HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Was - Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Followup-To: talk.abortion  
Summary: the post has nothing to do with the title  
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:46:44 GMT

>
>|>Now that that is set,
>|>By (a), either 1=0 or 1 is positive or -1 is positive.
>
>|>By the laws of algebra, 1 != .  If -1 is positive, then by (c), (-1)(-1) is
>|>postive, so 1 is positive.  So in all cases 1=1-0 is positive, or 0<1.
>
>|Hmmm...CJ, whatcha think about this?
>question.  He hasn't defined his symbols.  I don't think he
>realizes the enormous amount of work it took to establish those
>
>
>Mathematics is the last place I'd go to look for "absolute
>truths", but that's because I studied math.  Gorr is making
>a layman's erroro

As you can see, the text has nothing to do with the topic.
This rediculous thread has been resurfacing time and time again.  The
hebrew and greek texto not support abortion, despite what the
proponents say.

The question is not one of religion but of ethicf your ethical postion
is that of autonomy, then you support abortion.  .
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:02:59 GMT

In article <BvCvIK.LqL@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <=#_pfkp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>	I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
>>>activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
>>>avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
>>>are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
>>>to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.
>
>>Fine.  Driving a car can result in injury or death.
>
>	What a stupid analogy. Preventing, or correcting injuries
>recieved in a car wreck does NOT necessitate the taking of another
>human being's life. 

In other words, the "consent to sex == consent to pregnancy" argument has 
substance IF AND *ONLY* IF we consider the z/e/f "a human being", right?

Why not just apply Occam's Razor, and deal with the issue purely in terms of 
the (alleged) personhood of the z/e/f, Bruce? Why wrap it up in all of this 
"consent to ..." stuff?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:35:51 GMT

In article <BvDHw2.6BB.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>In article <1aa97rINNpuq@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>#---
>#smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>#|You know, I've always felt that someone who spends weeks and
>#|thousands of lines of typing flaming someone else for 
>#|one sentence looks like a twittering fool, particularly
>#|when that is their only contribution to the newsgroup.
>#
>#I take it you think Keegan is a twittering fool, then.
>
>Well, no, I was referring to Overpeck.  
>
>Keegan contributes to other threads, and I've seen him use
>the word abortion in an article in the last month.  

As an insult or smear, no doubt. Far be it from Keegan to actually discuss 
the abortion ISSUE in talk.abortion. Heavens forbid.

								- Kevin 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39838 talk.religion.misc:17537 alt.atheism:18285
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:39:30 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <nyikos.717792761@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <10880@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>I don't think unborn babies scream or
>>wringle when ripped limb by limb, so they don't show suffering, fake
>>or genuine. 
>
>"Wringle"? do you mean "wriggle," by any chance?

Serves me right for trying to use an English word I didn't really know,
and being too lazy to go consult a dictionary.  :-)  I meant "writhe",
"squirm", and the like.  Maybe "wriggle" would do.

In short, I meant what you do when you either feel an extremely strong
physical pain or want to make it look like that (to fake suffering).
Unborn babies aren't capable of the latter.  Jesus was.

>>On the other hand, we are told that Jesus of Nazareth was conceived in
>>a very particular way, <...> and just why am I wrong to suppose that God
>>didn't decide to make him so that he wouldn't feel pain?
>
>Maybe so, but the bible gives no indication of it.

True.  Yet even normal people, not related to Yahweh in any way, have
been known to control their sense of pain, as well as other functions
of their physiology.  It doesn't take a virgin birth, but it takes a
lot of training.  Many of the miracle stories about Jesus have a certain
yoga flavour.  Maybe that was exactly the kind of capabilities he had.

And, of course, gods don't feel pain, even when they have bodies.
Isis once cut off the hands of her son Horus in a situation in which a
human mother would have said "go and wash your hands".  It was quicker
that way, you see.  And Horus didn't object.  (Needless to say, the
lost limbs were promptly replaced by new ones.)

>Here for once we have an *atheist* appearing to act in violation of
>Occam's Razor.

Appearing, maybe, but I think Occam's Razor cuts the other way.  I'm
told that Jesus was a very unusual kind of human being, as testified
by a lot of stories about him, and therefore I try not to assume that
he shared much with the rest of mankind.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:09:24 GMT

Martin writes:
>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.

... such as what?  Does this 98% include only things like "Gee, if I
get pregnant, I won't be able to fit into this nice dress," or does it
include "I got raped and if I have to take maternity leave from work,
then I won't have enough money to buy food or pay the rent"?

>Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?

Depends.  There are some awfully good social reasons to have an
abortion, and I'm against anybody deciding what "good" reasons are and
what "bad" reasons are and applying them to every single case.

>The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
>out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
>whatever.  

That's your opinion; I disagree.  I'd like to think that I am
something more than a fertilized egg is.  I've grown and learned, and
become something more than I was even just five years ago.  To say
that I am the same stuff as a single cell is, is to insult me and to
deny what I am.

>In whatever way you put it,the one year old newborn, the
>ten year old boy/girl, and the present day you is essentially the same 
>individual.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I disagree here, too.  I
am an entirely different person from the person I was at ten years of
age.  I have different hopes and dreams, different beliefs, and
different values.  I have become something better.

>You, are one with yourself.

(What did the Zen master say to the hot-dog vendor?
 "Make me one with everything.")

Life is just the process of taking bare existence and hanging
different events and memories on it that will make me distinct from
every other person who has ever lived.  (Read my .sig.)  An unborn
fetus hasn't added anything to its existence, so by killing it, we're
not taking anything away that can't be created again at a better time.

I think the primary difference between our arguments is your emphasis
on 'potential' and my emphasis on 'actual'.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:18:22 GMT

In article <adams.717436718@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep22.114814.13838@crd.ge.com> Rejected by his own
>>camp, the Reject Thing known as
>>james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>>
>>>how odd! that's exactly what someone (not darcy)
>>>privately wrote to me and said about you. they even
>>>called you the energizer bunny. is that where you
>>>picked up the energizer bunny term?
>>
>>At least the Energizer Bunny can make capital letters.
>>
>>You quite accurately remind us all of ZIGGY. 
>>
>Not so, Lo-I-Cutious...I thought of e e cummings when I saw the all lower
>case...some of have a tiny bit of culture...
               ^ "us"? (perhaps not quite enough culture? :-)

The difference is that while e e cummings had something worthwhile to say
in lowercase, for Keegan, the lowercase just adds injury to insult. 
Following e e cummings' form, without even a cursory attempt to invoke the 
poet's spirit, is just empty pretentiousness. To use the form in a malicious
or annoying way goes beyond even pretentiousness and actively insults the
poet's work.

								- kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: SAT worship
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 00:25:37 GMT

In <1992Sep28.211344.144148@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Sep28.185438.9420@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> : regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>> : We only ask for SAT scores for those folks who *don't* practice rational
>>   ^^
>> : thought......
>>
>> Is this the royal We, or were you speaking for the net again?

>Presumably, she's speaking for those talk.abortion posters who ask for SAT
>scores.  Please try to keep up with the rest of the posters.

Take your own advice, you prevaricator, and read "The Genesis of the whole
silly SAT Flap".

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Nyikos
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:13:06 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <kekni5m00WB4F_RkVh@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>
>Am I saying my morals are better than theirs? No, I'm saying they're
>not mine and I shouldn't be forced to have my tax dollars pay for
>abortions when it goes against my beliefs and morals. Now, who's forcing
>who?

I feel the same way. I don't wish to pay tax dollars to support childbirth,
especially when no other approach is funded. It bothers me to coerce women
into having babies and fund only that option with taxes. I would like to
see states that don't fund abortion refuse to pay for prenatal care and
delivery as well. 

>If it were just a matter of people could get abortions, then I wouldn't
>care so much. But presently, my money is used to fund people killing
>children.

Ditto. I don't like to see my taxes used to force mandatory motherhood. Both
options should be paid for, or neither option.

>ag


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:20:47 GMT

In article <adams.718394027@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>The NRSV (1980) translates it as "murder" with the text note "this
           ^^^^
More like 1989.
NRSV was STARTED in 80, but finished more like 89.

-Ekr
           
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:43:18 GMT

In <80713@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:

>[...]
>
>3) Abortion until date of viability, ie ability of fetus to live outside of
>womb
>[...]
> 
>Let's examine these positions, shall we?
> 
>[...]
>
>3) This position is a bit slick, because it ties in science to morality and
>makes the moral position seem rational.  But let me ask you this:  how do you
>feel about having your morality determined immediately by existing levels of
>technology, with the realization that you are necessarily morally inferior to
>subsequent generations?  As technology improves, viability will become earlier
>and earlier, and future moral leaders will look down upon us as neanderthals
>for not realizing that a fetus could live and thus was life.  I have a big
>objection to my morality being tied to scientific progress.

OK, I think I get this. Neanderthals cruelly allowed their children to
be crippled by polio, and then left them to die when they could no
longer keep up with the tribe. Modern man is more compassionate, and
gives children polio vaccine instead. This proves that modern man is
more ethically advanced than Neanderthals. Neanderthals should have
temporarily taken some tribespersons off of hunter/gatherer duty and
moved them to stretcher-carrying duty. I suppose a few healthy
Neanderthals might have starved to death, but this would only be
temporary. The problem would go away when the vaccine became 
available.

By the same token, every zygote should be allowed to come to term.
It's true that some women will be forced to risk their lives and
health, and to unwillingly sacrifice their futures and live in
abject poverty, but this is only temporary...at some point, it 
will become possible to allow zygotes to develop outside the
womb, and the problem will go away. Is this the argument that
you're attempting to make?

I do agree with your implied assertion that when the Good Fairies take
us all to Happy BunnyLand <TM>, where no one has to suffer or die ever
again, then there would be nothing wrong with making abortion illegal.
I'm worried, though, that you're focusing too intensely on the glorious
future, possibly at the expense of the here-and-now....

Happy BunnyLand is a registered trademark of the North American 
Applied Philosophy Association. Good Fairy Action Figures sold 
separately. Have a _super_ day.

>|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:14:31 GMT

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
->chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
->>Whoooooo! I'm Scaaaa~~~~red! Elizabeth Bartley calls me a HYPOCRITE!
-><chortle>  <snicker>

->Gosh, how characteristic this unconcern with intellectual 
->honesty seems.

->-- 
->Pro-Choice            Anti-Roe                - E. Elizabeth Bartley
->      Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

does this mean you no longer want to legislate against
some abortions and imprison/punish the women who have
the abortions you want to legislate against?

"intellectual honesty" indeed!!!!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:30:21 GMT

>   =  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>> = In article <1b_p5lc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Because saying that embryologists say that a human life begins at conception
>> isn't particularly useful.  It is saying that a human life is that which
>> begins at conception because a human life begins at conception.  If you're
>> just going to _define_ a human life to begin at conception, then you might
>> _define_ with just as much validity a human life to begin at birth.

> Conception is the first time that a human individual is
> created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
> into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
> case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
> statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
> individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
> like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
> haven't seen any such thing.

You have a concept refered to as "human life", and for you this
refers to any f/e/z from conception onward.  OK, fine.  But so what?
This is an *extremely* broad definition, encompassing zygotes, embryos,
late-term fetus', infants, grown adults, brain-dead adults, physically
brainless fetus', sentient human beings, non-sentient human beings,...  
This definition is so broad that two things correctly catagorized as 
"human life" may very well have almost nothing in common.

All you've done is to merely identify a concept and give it a name.  
What you have *not* done is establish that the vastly different things
that fall under your catagory of "human life" have anything substantial
in common.  You also have *not* established that *all* the vastly different 
things that fall into your catagory of "human life" deserve to have 
the same type of rights.

If all you want to do is semantically group born humans together with
unborn humans, then you're done.  On the other hand, if you want to
argue that some or all unborn humans deserve some subset of the basic 
rights commonly associated with born humans, then you haven't even begun.

-Brian
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:01:01 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <k6#p4qd.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> >Well, then don't you think that's rather silly?  The baby is in fact
> >totally and wholly dependent on the specific person who happens to be
> >taking care of him/her at the time.  
> 
> Well then, if one person is feeding it and another changing its daipers,
> does that mean it wholly dependent on TWO people?  And if a third cooked
> the food, does that make it wholly dependent on THREE people?  And if
> a fourth is providing amusement, does that make it wholly dependent on
> FOUR people?  And since it's breathing oxygen supplied by plants, does 
> that make in wholly dependent on FOUR people AND the whole of the plant
> kingdom?

Yep. 

We are wholly and totally dependent on the plant kingdom to surive at
this time.  Why do you think and I am also a strong enviromentalist.
 
> If you really can't see the difference between being pregnant and being
> a babysitter for a few minutes, then you must either be exceedingly
> stupid, exceedingly naive, or think we are stupid enough to buy into
> this argument.

Oh, there is a difference.  But the different you have pointed out is not
valid.  I have explained why.  If you disagree with me, then please
point out both where and why.
 
> >What happens if some disaster occurs and the loving and caring parents are
> >not at home and the child is being watched by a baby sitter.  That child is
> >totally and wholly dependent on that sitter to save it's life because it
> >would surely die if someone did not.
> 
> Nonsense.  I'm not even going to bother with that any more than to say
> that the baby will survive days on its own and can breath quite well by
> itself.

You totally missed the point.  I stated quite clearly that the baby WILL
DIE is the baby sitter does not save its life it will not "survive days on
its own."  The baby is totally and wholly depending upon that baby sitter
for its life.  It you want me to be more specific, then lets say the
disaster is a fire of some sort.  The baby cannot crawl out on its own.  It
will die in this fire if the sitter does not remove it from the house.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 01:54:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes ...
>In article <r50n_nj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>>> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>> Every single argument we make for why a fetus is not a person is
>>>> immediately turned down by you.  You say, "well, the fetus is
>>>> obviously human, so you're wrong and your point is irrelevant."  This
>>>> is NOT the way to conduct a debate.
>>>
>>>The fetus is human...go back to basic biology if you don't believe me.
>>
>>BUT IS IT A _PERSON_?  READ WHAT IS _WRITTEN_.
>
>IMHO, yes.  It was conceived and therefore a person, IMHO.  

Irrelevent.  Pigs are conceived and are not persons.

>Do you deny that there is research, that will someday be successful in
>allowing all conceptions to come to term?

Yes.

>>Name one "basic fact" that you've used.  Tell us what scientific research
>>supports your assertion that personhood (not "a human life") begins at
>>conception.
>
>That an early human embryo is _not_ an early fish embryo.  Simple enough. 

Irrelevent.  A rock is not a fish embryo and yet is not a person.

Your definition of personhood hasn't even begun to be complete.  
Keep trying.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:22:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   If Martin Guerrero is so 'pro-life,'  why do you not fight gun
ownership, why do you not fight cigarette smoking, why do you not
oppose ALL war?  The 'pro-life' name sounds SOOO lofty and noble,
but it holds as much truth as Dan Quayle's head holds intelligent 
thought.
   By the way, how many crack babies have YOU abopted today?  
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity