HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:20:09 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Nov17.173120.452@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-161192123613@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >
> >As an alternative, please consider the following: I have a good friend who
> >has been diagnosed as having an internal "growth" of some sort.  The cells
> >comprising this "growth" have different DNA than my friend; the cells,
> >moreover, are differentiating as it grows; it is growing at a somewhat
> >alarming, and potentially health-threatening rate.
> >
> >Should my friend have this growth removed?  Should my friend be _permitted_
> >to have this growth removed?
> 
> A z/e/f is a living human organism, just like us. A cancerous growth, on the 
> other hand, is not an "organism" -- it's just a bunch of cells growing out 
> of control.

As is usual for you, you make sweeping pronouncements without any
particular knowledge of what you're blabbering about.

Find out what a teratoma is.  See whether you learn anything.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:40:22 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In <1992Nov20.183909.5104@panix.com> jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold) writes:

>Rape is a violation of a persons sexual being [ . . . ]

Almost the same thing I said a couple of posts ago!  So you *do* agree
that rape has an essential sexual element.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48181 alt.abortion.inequity:5136 soc.women:19736 soc.men:19417
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:02:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California

note followup

jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes ...
>However you missed my point completely.  If we allow for *any* sub-class
>of humans, we devalue our humanity to ourselves.  I feel that this is a
>big mistake, witness the previous examples, as well as the growing racism
>and division in European countries (Arian nations, et. al.).

While this is a good point, it depends on a circular definition and so
is largely worthless.

How are we going to decide what is a human being and what isn't?  You
assume that anything concieved of people is a person, but that 
assumption has been shown to be largely arbitrary.  If I define as 
human anything warm blooded, then your argument could just as well be 
used to argue for equal rights for turkeys (and just in time, too!).

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:23:32 GMT


In <3094@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:

> I believe we have a basic right to bodily autonomy.  This is not a right
> of action, but a right to defend ourselves against non-consensual
> physical intrusion.  I.e., your rights of action end at my skin.

So why shouldn't all human beings have this right to bodily autonomy?
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 14:10:24 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    Bill, what minority group do I belong to?

In article <1992Nov2.194437.950@acd4.acd.com> Bill Overpeck says:
>In <92303.222209ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article <1992Oct27.205630.964@acd4.acd.com> Bill Overpeck writes:

>>>Or is her disrespect justified by her membership
>>>in an oppressed minority (and if so, where do I join?)?
>
>>I didn't realize I was a member of a minority,
>>oppressed or otherwise, Mr. Overpeck.  Perhaps you
>>would identify what minority group I belong to?

>Despite significant progress, women are still something of
>a sociological and economic minority.

Women make up 50% of the population, as a member of that
gender I do not belong to a minority group.  I, personally,
am not sociologically or economically oppressed since I can,
and do, benefit from Canada's constitutional protections
against discrimination on the basis of gender along with, what
some might consider, generous social programmes.

You stated I had membership in an oppressed minority, yet
the only support you offer is that I am a woman.  That I am
a woman is true, the rest of your statement is false and one,
imesho, based on a rather myopic view of women.

Considering you have only identified womanhood as the group I
belong to Mr. Overpeck, you definitely will not be eligible
for membership and considering your opinion of the plight of
women this should come as a relief to you.




Linda
--
"The ministry of women will allow the Church of England to discover
 the blessings they do not yet know, as all of us in Canada have."
Archibishop Michael Peers, noting the Anglican Church of Canada
has ordained women since 1976, Nov. 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:39:34 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> Eric was going to debate me on philosophy and even gave me a
> warning about what a dragon he was.

As I recall, Eric responded to the Perfesser's announcement that he would
be trying the philosophical waters of talk.abortion by saying "Be forewarned.
There be dragons out there, and they play with their food," or words to that
effect.  He did not state that he himself was a dragon.

So why does the Perfesser consistently misrepesent what others say?  Is it
problems with reading comprehension, stupidity, or something worse?

> Where's the fun in vanquishing a dragon who won't fight?

Nyikos seems to have heaps of fun misrepresenting people who aren't present
to defend themselves.

While I'm thinking about it, I cast an "AYE" ballot to include the Perfesser
in the Net Council of Idiots.  Btw, wasn't La Forgach voted in last spring?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49035 alt.abortion.inequity:5242 soc.men:19745
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: 21 Nov 1992 19:14:55 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>If either party to a divorce is pigheaded enough to move across the country
>KNOWING FULL WELL that this will cause custody problems for the other parent
>then they should damn well pay for the privilege.  


I'd like to try to dissapate some of the nastiness which threatens to 
cloud what is basically an interesting discussion of Karl's proposal.

Sometimes a preson must move across the country even though they have
good resons (such as children) to stay put, for example when
one's company relocates.  Parents can face a difficult choice between
staying (and perhaps remaining unemployed) and following their job.
Unfortunately, this happens all to often in today's difficcult economic
times.  We should not demonize such people by calling them pigheaded.

Note that the reason for the move does not necessarily have bearin
on the discussion of whether the parent who has moved should pay the
full cost of the children's transportation.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:09:04 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Well gee.  Lets see.  A woman can actually say whether she wants to be
>>pregnant and can even say why.  A 12 week fetus not only cannot do the
>>same, but can't even survive outside of the mother.  A 5 week embryo
>>doesn't even have the needed equipment to talk.
>>
>Sentience != survival  (I can't survive outside a city)
>Sentience != speech    (People don't always talk during their sleep)
>
>Plus, There are lots of things which _I_ am aware of and think about for which 
>_you_ have no evidence whatsoever.  As Ms. Bartley says, absence of evidence
>is not evidence of absence.

Neither is absence of evidence evidence for presence.  

Regardless, there _is_ evidence for a lack of sentience in embryos.
Hardly conclusive, but evidence nonetheless.  Some of it I stated
up there.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 2
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:16:31 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

More from  <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb):

>Figures have been quoted in t.a. (by pro-choicers I believe) showing
>that most women have at least one unintended pregnancy in the course
>of their lives.  I don't believe it's true that most parents find that
>their children need an organ donation for which the parents would be
>the only available donors.  So the former situation seems the more
>forseeable and the more universal, and it seems more reasonable to
>expect people to take it into account in thinking about their lives.

This line of reasoning can take you nowhere.  Any attempt to draw a
strong link between probabilities of events and the way we perceive
and plan policy for them, including assigning responsibility, is
doomed: See Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky's excellent summary of the
evidence in all kinds of areas in their 1984 book Judgment and Choice.

Besides I agree we need to hold people responsible for pregnancy,
including the responsible choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re The thoughts of a fetus
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:31:30 GMT

From article <92324.145808U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>, by <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>:
> In article <Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu>,
> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) says:
>>
>>
>>Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>>the human fetus can actually dream!
> 
> I didn't realize that this "recent study" found the telepaths necessary to
> ascertain whether a fetus dreams or not.

Don't be stupid.  She's referring to the detection of fetal brainwave
patterns consistant with the state of REM (dreaming) sleep.   And btw -
this is not "recent" news.  It's been common medical knowledge for decades.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Summary: Susan Garvin's first (?) post dealing with the forgery charge
Keywords: campus joke, little bit, lying, false accusations, empty threats
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:40:24 GMT

In the first post of this title (minus the `Take 2', of course) I was
relying on my (inaccurate, as it turns out) memory of a post by Susan
Garvin.  The attribution about which I was complaining was one to 
bard@cutter rather than one to barnejd@wkuvx1.  My apologies to all
				  ^^^  ^^^^^^
concerned, especially Mr. Woodyatt and banrnejd, whoever he is.

But the cause of my complaint still stands.  Susan Garvin did indeed 
omit a # (or> as the case may be) in front of the bard@cutter attribution, 
even though there is a ## in the text that follows, and it seems 
reasonable to conclude from the context that we are indeed seeing 
bard@...'s text, followed by Mr. Chaney's text with the single #.

Also there is a "Message-ID" line with two ## before it after the first
two ## lines, leading one to expect text by Chaney to have ### in front
of it, yet the critical line, in which Chaney is supposed to be 
confusing himself with Margolis, has #### in front of it.

[Aside: note also the "misc.test" AND NOTHING ELSE in the "Follow-up to" line.]

Can I be faulted for having suspected, at that point, that Chaney has
a plausible case against Garvin, and that Garvin "ha(s) some explaining
to do," as I put it in my follow-up, prefaced by "I think"?

Here is the post, exactly as it appears in my files:

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:41:37 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: Ball State University

In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
> 
>    You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
>    authority that grants you this right?

First I'm new here... So If I say something that is icredibly obvious, I'm 
sorry...

Second, this somehow sounds like a loaded question, however I am pleased
that you used the term Pro-Choice...

Finally on the the answer... The US Constitution implicitly acknowledges
freedom of privacy (Amendment IX).  And as for the arguement that God is
a higher power than the US Constitution:

1)  Seperation of Church and State.  In other words, God doesn't have any
	authority in the US gov't...

2)  Some of us are agnostic and atheist, or a religon where abortion is not
	"illegal".  Hell, I used to be Episcopalian and they had no opinion
	on the matter. 
  
-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: when does potential life begin?
Keywords: abortion. life.
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:56:25 GMT

In <1eav0gINN1al@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>
>> lots of talk lately about when life begins.
>> answer: when you are born. 

>I must have missed all that talk about life while my newsreader was down.  I
>saw some talk about when personhood begins - no-one knew the answer, aside
>from the legal position in the U.S., of course.

>> (or born-again, depending on who you are
>> talking to and what spectrum you are talking
>> about.)
>>
>> but now on to more philosophical, socratic
>> discussions.
>>
>> when does potential life begin?

>The Tuesday before time begins.

frank@D012S658.uucp, i never realized you
were a theologian.

>> are we so proud of our sperm that each is
>> a potential life? do millions of would-be
>> souls scream in agony as they race out of my
>> penus and discover that they are in a 
>> condom?

>I don't know.  Did a would-be soul scream in agony when it raced out of the
>void and discovered that it was in markts.721887230@mcl?

no. it cackled wildly and and rapped the
following: we know no spectacle so 
ridiculous as frank@D012S658.uucp in
on of its periodical fits of morality.

>> is every egg a potential life? is pms a 
>> mask for guilt that results from not fulfilling
>> that "life"'s potential?

>Socrates never asked such dumb questions.

oh frank@D012S658.uucp, you say the
most romantic things. ah...sigh.

>> when is a soul set aside for a life?

>The Monday before time begins.

>> or is life like an overloaded function? 
>> can it exist without a soul, but with room
>> for that variable when it needs it.

>Probably the other way around.

i suspect you're correct.

>Hope this helps.

gee frank@D012S658.uucp, i still
wonder when potential life begins.
see if we knew when it begins, we might
figure out when it ends.

but do not fear, i am sure your's will 
begin any day now. it's only 4 days
till tuesday.

mark.

if you're like frank@D012S658.uucp,
and i know frank@D012S658.uucp is...


>> mark.

>-- 
>Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
>                               when you make us free your way"
>                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 23 Nov 1992 18:08:38 CST
From: <U53846@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:  Help paper for Abortion

Hi, I am new in this group, but I really need some help for my paper for my
philosophy class.  Can someone please provide me some ideas about my topic?

Here is my topic:  Suppose you find out that you are pregnant and there is a 50
-50 chance that due to a genetic defect, your child may be psychologically
disposed to become a sociopath, do you choose to have an abortion?
Males please be little more creative :)  I really need some help on it.  Thanks
and I'm really appreciate any ideas.........

                                                 John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.discordia,alt.slack,alt.secular-rastafarianism,alt.ska-beat,alt.jah'erb,alt.canvas
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: On Completion
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Nov15.185614.17128@wetware.com>
Date: 15 Nov 1992 23:48:56 UTC

In article <1992Nov15.185614.17128@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>]    The New Tesament CANNOT be reconciled with what yourefer to as
>] the 'Old' Testament, and I refer to as the Bible.  The whole idea
>] of the New Testament was that the OT was replaced, not augmented.
>EXCUSE ME! Oh ZionistToadyOfTheEuroDisneyKonspirakii!!!!
>Its NOT a matter of 'supplanting' but of offering 'completion'
>of the text.
>Just as the Koran offers Completeness,
>as does the 'book of mormans' or 'Dianetics'
>or 'Das Kapital'.....
>The JudeaoChristianIslamicSeXularHumanistMarxistMaoistScientology Continuum
>is a means of understanding the forward 
>progression of the ManDate of Heaven!!!

I'm afraid it's much worse than that. You see, first there was The Epic
of Gilgamesh from Persia, then the Mahabharata from India, then the
Torah from Israel, then the so-called New Testament from the Greeks,
then the Qur'an from the Arabian Penisula, then the Book of Mormon from
Utah, then Dianetics followed by Diurectics (Slackers), I'm OK You're OK
and a host of other less important texts, but, now finally we have the
latest and greatest, the Book of the SubGenius, ISBN: 0-671-63810-6.
This self-"help" book for sinners, creeps, junkies, morphodites, and
wise men and guys who know they wouldn't get "help" from any book even
if they needed it in the first place. With special INSANE bonus offer,
"The Prescriptures" or Prophecy of the SubGenius.
"Yes, YOU can rape your *own* mind. YOU can finally relax in the safety
of your *own* delusions. The epipastic for the brains of Epoptics,
Beholders, and Initiates, works an authentic gnostic magician's spell
that will drive OUT the foreign personalities and id-demons. Protected
by its own occult roots in the most extreme forms of para and
mecha-psychology, it places the reader within a "shell" (C-shell by
default, others are available) of Weird Phenomena which *must* be used
for good *and* evil. Its system of Mystik Correspondences has already
given SECRET POWER to the Church of the SubGenius - the world's first
*industrial* church, the prophesied End Times cult of screamers and
laughers, scoffers, blasphemers, mockers, sinners, and the last true
holymen in America today. KEEP THIS BOOK NEAR YOU - in your pocket, your
bathroom, your glove compartment. Study it. Memorize it. Find within its
pages a NEW DIRECTION - a NEW WAY - a HIGHER yet LOWER REALITY - just as
thousands before you have done!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.213934.21788@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> So why does the Perfesser consistently misrepesent what others say?  Is it
> problems with reading comprehension, stupidity, or something worse?
> 

I say it's stupidity.

> 
> While I'm thinking about it, I cast an "AYE" ballot to include the Perfesser
> in the Net Council of Idiots.  Btw, wasn't La Forgach voted in last spring?

Hey, let's make this a real, official vote.  Y'all email your
votes to me at cbnewsj!decay and I'll post the results in two weeks.

Remember, if you don't vote for the council of net.idiots, you
deserve the representation you get.

Don't know about Suzanne.  Haven't seen the roster in a while.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:59:22 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes ...
>rf>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
>rf>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
> 
>The abortion question is a case of conflicting rights.  The right of 
>the fetus versus the right of the woman.  If you want to answer this
>conflict with legislation, the legislation would have to give the 
>right to one side at the expense of the other.  Ray asked if it was
>possible to answer this conflict by ensuring both rights.  This is
>not possible when they are conflicting rights like this.  I would 
>say there are non-legislative ways to do this.  There are ways to 
>lesson the conflict by encouraging one side or the other to give
>up some of their rights for the other.  But legislation does not 
>have the ability to do this. 

You misread my question.  Or misunderstood it.  Let me restate it.

Assume that for the moment a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at
any time is a given, wouldn't it be useful to provide some protection
for the fetus?  So that during the process of terminating a pregnancy
it isn't needlessly killed.

Presently an abortion may kill a fetus anytime without any consideration 
for the life of the fetus.  While I will concede that this may not be 
a significant problem, given the low number of late-term abortions o
presently performed, I propose that such a restriction may be useful 
more than it may be harmful.  In particular, it would establish a 
clear value to the life of the fetus, and it could provide some measure 
of peace in the debate.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion