HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:23:21 GMT

> = Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>"Life" doesn't "begin", it continues and permutes.
>>Your question is ill-posed.

>Life ends, though. Doesn't that imply a beginning as well?

No.  
Something that is alive can die.  
Do you know of anything that is dead that can become alive?
(except in a StarTrek-type scenario or perhaps a god-related miracle)
EG: family trees can end, but they don't begin out of non-living matter.
Note: I'm assuming you don't want to talk about the beginning 
of all life on earth, many moons ago.

---------------
> Or is this just another semantic argument?

Presumably this is about more than semantics, but if you want to start 
a meaningful discussion, a more careful use of semantics will be required.
That you asked this common ill-posed question in the first place suggests
you don't know the confusion and/or nonsense that typically ensues.
Perhaps you're musing about "personhood"?  Or some fundamental change 
in the nature of some human life?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:12:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.012307.19435@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) :
>>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>>the natural differences between them.
>
>What "natural" difference exists between a man and a woman that would
>qualify one for popehood and one not?

How silly you are!  Don't you know that Catholic doctrine says that
priests (and the pope) must be physically like Jesus?  That's why
priests have to be circumcised, bearded men of Jewish descent!  Geez,
don't you know _anything_?

--Rich
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: The Instrumentality.
	<1993Jan25.152756.9283@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
	<1993Jan25.202516.3377@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:08:46 GMT

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:25:16 GMT, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:

>In article <1993Jan25.152756.9283@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> The only attribute that the Holocaust and abortion share is that the 
>> numbers are real big.

>And that some people think those real big numbers are 'no big deal'.

Come on, Rev -- why are you too chicken to come out and say it?  You're trying
to imply that Chris is one of those people, too, so why not just say so?
I mean, you didn't pluck that one line out of his paragraph at random...

--PLH, must be a slow Monday for DODie...
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:02:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.174606.22838@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (craig sivils) writes:
>>Tit for Tat,

>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>private or public of their choice.

>Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
>dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
>PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.

Well, you aren't spending YOUR tax money on PRIVATE schools.  See, I can
capitalize WORDS in the middle OF sentences TOO.  We're spending public
money on education for students.  That they go to private schools is
irrelevant, since you're paying for the education, not the school.  Or
do you complain about those Pell grants to students attending private
universities?

>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
>should pay for religious instruction...

Now this, I'm a little less happy about...

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:07:00 GMT

In <PATRICK.93Jan18215740@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>On 18 Jan 93 23:25:48 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>>In <PATRICK.93Jan14191854@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>>>On 11 Jan 93 17:19:23 GMT, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:

>>>>In <1993Jan9.032032.14586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>>Real "sinverguenza", right?  Funny how a certain math teacher at The USC who
>>>whines so much about me posting someone else's mail doesn't see anything
>>>wrong with doing it to someone else himself -- the same day, no less.  At
>>>least I'm capable of feeling shame.  I don't think you have that ability, if
>>>your actions in that one incident are any indication.

>>I have already addressed this in a response to Kaflowitz.  What I did was
>>trivial compared to what you did, and the original posting of Adrienne's
>>words, "You are wrong." occurred a long time ago, and she did not object
>>to it then, so I saw no reason to hold myself back from re-posting it.

>Big bleeding deal.  You piss and moan at me for doing something that you
>did, too -- and no amount of backpedaling will change that.  There are too
>many witnesses.  Thanks, though, for giving us yet another example of your
>S.O.P.  Maybe someday even you can figure out what "hypocrite" means, eh?

hypocrite, n.

[From _The Patrick Humphrey Dictionary_]

1. Peter "Joe Isuzu" Nyikos, straining out a camel and swallowing a gnat.

2. PLH, straining out a gnat and swallowing a herd of camels.

[From _The Adrienne Regard Dictionary_]

1. "Pathetic Worm" Nyikos, ignoring the splinter in his eye while calling
for "Lady" Regard to remove the log from her eye.

2.  Adrienne Regard, ignoring the giant Sequoia in her eye while calling
for PHoney to remove the splinter from his.

{Reference: The Gospel according to Matthew.}

>>>>Ditto for the "boy", "fat black ass", "What you get, you won't expect,"
>>>>and his threat to sic the RUPD on you if you come to collect your apology.

>>>But it's all right for him to call me a Klansman repeatedly?  It looks like
>>>it depends on whose ox is getting gored -- and you're just whining your
>>>little head off because *your* "friend" is on the short end, as usual.

>>Take this up with Beth Bartley, who started the "KKKaldis Alert" thread.
>>Seems she is attuned to the difference between exaggeration for 
>>effect, and accusations.

>Idiot.  Tire Iron T*d has had that little appellation since long before you
>decided to play morality cop.  

See above definitions.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:53:23 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1993Jan15.082321.13848@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

[most of the post deleted, as you are reading it elsewhere]

>No text citation, but as a continuation of the idea that experiencial
>data is as much a part of cognition as physical development of the
>brian, consider this.
>During the 70's (I'll try to find the citation, if it seems relevant)
>there were several cases of child abuse in which the children had been
>kept locked up, with little or no outside stimulation, for years.
>From a cognitive standpoint, these children were nothing more then
>animals. One case which I remember was of a girl who had spent the
>first 10 or 12 years of her life in such a state. I don't think there
>was ever any progress in her mental condition. Others, found when they
>were considerably younger, eventually developed into 'normal'
>children.
>These cases may show one of two things.
>Either cognition cannot develop properly without both physical and
>experiential growth, or that sensory depiravation can induce a mental
>imbalance which completely masks any developing cognition.
>Opinions?

I may have heard about those indirectly.  One theory I heard as to why the
older child wasn't able to develop further is that learning ability (language
especially) drops sharply at puberty.  If you are exposed to a language before
puberty, it is easy (natural) to pick it up.  If you try to learn it later
it will be much harder.  It may be because the brain is less flexible after
that point so that more advanced learning can occur, and the basic language
skills will never be lost.  (or something like that)  As to whether myelin
has any part in that, I haven't a clue.

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

-Rob
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: O.R. Hateful? You Make the Call...
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:34:52 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

Re: recent discussions on whether or not O.R. is a violent and hateful
organization, here's a lead story from the most recent Buffalo United
for Choice newsletter (BTW, O.R. can pretty much take responsibility for
the founding of B.U.C., if they so wish):

Reprinted without permission:

     BUC CONDEMNS ROBERT SCHENCK'S INVASION OF TAEFI'S HOSPITAL ROOM

     Anti-choice agitator Rev. Robert Schenck has been trying for years
to make life hell for Dr. Parviz Taefi, an obstetrician who has been the
target of repeated "pro-life" picketing of both his home and office.
     Last month, Schenck took his crusade into the intensive care ward
in which Taefi was recuperating from open-heart surgery.
     Schenck barged into Taefi's hospital room 10 hours after the doctor
emerged form surgery and before he had been able to see any of his
family.  Taefi's wife, Barb, said Schenck entered the room without
permission from her husband or anyone in their family.
     Buffalo General Hospital staff members allowed Schenck access to
Taefi's recovery room because he was wearing a cleric's collar.  The
hospital's director of pastoral care, a Roman Catholic priest, has
written to Schenck protesting his abuse of the courtesy staffers extend
to spiritual leaders.
 [Info about Schenck's antics during the Spring of Lies deleted].

       Just thought you might like to know.

                                                                 mp
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:54:14 GMT

hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:

>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times, 
>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal 
>and safe, but rare.  

This is the desire of virtually every pro-choice person.

>I wonder what he meant by rare.  Does he realize that currently one of 
>every three pregnancies are terminated by abortion?  Does he realize 
>that over 4000 babies are aborted per day on the average in the US?

I find it difficult to imagine that _President_ Clinton would be
unaware of this.

>I know of no one who thinks that the repealing of the bans on 
>22-Jan-93 will result in fewer abortions.  How can Clinton say that he 
>thinks aboritons should be rare when his actions will make abortions 
>more common?

Quite the contrary.  To those of us who are capable of seeing more
than a single action at a time, it's quite clear that with the
selection of Donna Shalala, many policies will be put into effect
that should do quite a bit to lower the rate of abortion.  President
Clinton is a strong advocate of family planning, like George "Didn't
I used to be a big contributor to Planned Parenthood before Ronnie
whistled?" Bush was not so long ago.  The focus of the Clinton
administration's family planning policies will be the _prevention_
of unwanted pregnancies, unlike the previous repressive regimes whose
policies on family planning consisted of a big, cheery "Just say no!"

You should get out more.

>Sue Hasselbring

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Something for Everyone, Something for No One: Report from Washington
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:19:24 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- pro-whatever) writes:

[BIG post about O.R. rescues and other protests deleted] 


>I would very much like to share my tape with people on t.a, on both sides
>of this debate.  Email me if you're interested.  I am especially interested
>in Suzanne Forgach and Peter Nyikos seeing it, and commenting on the
>Christian nature of the "witnesses."

For what it's worth, though I am vehemently pro-life, it is my belief 
that these very vocal protests by religious groups are counter-productive.
I don't think that we can convince anybody abortion is wrong by 
hurling religious reasoning at them, and we ESPECIALLY cannot convince
anybody that abortion should be illegal in this manner.

In their defense, you have to understand they are trying to save lives,
and it is easy to get overwrought and emotional in the face of this
slaughter of babies.  


>--
>     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>   |   |      |  \    /        
>   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
>|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

>But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.




Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:45:33 GMT

Rather hypocritical of them, I agree.  In all honesty, I find more interesting
things oabout the extreme pro-life crowd, or whatever they're called here, from
you guys and gals than I do from anywhere else.  I'm glad my stance, dare I 
admit that I am against abortion, isn't determined by who has the nicest people
on the extreme fringes.  (Let me guess the responses to this.  1)these aren't 
the fringe groups, they are the mainstream or 2)OH, so you'd support Hitler 
against the Jews if he acted nicecer?!) Seriously, argue about what they stand
for, like the quote from the pamphlet given, and don't attack the person.  
It's the best way to try, or at least act like we want to, resolve anything.g.

P.S. Anyone hear anything about a group of pro-life and pro-choice (tried to 
give them both the most positive names) people getting together to work for 
children's rights?  If so, please send info.  Thanks!

MAC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:59 GMT

From article <C0ytpq.3CG@world.std.com>, by rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker):
> 
> Excuse me? I don't know what color this little Mexican girl was. How do
> you know?  Besides which, the issue is not color (it never has been) it is
> cultural attainment.  Ever since Spain polluted and destroyed
> Aztek/Mayan/Toltec culture, the folks of meso-America have made two
> outstanding contributions to world culture, salsa and bad health.
> 
> I want to hear what you will say when the "camp of the saints" decide to
> migrate northword over a 2000 mile unfortified border and inflict their
> disgusting reproductive habits on the rest of us.  If that little girl is
> any indication, our soon to be new visitors will breed 10 generations a
> century and you and I will have to pay for it.
> 
> Frankly I am not in favor of involuntary anything (including
> sterilization), niether am I in favor of being taxed to support these
> discultured primitives.  Let'em starve, a *give* away sterilizations for free.
> 
> Down with the welfare state. Let the fit survive.
> 
> Bob Kolker
> 
> "Give a hungry man a fish -- you feed him for a day,
> Let him starve -- you can forget him for life" -- Not from Scripture
> P.S. The newspaper article said the little boy was fine. That means he may
> live long enough to come north and burden us both.


God!  Are you messed up!   You can't be living a happy life.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:14:23 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
->> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes...
->>>i see darcy has come up with yet another proposal to
->>>use financial pressure to coerce women to abort.
->>
->>Well, Mr. Darcy, it appears you can't win, can you?  Some of us say your
->>proposal would encourage unwanted pregnancies and shotgun marriages.  Mr.
->>Keegan says it would promote abortion.  Ah, the fun of being under attack from
->>all sides! :-)

->Nah... I think my biggest fan just neglected to READ the proposal before he
->started flaming me publically for it...

don't be so modest, kebbin. you've been a well-known
pro-forcer for years. personally, i don't think you so
much care what you can force people do do; just that
you can force them to do something. that's one of the
reasons you've been referred to as a control freak.
From: rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 28 Jan 93 13:47:32 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech CERL/EE, Atlanta, Ga

In article <nyikos.728166887@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <C1I2qp.8Dv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>If you are asking at what point I think the individual life becomes what
>I would call a person deserving *some* legal protection, my answer is
>at sentience.

sentent - having the faculty to sense perception, experiencing
          sensation or feeling.

How can we use this "sentience" as a judge of whether an unborn is
a valid person and not use it on those in a coma?  Those in a coma
are pretty out of it and their responses are rather limited.

>>I don't think something that isn't sentient is much of a "person".  I don't
>>think a single cell can realistically be considered sentient, whether or not
>>it "has a soul".  Doesn't a "person" have a "personality"?  Does anyone ever
>>say that a single cell has a "personality"?  (ignoring anthropomorphism)
>
>No.  A person does not have to have a "personality" in the sense of certain
>character traits persisting through time.  All it needs is consciousness of
>*something* however faint or fleeting.

Don't we look at a newborn and say it is a perfectly valid and valued
person and then we look at a 90 year old man and say that the same?
Yet, if you compare the two they really don't look much alike.  We
know thought that these two points are two distinct stages in life.
Why do we try to deny the same judgment of life from the person in
the earlier stages of life?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What's the SAT deal?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:29:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.185619.14830@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
}From article by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
}> 
}> All which is aside the point:  credentials do not assure correctness.
}> Just because I happen to know a lot about computers and have decent
}> credentials doesn't mean I never make mistakes.  Posting one's
}> credentials (and SAT scores) as if that was going to prove anything 
}> for me is a sign of someone who has gotten arrogant and lazy.
}
}
}As I recall it, someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED him for his SAT's.
}So no one can get off ridiculing him for consenting to answer such
}a direct question.

Let me put it this way.  Supposing someone asked you to post your
bra size.  If you even acknowledged it at all, I would expect you 
would decline, with a comment somewhat to the effect of it's none of
my business and besides it doesn't have any bearing on what we
discuss here.  If you did post it, I imagine you might be ridiculed
even though "someone SPECIFICALLY ASKED" you to do so.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:15:11 GMT

In article <bob1.728156867@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1993Jan26.191001.18208@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>The DOI has no legal bearing.  
>
>Really? Wonder where they got those 'rights' that they said belonged
>to the people?
What makes you think we have any of them? When the SC wants to build
a new right, they generally do it on substantive duue process or
some such (i.e. 4,5,6).
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:11:38 GMT

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <yhl384a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>> 
>>>From the moment of conception the only thing that is added is food 
>>>and protection.  
>> 
>> Do me a favor.  Go tell your mother that all she ever gave you in the
>> womb was "food and protection".
>> 
>> Warning - you may be somewhat surprised at her reaction.

>   She might be mildly offended that you would make such a statement 
>at all, 

I doubt that "mildly offended" would cover the reaction of most mothers.

>but there's no denying that it's true.  

Of course there is.  I deny it.  See how easy that was?

And tell us Karl, what you gave to the fetus the last time you were
pregnant.  You see, I know the subject a bit more intimately than you
do.

>Note that it says
>"in the womb," and does not relate to what came afterward.  Giving
>food and protection involved vomiting and backaches on her part, but
>they are secondary effects and not what is actually given to the fetus.

Brush up on your biology.

>Karl

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion