HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:09:05 CST

In article <lm8oeeINNgrg@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.093753.3864@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) 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?
>
>You've got a good point.  I could say, "Well, if they WANT to, LET them
>assemble!"  :)  Of course, that would be ludicrous.
>
Yes.  It might be worth exploring _why_ it's ludicrous.
Even if fetuses had such desires and were capable of
communicating them, it would be imposssible to grant 
them such a right without removing the rights of the
women involved to move about as they please.

>(And then that Simpsons episode, where Maggie restored all those pacifiers
>to the babies in the day-care center, comes to mind.  All those babies just
>sucking...spooky.)
>
>Perhaps what I should have said is that they should have the same
>protection under the law as everyone else, rather than the same liberties/
>rights.
>
>If you see a problem in THAT statement, let me know.  I'm struggling with
>this issue the same as the rest of you...
>
I do see a problem.  Give fetuses the same protections
as 'everyone else', and you automatically place pregnant
women in a category where they enjoy fewer rights than
all other born persons, and they have _less_ protection
under the law than 'everyone else'.  

That's unacceptable.

>Thanks for spotting that flaw in the wording.
>
Why, you're welcome.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:57:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.222122.26394@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>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. 
>

How come I haven't met any?

>> 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.  

Haven't met any of these either.  Wait a sec... Aren't you the one who
has to have statistical documentation for everything?  Once again,
DODie has befuddled my incapable feminine brain... *sigh*
>
>>-chris blask
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu

becka
-- 
************Golf courses are the moral equivalent of patricide!************
The probability of someone       ***  If you're not part of the solution
Watching you is proportional     ***  You're part of the precipatate.
To the stupidity of your action. ***  The Chemist's Truth from Steven Wright
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Is it ever wrong?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:11:57 GMT

The standard response is that abortion is ok when the life of the mother is 
directly threatened because of the baby.  It's a life vs. life call, and that 
is the basis from where it is attempted to be ethically justified.  DId you 
want something different or is that what was expected?

MAC
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:00:48 GMT

brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>Well.  It's been a whole three days since I last said something on this
>newsgroup, and now I see 500 articles.  To warm up, I shall jump into
>this thread with a reply to Steve Adams' post, and who knows?  Maybe I'll
>even throw in an unprovoked personal attack on him as well, to show I'm
>part o' the gang.  :)
Wow!  Selected out of 500!  How kind!  How thoughtful!

>To start, Suzanne Forgach, that spirited pro-life debater, said that
>people who grieve the Holocaust are now advocating the murder of our
>most fragile.  To which Steve replies:
>
>In article <root.727561852@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>Come on Suzanne.  The difference is that the Holocaust was a decision of 
>>one man, who ignored everyone's opinion, that took millions of lives.  
>>Abortion is a decision made by a millions of persons, individually.
>>
>>While the scales may be the same (ie millions), the ideas and concepts
>>behind the two are totally different.  One is the imposition of a single
>>person's will on the entire population, the other is individual will.
>
>Entirely true, Steve.  However, as palatable as abortion may be when
>compared to the Holocaust, 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.

The issues here are a bit larger, I think.  First of all, I am opposed to
abortion.  But, I also think that it must remain legal.  The issue comes
down to a basic liberty interest.  Until the fetus is viable outside the
womb, I don't think there is any arguable position to deny the liberty
interest of a woman to make decisions about her own body.  Once the fetus
becomes viable, then the liberty interest of the baby becomes relevent.

On purely moral grounds, you are correct.  But, I cannot impose morals
which I derive from my religion on others.  I base my opinions on laws
on whether or not they protect the liberty interest of the individual, and
to what extent.  Laws that are not based on individual liberty are junk in
most cases (certain exceptions : taxes, which are necessary at some level,
etc)

>And now for the Obligatory Unprovoked Choice-Advocate Harangue (OUCH):
Syre...why not...;-)

>You stay up too late, Steve.
Blame IBM...a simple upgrade caused a problem requring an all nite rebuild
of one of our production systems.  Oh joy.  What else to do but read news?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58018 talk.politics.misc:69847 talk.religion.misc:27594 misc.legal:23328
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: 26 Jan 93 00:48:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan25.122949.10028@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- biting the wax tadpole) writes:

> Clayton Cramer:

>> [...] homosexuals, a group with serious reality grasp and honesty
>> problems.          = ===== ==== ======= ======= ===== === =======
>  =========

> For those of us on t.a, I wonder if DSH will jump on the propagation
> of bigoted stereotypes in the above post.  For Clayton Cramer, I would
> ask that he provide evidence that (1) homosexuals as a group have
> honesty problems,

This is easy.  It is not "bigoted" to note that any group which clings
so tenaciously to the ludicrous contention (and manifest lie) that
aberrant sexual behavior represents in some sense a "viable alternate
lifestyle" is bound to have substantial problems coming to grips with
reality.
-- 
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: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 28 Jan 1993 08:46:07 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.728235773@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1k4ln8INN8k3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>So do I. But if the mother was free to choose (through non-procreative
>sex, or abstinence) guaranteed non-pregnancy, then a subsequent violation
>of the z/e/f's right to life is not an ethical option.


So, you don't drive, huh?

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Nyikos, Apologies and Humble Pie
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:35:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.053738.14705@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.182034.18718@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan22.205437.15431@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>
>>>>> Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.
>>>
>>>> I don't apologize for things I don't do.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should reconsider.
>>>
>>>Did you not write the following Subject: line ?
>>>
>>>*** Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
>>                                          ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>>Questions are not the same as declarations.
>>
>In written messages, punctuation like ?!?!?!?! is often used to
>indicate such emotions as shocked amazment. But I'm sure you knew that
>already Kebbin.

Shocked amazement, confoundment, disbelief, questioning. It's rather hard to 
exactly characterize what emotion that punctuation is supposed to convey. As 
usual, I err on the side of giving the author the benefit of the doubt.

>>>And did you not write the following?
>>>
>>>*** I mean, your forgery, if it could be called that, ...
>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Again, Nyikos implicitly raises the QUESTION of whether what Adrienne 
>>committed could be called a "forgery".
>>
>He raises only the question of if forgery is the correct term for
>words he obviously thinks she faked in one way or another.

Exactly. He made a vague implication of "fakery" -- what I call "loose
language" -- but no outright charge of forgery. I think an apology is in
order, but not for the exact thing of which he has been repeatedly 
charged.

>>At no point did he come out and say "Adrienne committed forgery", although,
>>as I have previously noted, he was extremely loose with his language. He
>>shouldn't have invoked the term "forgery" at all unless that was within the
>>realm of possibility. 
>
>You mean, sort of like somebody who would defend the usage of the word
>'schizophrenia' when he meant 'multiple personality disorder'? That's
>a fine example of being 'extremely loose with [his] language' wouldn't
>you say?

No, your attempt to usurp "schizophrenia" in the popular lexicon with a 
verbose medical jargon term, is not relevant here.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58214 talk.politics.misc:70082 talk.religion.misc:27687 misc.legal:23419
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:28:22 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
|According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times, 
|Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal 
|and safe, but rare.  
|I wonder what he meant by rare.  [...]

Less common than they are now.  I can think of a few great
ways to make abortion rare, without persecuting women by 
making it illegal:

1.  Better access to better birth control. 
2.  Better sex education.
3.  Improved pre-natal care for poor women.
4.  Improved access to day care for women with children.
5.  Job training for women with small children.

The approach is simple:  prevent unwanted pregnancies, and
remove the circumstances that make women decide to choose
abortion.  Prevention is by far the most cost-effective method.
The others are more expensive, but I'm sure you won't mind
paying for them.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Perhaps my favorite moment was when a pro-lifer threatened to 
kill me.  Or maybe it was when a pro-lifer said I should have been 
aborted.  Nah, the best moment was when the one who said I 
should be killed claimed to respect all life."  --Jay Stein, in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Let me state my view
Organization: Clark University
Date: 25 JAN 93 19:26:43 GMT

In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () wrote:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>>In a previous article, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) wrote:
>>>In article <1993Jan11.221648.25779@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>>|>In article <1993Jan11.201750.18369@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
>>>|>(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
> 
>>>|>>I am against the death penalty like a said but where did that go? More
>>>|>>convienent editing? 20 years in prison would do the job.
>>>|>
>>>|>At least you're consistent about your oppostion to death (although
>>>|>I still have to give you the fruitarian test :-) ). But don't you
>>>|>think prisons are crowded enough already? How will we fit millions
>>>|>of doctors and women into those things? There's got to be a better
>>>|>way.
>>>|>
>>>Build more jails. Not only will new construction stir the economy there
>>>ought to be many new job openeings from the jobs that become available
>>>when the women who go to jail have to give up there's. 
> 
>>I doubt that outlawing abortions will help the economy.  You'd have to do 
>>more than just build jails and remove a few women from their jobs.  The 
>>taxpayers would have to pay to maintain these people in prison (food, heat, 
>>etc).  We'd have to pay to provide care for the born children while their 
>>parents are in jail.  We'd have to pay the police and court costs to 
>>investigate and prosecute every woman whose pregnancy does not result in a 
>>healthy newborn (after all, how do you know if she really just had a 
>>miscarriage?  Maybe she did something to make that happen.  Throw her in jail!)
> 
>>And of course, we'd have to find a way to pay for all the needs of the 
>>unwanted children that women are forced to give birth to.  And the costs 
>>associated with the women's pregnancies.
> 
>>I'm sure you'll be willing to pay higher taxes so all these kids can go to 
>>school and get a decent education, right?
> 
>>Businesses will lose out too.  They've spent money training women for jobs, 
>>and now some of these women will be out on maternity leave or in jail.
> 
>>Sure, Jeff, let's just build a few more prisons and lock these women up.  
>>It will do wonders for our economy.
> 
> 
>>				.... Heather.
> 
> 
>Ms. Sims,
> 
>Pro-life groups do NOT support the blanket prosecution of every woman
>who has an abortion.  Stop perpetuating this lie.

Where exactly did I claim this?  I was responding only to Jeff Price's post.  
If you go back and read what he wrote above, you'll see that he was talking 
about prosecuting and imprisoning women who have abortions.  Could you make 
an effort to read posts instead of making things up?


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Some more NFP discussion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:50:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.061944.2743@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>problem.   As you well know, I have posted many times where and how
>>>other people can learn to live successful, self-determined, lives
>>>without messing their bodies up with contraceptives or slaughtering
>>>their children with abortion.
>>
>> Yes, and whenever anyone asks you for any real details you evade
>> the question. 
>
>I don't evade.  I tell'em "no" outright.  I am not trained as an
>instructor in NFP, and I will not take it upon myself to take that
>kind of responsibility with other people's lives.  They're either
>interested enough to take my referrals on resources, (or to look up
>their own resources), or they're not.

Um, Suzanne, doesn't the same thing apply to expounding the official
doctrines of the RCC? I mean the "...tak[ing] that kind of responsibility
with other people's lives" stuff. You regularly indulge in presenting
Church doctrine, including even highly-questionable stuff like the 
infamous "Satan causes miscarriages" doctrine. You're not qualified for
that either, are you, not having taken Holy Orders?

Your choices of when to speak "authoritatively" and when not to speak
"authoritatively" strike me as rather arbitrary and self-serving...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57986 talk.religion.misc:27574 misc.legal:23313
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Into the Breach, one more time
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:54:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <C1BE7C.9rL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #More liberal ignorance.  Slavery is NOT supported by the Bible,
# #and it was evangelical Christianity which played the major part 
# #in organizing the abolitionist movement -- because American 
# #slavery was based on essentially anti-Christian ideas about 
# #racial inequality.
# 
# "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall be your slave for six years,
#  but in the seventh year he shall go free and pay nothing."  (Exod. 21:2)
# 
# "When a man sells his daughter into slavery, she shall not go free
# as a male slave may."  (Exod. 21:7)
# 
# "Such slaves as you have, male or female, shall come from the nations
# round about you."  (Lev. 25:44)
# 
# "Make your slave work, if you want rest for yourself;/if you leave
#  him idle, he will be looking for his liberty." (Ecclus 33:25)
# 
# "Slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling...."  (Eph 6:5)
# 
# "Slaves, give entire obedience to your earthly masters, not merely
# with an outward show of service, to curry favor with your earthly
# masters...."  (Col 3:22)
# 
# "Tell slaves to respect their masters' authority in everything, and
# to comly with their demands without answering back;..." (Ti 2:9)
# 
# Um, Clayton?  You were saying something about the Bible and slavery?
# --
# Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not

Yup.  It's not supported by the Bible.  It's recognized that it was
a part of that culture, and the New Testament includes sections that
tell slaves that they have the best chance of persuading their
masters by behaving in a loving manner.  (Keep in mind that slaves
under Roman law had more freedom and rights than they did under
American law -- even more than "citizens" did under Soviet law.)

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:34:14 GMT

In article <6007@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.080607.1962@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>How well do you know Catholicism?  Not too well, I take it.  Who do you think
>>handles the books, writes the checks, teaches the children, etc.  The Pope? 
>>The bishops?  Not hardly.  They're too busy saving souls (so to speak).  The
>>nuns do much of what I described above.  When it comes to running the behind
>>the scenes part of the Church, the sisters do it all, and wield the big stick.
>
>You're a moron.  If nuns decided to be humane for a change and suggest that
>maybe using birth control is common sense and not a sin, do you think that
>would change Catholic law?  I would doubt that.  Maybe you wouldn't, who
>knows.

   Mr. Meier may very well be a moron (although I doubt it), but his
status as a moron or a non-moron doesn't have anything to do with the
discussion at hand.  Nor does even yours.

   As for the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control, you have
fallen into the same fundamental error that many do, especially in
this group.  That is, you assume that the Church arbitrarily makes up
laws, rather than saying what she believes to be God's laws.  You
might sound more credible to base your arguments on the assumption
that the Church is simply wrong, rather than having some sinister
motive behind everything.

   As for all this talk about "the Church is oppressing" everybody,
please don't insult everyone's intelligence.  All anyone has to do to
put an end to the Church "oppressing" them is 1) leave the Church (if
you are sure it is not God's Church), or 2) ignore the "oppressive"
law in question (if you are sure it is not God's law).  As you appear
to have done both already, one cannot help but think you have an axe
to grind.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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 05:45:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.014245.21007@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.032448.7399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.727624498@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan20.055842.12539@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is obviously false, as anyone who has read your bilge can
>>>>testify.
>>>
>>>Oh, you can say anything about the empty set.
>>>
>>>"Mark Cochran supports infanticide, as anyone who has watched him kill and
>>>carve up a healthy, but unwanted neonate for 1 heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys,
>>>1 liver, and 2 corneas can testify, as can anyone who watched him testify
>>>that he did it to save the lives of 6 WANTED babies and the sight of two
>>>others."
>>>
>>Unless you can produce proof that I have ever done such a thing, I
>>insist tha tyou retract this obvious lie, you repulsive slug.
>
>HAHAHA!! There is no "lie" there, Mark, merely references to the empty set.
>Looks like you flunked Nyikos' little Set Theory Quiz. Badly.
>
Except that I have always considered PHoney to be the empty set, not
me. I see what he wrote as a deliberate lie about me Kebbin, and I
really don't give a damn how you feel about it.

>Time for a remedial class, Mark...
>
You're finally going to take that remedial english class that was
suggested to you? Excellent Kebbin. We'll see you when (and if) you
finish 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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion