HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Brain Waves
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:18:50 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

> There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
> brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
> abortion the killing of that child.

There have been discussions about the possiblility that an aardvark does show
brainwave activity.  This would make a aardvark a living child, and thus make
abortion the killing of that aardvark.

But seriously, Simon, there is no evidence that this brainwave activity can be
likened to anything more than the white noise you hear when you tune your radio
between stations.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: About Parental Consent and Funding too:
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:15:18 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct12.230659.1191@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>About parental consent, folks:

>We have a major consistency problem when it comes to parental consent
>abortion laws. 

>So why can we then justify paying for childbirth? Because childbirth
>is not elective surgery. Abortion is.

I see no reason to pay for the more expensive route than to pay for the
less expensive way.
 
I also see a major difference in the implications of having a nose job
versus the effects of having a baby on a teenager.

Chaney, you are such a misogynist little twit.

If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: What a difference ~20
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:28:21 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes...
>> lee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:

>>> I'm a baby worshiper.

>> Congratulations, Richard.  You're the _first_ pro-lifer in my experience
>> to actually go out on a limb and admit that you value the fetus more
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> than the mother.  Would that more of you could be so forthright.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Well, hold on a minute before you pounce on the man, and just look at what
> you have just said.

Geez, Will, I've been waiting for him to pounce back.  I believe it's been
over a week.

> To explain what I mean...You have just cast aspersions upon Mr. Lee, because
> he has implied that he considers the child/foetus over the woman.  Now, even
> though I do not have an opinion to offer, either way, you should at least
> admit your own bias in presuming the woman over the child/foetus.  (This is
> to presume that you probably do indeed have this bias).

Wait a minute.  The fetus is an entity with nothing going for it but its
DNA configuration and lots and lots of poh-tential.  The woman is a born
person, recognized as such in law and society, a citizen who votes, pays
taxes, has an education and has the best insight of anyone as to whether
or not she has the physical, emotional and financial resources to make
and then nurture an addition to the family.

You're darn tootin' I am biased in favor of the woman.

> In other words, you can hardly blame him for his bias, any more than *he*
> can blame *you* for having yours.  In other words, as much as you can call
> him "woman enslaver" (you didn't call him this, but you get the idea), *he*
> can also call *you* a "baby killer," and you would *both*, IMHO, be equally
> wrong in casting aspersions upon each other, merely upon your own biases as
> to who is more important, because both of your viewpoints are rooted in these
> very conflicting beliefs, which IMHO, are both equally exclusionary, because
> they both ignore the other side of the situation.

Everything is relative, eh?  Somehow, I don't think your reactionary friends
would be amused by your straying from Moral Absolutism. :-)

> Not to sound like a doddering old schoolmarm, but IMHO, it's silly for one to
> blast someone for having a bias when he/she has the flip side of that same
> bias.

IYHO, of course.  Thanks for sharing, I guess.

> This is not a flame, and I am *not* taking sides in your argument with
> Richard.

I don't think Richard will come back to this one, anyway.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:45:44 GMT

In article <4jkz=t+@rpi.edu>,
Jim Keegan (keegan@acm.rpi.edu) writes to C.J.:

| you've demonstrated that your respect is as worthless
| as your word.

This is true.  Here, for example ...

In article <1at1jlINNj4s@fido.asd.sgi.com>
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) quotes herself from e-mail:

| >->  -I'm afraid I assumed that he [Keegan] sent mail
| >->  to everyone saying approximately the same thing.
| >->  If he did NOT discuss this in mail with Suzanne,

He did not.

| >->  then I will retract that charge

... she promises.

The next (and last) I heard from C.J. on the subject was in 
article <1992Jun1.172036.17733@odin.corp.sgi.com>:

|  /GB0012@/h:j        [this was my address at the time]
|  /keegan@/h:j

Some retraction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                         suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu
--
   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: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:00:27 GMT

usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>In <yttz-q+@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>BTW, many couples will gladly pay (and have) $50K+ to adopt
>>a healthy white newborn.  Sounds like CSS could stand to make
>>a bundle on every adoption they arrange.

>Hummmm.....sounds a *lot* like surrogate motherhood to me.....

>What makes this version of it OK?         

Why Lori, how silly of you!  What makes this version OK is that
the woman who does all the actual work and takes all the actual
risks _receives_no_compensation_for_it_.

If the Catholic church makes money from it, it's _automatically_
OK.

>Lori Kent Rothman

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: ACT-UP MUST be destroyed.
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:59:51 GMT

I cannot agree that ACT-UP "must be destroyed". 


Doug Holtsinger
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:21:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>In <1992Sep30.223307.21945@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>Ray Fischer, welcome to the Trap. It was set a long time ago by pro-life
>>>intellectuals using the power of scientific fact.
>
>>Isn't "pro-life intellectuals" an oxymoron?
>
>Of course not.  I've been one for the last 25 years.  Of course, you
>are one of the people who gloat over how I was "stupid" enough to "fall
>into" another Trap (an in-joke, really), but that does not make me any
>less an intellectual, nor any less a pro-lifer.

You're beginning to show some of the same signs of paranoia the Chaney
is famous for.  Although I founds bits of the dialog amusing, mostly
it wasn't interesting enough for me to follow.  No gloating here.

>For further info, see my post, "The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap."

Saw it.  Didn't care.  Having never taken the SAT test, SAT scores
don't mean much to me.  Largely irrelevent, anyway.

>>Unless it splits into a twin, in which case it has the same genes as another
>>person. 
>
>Not completely.  Some genes are unique to one or the other of the twins.
>Anyway, the real point is that the z/e/f is a genetic *part* of no one
>else's body, a clear reference to the old claim, adhered to by a number
>of pro-choicers despite clear proof to the contrary, that the z/e/f
>is part of the mother's body.

Identical twins have identical genes.  The embryo splits _after_
fertilization, thus there is no source for additional genetic
material.  And since mutation is too erratic to produce anywhere near
the number of successful twins seen, clearly careful though would
indicate that they share genes.

Genes are largely irrelevent to the discussion.

>> Also, cancer cells are genetically unique.  Do you proposed to bestow
>>upon _them_ personhood rights?
>
>Of course not, bozo, unless they have the potential to grow into people
>like yourself.

Some evidence indicates that this may well be the case.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 01:54:54 -0400 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
 <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> <nyikos.717627005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <10880@scott.ed.ac.uk> <zlsiida.149@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>
	<nyikos.718487093@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

>My understanding is that this is exactly what happens in the overwhelming
>majority of abortions past the first trimester (of which there are over
>400 a day in the USA), where the method used is known as D&E but should
>really be called D&D&E: Dilation, Dismemberment, and Evacuation.

I could have sworn it was D&C, for dilation and curretage(scraping) but
I could be wrong.  In any event, the limb-ripping doesn't occur in
standard cases with competent physicians.  Many pro-life "sob-story"
videotapes show unsanctioned, incompetantly perfored abortions.  The
reality is almost always much less gritty.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Get OVER it Dude...
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:26:29 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] In article <1992Oct9.020146.7139@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
] >From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
] >> 
] >> And the DOI <Declaration of Independence> has no legal bearing, thank Dean.
] >
] >Tell it to Mother England, Keithy.
] 
] Suxanne, as a person who has dual American/English citizenship, I find it
] sad that you would attempt to use the phrase "Mother England" as a
] derogatory phrase.


1. as a parent I am offended that she would presume that
'mother' should be a part of a 'derogatory term.'

2. Obviously HALF of you has Made it around the
BigFerrisWheelOfKharma.....

3. We can Only Hope that with the Restoration of Christian
Values the USA will Repent of IT willingness to tolerate
persons who Protested Overseas Against Governmental Policy,
and restore itself to its Rightful status as a Crown Colony!!!!!
Thus Ending the Tragic History of the SeXularHumanist war
against the Bible and the fight against God's Divinely
Appointed Ruler!!!!!!

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More Questions we all wanted to ask
Followup-To: soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.abortion 
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:28:27 GMT

rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
] considering the frequency of aircraft smashing into buildings vs
] the frequency of endesired pregnancy ...
 
trivia question:

is that on a 'per sortie' basis of the spermies,
or on the whole OverAll GrandTactical GrandThrust level of analysis.

I know that it is chic to be a RadFem and take an
Ovulation Based Analysis Model. But these ARE
the nineties, and it is perfectly ok to admit
that men are different than women.

and there unto there are other levels of analysis.

] yes, i make a lifestyle choice to live near an airbase. i control 
] that, i take the risk. i also control exactly where my dick is at 
] all times.


Ok, EVERY STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING:

"Do You Know where YOUR Sir Richard is right now?"


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:59:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.224810.24975@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>In the fetus/unborn's current state, it is alive and wants to keep alive.
>
>Wrong.  In the fetus/unborn's current state, it is alive and has no
>mental capacity whatsoever (before the third trimester, but we're not
>talking about the third trimester here) to be able to "want" anything.
>
It is alive, as you claim.  Its biology (unless their is a biological
malfunction) aims to continue living and reach birth alive.

>Let me try rephrasing my original puzzle again:
>
>Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.


Role of the government: forcing someone to donate parts.

>
>Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.
>

Role of the government: Prevent someone from killing the human unborn child.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42459 alt.abortion.inequity:4404
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:29:23 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Summary: Think of the out of context quotes here


From "The Sacredness of Life," the Knights of Columbus:

     "The science of Eugenics in itself and in so far as it
is a true science is quite in accord with Catholic principles.
The Catholic Church has always been in favor of healthy
offspring, healthy living, decent housing, working conditions,
or anything else that contributes to a healthy life.  As a
matter of fact she has been a leading force in fostering
such objectives.  Her opposition to the eugenics movement
is directed only against certain measures and methods.  The
basic position of Catholic teaching in such matters is that
moral principles, rather than mere efficiency and 'social
progress', come first.  Whereas, negative eugenics proposes
to decrease the number of inferior persons, positive 
eugenics aims to increase the number of the superior.
(Raymond W. Murray, _Introductory Sociology, p.101)"


I guess that's why Jack Willke goes on about immigration
as a reason to oppose abortion.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:40:21 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes to
suzanne_lucia:
->It is ENTIRELY within the realm of possibility that CJ retracted it,
->and you merely did not see it. Proving the nonexistence of an
->object with an essentially infinite possible location space is
->very close to impossible. CJ's potential retraction is such an object.

  "So... The way I see it, both you AND CJ have made
  substantive allegations which are unsubstantiated. I
  think you should substantiate that you did not write
  such a mailing and that she should substantiate that
  you did."
 	<1992Oct8.223947.28573@news.yale.edu>

what a difference a few days make. or, perhaps, it's
something else.

mr. intellectual integrity indeed!
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Do the Susan Garvin!
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:21:11 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento


To Demonstrate the way Susan Garvin "framed" me on the "Gay Pride sig
of Steve Chaney" thread, let me demonstrate her technique now:

In article <1992Oct16.022754.8739@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
>Petey Honey seems to think that the ARC's phone number is
>a secret.  

Sounds like Susan Garvin is in love with Peter Nyikos. 
She called him "Petey Honey." :)

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:31:34 GMT


Hey Bruce...I don't give a damn about what's in any dictionary except a law]
dictionary.  When you're talking about taking away people's rights, you're
talking about a legal issue and the only thing I care about is legalities.
Murder is a legal term, and no matter what YOU choose to call it, when
you decide to leglislate away women's rights, you HAVE to use legal terms.
A fetus is NOT a person, check up on the law.  A child is a BORNED person,
check up on the law.  You will have to change all of these to have it 
your way.  Until you do, the legal definition--the only one I care about--
stands.

Jennifer
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:36:40 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Oct9.014422.6744@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>> 
>> At 7000 feet, I bet I'm above most people on the net,
>> except for perhaps the inimitable Steve Novak.
>
>I always wondered what was wrong with him.  Now I know!
>Oxygen deprivation!

Suzanne: Just ignore Steve Novak. 

Ignore these flame-mongers and they'll go away.

>Suzanne Forgach

=============================================================================
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:14:46 GMT

| Indeed, personal character is now marked by rapid response:
| in particular by recognizing one's so-called "allies" as in
| fact enemies the minute situations change, before they can 
| hurt you, without any fettering by shreds of conscience or
| altruism.

Then I suppose I must compliment C.J. as a woman of character.  
I've seen her leave Nora Rivkis, and Siren, and now (apparently)
Rescorla to their fates when they got into trouble defending 
her.

And I still can't figure out why she turned on me and Keegan
last May -- why people who had enjoyed friendly correspondence
with her beyond all this talk.abortion bullshit suddenly found
themselves on her public hit list, without *any* private warning
of the coming storm.  Or why she ignored our e-mail appeals for
discussion and peace.  Or why she won't let this depressing quar-
rel die.


| Mr. Keegan, clearly, is a beacon to us all.

Well put.  He doesn't desert his allies under fire, or his
friends when they disagree with him.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                        suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu

  

--
   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: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Galen turns pro-life?!? (was Re: Circles of Influence (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:39:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.232505.4101@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>What you see as "social reasons" may be a life-or-death struggle for
>someone else.
>
Exactly!  Behind the so called social reasons for aborting, there really
lies a life-or-death struggle for someone else.  We should take note of that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:26:19 GMT

usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> When my daughter was ejected at birth - her eyes were closed, she was 
>still,
>and not breathing.  It wasn't until the nurse used a rubber srynge in her 
>mouth
>did she come to conciousness and begin to cry.  Durning the 5 or so 
>seconds before that was her right not to be extiquished on hold?  By your 
>reasoning we could have said, "Oh its a girl - trash it."

Oh my god, what a GOOD argument to make ALL abortions ILLEGAL!         NOT!

8-)

Seriously, though... If you were to (seriously) desire to "trash" your baby at
*any* point in your pregnancy because you wanted a boy and found it to be a
girl, you should be dragged out in the street and shot.  (ok, *shot* is a bit
harsh  ;)   I oppose the use of abortion for "arbitrary" trait selection.  If
we started killing all the fetuses (feti?) that wouldn't grow up to be geniouses
it would really wreck the curve!  ;)

Actually, if I look closely at my derivation of what makes a "person", most
babies aren't really "people" until a while *after* they are born.  However, at
that point they are presumably *desired* by the parent(s) and to kill them
would be a crime against the parent(s) if not the baby itself.  (of course,
cruelty to animals still applies...  ;)

--Rob, who has no time to write a proper sig for this post