HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:54:04 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Sep10.033903.12606@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.210420.9617@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Aug31.150147.12678@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>>This argument has been used before.  My reply is this:  You contributed
>>1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  At the eight week abortion point the fetus
>>consists of millions of cells.  For sake of argument let's say 3 million
>>cells.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>You get 1/3000000 worth of the decision.
>
>And the woman only contributed 1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  So her share
>in the decision is, Ummm . . . (click, click, click of mouse using X
>windows Hp calculator program . . .) 1/3000000 of the decision.
>
>Wow!  Look at that!  You've mathematically proven that the contributions
>are equal!
>
>So the the other 2999999/3000000 worth of the decision is the babies, since
>he/she grew those cells, not mom or dad.

Shesh, these calculations are really hard on you John aren't they.  And
where did those other n-1 cells come from?  Well, they were generated
by taking (without permission) nutrition from the woman.  No conscious
decision (by the fetus) was made.  Decisions involve a *choice*; choice
involves *choosing*.  The fact that the book I let go of falls to the
ground is not by "choice" of the book but a statement of the nature
of natural laws (gravity, physical contraints).  The fact that a 
fertilized egg develops into a fetus is not a "choice" of the cells 
but a statement of the nature of natural laws (biology and the 
interaction of cells with their enviornment).

Lets see.  Along with one fertilized egg turning into a million cells
we have the case of one cell turning into a million cancerous cells,
well the original person only contributed 1 cell, the others were the
"decision" of the cancer.  It *wants* to live.  Guess no surgery should be
scheduled?  (Before you get your analogy hackles up, remember it's an
*analogy*).

>John
>stevens@uswest.com

-robert 
hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 19:25:37 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep15.234954.28250@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <lyznblf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> What makes _your_ choice the Correct Choice?
>Precisely because it is not arbitrary.  At the moment of conception, a
>change
>occurs of such a tremendous magnitude that nothing can compare to it
>after.  Not the development of a brain, etc..  

Oh come on, do I have to tutor all you guys?  Put a smiley on your jokes,
people!

(-: means you are joshing us all, and it should be used even for such
obvious foolishness as the above.


Adrienne Regard
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:33:21 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]
>
>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
>particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
>for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.
>
>	  Police have arrested a Fort Lauderdale abortion clinic
>	physician after his wife reported that he handcuffed her,
>	strapped her to a table in their home and performed an abortion
>	against her will.

Woooooooaaahhhhh !!! Where did THIS come from? 

Do we hear some SQUIRMING among the pro-abort camp? 

As Rush Limbaugh lingo would go... 

DITTO. 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Nyikos' amnesia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:02:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.716075845@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep09.035609.23451@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.IBM.co
>
> >I was right.  I gave you a number of unbiased sources, and you
> >acknowledged seeing them:
[...]
> >How do you reconcile "missed them all" with "I will study [it] carefully" ???
>
> Very, very easily.  I have not accessed the info since I saved it.  I've
> been awfully busy as it is.

Fair enough.  I take it you'll withdraw the charge that we only present
evidence from "biased sources"?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36554 alt.abortion.inequity:3753
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: On removing fetuses (Re: Observations)
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:43:21 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Steve Arnold

>If it [fetus] can
>be removed in such a way that keeps it alive, and releases the woman from
>*all* responsibility, then fine.

Gordon, This is something I have to disagree with as a blanket statement.
I realize that your clause "releases the woman from *all* responsibility"
makes this a virtual impossibility, but no one should be forced to generate
progeny, and that was what the Courts decided also, In the case I posted
a while back which had a primary argument that embryos were not life,
in the human sense. I would further extend this clause as:

    If a fetus can be removed alive, and the woman wishes that steps
    be taken to save it, whether she would be held responsible or
    not per her wishes, then those steps should be enacted. Otherwise,
    no steps would be taken to save the life of the fetus.

>>Or false positives?  And if so, just how susceptible?  And why should your
>>criteria be accepted and not someone else's?

>Because it is one of the criteria we as "Americans" have prided ourselves
>upon for the last 100 years:  Freedom from slavery.

And no more need be said, as this says it all.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:38:14 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep14.164010.5645@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <pt7y9jg@rpi.edu> : keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
->    (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
-> >>>> I understand.  It's not easy to convince people
-> >>>> that your motives are honest.
-> >
-> >>> i don't think your motives were dishonest bill.
-> >>> i think you honestly hold the same view of all
-> >>> the people who have suggested that DODie, or
-> >>> chaney, et. al. could benefit from therapy.
-> > 
-> >> Then you think incorrectly, Jim.  
-> >
-> > ok. i accept your admission that your motives were
-> > dishonest then.
-> 
-> Perhaps this demonstration of your tendency to
-> misinterpret the statements of others is key to your
-> poor analysis of Doug Holtsinger's mental status.

projecting again, bill? have you already forgotten our
ongoing discussion(s) of your misintepreting my
statements?

-> To clarify: I honestly do not "hold the same view of
-> all the people who have suggested that DODie, or
-> chaney, el. al. could benefit from therapy."

so then, it is as personal matter for you as others
have suggested.

-> >> And as I've indicated, many people can "benefit
-> >> from therapy".  That, however, should not be
-> >> interpreted as an indication of pathology, which
-> >> was the basis of your implication.
-> >
-> > no it wasn't, bill. since i've commented on this
-> > previously, i'm curious as to why you continue to
-> > post the basis for my comments.
-> 
-> Sorry, Jim.  In the context of therapy, "denial"
-> implies a form of pathology.  So perhaps you're
-> ready to retract your inference of denial?

are you inferring that denial was not present? let me
refresh your memory.
=========================
dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.

denial is unhealthy doodie. see your therapist.
=======================

does that ring any bells, bill?



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: But. . . I'm not READY to be organized!
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:15:15 GMT

In article <4SEP92.13455596@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) wrote:
>>In article <siyemop@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>A question for Mr. Curley - what sort of punishments would you order for _men_ 
>who endanger a fetus?  Would a husband who smokes around his pregnant wife be 
>thrown in jail for endangering the fetus with second-hand smoke?

As stated in another post, since smoking around a born child is not considered
child abuse, it would be inconsistent to consider either the smoking mother
or father to be engaging in child abuse.

However, it might be a good idea to start considering smoking to be an
abusive behaviour if the smoker cannot guarantee that her smoke does
not endanger others.

>What if a sexually active man is using medications (legal or otherwise) that 
>mess up his sperm, and as a result a woman impregnanted by him has a 
>miscarraige.  Does the guy then get charged with endangerment/murder/whatever?

IMO, yes.

>Just looking for consistancy...

Feel free, but don't get trapped into thinking that the law MUST be
consistent.  It isn't now, why should it be in the future?

>                                 .... Heather.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36270 talk.religion.misc:16142 alt.atheism:17128 talk.politics.misc:45150
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:30:10 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <nyikos.716074092@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> [...] [oops deleted too much Keith "J+A" Cochrane wrote:] 
>> I checked two nights ago, and neither myself, Charles, or Lee had
>>gills.  I checked last night, and Kent doesn't have them either.
> 
> Nor does an embryo.  It has little bumps that look like gills, but they
> are not gills.

Every vertebrate has pharyngeal gill slits at some point in their
life cycle.  humans have theirs during the embryonic stage, and they
later develop into other neato anatomy thingies.

Also, whether the embryonic sac, umbilical cord etc belongs to
the mother's body or not, the fetus still would be nothing without
direct input of matter from the mother.  Everything but the sperm
is produced by the mother.  that seems to be everyone else's point in
this thread, isn't it?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:52:22 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep12.012239.1391@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>:
>> [...] 
>> For *murder*?  Aren't you being a little inconsistent here?  If you think
>> it's murder, why would you charge the doctor, but let the woman literally
>> get away with murder?
> 
> It's my choice.

Weirdness!  So how come you get all the choices, Suzanne?  If you were
Mrs. President of the USA, wouldn't you make your choices law?
Why is it fair for you to decide, but it isn't fair for anyone
else to decide unless their decision is the same as yours?
(ie you are pro-life, and I don't think you'd like to have to
accept a pro-choicers decision to legalize abortion).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: EXCUSE, PLEASE!!!!!! (Was: Father Notification...)
Keywords: You think I'm going to mark my deletion?  Think again...
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:41:57 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


dh>In article <2453@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
kc>In article <1992Sep5.222216.17471@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

kc> Excuse me, but I have a question.  Could all of you married folks go look at
kc> your marriage licenses, and see if there's something in there about how the
kc> two of you have to talk?
 
kc> How the two of you have to live together?
 
kc> How the two of you have to get along?
 
kc> How the two of you have to discuss ANYTHING?

dh>My marriage vows contained a piece about "love, honor, and cherish".
dh>My early moral and ethical training were with the Roman Catholics. They
dh>taught me that one of the Commandments was "Honor thy father and thy mother."
dh>And that "honor" meant several things. One was that lying and deceit are
dh>definitely NOT "honoring".

I guess I miss your point.  Are you saying that because you were brought
up to have one definition of "honor" we should all live by your definition?
Or were you saying that you in your own married life will live by your
definition of "honor"?

dh>And anyway, the marriage contract is not in or on the license. It is embedded
dh>in the Law, which would not fit onto anything as small as a Marriage License.

So are Keith's examples covered in this law?

dh>d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Contributions (was Re: Observations)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:47:45 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


db>In article <BuMGsG.3xu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
gs>In article <4azn_6q.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

gs>The woman contributed to *every* cell in the fetus's body.  The man
gs>contributed to one.

db>You are now distinguishing "contributing to" and "contributing."

db>If the man provided the woman's food (bought, hunted, gathered, cooked)
db>then you ought now to conclude that he contributed TO these cells.
db>In fact, since his contribution is *voluntary* whereas the woman's
db>is not, he perhaps ought to be given even greater credit for his
db>"contributions."

Seems like a damn fine argument for ensuring the woman's 
contribution is voluntary also.

It also sounds like you are totally discounting the fact that the
woman might be involved in the providing of food.  I would say a
woman is just as capable of buying, hunting, gathering and cooking.
Is there some reason you discount these contributions also?

I get the feeling from you and your compatriots that you feel
a woman does the pregnancy thing and the man does the support
thing.  You seem to ignore the fact that the woman ends up 
also doing the support thing.  

db>Don

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Feminist Majority challenges
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:39:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.160155.11302@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>You have two BIG women's groups prowling across the abortion wars
>battlefield - National Organization for Women, and Concerned Women of
>America.

>2) Do we now live in a universe where 280,000 > 750,000 ?

Nope.  But we do live in a universe where 280,000 > -750,000.
Perhaps the CWA are too negative to be covered?  :-)   :-).
(I'll let other people worry about the actual numbers and the 
accuracy of same.)

>HOW IN THE HELL IS IT THAT THE LARGER OF THE TWO WOMEN'S GROUPS GETS
>ABSOLUTELY NO COVERAGE WHATSOEVER IN ANY MEDIA STATION ACROSS THE PLANET
>EARTH?

You mean even your hero, Rush LimborgerCheese, won't talk about the CWA?  
Why? What did they do so wrong to be snubbed?  :-) 


Seriously, your argument has some problems.  One is that I've heard of 
the CWA in the general media.  You are engaging in hyperbole (exageration);
a poor way to gain credibility.  I also see relatively little of NOW in the 
news. The main thing I see is coverage of protest marches when *either* side 
has a big one.

Second, this blanket argument that news must cover topics according to the 
number of people involved is ridiculous.  Following that rule, we would have 
very little media coverage of crack-babies as other health issues involve 
far greater numbers (heart attacks, car accidents).  I see little coverage of 
NOW or CWA, but *IF* it is true that NOW gets more coverage than CWA, I'd 
guess that it is because their members (whether larger or smaller 
in number) are more activist and provide more photo-opp's and press 
conferences than the other group.  For example, the old Moral Majority got 
a fair amount of press coverage, which (following your line of reasoning) 
would argue against a liberal bias in the media.

Third, if the media was actually so far out of synch with the American 
mainstream as you seem to think, then few would be watching the news or 
buying the newspapers and there would be a lot more complaining about the 
media.  As it is now, Bush complains that the press is too nice to Clinton 
and Clinton claims the press is too nice to Bush.   (And neither are 
very nice to each other!  :-) 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 22:13:13 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep4.202522.13847@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
> >
> > And she's always ignored my repeated comments that I got *more*
> > comfortable about abortion when I studied embryology, not less
> > (because I found out how long it took the brain to develop).
>
> Brain waves are recordable at 6 weeks, the earliest stage any abortion
> is done.  Dr. Len Howard himself refuted your obsessive over-fascination
> with "mylenation" having anything to do with when human life begins.

Brain waves are recordable from 3 neurons in a petri dish.  That doesn't
mean too much as far as personhood is concerned.

Myelination has nothing to do with when life begins, but it *is* a
necessary pre-requisite for personhood.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35902 misc.legal:17031
From: mjc+@cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:41:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: NL.mjc.716143302
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>Since there are 12 people on a jury it is
>likely that at least one of them knows someone who was a victim of a
>violent crime.

Disclosure of this fact is near-automatic disqualification for the jury.
Failure to disclose it is perjury (I've never heard of them not asking).
Sad, but true.

Monica
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:13:42 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.716336496@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <#q7yv=f@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> >>>Do you have reading comphrension problems, Peter?  You've just "waved away"
> >>>most of a woman's control over _HER_ body when you "wave away" her right
> >>>to obtain an abortion.
>
> >>I never waved it away under all circumstances.  And what sort of
> >>units of measurement do you use in your "most"?  My mother hid her
> >>last pregnancy up to the day she went into labor, and went on teaching
> >>in public school all the way up to that day, despite a rule that
> >>pregnant women must quit teaching long before their due date.
>
> >Your little anecdote, while tedious, still does not address the
> >above paragraph.
>
> It does, but to explain why would have made the anecdote even more tedious
> to you.

Did your mother want to get an abortion?  If not, then your anecdote
(although not necessarily tedious) is definitely unrelated.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion