HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:03:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Geisha Dawn


>>>So it is wrong to kill a fetus because it is genetically human?  How about
>>>someone who is brain dead? Are you against euthanasia? Death penalty?

>>It is wrong to kill a human because it is genetically human.
>>How can you kill someone who is brain dead?  If they are brain dead, they
>>are DEAD.  This is the accepted medical and religious definition of DEAD.

>>I am against active euthanasia.  When the brain is alive, that patient is
>>alive.  When it is not, the patient is dead.

>So if the patient *has no brain* or the brain is dead, it is dead. You have
>no problem disconnecting life support (passive euthanasia) from this 'person'.

I didn't say that if it HAD NO BRAIN it was dead, David.  That cannot be
inferred from what I stated.  I said if the brain is dead, the patient
is dead.

If would not want to do it, but I think there is nothing morally wrong
with passive euthanasia (involuntary - comatose - or voluntary)

>What is the problem, then, of disconnecting life support from a fetus who
>has no brain and is technically brain dead?

The fetus is not dead.  Just because it has no brain from 1 to 4 weeks
does not mean it is dead then.  I said a patient who experiences brain
death is death.  Absence of a brain !=> brain death.  Brain dead => death.


>>Death penalty is acceptable.
>>Under extreme conditions.

>Then morally, ethically, it is not always wrong to murder someone.

In this case.

>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

kcw


--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:50:47 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu

	Medically, life begins at conception.  Once conceived, a human
fetus will be a human, not a frog, fish, or anything else.  Murder is the
premeditated taking of a human life.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without life, there can be no choice;
without choice, there can be no life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:891 talk.abortion:15552
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <4oVaJB2w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>Again, sperm and egg alone are haploid, i.e. have only half the required
>chromosomes, and cannot be considered human.

I didn't call it human.  I called it "potential human life," which was
what the original poster felt the standard should be.

>A fertilized egg, however, has a complete set, and *can* be considered
>to be such.

Depends on the kind of egg, actually.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "Question whether attorney's filing claim for 'stud fee'
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  as countersuit to paternity action was improperly
U o' C Law Skool   +  motivated required remand."  Headnote 9, Committee on
Chi, IL 60637      +  Legal Ethics of WVa State Bar v Douglas, 370 SE2d 325.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:54:45 GMT

In article <72959@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
>David
>>Kevin
>
>>>That even WWII's deaths cannot equal the deaths of the unborn children
>>>due to abortion.  You couldn't figure that out?
>
>
>>Not to mention the billions upon billions of unborn children due to
>>masturbaton and menstruation. I mean if we are going to talk about the 
>>UNBORN, let's talk about the *unborn*.
>
>
>Hey, Dave, get a clue.
>
>To be born, you have to be a fetus.  To be a fetus, you have to have been
>an embryo.  To be an embryo, you have to have been a zygote.  To be a zygote,
>you have to have been unified by two gametes.  So when YOU masturbate, you
>don't kill the unborn.
>
>"They" are not unborn...

If they are not unborn, they are born. I never said 'kill' anyway, you did.
I simply said 'unborn' because, they are unborn.  I am using Welchian logic
here. 
`
To be a person, one first needs to be an infant. To be an infant, one first
must be a fetus. To be a fetus, one first must be a embryo. To be an embryo,
one first must be a zygote. To be a zygote one first must be a sperm and 
egg.  Everything before infant is the 'unborn'.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: what is the purpose of these two discussion groups?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:20:10 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  <1992Apr10.225912.20767@leland.Stanford.EDU>  yoda@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ernest Hua) writes:
> Would the people in charge (if any) or the originators of these two groups:
>
>      alt.abortion.inequity
>      talk.abortion

talk.abortion is for talking about abortion.  alt.abortion.inequity is
supposed to be for discussion of the inequity that some people perceive
in the fact that the man who contributed half of the genetic material
to the fetus doesn't have the ability to either force the woman to
carry to term or force the woman to abort.

Almost everything in alt.abortion.inequity belongs in talk.abortion only.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:32:17 GMT

In article <74204@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn) writes:
>
>>It is wrong to kill/murder a human being. It is wrong to kill/murder a person.
>
>Yes it is wrong to kill a human being and to kill a person.  I agree.
>That's why abortion is wrong.

>>So it is wrong to kill a fetus because it is genetically human?  How about
>>someone who is brain dead? Are you against euthanasia? Death penalty?
>
>It is wrong to kill a human because it is genetically human.
>How can you kill someone who is brain dead?  If they are brain dead, they
>are DEAD.  This is the accepted medical and religious definition of DEAD.
>
>I am against active euthanasia.  When the brain is alive, that patient is
>alive.  When it is not, the patient is dead.

So if the patient *has no brain* or the brain is dead, it is dead. You have
no problem disconnecting life support (passive euthanasia) from this 'person'.

What is the problem, then, of disconnecting life support from a fetus who
has no brain and is technically brain dead?


>
>Death penalty is acceptable.
>Under extreme conditions.
>
Then morally, ethically, it is not always wrong to murder someone.

>
-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:17:01 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Apr10.165236.2061@news.iastate.edu> xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>last message MORALITY what awwas sead about the klaw is treuue. how acah n all someone rights as a life only if there wanted be moral to any one. ? aon adsoptionj there are a lot of couples willing to take children of a difrint ethnic bakckground or with probelmslems thousew that preferet toi not have a child with a problem mack that prefrenc out of necesity- they dont feel that they can handal it.the  the bigist problrem with cross ethnic adoptions is the agencys them selves, t



r
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>h
>ignoignor trh- they seem to feal that it would casuse confusion fort the chidren. as for bakck refrincing i just descovered the news and subscribed the uther day. you need to pay less head to the medea and look for the facts. 
>when it comes to an atempt at spelling I HAVE BEEN ATEMTING ALL OF NFOR MOST OF MY LIFE TO OVERCOME MY DISGRAFEA AND I FIND IT FRIRATEATING WHIN PEAOPLE TOSS IT BAKCK AT ME EXSPECHALY WHIN IT IS ELRELEVEN.
>if you don'nt knoe w what digrafea is look it up.
>as for sining my name i chouse not to - not just hear but every ware -
>ELF-KIN is my handal the only news group i dont singn with /ELF-KIN is alt.evel
>I sign that one with INSANITY RUILES!!!
>if you dont beleve me check alt.aquareaa .
>My real name is angeANGELA KAY ROLLING but to you its KAY                      
>i thi8nk that on alt.prose i will leve my insignesa
>
>ELF-KIN  we are but on ee race -the human race!
	Amazing, isn't it?  Are we sure this isn't a joke?  I'm not.

Chuck
No .sig, no fat, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: bwalls@albert.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Bryan Walls)
Subject: Re: proposal and request for comment.
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:09:55 GMT

In article <Apr.8.19.05.28.1992.10926@romulus.rutgers.edu>, morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
|> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
|> 
|> >The term 'parasite'
|> >fits a fetus amazingly well, since its presence is not symbiotic.
|> 
|> Actually, the fetus DOES do something for the woman but not immediatly.
|> It carries her genes into another generation so they will, theoretically,
|> survive her demise.  This brings up an interesting point.  Are seeds and
|> fruits parasitic to the parent plant?  Are children who breast feed (assume
|> no other available processed foods) parasitic?  How about marsupials in
|> the pouch? 
|> 
|> John Morrow
|> morrow@remus.rutgers.edu

How about the average college student? :-)
Bryan Walls
bwalls@marvin.msfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:29:58 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty) writes:

>>>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr08.233143.1161@liebe.uucp>
>>>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>>[writing to nora gayle rivkis]

>>>Typical of you to attack an "emotional stab" and then
>>>use the phrases "pro-death" and "slaughtered babies."

>>I have explained my usage of "pro-death" before.  It is not intended as an
>>unprovoked "stab" but as an eye-opener to those who refer to Pro-Life
>>people as Anti-Abortion.  The fetus' are unquestionably "slaughtered".  So
>>I guess you're referring to my saying "babies" as "emotional".

>IYHO

>BTW, unprovoked or not, it is still a deliberate emotional stab. How
>is Anti-Abortion an emotioanl stab?

I like debating you Ron.  You're easy.  "Anti-Abortion" is as much a
misnomer as "Pro-Death".  Choicers like it because of the negative
connotation of being "Anti".  "Pro-Death" is a sarcastic reply to
people who insist on labeling themselves "Pro" while refusing to 
recognize the other side's labels.

>>If it walks, talks, acts like a duck ...

>Gee, you've seen a fetus walk, talk, act????????
>At 8 weeks, it's not much more than a blob.

Haha Bonehead.  My quote referred to someone claiming to be neutral
while arguing the Pro-Death position.  Pay attention.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:53:58 EDT

IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42) writes:

> It is my belief that the only way the pro-abortion advocates can rationalize
> the killings of millions of babies a year is looking upon the fetus as a
> lifeless lump of tissue.  By doing that, it is easier to say, "legalize
> abortion" for, by your logic, how can one kill what is already dead?
> Unfortunately, you are lying to yourselves.  The fetus is a life.  When the
> medical profession can stop swaying with public opinion and declare this
> fact to be true, then perhaps the pro-abortionists will pay attention to
> the consciences that have been bothering them for so long.

We still have legal abortions in this country, and yet I see not
rallys to abolish Paternal Lawsuits. If the fetus is only a lump of
tissue, completely belonging to the woman, then so is the child
born of that tissue. If so, let all fathers off the economic hook!

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:34:05 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.173219.2569@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J S
>ilverio) writes:
>>In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu>, Lenny Bruce writes:

>>|Control your legs then.

>>I hope all the women you meet take your advice to heart.

>Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
>I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.

>Jerk.

And may you JERK your zipper hard enough that it won't be a problem....


Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: m
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:47:31 GMT

I define merder as neadlessly taking the life of a member of ones own
speaches. Tiger kills Tiger , Human kills Human, Lion kills lion- these are in
order of lest likly--most likly.

ELF-KIN	15 berd	  
rong key agen 15 birds in 5 fir trees...... orks from the Hobbit
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: a chiken for diner?
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:00:52 GMT

>...just like killing a chiken for diner...

NOT. Where may I ask did you come up with that? Lets try out this analigy
some thing is killed in both cases-yes
case 1.abortion-killed (usually) for convenience not because it is life
threatening (will kill the person). Not because someone is hungry.
case 2.a chiken for diner-killed for food. Part of servival (I dont eat
eventualy I die). I must eat , if not the chiken then some thing else.

hmmmm.	convenience=servival I dont think so.
maybe in someones personal (contorted) dictionary but not mine.

ELF-KIN	insaine? Me? Hay, what wrong with insainity anyway?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 23:31:43 GMT

rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>You clearly didn't go and look where I've already said this eight
>times this week, so I'll repeat it here: Nobody has ever yet come up
>with any remote indication that this kind of garbage does them any
>good whatsoever in their stated cause. What it does do is, for reasons
>you *will* have to go find on the other thread; I'm tired and I've
>had to say this too goddamned many times, make it slowly more and
>more likely that the next time a set of folks who are trying to
>commit genocide -- against whatever race they may choose -- appears,
>those of us trying to blow the whistle on them will have an impossible
>job and they will succeed in killing all the Jews, or all the blacks,
>or all the remotely uncloseted gays, or all the Arabs, or all the
>*whatever*, because nobody's going to listen to us -- after all,
>isn't it no worse than abortion and all those other things we don't
>care much about, so there's no need to worry? AKA people who claim
>to be pro-life are hurting some people's chance for survival, while
>not saving even one fetus by this tactic. This is not being passionately
>pro-life, this is being at best stupid, and at worst, as in Kellmeyer's
>case, actively and deliberately genocidal. 

>Add to this the fact that very few people have tried to suggest that
>what people say in arguments on the net save or destroy any more fetuses,
>whereas there *are* a number of survivors of the death camps who read
>the newsgroups (I don't know whether any of them follow this one in
>particular, and for their sake I fervently hope not), and they have
>already put up with more in one lifetime than anyone should put them
>through. There is no good that can come of the "they're Nazis" tirade.
>There's only more pain, and more death, even than the pro-lifers are
>convinced already goes on. If they are truly pro-life, for those of
>us sometimes considered subhuman along with their beloved unborn babies,
>they will stop making our deaths more likely and our lives more scarred,
>to no purpose.


What a load of self-serving slop.  But obviously just another emotional
stab at justifying your Pro-Death stance.  "Hurting some people's chance
for survival..."???  What about the slaughtered babies upon which this
whole discussion is based.  But of course the only way to appear rational
is for you to ignore the issue (best defense is a good offense, right?).

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Woody Allen on the parasite theory
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:01:51 GMT

In article <Apr.8.22.29.43.1992.16310@romulus.rutgers.edu> morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>>> Actually, the fetus DOES do something for the woman but not immediatly.
>>> It carries her genes into another generation so they will, theoretically,
>>> survive her demise.
>
>>I see no way that that could benefit the woman.  Once she's dead, she's dead.
>
>Natures way of doing the "immortality" thing.  Actually, one COULD argue
>that we are simply glorified machines for the purpose of replicating 
>ourselves.  I will instead say that some people see a benefit in passing
>their genes on and others don't.  

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve
immortality through my not dying."

			-Woody Allen
>John Morrow

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:47:39 EDT

anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:

> In article <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) w
> >	Medically, life begins at conception.  Once conceived, a human
> >fetus will be a human, not a frog, fish, or anything else.  Murder is the
> >premeditated taking of a human life.
> >-- 
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Without life, there can be no choice;
> >without choice, there can be no life.
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> But wait! Isn't the sperm and egg alive? Or are they really dead. Oh
> I get it...only the embryo is alive, the sperm and egg aren't. Gag!
> Be more careful how you define "life".
> 
> 
> anne
> 
> 

The sperm and the egg are haploid (have only half the required number
of chromosomes) and you would have a hard time concluding that they
are human, or have human potential in and of themselves.

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:59:10 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr12.232207.18720@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>>Oh, G-d; another idiot Kevin. Where do we find these assholes?
>
>>Will somebody please explain to this person (a) that I'm not particularly
>>pro-choice, let alone pro-death, and (b) that telling someone who is un-
>>certain of their position that stating openly that you do not care if 
>>they are enslaved and murdered and that if *they* care about their own
>>safety they are "ignoring the issue" is not going to score any new pro-
>>lifers for you?

>Asshole?  Thanks for the assessment, bitch.  

No problem. It fit so perfectly....

Look, Kevin; if you're going to say you don't give a damn whether I
live or die, I'm going to call you an asshole. It's not anywhere near
a high enough payback for the insult you delivered, but it's the farthest
I'm willing to go -- I have standards for what I will and won't say, no
matter how abysmally someone else is behaving.

>BTW since you know
>exactly how to recruit pro-lifers pleeeez share the wealth.

Talk to some of the civilized pro-lifers on this group. Yes, there
are some. Three or four people from here -- Joy Haftel, Chris Dicely
when he was around, a couple of others -- are a lot of the reason I
*am* still undecided, rather than simply having gone entirely pro-
choice out of sheer disgust at the pro-lifers I knew.

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:31:18 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr15.000441.13101@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
|Pooooooor analogy.  Emergency room treatments do not include
|murdering children to cure someone.

Really?  What children?  What were their names?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief." --Austen
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity