HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:25:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>In article <q__pzy.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>> >bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>> >> That doesn't change
>> >> the fact that 50% of the zygotes implant naturally and 50%
>> >> don't implant (also from natural causes).
>> >
>> >So, are you saying that if a couple wants a child, we should not utilize
>> >every means available to help them have that child?
>> 
>> What's this "we" shit, Kemosabe?  You want to help someone, by all means
>> please do so.  I'm sure that their are many couples who could use help
>> paying the $10,000 to $20,000 it takes for trying in-vitro fertilization.
>> If you have a few thousand bucks lying around, go for it.  I don't.
>
>Here we go with the money thing again...I've responded to this in this
>recent batch of articles..

Well then, once you start earning your own living, you will discover
that money and wealth don't just fall out of the sky, and that wealth
represents life itself.  If you want to give up a few months of your 
life to enable one zygote to implant, by all means go ahead.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: REQUEST: List Of Companies
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:41:01 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Can some brave soul please post a list of companies supportive of preborn
>rights and abortion rights?  Thank you.
> 
>Here's an example to clarify what type of information we seek:
> 
>Preborn Rights		Abortion Rights
>--------------  	---------------
>Dominos Pizza	        (None found thus far)

L.L. Bean            Esprit
Tom's of Maine       Sprint (I think)
                     Benetton


Alison
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 20:41:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <9463@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
>
> >  Abortion is not a crime.
>
> Legal definition only.  It can be changed at any time by an act of congress.
>
> >  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>
> So what.
>
> >  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>
> Why?  If congress passes a law that says that abortion is murder, then it
> is murder.
>
> >  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>
> Your definition, not universally accepted.  My copy of Webster's defines
> murder as the killing of a human being.

Is that *all* it says?  Which dictionary are you using?  Every dictionary
definition I've seen says murder is an *unlawful* killing.  Since abortion
is not unlawful, it is not murder.  QED.

Note that the *legal* definition of murder generally *defines* "human being"
as a "borned [sic] person":

Model Penal Code:

Section 210.0 DEFINITIONS
     (1) "human being" means a person who has been born and is alive;
...
Section 210.1. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
     (1) A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely,
     knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of
     another human being.
...
Section 210.2. MURDER
     (1) ...[C]riminal homicide constitutes murder when:
        (a) it is committed purposely or knowingly; or
        (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstance manifesting
            extreme indifference to the value of human life....

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: SAT worship
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:54:38 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: In article <1992Sep21.165259.2332@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
: >In article <19ctqdINNktk@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: >> How 'bout you post your SAT scores, too?
: >Are y'all just being sarcastic, or do Americans really worship SAT scores?
: >I don't have any...  Is it ok for me to practice rational thought anyway?
: 
: 
: Oh, absolutely, Brian.
: 
: 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?

How 'bout you post your SAT scores, too?

:-) 
:-) Adrienne Regard
:-) 
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "There are no unborn people, there are fetuses,
                                 or people not yet born (and hence not real)." 
				   - Ron Bense '92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:51:21 GMT

In article <1a9svbINN5cu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.092634.2832@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>And if the supposed "quality of life" (the end) is achieved via
>>abortion (the means), then the means would be a greater evil than the
>>supposed lack of quality of life.
>
>And if the supposed "life of the child" (the end) is achieved via
>enslaving women (the means), then the means would be a greater evil than
>the supposed lack of life of the child.

Let's start out by saying the unborn child is definitely a human life.

Now let's weigh two things:
   1) "enslaving the mother"
   2) destroying the life of the unborn child which is definitively human.

Now, sure, "enslaving the mother" could be perceived (and it probably is)
as an evil.  But when put side by side with the destruction of a human
life, more importantly, our own sons and daughters, doesn't the "enslaving
the mother" bit pale by comparison?

I'm not saying that the birth giving process is something trivial to
be ignored and looked down upon.  I'm just saying when the choice is between
the life of a human and the mother's situation, the life of a human being
must be protected.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A new development
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:44:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh



I just read a news story about a new development in diagnosing cystic
fibrosis.  It described a study done on couples who had one child with
cystic fibrosis.  Ova were harvested from the women and fertilized
in vitro.  When the resulting embryos reached the 8 cell stage, one
cell was removed from each embryo and examined for the gene which
causes C.F.  Four embryos were implanted in two women, resulting
in one pregnancy.  The child was born, and neither has C.F. nor
carries the gene recessively.  (I think there were twenty couples
in the study.  I'm aware that this is a small sample, and a very
low success rate - I'm also aware that IVF is very expensive.)

The article said that the researchers pointed out that the
technique could also be used to screen for diseases such as
hemophilia, Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, and Duchenne
muscular dystrophy.  Interestingly, the article said that
such diseases could be diagnosed in utero today but that
doing so "raised the possiblity of abortion" (or words to
that effect.)  I realized that most people would not consider
this screening as abortion, but some would.

The next news item I read had the following quotes from Pope
John Paul II.  He was addressing a group of Irish bishops,
speaking about the 14 year old rape victim who was finally allowed
to go to England to have an abortion.  


