HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 13 DEC 92 08:11:19 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>>If, somehow, I became pregnant, would I have an abortion.  The answer is no.  
>>Not unless having an abortion was the only way to save my life.
> 
>Must be really easy for you to say that, knowing that in reality you will 
>never be faced with such a decision.

Granted that we can not know what we will do in a situation until it actually 
happens, but I think it is fairly safe to say that should I somehow become 
pregnant, I would not have an abortion.  I say this based on what I know of my 
personality, my beliefs, and my morals.

> 
>Let's try something new here.  You say that you believe that killing fetuses 
>is murder.  If a friend of yours had an abortion, would you remain friends 
>with this murderer?

I would support my friend.  I am not saying that I would believe that they 
were right.  But, I would accept that they did what they believed they had to 
do.  I don't base friendship on whether or not someone follows my own personal 
rules.  I have friends who do things that I disagree with all the time.  This 
includes people who break the law by taking drugs.  I don't believe that they 
are right, but I am still their friend.  Do you stop being friends with people 
who do things thet you consider wrong?  Would you stop being friends with 
someone who made a mistake?

> 
>If a friend of yours paid for his girlfriend to have an abortion, would you 
>remain friends with this hitman?

See above.

>If a friend of yours had a history of emotionally and physically abusing 
>pregnant girlfriends until they all miscarried, would you remain friends with 
>this mass murderer?

I would not be (and never have been) friends with someone who is abusive like 
this.  Just because I didn't side with you, you thought I sided with Jon.  
Well, you are wrong.  I simply removed myself from the situation.  You assumed 
that since I wasn't on your side that I was on his.  I wasn't.

>				.... Heather.


Loren
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Finkelstein & souls (was: New Hypothetical question for pro choice)
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:49:17 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Then Loren F can explain why he thinks religion is a fit
>>basis for legislation.
>
>You want another example of religion being a fit basis for legislation?
>Here are a few
>
>"Thou shalt not kill"
>"Thou shalt not steal"
Neither of these have ANY religious requirement as a basis.  Depriving
someone of their life of property does not require a god to call it a bad
thing.   They can stand on their own without religious backing.  They are
rational.

>In parts of New Jersey, it is Illegal for most stores to be open on sunday.
This is garbage law.  It's a leftover from the theocratic past...and most
BlueLaws have been overturned as unconstitutional.  This law can't stand on
it's own without religious backing.

>In most states having more then 1 spouse is illegal.
Government interference.  These laws too, should be overturned or repealed.

>In some states adultery is illegal.
Government interference.  Repeal them.

>All of these are based in religion.  I think that a few of them make pretty 
>good laws.
Only the laws against killing and stealing are good.  And guess what?  They
don't need religion for them to make sense.

 -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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:29:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>
>>First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
>>pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
>>are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?
>
>Sorry Mike, but the three admitted pro-abortioners on this net are hardly
>Christian.  

Well, putting aside for the moment the question of whether "pro-abortioners 
on this net" are representative of "pro-abortionists" in general, you haven't 
even LOGICALLY refuted his statement, Gordon, since he said "pro-abortionists
OR pro-choicers", and at best you've only addressed the "pro-abortionists"
part of that.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: MURDER
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:57:06 GMT

> = (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> = (Karl Rominger) said:

>>ABORTION IS MURDER
>>no elaboration required.

>And the twits just keep on coming...

I think not, Gordon; that's many of the twits' problem.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:28:55 GMT

In article <10DEC92.17233457@vax.clarku.edu> 
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> No, the woman can kill the rapist because she can reasonably
>>> believe that her life is immediately threatened.  

>> However, this is not universally true in all states, nor is it true in such
>> cases as the law which allows lethal force to be used to APPREHEND a rape
>> SUSPECT who is fleeing the scene.

> Is that an official police rule?  I don't know all the rules involved with 
> being a police officer, but I always thought that they could only use lethal 
> force if someone was in actual danger.  

It's irrelevant, because the subject is self-defense, 
not the apprehension of criminals.  Notice how the
pro-aborts change the subject after it's been proven
that their rape-pregnancy analogy is wrong. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
From: joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:19:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.223928.148948@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Dec12.211049.26996@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.223329.28942@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>>>
>>>Children are closer relations then parents?
>>
>>Children are genetically related to their parents.  Parents are
>>usually not related to one another, except probably in Mr. Cameron's
>>family.
>>
>The same comments might be addressed to you.  Some idiot said that children
>are a person's closest relatives, ignoring the fact that a person's
>relationship to their parents is just as genetically close as their
>relationship to their children.
>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

I am the "idiot" that stated that a person's closest relatives are their 
children.
I would agree that "genetically" the relationship is basically symmetric.
I would argue that other considerations and a "nuclear" family environment
typically create a closer relationship with children than parents. The
"other" considerations I cite: 1) I have noticed that as children grow
up they are often more concerned with leaving their parents family and
creating their own families while parents and grandparents are often
wishing their kids would visit more often. 2) as lives get longer, the 
years I have had with my parents are less than the years I might have with 
my children.
But I'm just an happy "idiot". May the geniuses correct my foolishness.
I'm sure they will find plenty of fodder.
joel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:12:54 GMT


In article <14DEC92.18471803@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
 
>Not to mention a much more impartial ballot counter.
 
I'm hurt.  Most everyone who posts to T.A. is partial one way or 
the other.  But is there any reason why you would question my 
honesty?
 
Sure Adrienne is one of my heros.  But I would still give an 
honest count of the vote totals.  I have no motivation to 
cheat.
 
By the by Loren, last week I posted a copy of the U.S. 
Constitution for you.  Did you see it.  You still seem 
to be somewhat confused about how the U.S. government works.
Just out of curiosity, what are you studying there at Clark?
Do you by any chance remember what your SAT scores were?
Could you post them?
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 19 Dec 92 08:18:55 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Dec18.165413.8758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>Kebbin is just mad because we live in the Real World (tm) and not in
>some Darcian fantasy in which it is more dangerous to terminate a
>pregnancy then to carry the fetus to term. 

Learn the difference between a hypothetical question and a fantasy, ignoramus.

>Considering his tendancy to
>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.

Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.

>I'm still waiting for your real life example to validate your question
>Kebbin...

Can you guarantee me that there is no possible or foreseeable combination of 
medical factors which could make termination of pregnancy more dangerous
than carrying to term? Are you willing to put whatever medical credentials
you possess on the line over this question? I _do_ have some contacts at
the UofM Medical Center (largest medical complex in the world, perhaps 
you've heard of it?), which is a couple of miles down the road from me.
I _can_ check this out, if necessary, and if you've been propagating bogus
medical information on the Net... well... 

>As has been said before. Analogies need to have some basis in reality.

Incorrect. Analogies, to be valid, need only demonstrate the operative 
principles in question, hopefully in a way that is clearer than in the 
original issue at hand. They can, and often do, deal with hypothetical 
situations, rather than so-called "real" ones.

How long do you plan on evading the question, by the way?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 DEC 92 14:35:08 EST


In article <1992Dec16.132627.3015@news2.cis.umn.edu>, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) writes...

>Where I come from, we engage in dialectical
>discourse without taking out our wallets.

And where I come from we are willing to substantiate our assertions with
action.

It is a hollow effort to make assertions without the wherewithall to
substantiate them.

It is your perogative and I respect it. Just don't expect me to give any
credibility to your assertions knowing that you are not willing to substantiate
them.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 DEC 92 18:22:15 GMT

In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>In article <10DEC92.20474862@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) wrote:
>>>In article <1992Dec10.023607.24570@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>Rape is a situation where the woman can reasonably believe that
>>>>her life is immediately threatened; pregnancy is not.
>>> 
>>>Is that so?  The percentages rape-with-murder to all rapes are
>>>considerably less than 100%.  Yet the lethal force allowable in self-defense
>>>is still there.  Why is that?
>>
>>In our society, we are led to believe that any violent attack could easily end 
>>in murder.  Rape is a violent attack, and therefore it is logical for a rape 
>>victim to assume that their life is in immediate danger.  
> 
>Loren, You are making this up out of whole cloth.
> 
>This is *not* the rational for shooting -- to kill -- someone FLEEING from
>a crime, where lethal force is ALSO allowable.

I never said it was.  I was explaining why people who kill their rapists, 
during the crime, can plea Not guilty by self defense.

I never tried to justify killing someone who was fleeing.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Killing a "wanted child?"?  Seems okay if ONLY the man wants "it"...?
X-To: MICHAL LEAH PERI
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:10:00 GMT

MLP> In article <1fohrnINN47o@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
MLP> ) writes:
MLP> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
MLP> >
MLP> >>Every child a wanted child -- by *BOTH* of its natural parents.
MLP> >
MLP> >You don't mean that a child who is wanted by one parent -- who is
MLP> >willing and able to provide for it -- should be killed, do you?

So are you REALLY saying that it's wrong for a woman to have an abortion when
ONLY the MAN, who is "one parent," wants the child and is willing to support
the child?

Or, not to sound *too* bitter, would you not consider that "killing," but only
when it's the man who doesn't want the child, does it become "killing"?

Don certainly WAS right in calling this a strange twist on the pro-choice
position!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * When the going gets tough, the tough buy a vowel.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Ireland...Catholic Church
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:00:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.174323.1215@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> ruairi@sy.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp (Ruairi.H) writes:
>
>>>       I remember hearing a few years back ( high school ? ) that the
>>> group with the highest ratio of violent deaths (ie the most dangerous
>>> category of person to be) was an unborn child in America.
>
>Quick quiz:  how many "unborn children" are citizens of this or any other
>country?

   What's your point?  If it's that non-citizens do not have certain
rights, including the right not to be killed, that would be declaring
open season on foreign nationals.  If not, then your "question" is
irrelevant.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51876 talk.religion.misc:23738 alt.atheism:23537 sci.skeptic:21325
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:44:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu

In article <Bz7KqK.HsL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>We *do* really exist.  We just don't "know" what it *means* to "exist"
>(physically)...or what "really" means...or what "means" means...

	"We"? Sorry, I do not know if you really exist...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51754 soc.men:21030 alt.dads-rights:2903 alt.abortion.inequity:5823
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:14:23 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>>It depends, if one takes the typical pro-life stance, then irregardless
>>of the man's actions, contraceptive failure does not release the man 
>>from his responsibilities. However, if one takes the pro-choice stance,
>>that the use of a contraceptive is indicative of intent (or lack there of),
>>the man has met his responsibility  and should be release from his 
>>liability for the child. 

>A hungry child doesn't give a damn if Daddy used a condom.

	And who does a hungry child have to blame?  Who brought the child
to his/her hungry existence?
	And if you consider that a problem, why not feed the child?

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 20:42:07 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>Just for public information.  The above line is a lie.  Try to get your facts 
>straight.  My online friends used to call me Captain Fink.  One of my 
>fraternity nicknames used to be Clueless (Which I chose for myself).  It was 
>an inside joke with a specific reference.   And, while my friends may say I am 
>many things (including Clueless at times) that doesn't make me a hypocrite.  

Nope, what makes you a hypocrite is that fact that you would force women to 
use their bodies against their will to keep fetuses alive, when you are not 
willing to do the same.  

I'm willing to sign a legal contract stating that I will not abort any 
unwanted pregnancies if you will agree to be fisted for nine months.  What's 
nine months of your time compared to the life of a cute little unborn baby?

Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 14:44:35 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>> 
>>>If, somehow, I became pregnant, would I have an abortion.  The answer is no.  
>>>Not unless having an abortion was the only way to save my life.
>> 
>>Must be really easy for you to say that, knowing that in reality you will 
>>never be faced with such a decision.
> 
>Granted that we can not know what we will do in a situation until it actually 
>happens, 

Loren, this situation will NEVER actually happen.  

>but I think it is fairly safe to say that should I somehow become 
>pregnant, I would not have an abortion.  I say this based on what I know of my 
>personality, my beliefs, and my morals.

Loren, I am going to make you an offer.  Here's a way that you can save a 
fetuses life!

Have you read Keith Cochran's fisting offer?  If not, maybe someone can send 
you a copy.  I hereby promise that if you are willing to be fisted for nine 
months, I will agree to (try to) carry any unwanted pregnancies to term.  
Otherwise I will stick with my original plan and have an abortion.  

This is your chance, Loren.  Prove to us that you are willing to let someone 
else use your body to save the life of a fetus.

>>Let's try something new here.  You say that you believe that killing fetuses 
>>is murder.  If a friend of yours had an abortion, would you remain friends 
>>with this murderer?
> 
>I would support my friend.  I am not saying that I would believe that they 
>were right.  But, I would accept that they did what they believed they had to 
>do.  I don't base friendship on whether or not someone follows my own personal 
>rules.  I have friends who do things that I disagree with all the time.  This 
>includes people who break the law by taking drugs.  I don't believe that they 
>are right, but I am still their friend.  Do you stop being friends with people 
>who do things thet you consider wrong?  Would you stop being friends with 
>someone who made a mistake?

But you had implied that having an abortion is more than a mistake.  In fact, 
you called it murder.  I find it interesting that you would chose to remain 
friends with murderers.  Would you stay friends with someone who opened fire 
on a crowd of bystanders, claiming it was a "mistake"?  

So what is abortion in your opinion?  This is a multiple choice question, 
chose one of the following answers:

	a.  Abortion is MURDER
	b.  Abortion is a mistake

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Date: 18 Dec 1992 09:33:33 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: gauss.math.ubc.ca

In article <14DEC92.20420711@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|I'm willing to sign a legal contract stating that I will not abort any 
|unwanted pregnancies if you will agree to be fisted for nine months.  What's 
|nine months of your time compared to the life of a cute little unborn baby?
|
|Prove that you are willing to sacrifice your time, money, and bodily 
|resources for the life of a fetus, or quit demanding that women do that.
|Otherwise you are nothing more than a sexist hypocrite.

I find this argument bizarre.

For one thing, there is a big difference between being willing to make
sacrifices which are actually necessary to "save" the life of a fetus,
and being willing to submit to the conditions imposed by someone else
as a condition for their doing so. It is similar to the difference
between being willing to risk your life to defend another, and giving
in to terrorist demands.

I doubt whether such a "contract" would be enforced, by the way. I
also hope that you are not the kind of person who would arrange for
someone to be "fisted" for nine months just in order to make a
debating point.

Browsing through this newsgroup, I think the discussion would go
better in general if posters spent less time trying to prove each
other to be bad characters, no?

Keith Ramsay
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52188 alt.abortion.inequity:5967