HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:48:54 CST
 <850nlnk.ray@netcom.com> <1992Sep26.222403.3653@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep26.222403.3653@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>  
> People of good will will have to say that the unborn child is a complete
> member of homo sapiens and because of our general sense of rights and
> privileges, that unborn child must be afforded the same protections as us.

Regardless of how good your will is, the "unborn child" is absolutely
*not* complete.  Why do you think people refer to feti as "developing"?
Once you become a zygote, you still have one or maybe even TWO
structures to develop before you could be compared to a "complete"
member of Homo sapiens.
 
>    What exactly do we mean by being born?  Does being born mean that the
> unborn baby becomes separated with his/her mother, and tries to live a life
> outside the mother's womb?  

That is the generally accepted definition of birth, is it not?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40651 talk.politics.misc:49637 alt.sex:31970 alt.rush-limbaugh:6571 alt.politics.elections:15219 alt.politics.clinton:8545 alt.politics.bush:7776
From: lawt@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM (Lawrence M Trout)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:27:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com>, p00056@psilink.com (Faustus) writes:
stuff deleted...
> 
> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will experience
> doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford an unwanted child..
> Your smug all-knowing attitude turns my stomach..I WANT TO SPEW!  But I
> digress.. If you believe life is so sacred why arent you in africa aiding
> the starving? If you are such a moral "another joke word" person why are
> you so selfishly studying in school, your efforts would be of better use
> preaching to the handicapped. They are unable to run away..
> Actually.. I like to modify the offending statement..
> 
>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
> 
is it just me or is it just plain dificult to underestimate the brilliance
of this arguement. scares me to leave life and death decisions up to this
kind of reasoning. need i say more?

Larry
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Keywords: poor DOD
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:26:36 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct3.210921.19568@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## Do you criticize "pro-lifers" publicly, DOD?  You haven't,
## for example, criticized Chaney for making some rather 
## personal and insulting comments about people on t.a.  You
## have publicly criticized Patrick for his comments.  Should we
## all assume that you approve of Chaney's actions?
#
#Susan, I think you meant to use the word `condone' rather than
#`approve of' in last sentence of the paragraph above.

Nah, I meant to use 'approve of', but 'condone' makes much
more sense.  I doubt that DOD will answer the question
in either form, though.

Thanks.

Susan
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:31:02 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
> Do we show people pictures of murdered adults to convince them
> that murder is wrong?  It seems that if you need that kind of
> thing to make your point, your point must not have been very 
> strong to begin with.

That's an interesting statement. Maybe if murderers were forced to
really see the suffering they were causing, about to cause, or
previously caused, we would have fewer repeat murders.

Interesting.

I prefer to think of the abortion films this way. Some people
(not all or most) think that the child isn't even a living being.
Showing them something like this shows them their wrong. 

Some people think abortion is a painless procedure. Showing them
something like this shows it's not a painless procedure. And it
is not a painless procedure for the mother either.

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:09:25 GMT

In article <cenDLBS00YV_Q7mFYk@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

    In talk.abortion, eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Elizabeth Cornelia Green) writes:
   >Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?

   >Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
   >1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
   >judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
   >the deaths of millions?!

   I only got to see the first fifteen minutes of her speach, because of my
   job on Friday night, but she is great speaker.  I would recommend seeing
   her if you get the chance.

Michael, on your way out, did you happen to see the question that the
Association For Life/College Republicans had drafted to ask her?  It
concerned the reported rape of Jane Roe, and the fact that it was not
true, but had led to the "death of 30,000 babies".  They didn't get a
chance to ask it. When Sarah Weddington began her talk, she spoke
about meeting Jane Roe and being asked whether she could get an
abortion if she had been raped.  Weddington told her that it didn't
matter, and the rape was never mentioned it in any legal argument.  At
the time Jane Roe gave an interview to a magazine where she mentioned
the rape, and later recanted (in 1989).  Weddington was not present at
the interview, and did not know whether the story was true or not, but
suspected that it wasn't.  Also, as her attorney, she was bound by
attorney-client privilege and could not comment on the rape story
anyway. 

I guess it never ceases to amaze me that anti-choicers think that they
know the one thing that no one has ever thought of before and it will
convince everyone to be "pro-life".  Is it really possible that the
AFL crowd is stupid enough to believe that Weddington had never been
asked this before?  Another example of this tendency happened today in
front of the clinics.  We had several new antis (straight from Ohio),
and one decided to talk to us.  He did not understand how society
benefitted from allowing women to think for themselves, had a divine
power to know which women walking down the sidewalk were going for
abortions (and not to the gym, hair salon, or other businesses in the
same building as the clinic), and kept comparing women to deer and
telling us how we would be all upset if they were ripping fetuses from
deer.  Although I never thought of women as herd animals before, it
did not convince me that "he was right" and "I was wrong".

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I see a divine hand in this AIDS thing." Dr. John Wilke, President
                                          National Right to Life Committee
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Export Control
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:44:51 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
] 
] Stipulation:  Exporting the proposition `abortion is murder' into law
] means accepting the idea that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are all
] within the class of human creatures the law deems to be persons.
] Also, it must be shown that the criteria for establishing when unborn
] persons may be deprived of their right to life when they were
] conceived as a result of rape or incest, or when their mothers' lives
] are in grave physical danger resulting from pregnancy.

Minor Technical Problem here James -

As has been pointed out, the proposition 'abortion is murder'
can be exported into law without having to have anything
like reasoning, or a firm grounding, or consistency.

IT DOES NOT require ANY REASONING.

In fact that is why I originally made the assertion that
it should NOT be exported into law until such times as
the fundamental problems with the notion were resolved.


ciao
drieux

ps: need we address the fact that the Fed's Exported into
Law the SeXular Humanist, and Antibiblical Notion, about
Slavery....


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39741 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4796 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6146
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 10:09:43 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> In article <813LRB1w165w@monsoon.com> sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:
> 
> >To badly translate Aristotle: "To defeat your enemy, you have to know him".
> 
>  How do you know they are your enemy, if you admit you dont know them ?
>  You just admitted bias. What a lovely site.

If someone constantly attacks my values, I know that person is
my enemy. Simple, nicht whar?

> 
>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:18:59 GMT

note followup

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>>  Abortion is not a crime.
>	Unfortunately

>>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>	Murder is more than just a legal term. If you kill my dog, I
>have every right to call it murder -- even though that term might not apply
>in a "legal" sense.

I have every right to call you a bigotted self-righteous pinhead,
doesn't make me any more right, though.   :-)

Try looking in the dictionary.

>>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>	It will - someday - some glorious day when all human beings
>learn to respect each other's right to live.

Hypocrite.

>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>	What a convenient definition - but one that you pulled out of
>your butt.

Looks to be pretty close to the dictionary definition.  Consider this
from The American Heritage Dictionary.
murder:  The unlawful killing of one human being by another.

Since anyone who has not been born is not legally a person, abortion
is clearly not murder, and murder cannot not involve anyone who has
not yet been born.

Just because you like to make up your own definitions doesn't mean
anyone else does.

>>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>	Ok - I have to agree with you there.

The word is "born", _not_ "borned."  Where _did_ you people go to
school?

>>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
>	But not there. Please take out your Webster's unabridged
>dictionary. Good. Now write out the full definition of child there
>for me. Here - in case you don't have one:
[...]
>Now, look closely at definition 1a. See the second word? u-n-b-o-r-n. 
>Good. Try to think before you post next time. This is about the 10th time
>I have had to post this definition for IDIOTIC FUCKHEADS WHO LIKE TO 
>LIE ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD CHILD.

As opposed to "IDIOTIC FUCKHEADS WHO LIKE TO LIE ABOUT THE DEFINITION
OF THE WORD" MURDER?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39753 soc.men:17189 alt.abortion.inequity:4173
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Date: 1 Oct 1992 07:28:10 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep30.214655.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1a9smmINN59v@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> MAYBE you shouldn't make such statements, Will.
>> MAYBE you shouldn't even think things like that, Will.
>> MAYBE you should come to the realization that women are separate individuals
>> from you and actually do have thoughts, feelings, and wills of their own.
>> And are not answerable to *you*.
>For the sake of someone coming in late, what did Will say, and under what
>circumstances?


[]And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say
[]that in my own situation, if the woman had *not* been so
[]respecting as to tell me before, but in fact had not only told
[]me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!) or more, I
[]probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
[]stood.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Keywords: Poor DOD
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:34:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.222805.6815@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <6748@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

## Do you criticize "pro-lifers" publicly, DOD?  You haven't,
## for example, criticized Chaney for making some rather 
## personal and insulting comments about people on t.a.  You
## have publicly criticized Patrick for his comments.  Should we
## all assume that you approve of Chaney's actions?
#
#Do you criticize "pro-choicers" publicly? You haven't,
#for example, criticized Humphrey for making some rather
#personal and insulting comments about people on t.a. You
#have publicly criticized Mr. Chaney for his comments.
#Should we all assume that you approve of Humphrey's
#use of term "fat black ass"? 

(I posted elsewhere earlier that DOD wouldn't answer the
question.  I was right.)

Patrick made one comment that could be construed as racist.
He apologized to the general readership for it.  I saw no
need to comment.

Chaney/Hall, on the other hand, repeatedly and purposefully 
offends.  He apologizes for nothing.  

I don't know why you're afraid to admit that you approve
of (or condone) Chaney/Hall's statements.  Do you suppose
that you're fooling anyone?

Susan,
who has made a small bet with herself as to just which
sentences DOD will delete in his reply
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:35:12 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  <1992Sep29.185523.11008@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <c1#pq-c.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
> Kendig) writes:
>
> I have considered that myl...(however you spell it)

Myelination.

> I would like to ask you a question:
>
> Would your point occur at the exact same moment (relative to conception)
> for every human?

Of what relevance is that?  You can't even pinpoint when conception
occurrs.

> > We keep asking you questions about what you've said.  You dismiss our
> > questions with curt, unhelpful answers.
>
> Whenever I make a curt, unhelpful answer, please point it out.  I will
> always make the attempt to explain it more fully.
>
> > We keep saying your definitions are useless, unclear, and not
> > understandable.  You disagree, and then ignore our complaints.
>
> I have stated why I don't believe your complaints are valid.  I have
> explained them
> very clearly.  If you still don't understand them, I am willing to try
> again and again
> until you do understand them.

No matter how many times you explain, your definitions will remain
useless, unclear, and not understandable.  The *only* thing that
will make them otherwise is using the standard definitions for words.
It's the *fact* that you're making up strange definitions for real words
that makes your use of them useless, unclear, and not understandable.

> I have never ignored complaints.

You have been ignoring the basis of the complaints.

> I'll try using different words please point out the ones you feel I am not
> explaining clearly.

Interference.  Which definition are you using?
   interference (n)
   DEFINITIONS:
   1a  the act or process of interfering
   1b  something that interferes : OBSTRUCTION
   2   the mutual effect on meeting of two beams
       of light or of two series of pulsations
       of sound or of two waves or vibrations
       whereby the resulting neutralization at
       some points and reinforcement at others
       produces alternations
   3   the act of hampering or blocking an
       opponent in football
   4a  confusion of received radio signals due
       to strays or undesired signals
   4b  something that produces such confusion
   interferential (aj)
   (c) G. & C. Merriam

Select one of: 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4a, 4b.  If none of these apply, then use
a different word.  If no existing word applies, use a phrase.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:07:42 GMT

In article <c8!pdw_.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> 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.

Why are pigs not persons?  Please explain...I would be interested...and
yes, I am serious - I would really like an answer.

In any case, the reason why a human is a person is because that human
was conceived.

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

Would you like me to do some library research and give you reference
articles on this topic?  I unfortunatly do not have them in front of me,
but I can
get them.

> >>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.

Why is a rock not a person?  Please explain.

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

I know my definition of personhood isn't complete...but I do know that
humans are persons (at least adult ones are)...the question is when do they
become
persons.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: no santa claus!!!!!! (Re: the fundamental question of abortion ... NOT!)
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:20:40 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

the hallchaney thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> [...] is like attacking Santa Claus - it don't
-> exist.

maybe he is older than dan king thinks; he knows about
santa claus.

i think someone should tell him about shaving.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 23:39:57 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct2.185339.28770@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct02.052949.12333@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >
> >Well, sure.  So does masturbation, ovulation, and surgery.  So?
>
> You are still into the sperm/egg are humans

I *never* made such a ridiculous claim.  They're human (adjective), and
so can be called "human life" in any sense that a fertilized egg can be,
but they are certainly not human (noun), which means a person.  But neither
is that fertilized egg.

> You don't have to bother responding either.

I do when you misrepresent my position.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:40:40 GMT

Sunil Gupta (sg@monsoon.com) wrote:
: 
: If someone constantly attacks my values, I know that person is
: my enemy. Simple, nicht whar?

Nein, es ist nicht.

If my mother were to constantly attack my values, would she be
my enemy ?  No!  Only seeing my best interests differently 
to the way I do.

	Ben
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:23:02 GMT

From article <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
> 
> Gordon, Professional Atheist


So what are they paying you?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: The Solution To The Abortion Debate!
Summary: You would think some people would learn... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 12:17:00 GMT

In article <Oct05.212132.72636@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>
>	THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.  YOU MUST SET SOME UNIVERSAL POINT FOR
>PERSONHOOD SOMEWHERE OR I CAN CHOOSE TO DEFINE YOU AS A NON-PERSON AND KILL YOU.
>	Understand?

Certainly.  Birth works wonderfully here.  It's obvious, it's usually messy,
tends to be very noisy, and a lot of people generally know it's happened.

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=