	``The defense of life from the moment of conception until natural
death is the defense of the human person in the dignity that is his or
hers from the sole fact of existence, independently of whether that
existence is planned or welcomed by the persons who give rise to it,''
John Paul said.
	``Every reflection on this serious matter must begin from the clear
premise that procured abortion is the taking of life of an already
existing human being,'' he said.
	``To uphold this principle and to enshrine it democratically in the
constitution and laws of the state does not imply insensitivity to the
rights of others, including mothers in complex and difficult situations,
'' the pope said.
	``The life of the mother and the life of her unborn child are equally
precious and equally to be defended,'' he said. ``There can be no
'right' to kill an already existing, though yet unborn, human being.''

Susan
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:08:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <1992Oct4.021515.26479@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will
Steeves) writes:
>....... so why don't we encourage science to try to discover a
>safe method to remove the foetus/child/embryo without damaging either
>it/him/her or the mother?  This would reduce the f/c/e's (excuse the unusual
>terminology) dependence upon the woman's body, and could allow the child to
>live *without* forcing the woman to stay pregnant.
>
>I was *hoping* that this might be the compromise that would finally end the
>sniping between both sides of this issue, but from the responses that I have
>received so far, this does not seem to be the case.  Most "pro-lifers" who
>have responded, are against this idea (as it involves technology, I presume),
>but many "pro-choicers" have been reasonably supportive, but only so long as
>such a method be as safe as a "regular" termination of pregnancy.

I don't care if technology is used to save the developing fetus as long as it
is saved.  HOWEVER, the sticking points still would be 1) Is the technique as
safe for the fetus as going to term? And 2) is it as safe for the mother?  If
the answer is yes to both then I would think it difficult for either side to
object (silly me). ( You have to understand, many folks on both sides of the
fence use the abortion issue to support a hidden agenda.)

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:30:02 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>> Which allows us to say that abortion, does indeed, destroy and kill
>>> human life.
>>
>>Well, sure.  So does masturbation, ovulation, and surgery.  So?
>
>You are still into the sperm/egg are humans (is a sperm a member of
>homo sapiens?  Com'on now) aren't you.  Well they aren't.
>
>I have very little else to say because I am tired of arguing this point.
>You don't have to bother responding either.

You haven't been arguing this point.  You've been asserting it without
much of any sort of cogent argument to back it up.  As you've discovered,
that approach isn't terribly productive.  Nor persuasive.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:11:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvH8up.AL5@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

[text deleted]

#Dean found proof.  I found proof.  It's there if people want it.

I've seen proof, now.  It's not something that I'm willing to
post, but it convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt.  (Think
of it as a blatant assertion, if you like, since I'm not posting
documentation.  I'm satisfied.)

I'll keep twitting Dennis about it because I like to watch him
lie.  

(The silence from the other pro-forcers is telling here - if they
could have proved that the account wasn't assigned to Chaney,
surely they would have.  If I didn't know that they cannot
do this, I'd wonder if it were because they don't like him
enough to bother.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos scores 749 and 745 on SATS!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:10:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.033225.22205@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bogus) writes:
>
>Speaking of SAT's and pro-force idiots, though, Patrick,
>should we tell the A.B. that the Franciscan University
>of Steubenville (home of the "Pro-life Activities" minor)
>gives academic scholarships to people who score a big
>1000?   That might give him something to shoot for when
>he finally gets out of high school.

Aw, that's scary. You'd never get out of high school, then. 

Perhaps you'll get into Steubenville. As a test chimp, that is. 


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating 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: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 05:29:49 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  <1992Oct1.213814.25101@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct01.070324.149832@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >In  <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Mart
> >> In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
> >> >
> >> >You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
> >> >a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
> >> >and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
> >>
> >> Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
> >> at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
> >
> >I think you're a little confused.  Nothing's being "dehumanized".  We all
> >know that it's a human fetus.  The point is, it's not a *child* until it's
> >*born*.
> >
>
> Which allows us to say that abortion, does indeed, destroy and kill
> human life.

Well, sure.  So does masturbation, ovulation, and surgery.  So?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: walking down to the student center a few weeks ago
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:16:48 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From: burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
->I would just like to make a small point...  (I'm not flaming you :)
->
->I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice") 
->in a big way.  I don't think *anyone* is "Pro-Abortion."  That
->[rest of neat post deleted]
-
-This is a ridiculous statement/paragraph to write.  Of course at least 98%
-of all people who get abortions or support abortion are "Pro-Abortion".  
-If they were not, then alternatives would be used.  

Whoever said alternatives weren't used?  Whoever said they were even
available?  Why does a woman who gets an abortion have to like it?
Why does any pro-choicer have to like the fact that abortions are necesary?
 
-But for various reasons,
-such as laziness, selfishness... those alternatives are not used.  I'm sick
-and tired of hearing about "they do not have the right to force values".  In
-the mere act of abortion/murder the woman is forcing values onto the would-be
-baby.  As was said in another discussion, when having sex those two people
-make the decision to live with the possibilities including having a baby.  To
-make a distinction between "carrying a baby or merely fetal tissue" is an
-intellectual(not very good at that) distinction that ignores the fact that 
-it is a life with intellegence and is a human being.

When was the last time you held an intelligent conversation with a zygote?
Does Elvis talk to you too?  How about Hendrix?  Could you ask him what
the afterlife is like?  I'm dying to know.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mr. Hampe's Laps(e) in Technical Clarity
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:29:22 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> Well anyway, its a clear proof that Chris,
> Lap dog lackey of the Millitary Industrial Complex
> is an Ikky Yukky Wrong person either way....

You've been a busy man this weekend, drieux, so your lapse
(or is it laps) in Technical Clarity is excusable, I guess.
But I can't let this stain on my reputation go unchallenged.

I am a _running_ dog lackey, not of the Millitary Industrial
Complex, but the BleedingHeartDisneyChannelWimpLiberalConspiracy.
At 190 lbs, I'm rather a burden for most people's laps, so the
only laps I get (being a _running_ dog lackey) are at the local
high school track.

Hope this helps.

PS - I assume 'Ikky' refers to one who has kept his lunch down
while observing ikky-gross medical procedures; and 'Yukky' refers
to one who likes girls...

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:33:38 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>Sort of like trying a mother for child abuse for smoking crack whiule
>pregnant.  That has already happened.

Could you please reference a case number, jurisdiction, the charge,
and, if the case has already been tried, the outcome?

>Mark

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: yea Verily the Mote in thine Own Eye...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:25:56 GMT

egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
] 
] So, I guess I can add you to the list of people attempted to
] harass me off this board.  How does it feel to feel so much
] rage towards another person?  
] 
] I would be interested in knowing how you came to the absolute
] conclusion that my bible is on musical CD's?  Or you can just
] admit your ignorance, appoligize, and we can continue in a
] rational fashion.
] 

1. have you thought about reading your own posts,
and considering how offensive they are to those who
are christians and do not consider citations from
rock musicians on CD to be a valid basis for biblical theology.

2. When you consider the notion of 'harrasment' - kindly
pause a little and think about what the words mean....
Then remember that some of us have been out there on the
front lines, and KNOW what it is like to have Secret Police
following us, arresting and torturing our associates, and
all because of their Faith, Beliefs, and worst of all, 
unwillingness to stand down when the dominant religion
seeks to oppress them....


ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sex->pregnancy->must carry to term??
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:28:41 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <1992Oct3.130317.2419@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
# I see a number of pro-lifers saying that consent to sex equals
# consent to the possibility of impregnation, therefore the woman
# is irresponsible if she doesn't carry every conceived zygote to
# term.  [...]

Drieux may threaten to kill me for dumbing down his joke, but...

Here's how it works:

A.  Assume: Consent to sex implies consent to the possibility of
    pregnancy resulting from sex.

B.  Observation: Pregnancy carries the risk of death during
    childbirth.

C.  Production: Consenting to the possibility of pregnancy means
    consenting to the risk of death during childbirth associated with
    the possibility of pregnancy.

D.  Theorem: Consent to sex implies consent to the risk of death
    during childbirth.

Thus:

A.  Assume: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
    subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy, on the grounds that she
    implicitly consented to the possibility of the grave matter of
    pregnancy when she consented to sex, and abortion would
    demonstrate her decision to have sex was careless.

B.  Observation: From the theorem derived above, consent to sex also
    implies consent to risk of death during childbirth.

C.  Production: If consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and
    subsequently aborting pregnancy when pregnancy occurs is
    irresponsible, then it is also irresponsible to consent to the
    risk of death during childbirth and abort the mother's life when
    death during childbirth is imminent.

D.  Theorem: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
    subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy when death during
    childbirth is imminent, on the grounds that she implicitly
    consented to the grave matter of the risk of death during
    childbirth when she consented to sex, and an abortion to save her
    life would demonstrate that her decision to have sex was careless.

I would be pleasantly surprised to see a `pro-life' type who has
advanced the assumption that consent to sex implies consent to the
possibility of pregnancy comment on the logic demonstrated here.
Specifically, I'd like said volunteer to comment on whether the
assumptions are more ludicrous that the theorems produced, especially
if they can't find any glaring flaws in the logic.

Come one, boys.  Two simple syllogisms in series.  You can do it.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

I think I'll save this post.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:25:05 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  <1992Sep25.222316.22846@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.183439.23882@jetsun.weitek.COM>,
> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
> >
> > In article <1992Sep24.230405.23871@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (E
> > >In article <1992Sep24.015617.3211@jetsun.weitek.COM>,
> > >nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
> >
> > >> Glad to. A conceptus may become a hyatidiform mole, which no one who has
> >                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> > >> ever see one would claim is a person.
> >
> > >What in the world are you talking about here?
> >
> > The underlined part.
>
> I understand that..!  What exactly is a hyatidiform mole?  Could you
> explain it for me in some detail...

Careful - I think Nadja would charge a lot more than $8 an hour to tutor
you.  :-)

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