@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

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

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

> Interesting How the ModerSeXularHumanist can rewrite the bible, and
> then say that Ending what the Bible is Clear about is somehow
> 'christian' ....

You are an apparent moron who is essentially ignorant about history.
It would, rather, be much more interesting if the above claim were
accompanied by some documentation.  Specifically, what parts of the
Bible are being rewritten? (and by whom?, I might add).  Chapter and
verse, chump.

> Nice try there Teddy Dearest...

And a rather pitiful try by you, Andy.

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

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

> "the Point of Blockading the 'worshipping centers' of FetalIdolatry

As Justice Scalia noted, whatever one might happen to think of
abortion, there are legitimate and commonly recognized reasons for
opposing it that are not founded in attempting to deny any class of
individuals their rights.  I am not aware of any commonly recognized
cult of "FetalIdolatry".  Perhaps you can enlighted us? (though I
doubt it).

> is to Protect the Soul of the UnRepentant...."

This is an attempt to immamentize the eschaton.  The soul of the
unrepentant cannot be protected.
-- 
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??? ||
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Freddie, I mean Teddy, Krueger lies about pro-choice.
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:40:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1993Jan25.162856.1426@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes the usual
pro-force nonsense about how people who are pro-choice love for women
to get abortions.  When questioned by Jamie R. McCarthy, he writes:

>If not, why not?  If the fetus is no different than a hangnail, why 
>shouldn't pro-abortioners think that abortion was a good thing, and 
>that in many cases, especially unwed mothers, that abortion would 
>be desired? 

(1) Please produce a statement from a pro-choice person stating that a
fetus is no different than a hangnail.

(2) Please produce evidence that even a significant minority of those
who are pro-choice believe abortion is a `good thing' or desirable in
any normative sense.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:41:54 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan17.232319.19184@watson.ibm.com> 
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> Pennsylvania has abortion restrictions.  These restrictions were found by
>> the Supreme Court to be constitutional in PP v. Casey.  

>The Pennslyvania restrictions passed the new ``undue burden'' 
>test which the Court revealed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
>Prior to PP v. Casey, the restrictions would have failed to pass
>the test outlined in Roe v. Wade, which held that abortion is
>a ``fundamental'' right. (I believe similar restrictions had
>been struck down before as being unconstitutional). 

>> This was done without overturning Roe v. Wade.  

>It was done by modifying the test by which abortion
>restrictions could pass constitutional muster.  

So when are you going to modify your .sig to say "...evidence that Roe
v. Wade used to mean abortion-on-demand..."?

>Doug Holtsinger

               -rocker
                happy to see dougie refuting his own statements
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:08:43 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

In article <bob1.727980568@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <lm16jfINNe66@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>
>>Entirely true, Steve.  However, as palatable as abortion may be when
>>compared to the --------- , to Suzanne (and myself for the time being),
>>it is still one person taking the life of another, without the latter's
>>consent, or dare I say, choice.
>
>Of course, it would never have anything to do with your desire to try
>and make your arguments appear to have greater weight, by dragging in
>an unrelated blot on humanity, would it?

I take this to refer to Suzanne Forgach's reference to the Holocaust.  It
seemed that her approach was to communicate what she perceives to be
horrifying:  the taking of human life.  Her strategy is to link abortion
to something generally accepted as inconscionable.  A rather commonly
used strategy in many persuasive works.

>If you find yourself unable to come up with a cogent argument without
>irrelevant analogies, why not simply admit it?

I most surely will.  (Do you prefer to be referred to as "Grouch" or "Bob
Blackshaw"?)  I am most capable of constructing cogent arguments, and quite
frankly, I feel that the strategy used by Suzanne Forgach incorrectly
represents the abortion issue.  It infuses a powerful emotion of horror
that I feel must be avoided if we are to come to a rational solution to
this problem.

This is why I sought to moderate Suzanne's and Steve's arguments.  Suzanne
made abortion seem horrible by linking it to the Holocaust; Steve argued
that abortion is quite mild in comparison to it.  In a way, both were right.
In a way, both were wrong.  I hoped to point out these ways, and in the
process bring the emotion out of it.

>>Paul Brinkley
>>brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
>>Pro-Thought Advocate
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Then why not take your own advice?

Could this be my first flame??  I must say, I'm flattered.  :)

In the interest of bandwidth, I'll leave my signature up there.
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:34:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.015847.19384@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
><zdp3+mf@rpi.edu> (rocker) writes:
>> The focus of the Clinton
>> administration's family planning policies will be the _prevention_
>> of unwanted pregnancies, unlike the previous repressive regimes whose
>> policies on family planning consisted of a big, cheery "Just say no!"
>
>I'd like to see you defend your description of the Reagan/Bush
>administrations as "repressive" concerning abortion and family
>planning issues.  They refused to put the power and purse of the 
>federal government behind many activities and institutions, it is
>true, but that is not "repressive", now is it?  Is there any 
>woman in America who wanted an abortion in the last 12 years
>who was prevented from getting one by the acts of the Reagan
>or Bush administations?  Did they stop even one abortion?
>Refusing to fund or participate in abortions is *not* the same
>thing.  All the federal policies concerning abortion that I am
>aware of, for example, the Hyde Amendment, are of this nature.
>Maybe you know something I don't?
>
>The only Reagan/Bush policy I think could possibly be construed
>as "repressive" (depending on one's position on many issues)
>might be their efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade.  And all that
>can be said on that front is that they tried to be "repressive"
>and failed miserably.
>
How about the removal of Title X funding for voluntary
sterilization for those who lack insurance or ready
cash to obtain such?  That cut in funding made it
impossible for many low-income married couples to use
the most effective contraceptive available, and was
a causal factor in at least one abortion that I know of.
I know we have to make spending cuts somewhere, but it
seems to me that helping folk to tie their tubes after
they have all the kids they can reasonably support
would be arguably cost-effective in the long run.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:55:48 GMT

In <1993Jan20.175022.14959@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>>>No; but no goldfish has ever exhibited reason or free will -- at 
>>>>ANY stage of its existence.
>>
>>>Neither has a fetus or a zygote.  Try again.
>>
>>Neither did a newborn infant named Cathi, once upon a time.

>Ever try feeding a newborn infant something it didn't want?

Response to external stimulus != (reason) or (free will)

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:23:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.164519.12254@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <CORWIN+.93Jan23214534@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
> >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >>"Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
> >> language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
> >> Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
> >> a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
> >> a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
> >> not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
> >> that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
> >> was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
> >> Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."
> 
> > A lawyer is an Officer of the Court.  As an Officer of the Court, they
> > are bound by the rules of judicial conduct, which includes obeying a
> > judge's order.  If a lawyer disagrees with a ruling, they have the option
> > of appeal.  To ignore a ruling and usurp the system is contempt.  
> 
> You're missing the point.  The judge on the case *ordered* the
> lawyer not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''.
> Do you think the judge's order was appropriate? 

Through the filing of briefs, pretrial motions, and the
discovery process, a judge can gain a reasonable understanding
of the approach to a trial that a particular attorney will take.
It is not inappropriate for a judge to prohibit prejudicial
behavior, nor is it inappropriate for a judge to order an
officer of the court, as Scott pointed out, to not behave
in a prejudicial fashion before the trial begins.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58348 talk.politics.misc:70225
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:21:22 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1993Jan26.152124.8182@seachg.uucp> 
chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:

> No one is "pro-abortion".  

There are several self-described "pro-abortionists" on the net,
along with a few pro-choicers who believe that infanticide and
abortion are not immoral. 

> [Pro-lifers] want to tell others what to do.  

Pro-choicers want to tell others what to do.  They want to
tell certain human beings that they must die.  

> The "pro-choice" people want to defend *your* right to choose, within
> reasonable limits, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.  Very few
> of the "pro-choice" people believe in third trimester abortion-on-demand,
> or anyhting like it - those that do are basically extremists.

Just about every pro-choicer that I've met on talk.abortion supports
third trimester abortion-on-demand.  Some pro-choicers have said that 
a person can't be pro-choice unless they oppose third-trimester abortion
restrictions.  And Roe v. Wade allows a woman to have an abortion for 
any reason, during any part of pregnancy, all the way up to the point
of birth (documentation available upon request via e-mail).


>-chris blask


Doug Holtsinger
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:48:50 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan27.051915.10666@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|> In article <Jan26.010511.74729@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan25.093753.3864@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> >|> In article <lm1g5pINNegu@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

|> >|> How can the fetus' liberty be valuable?  Of necessity, it is 
|> >|> on a very short leash.  It is in the nature of a fetus to
|> >|> have very little liberty.  Whenever I see the argument that
|> >|> fetuses should have the same rights/liberties as anyone else,
|> >|> I always wonder, how are you going to go about allowing them
|> >|> to peaceably assemble?
|> >
|> >	The same thing could be said about paraplegics...
|> >	Lack of capacity to exercize rights does not imply no rights.
|> >
|> >Steve
|> 
|> Steve, Paraplegics, having lost the use of only two limbs, do not
|> generally have any significant difficulty exerting their rights,
|> especially since the ADA passed. They certainly don't have any
|> difficulty 'peaceably assembl[ing]', as long as you don't ask them to
|> meet while jogging or somethign silly like that. ;-)

	OK, what do you say about people in a coma?  Are they persons with human
rights, or not?

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie? 
Reply-To: rj24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:37:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.020412.9422@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.175344.22861@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>> Any attempts to get me to
>>>> violate ethical and legal standards is gong to be ignored.
>
>>> Cochran, I have a newspaper article in front of me which names
>>> Baby Theresa's neonatalogist, along with the hospital where he
>>> works.  If you'll publically name the baby's neonatalogist,
>>> as you have stated that you know him, I'll publically post the
>>> article reference.  
>
>> Mark didn't say whether the neonatologist he spoke with
>> was working with the potential donor, or a potential
>> recipient.  
>
>He claims to know a "director of neonatology, a neonatal surgeon, 
>and a couple of the nursing staff" who were "directly involved"
>in the case.  Is it too much to ask where these people work?

Of course it is. That is known as ethics, something which you sadly lack.

>He has refused to answer that simple question, which leads me
>to believe that he's lying. 
>

No one cares what you think, doug, as it does not hold any relevance
to reality. 

>
>>muriel
>
>
>Dougie "Reverand" Holtsinger
>

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: choice:life ratio
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:39:21 GMT

becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling) writes ...
>This question, while coming from one who feels passionately about the
>abortion issue, is as non-biased as possible: Does anyone know what
>the approx. ratio of pro-choice to pro-life writers on this net might
>be?  Just wanted to get an idea... If this is a FAQ you are welcome to
>flame me and I apologize in advance, but I'd still like to know!  :)

While it is impossible to judge the readership of t.a., and while
categorizing individuals is not always possible, a rough estimate
would be 60:40 choice:life.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:39:26 GMT
Distribution: na
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 <1993Jan26.155650.18503@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.125733.17264@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan26.092749.10468@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>> 
>>> ATTENTION EVERYONE!!  Please cancel this thread!  The orginal article
>>> was sent by mistake(malfunctioning terminal, plus my finger slipped and
>>> hit s for send rather than a for abort)...
>>> ...And please do not tell me about how stupid it was, because it's not my fault
>>> if the terminals in the computer lab are junk.
>>
>>They sound pretty powerful to me.  I know of no other terminals
>>that can make a person's fingers press the wrong keys.
>>
>>Actually, I think the terminals are probably fine, but I know
>>the terminal user is junk.
>>
>	Or, as we say over in information services:  "garbage in, garbage out".
>Part of emotional maturity, of course, is the ability to take respoinsibility
>for one's screw-ups instead of blaming them on inanimate objects.

If he had left it as saying his finger slipped, I *might* have
believed him. Of course, it might still make me wonder why anybody
wouldn't just savethe article and play their silly slander games
offline, where it's safe.

--
                  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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57322 talk.politics.misc:69183 talk.religion.misc:27236 misc.legal:23108
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
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.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 01:28:52 GMT

In article <C1Bw00.G0L@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.220623.11480@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>Perhaps you should go sit with a few dying cancer patients. Try bone
>>cancer, for starters. Then you can graduate to some of the nastier
>>varieties.
>
>I have.  Yet, there is not way I would have killed this person.  even if 
>someone is dying in pain, there is no right to murder.  This particular
>individual chose not to go to the hospital and take the pain medication
>or undergo hopeless operations.  I can respect that decision.  What I could
>not do is kill someone because they are in pain.  People are not animals to
>be put our of their misery.  If I were dying in agony, I would not want to
>have my family kill me.  I would not want that on their consciences for hte
>rest of their lives.  I would not want to die knowing that my family had
>killed me.
>
And based on what you desire for *you*, you feel fit to decide what
legislation should be passed to regulate what choices other peopel can
make for themselves. Mighty arrogant attitude.

>God can and has healed people in the last stages of cancer.  Even if I knew
>for sure that God would not heal someone in my family, I could not kill them.
>
Who? Oh, you mean 'Casper the friendly ghost' (Used without
permission, but if Nadja minds, she'll tell me, I'm sure).

Please provide documentation of an end stage cancer patient
spontaneously recovering.

--
                  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: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Captain Of ContextFree returns
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:34:22 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] In article <CORWIN+.93Jan23214534@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
] corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
] >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >>"Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
] >> language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
] >> Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
] >> a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
] >> a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
] >> not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
] >> that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
] >> was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
] >> Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."
] 
] > A lawyer is an Officer of the Court.  As an Officer of the Court, they
] > are bound by the rules of judicial conduct, which includes obeying a
] > judge's order.  If a lawyer disagrees with a ruling, they have the option
] > of appeal.  To ignore a ruling and usurp the system is contempt.  
] 
] You're missing the point.  The judge on the case *ordered* the
] lawyer not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''.
] Do you think the judge's order was appropriate? 
 
While we are playing context free queries?

So do you believe that one should presume that
people are innocent until proven guilty or 
are you merely trying to muddy the waters?

Is your concern with the fact that a judge has judicial
authority over activity in his court, and that only
those of YOUR RELIGIOUS PERSUASION should be allowed
to sit in Judgement?????

ciao
drieux




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion