HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 11:38:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.055207.16469@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.060029.1868@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>> A physician may suggest that
>>abortion is the safest option, but not determine what is best for the
>>patient. That decision is left to the patient.
>
>Which is precisely *WHY* abortion cannot be treated as "strictly a medical
>issue": there's a whole host of other factors besides medicine which go into
>each and every abortion decision -- economics, sociology, religion, ethics,
>psychology, etc.

>
>Now that we've dispensed with the naive, dangerous "treat abortion strictly
>as a medical issue" chestnut, shall we get on to some constructive dialog on 
>how to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancies?

Further, if abortion is not a medical issue, why should the taxpayer, whose
religious morals disagree with abortion have to pay through the state for
abortions?
>	
							- Kevin
>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Lets String 'em up
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:55:41 GMT

Loren has lost the vote.  Despite the fact that he has apparently
already found a suitable hiding place away from T.A., the reader ship
of T.A. has decided it is suitable to strap the bugger down to a 
chair.  The final tally is:
 
13 Yes votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.
2  No  votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.
 
For all those that voted, I sent back acknowledgement of your vote.
If anyone sent me their vote, but failed to get an acknowledgement,
let me know.
 
For details on the votes, send a stamped self-addressed envelope,
along with $43.50 for postage and handling to:
 
Dan King
NASA Ames Research Center
M/S 258-6
Moffett Field, California 94035-1000
 
Please allow a week or so for a reply.  (Gotta wait for the checks
to clear.)
 
Dan King
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetus as viewed by the bible
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:34:32 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1993Jan12.173711.13187@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>I know that somewhere in the old testament there is a passage that says
>if a man strikes a pregnant woman, resulting in a miscarriage, that the
>penalty for the man is to be a monetary fine. This would indicate that
>the bible does not view the fetus as a person. I would like to be able to 
>quote this passage to the pro-life fundies, so any information on where 
>it could be found would be appreciated.
Gack.
Insert Exodus 21.22 rant here:
"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that
there is a miscarriage (lit. her children come out), and yet
no further harm follows, the one responsible (lit. he) shall be
fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges
determine. If any harm follows(lit. if there is harm, I believe)
then you shall give life for life...."

Problems with this passage:
1) The Hebrew doesn't specify that the child is born dead.
miscarriage is an overspecific translation. This could be read
that premature birth results in a fine and that still-birth
results in death.
2) The word for harm is closely related to the word for "form"
This passage has been read (e.g. LXX) to mean that if the
fetus is fully formed, (e.g. mature or undeformed) then the
penalty is death, but if it is not(immature or deformed?) then
the penalty is a fine.

So, this cannot be used to conclusively show that the fetus
is considered less than a person, since at least 1) would
indicate otherwise, if read in the way I suggested. I note
that Jerome reads the passage as you indicate originally.

-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.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:32:25 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1236@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wrote:
> 
> Susan,
> who joins the others in wondering why Dr. Giggles separated his
> list by gender

As do I.  I also wonder on what basis "Professor" Nyikos chose to lump me
in with those of the male persuasion.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:34:59 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29533@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>chance ==    contraception failure    == acceptance of getting pregnant
>>rape   == security precaution failure == acceptance of getting pregnant

>>See where I'm going with this, Mark?

>Apparently, you're headed for the proposition that there is no true
>choice in a reality where things can happen by chance. If so, let's
>talk about it in some other group. (I don't buy it.)

The blind...apparently you do not see. It is reductio ad absurdum.
If you don't know what that is (you obviously didn't recognize it) it
is defined in any reasonably decent dictionary. You propositions are
logically inconsistent and have no supporting basis. I've kept asking
you for this, you continue to fail to provide it (others have asked
as well) so I took the liberty of a new tactic. It was over your head.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Statistics
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:24:45 -0600

Some abortion statistics according to the Abortion Surveillance Report of the
Centers for Disease Control:

o  Half of all minority pregnancies and one-third of all pregnancies in the
U.S. end in abortion.

o  77.5% of women who obtain abortions in the U.S. are unmarried.

o  41% of women obtaining an abortion had previously had at least one
other induced abortion.

o  75,000 admitted having had at least three previous abortions.

o  States reporting the highest abortion ratio include:  California, where
40% of all pregnancies end in abortion, and New York, where 34.4% are
aborted.  In New York City, 42% of all pregnancies end in abortion.

A comment:  over 20 million unborn infants have been aborted since RvW in 
1972.  This is three times the number of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in 
World War II.
-- 
Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Engineering Office NASA/JSC
			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:18:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29611@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>Glad to see you concede that the "it's my womb, I can kill ANYONE I find
>in there for ANY reason" argument is tommyrot.

Have conceeded nothing, merely kept it short.

>A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
>individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right

Stab?!? Geez, so violent! ;-)

>to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
>hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact
>with the above definition only by expanding that definition of
>humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
>for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential --
>and so do z/e/f's.

I see one immediate problem--you confuse the biological definition of
human with its generic definition. They are not the same. A single cell
on your body is human. But it is not human (if you see what I mean:).

As for the rest, I see no reason to extend any protections to those
not considered human beings, especially while they're leading a parasitic
existance using a human being.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:01:52 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan11.022306.14508@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>>Seriously, do you believe that we are all just slaves to our bodies, and
>>>shouldn't avail ourselves to medical, psychological, and other help when
>>>we feel it is necessary? 
>>
>>Of course we should -- but we shouldn't violate anyone else's right
>>to life in the process.
>
>In case you haven't been paying attention, terminating a pregnancy
>does not necessarily imply violating anyone's right to life.  If a
>living fetus is removed from the mother's uterus at 4 months gestation
>without being killed, neither its bodily autonomy nor its right to
>life have been violated.  Granted, it will die in short order, but as
>this society generally believes that slavery (using another's body
>against their will) is inappropriate, forcing the mother to serve the
>fetus cannot be justified.

Well put. I would add to that, also, that the superiority of the mother's
right to Bodily Autonomy, over the fetus'es purported right of womb-occupation 
is the PRIMARY issue, and once that is resolved, the SECONDARY issue of 
whether it is permissible to destroy a non-viable fetus _in utero_ 
can be resolved by taking the pragmatic approach -- what useful purpose is 
served by the symbolic gesture of removing the fetus intact, only to have it 
die a short time later, that compares to the safety and efficiency of the
methods currently in use?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Deep Net Nine)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:17:58 GMT

What: <1993Jan4.190129.13383@bsu-ucs>
Who:  00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu

>How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?

I know I will, especially since I live here already.  I'm never disappointed
by the march for life, and I've been going for the past few years.  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 shoould be killed claimed to respect all life.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __                -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /              
   |   |  in  |   |  |                Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__                GEnie: J.STEIN18
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:10:48 GMT

In article <C0pAqt.Jr@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <adams.726592808@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>No problem.  Now, look at the liberty interest of the woman.  There *is* a
>>conflict here.  Between the liberty interest of both the unborn child and
>>the woman.  Before the fetus is viable, the liberty interest *must* remain
>>with the woman.  Why?  Because it is her body, mind, etc, that are involved,
>>just as much as the unborn.  When the decision has to be made, it is not
>>for the government to decide who can and cannot exert bodily autonomy, and
>>for what reasons.  The governemt should not be able to force carrying to
>>term any more than force organ donation.
>
>Abortion is not a passive act.  It is an act of violence and aggression.
>The government should outlaw murder.  The woman who has an abortion does not
>just decide not to carry her child in her body.  She actually has her child
>killed.  
>
Nonsense. She has a fetus removed from her body. That it dies is
simply a fact of it's inability to survive as anything other than a
parasite, at this stage.

>There is a serious inconsistency in government policy.  It is illegal for a 
>mother to abandon her child, or to neglect him in some other way.  One
>can even be arrested for not feeding one's horses in this country.  
>Generally, parents have a legal responsiblility to their children.  If mothers
>and fathers can legally be held responsible to use their bodies to care for
>their children, then mothers should legally be held responsible to use
>their bodies to protect their children in the womb.  
>
No mother or father is required to use their body to care for their
children. They are free to provide care via a nanny, grandma, sitter,
or adoptioni agency. Requiring them to use their bodies would mean
they could be forced to donate bllod/tissues/organs to the child. This
is not true.

>>>Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.
>>Of course it is.  And Christ had absolutely NO intention of setting up an
>>earthly kingdom, or forcing his views by law.
>
>There are several prophecies to the contrary that remain to be fulfilled
>when He returns.
>
Him who? Oh, you're talking about "Casper the friendly ghost"* again.
*used without permission, but I'm sure Nadja won't mind...

>Link Hudson.
>
Check your link to reality, it seems to be faulty.

--
                  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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Waiting for an appology from Peter Ny
Organization: None known to mankind. 
	<1993Jan01.095853.29086@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>
	<PATRICK.93Jan1082958@blanco.is.rice.edu> <bob1.726342272@cos>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:26:38 GMT

In article <bob1.726342272@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

   In <PATRICK.93Jan1082958@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   >In article <1993Jan01.095853.29086@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

   > Larry Margolis (margoli@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
   > : In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark
   > A. Cochran) writes:
   > : >Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
   > : >this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
   > : >Adrienne waiting.
   > :
   > : Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
   > : some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
   > : he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.
   > :
   > : >I hope your newsserver is stable...
   > :
   > : Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

 >On alt.atheism Peter Nyikos also insulted me without justification.  I too am
 > waiting for an appology.
 > 
 ><sigh> Looks like you'll have to take a number and stand in queue.  The
 >number waiting to be served is 1, and your number is...106. :-)

   Or you could take the view I hold. Namely that an insult from the Doctor
   is almost like getting the Congressional medal of Honor.	

That's one way of looking at it, but the way things are going here, that
would mean just about everyone was eligible for a medal...and those have
always been for special achievements, to my way of thinking.  :-)

--PLH, of course, compared to Petey Honey, the rest of us *are* medal
winners...



--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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: Wed, 13 Jan 93 04:16:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan13.015323.6419@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.032836.24345@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.054631.10651@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
> 
>>>Kevin, if you're accusing Larry of having multiple personalities, I'm
>>>afraid I must again correct you. MPD and schizophrenia have
>>>absolutely nothign to do with one another. MPD is a neurosis,
>>>Schizophrenia is a psychosis. They are totally unrelated.
>>
>>In common parlance, i.e. the _appropriate_ lexicon for the broad spectrum of 
>>people who read t.a, "schizophrenic" denotes a person with multiple 
>>personalities. If you want to be more precise than that in your medical
>>journals, by all means do so...
>
>Why can't you just admit that you're wrong, Kebbie?  Do you have some sort
>of denial complex?
>
It's an "ego thing" Keith. I guess a volutarily chaste virgin has to
have *something* to make himself feel good about himself.

>(Psst.  Mark.  Ask Kebbie about what the flack he raised when alt.fan.kevin-
>darcy was first created).

Sure, I'm in the mood to watch Kebbin squirm, rant, rave, and
otherwise make a general fool out of himself.
Hey Kebbie, tell me about the circumstances behind the formation of
alt.fan.kevin-darcy...

--
                  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: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:44:43 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>And since when does avoiding 9 months of pregnancy warrant ending 80 years
>of someone's life?

So now you are God and know that this unborn child would have lived 80 years?

I can't say that any given unborn child would grow up miserable.  You can't
say that it would grow up happy.  It none of our business, really, and that is
why it is the mother's decision, not ours.


>This society is going down the hill MORALLY.  All of these problems stem
>from the same thing: lack of moral absolutes.  Abortion is a great way to
>escape maturity, regardless of your actual age.  

What happened to the "abortion will be recognized as murder 100 years from now
because we will pound it into their heads in school" idea?

>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:08:02 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:


>In a previous article, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) says:
>
>>Bill Clinton is NOT the anti-Christ.  Therefore, Christians are to follow
>>the laws he signs, per Paul's letter to the Romans.  The only resistance 
>>should be to laws that compell us to personally violate God's will.
>
>I've been following this thread for a few days now, and I think Steve has
>exhibited one of the cooler heads and a loving, noninflammatory approach. 
>Although I agree with his conclusion, I have to disagree with this
>reasoning. Romans 12 discusses various details of God's plan for order in the
>church. For example, "...all members have not the same office" (Rom. 12:4);
>"Be kindly affectioned one to another....(Rom. 12:10); etc. 
>
>I don't believe that the "higher powers" referred to in Rom 13:1 can
>possibly refer to government leaders; rather, it seems to refer to
>authorities in the Body of Christ, elsewhere referred to as ruling elders,
>etc. This concept is a hard one for modern Christians to swallow because
>we have seen so many examples of the misuse of position or authority 
>among Christian leaders. That doesn't make God wrong...just points out the
>weakness of men.
>
>If you look at Romans 13:4, continuing the context of verse 1, it says,
>"He is a minister of God to thee for good." Was Richard Nixon
>a minister of God to us for good? Was any secular leader, just by virtue
>of the fact that he was elected?

Romans 13:6-7 seems to imply that he is talking about government in
general, as they speak of taxes, honor, etc.

Discussions of Nixon's goodness can be carried out on talk.politics.misc...
:-)

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Simplistic analogies and hot sex!!!!
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:36:29 GMT

In <1993Jan12.192551.3551@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726854038@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:

>>In <1993Jan12.024642.23403@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>>David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>[deletia]
>>>Nuh-uh. Sex=some or all of the following, depending on the mindset
>>>of the participants: touching, cuddling, sexy underwear, moaning,
>>>licking, body-butter,
>>I've been using "=" as loosely as everyone else in t.a .
>>Since there's no "includes as a subset" symbol on my keyboard, the
>>statement will have to read
>>Sex = possibility of pregnancy, among other things
>>>million and one other things of which
>>>"possibility of pregnancy" may or may not be part of the plans.
>>If you step out a tenth-story window, being splattered on the pavement
>>"may or may not be part of the plans" -- but it will happen.

>It will unless there's a net to save you. Which, by your analogy, you
>would outlaw.

No; I assumed the absence of a net.

>>>But to humor you, I'll add the following tidbit:
>>>Use of contraceptive = Actively expressed desire not to procreate.
>>>Simple enough for ya?
>>Purchase of a lottery ticket = actively expressed desire for megabucks
>>Where's my check?

>Definitely _not_ in the mail! But many contraceptives, used properly,
>have such a low rate of failure that we can assume the woman doesn't
>want to gamble on getting pregnant--she just doesn't want to get
>pregnant. Tell me what lottery succeeds 99% of the time, and you may
>have a workable analogy.

The Pundurs Lottery (not available in stores). :-)

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion