HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 05:57:33 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  <1992Oct4.171751.1089@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <nyikos.717888109@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> >In <1992Sep27.205914.6734@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
> >
> >>In article <p90nwq+.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
> >>Kendig) writes:
> >>Eric writes:
> >>> Brian writes:
> >>> Eric writes:
> >>> >Brian writes:
> >>> >>Eric writes:
> >
> >>> >> Ah, okay, then.  So you're saying that if a fertilized egg divides
> >>> >> into three individual developing humans, then only one of them is a
> >>> >> 'person'.  After all, there was only one 'person' to start with, and
> >>> >> since there was only one conception between one egg and one sperm,
> >>> >> there was never the opportunity to bring more 'people' into the
> >>> >> situation.
> >>> >
> >>> >No.  You would have three persons...but unless and until it splits, you
> >>> >only have one.
> >>>
> >>> Huh?  Okay, so where do the other two 'persons' come from?
> >
> >>They came as a result of the split.
> >
> >This borders on inconsistency, which is why I place the beginning of
>
> How does it boarder in inconsistency?  I don't understand...

(I don't understand how you could use the wrong border, when it's
included in the sentence before, but anyway...)

First you claimed that personhood begins when the egg is fertilized,
now you're saying that two additional persons are somehow created *after*
conception.

> >Well, you are leaving out at least one possibility, which is that
> >(in at least many cases) personhood comes after it splits and not
> >immediately after, nor before.
>
> But this doesn't make any sense....what happens if it never splits?

If I can rephrase it for Peter:
   Personhood comes after the point in time at which it would split
   if it were going to split.  Personhood is not dependant on whether
   or not such a split actually takes place.

> What I am saying is that it should be possible to determine if it
> will split.  And if it will, then you have two persons involved.
> If it won't, you only have one...

*How* should it be possible to determine this?  Is this one of those
miracle machines that they're going to develop in the next century?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:37:36 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  <5672@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> :eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> :|lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> :|=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) wrote:
> :|=> From enumeration of Bill Clinton's "taxes":
> :|=> "1987
> :|=> 48. Act 144 authorized the levying of an annual license fee of $500 for
> :|=> each abortion clinic."
> :|=> Raises a few eyebrows, huh?
> :|=Not especially.  Did you have a point here?
> ;
> Well somehow having the government "profit" from abortions, and the
> argument that abortion should be kept available for the poor women to
> have abortions while the costs of the procedure rise due to some
> artificial means, such as an increase in licensing fees, by the
> government.

How much do you suppose that $500 *per year* is going to raise the
cost of the average abortion?

> :|Having the government somehow profit from the exploitation
> :|of women and "murder" of babies doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
> :
> :How does an abortion exploit a woman who freely chooses to obtain it?
> :
> :And what babies are there that are being murdered?  This is
> :horrible!  And against the law!  What are their names?  You
> :really ought to report it.  Of course, it has nothing to do
> :with abortion.
>
> The point of my post wasn't that abortion exploits women

Then you shouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim.

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:02:55 GMT

In article <nyikos.717634967@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> I'd like a source that is not so obviously biased as this woman who
> has been the target of several lawsuits, including one where she
> allegedly had a woman held down and performed an abortion on her 
> against her will.

Isn't that sooo convenient?  Last I looked, every time you
posted about one of these lawsuits we discovered they were
just harassment or the case had been thrown out.  Remember the
one you posted about the woman who claimed they never informed
her of cancer, where the court found that the clinic had
tried for months to inform the woman that she had it?

If I were to start talking about biased sources, the one
I would start with would be you, dear Peter.

Tell me, dear Peter, have you posted anything with John
Wilke as the source?  But of course, he's totally unbiased.

> BTW does anyone know of the present status of THIS lawsuit?  My sources
> are over a year old, and at that time it was still pending.

I'm surprised you even care.

Dean Kaflowitz

PS You never answered my posting when you were saying you would
allow abortion up to five weeks but not after.  I asked you
what the difference was between five weeks and ten, and what
you define as "consciousness."

There were a few other questions, but I forget which they were.
These would do for a start.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.computers
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is this an Emacs joke, or what????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:38:23 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

] In <1992Sep29.124225.7661@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
]    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
] 
] > At least none of the Herd have called me a fool yet.
] 
] Just pray that none of the fools ever call you a herd... 
] 
] Bill


Well someone had to ask....

caio
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:35:29 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>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.

Yeah, right.  And how about when the choice is between _your_ convenience
and the lives of people dying in the streets or starving in Africa?

Or is that "different?"  It's always easy to impose unrealistic expectations
on someone else, isn't it?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.peeves,soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Another Answer from Miss Drieux
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:56:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.210455.27912@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Women should NOT engage in DickSizeWars,
>it is NOT Lady Like at all.
>
>They can, however, engage in JaneSizeWars,
>but the criterion for these are completely different.

Yeah, well, my girlfriend's Jane is bigger than yours' is.
--scott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:46:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.115540.3572@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep20.221052.27531@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep18.122144.20665@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >I was thinking last night, as I drove past Monmouth Race Track,
>> >about racism and anti-Semitism.  I was thinking of my own
>> >dual cultural identity.  I grew up in a city with a large
>> >black and Hispanic population, and my grammar school was
>> >mainly filled with black and Hispanic children.  The house in
>> >which I was raised was very Jewish in identity and culture.
>> >Well, very American-Jewish, with plenty of Yiddisch spoken by
>> >my parents and grandparents.  At an early age I knew that black
>> >people could spot racism pretty quickly, and that one need not
>> >say "nigger" for a black person to realize he was being called
>> >one.  But then, I also learned at an early age that one need
>> >not say "kike" for me to know when I am being called one.  The
>> >smell of anti-Semitism and racial hatred are easily detectable
>> >to the experienced.  I don't need to prove someone is a bigot
>> >to the degree someone is required in a court of law to prove
>> >a contention.  I know it when I smell it, and I don't really
>> >care if I have proven it to anyone else's satisfaction.
>> >
>> >Because I know it when I smell it.
>> 
>> So, just kiss reason and benefit of the doubt and due process and civility 
>> aside, and just go by your "nose", huh, Dean?
>
>Usual blather from you, Kebbie.  When you are Jewish or black,
>you come tell me about reason and benefit of the doubt.  

Am I supposed to apologize for being a White Anglo-Saxon Male, is that it,
Dean? Must I be on the Approved List of Oppressed Minorities in order to
debunk your "I know it when I smell it" bluster?

"Assuage your hidden guilts", indeed... Just what do you think I'm guilty of?
Look up Persecution Complex, Dean.

								- Kevin
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:31:55 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep26.000859.7012@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):

>The way a hyatidiform mole begins is as a _normal_ fetus.  The "mole"
>itself is a disease which transforms the normal fetus, bit by bit,
>into a massive clump of cysts.   Most fetal victims of a mole
>pregnancy die and are miscarried within 4 months, but a few have
>been born live with only partial damage and survived.

Suzanne, give me one citation for a molar pregnancy that survived and
became a person. Most of them are NOT 'miscarried' - they are usually
surgically removed because they release chemicals that cause eclampsia.

>
>> It may implant in the tube or at
>> the point where the tube connects to the ovary or the uterus; it may
>> even implant way out in the abdominal boonies. 

>You are merely describing ectopic pregnancy here.

Yes, Suzanne, ectopic pregancy is not the same as a hyatidiform mole. 
Did they forget to teach you to read, as well as do mathematical proofs
in parochial school? (I'm waiting for you to try to impress us all with
your intellect by proving a circle has two sides again...)



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.rape
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: New Names for things...
X-To: DRIEUX, JUST DRIEUX
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:55:00 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
DJD> ] In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (J
DJD> tevens) writes:
DJD> ] # The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman
DJD> ] # have babies without the kindness of a man.
DJD> ]
DJD> ] You didn't really mean to write this, did you?

DJD> first they wanted to be merely citizens with
DJD> full legal rights, now they wish to chip away
DJD> at Male Perogatives....

Actually, Drieux, I don't think that John meant this.  I believe that he was
rather obliquely attacking the attitude of some less moderate feminists, who
believe that "It is women who create life," as though men do not share, or
more to the point, should not even have a *right* to share in the experience
of parenthood.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * GOiD is a state of mind.
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Recommended reading
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:19:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

In article <29SEP92.20404326@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> There is an excellent article about the pro-life movement in the October  
> 1992 issue of Cosmopolitan magazine (starts on page 224).  It was  
> written by Leslie Brenner, and called "Pro-lifers:  Who are they, and 
> what are they after".

You know, while I don't, a lot of people will have a problem
with _Cosmo_ being used as a source. :)
 
> A Randall Terry quote: "I was conceived out of wedlock.  I could have 
> been aborted.  I hope and think that my parents wouldn't have, but I'm  
> just real glad they didn't even have the choice."  

Frightening, absolutely frightening. I have enough of a problem 
with the fact that my delivery severely injured and nearly killed
my mother. I owe her something for choosing to make such a sacrifice. 
The idea that someone could have forced her to make it for me (and
hell, what had I done for her? Really?) would have turned me inside 
out. I'm glad women have a choice, and I say that not as a potential  
mother, but as a daughter, or shall I say a former fetus.

>                             .... Heather.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:58:35 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?
>
>You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of 
>trespassing, battery, and various crimes.  Give 'em a break!  They
>are defenseless and need our attention!  They don't deserve to die.  They
>deserve to live.  Why do we have to be the big bullies to such precious
>fragile beings who may easily be our very own sons and daughters?  

Please spare us the noble-sounding lies.  You are obviously _not_
speaking of "we" or "us" protecting "unborn children".  You are
speaking of women.  YOU have nothing to directly gain or lose by
forcing women to give birth.  YOU don't face ANY risk of injury or
death or pain in forcing women to give birth.  If you're going to
argue against abortion, at least be honest about what your level of
interest is.

>We know we are capable of killing other humans.  The question is, do we do 
>so?

Most people who do so are certain that they are justified in doing so.
Do you feel certain that you are justified in risking the lives and
health of women?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Where did Larry come from? (Was Re: Eggs and sperm being human life)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:36:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.200815.7348@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct6.073821.2417@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct06.045138.146072@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
>
>You mean where you redefined the term you're abusing:

I have always held to my definition.  The problem was communication.
>> When I say human life, I mean that which is a member of homo sapiens.
>
>
>Since you're not doing too well at the language lessons, why don't we cut
>to the chase.  Do you see any difference between a zygote and a (born)
>person?  I do - I see a *big* difference.  You might not see any *moral*
>difference, but many of us do.  To me, a fertilized egg has as little
>value as the sperm and egg that joined to make it.  IT'S ONE FRIGGING CELL!!!
>It *might* become a person, but then again it might not.  If it's aborted,
>it will not.  (And let's avoid any silly arguments about single-cell
>"people"; I'm talking about what is *normally* considered to be a person -
>i.e., a born, alive, human being.)

Larry, where did you come from?  You must have come from somewhere.  When
did you begin to exist as a human?  As a sperm?  As an egg?  Well that's
an old debate, but of course not.  Do you start existing as a human at
four months?  Twelve weeks?  One month after birth?  Exactly at birth?
Did you suddenly become a human from a lump of human tissue?   

Of course you would say you began your existence as a human at conception.
Now I know you try to make a distinction between persons and other forms of
human life but why are we for the killing of human life (or at least the
option of killing human life) at any form in the first place?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:44:15 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Official Virus) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Dr. Science) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee again) writes:

>>>> Did you know that using the saline method these days
>>>> includes the risk of a malpractice suit? (Thanks, Russ Anderson!)

>>> How high of a risk?  ANY abortion carries SOME risk of a malpractice
>>> suit.

>> Any medical procedure carries some risk of a malpractice suit.  The 
>> saline solution carries a much higher risk because there are much
>> safer methods available.

> Yeah, and the last time a woman was able to sue over the damages of this
> was probably before the pro-aborts got around to legislating AGAINST
> recordkeeping by abortion clinics.

Heh.  There are ads in the paper, Mr. Virus, promoting lawyers who will
take on cases of alleged malpractice against abortion providers.  The
majority of them are nuisance suits brought to court purely to harass
medical professionals who perform abortions.  Most of them result in
findings for the defendant.  Occasionally, a doctor is scared into
settling.  Imo, these lawyers come perilously close to chanticleering (sp?),
a gross violation of legal ethics.

>>>> To turn it around, what if our edifice of human destiny depended on 
>>>> the slow, painful death of only one teenage girl from septic abortion?

>>> There is strong evidence that the cause of Becky Bell's death was
>>> pneumonia, and that the abortion was spontaneous, not induced.

>> 'Strong evidence' presented by someone who was in no position to
>> determine first-hand the cause of death.

> Versus NON-EVIDENCE from the folks who said she died of an illegal
> abortion.  The last time anyone asked if they had an autopsy which
> showed damage in any part of the reproductive system, these witch
> doctors had nothing. ZILCH.

Where's your evidence, Mr. Virus?

>>>> I.e., Becky Bell?  Remember, I don't even say "one in a million,"
>>>> I say "only one."

>>> And more than one woman dies NEEDLESSLY each year from LEGAL abortion.

>> And more than one woman dies needlessly each year from childbirth.

> Why is it that your people tried to COVER UP the abortion deaths? Like that
> clinic in Maryland that the Maryland pro-abortion committees said, on CBS,
> that they tried to cover up?
> Or the clinics in Texas who were injuring and killing women, and who called
> anyone who tried to regulate them, "anti-choice"?
> You people are known for hiding abortion deaths religiously.
> All so that no one could ever dispel the myth that abortions are utterly
> safe, or nearly utterly safe. (Or even in the ballpark, for that matter.)

Are you ever going to present evidence for any of your ravings, Mr. Virus?
You're building up quite a backlog, you know.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
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.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 14:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.184012.28300@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>We hold these truths to be self evident...  right to life, liberty, and
>the pursuit of happiness.

Come on, come on, can't you even quote right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all *MEN* are created equal...

Or doesn't the fact that the DOI only talks about men, and not women and
fetuses not fit in with your pro-lie stance?

And the DOI has no legal bearing, thank Dean.

--
=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=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion