HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu.UUCP (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:17:23 GMT

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

> From the one anencephalic baby, we could have harvested 1 heart, 2
> lungs, 2 kidneys, a liver suitable for ressection to provide
> transplants for as many as 3 others, bone marrow, and 2 corneas.
> Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
> heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. Bone marrow had
> not been matched yet. Neither had corneas, but they are relatively
> easy to match.
>
> Since people who call themselves Pro-Life took steps to halt any organ
> donations until after brain death, this is the outcome:
> The recipients for the heart, both lungs, 1 kidney and 1 liver section
> are now dead. The other kidney, liver, and bone marrow recipients are
> still waiting and hoping. The corneas were eventually used.

It appears as though Mark Cochran is making up the facts as he
goes along.  My local paper said that NO matches had been found
for the baby's organs:

  "The baby's organs were not being donated.  Doctors had said
   Baby Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants
   by the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
   found."
  
   The Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992

Mark Cochran appears to be completely unaware of the medical 
establishment's strong ethical stance taken against using 
anencephalic infants as organ donor sources:

  "``We have had no interest in it from the organ procurement side
   because of all the problems associated with it,'' said Wanda
   Bond, a spokesman for the United Network for Organ Sharing.

   ``It's such a small number of individuals that could be helped
   that the question is, `Does it make sense to go through all
   this?'  Clearly, in the medical community the answer is it
   doesn't.''"

In response to proposals to change the legal definition of death
to include anencephalic infants, the authors of an article in the 
Aug. 10, 1989 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine concluded
that ``the weight of medical evidence and ethical and practical
arguments strongly favor retaining current law.''  An article
in the March 31, 1989 issue of the JAMA made similar conclusions
against using anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 

BTW, does anyone know where Mark Cochran studies or practices
medicine?  I wouldn't want to be admitted into a hospital where
he works, and have him standing over my bed, ready to take out
my organs once I fall asleep. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: Knights of the Round SPARCstation
	<1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu>
	<1993Jan8.173446.9599@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:20:34 GMT

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:34:46 GMT, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) said:

>> = (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>> = (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>|> = 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

>>|>   How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?

>>>Not me -- I already *have* a life, thankyouverymuch...
>>>--PLH, I see enough of *those* yahoos while I'm defending clinics, anyway

>>You are so noble Sir Patrick .. You defend clinics against those that wish
>>to take a away women's choices...I commend you and here by Knight you Sir
>>Pat. 

>I agree.  All hail Sir Humphrey the Defender!!

Thank you, thank you -- of course, I don't have a faithful steed, so I'll
have to make do with the truck, but hey, it's the thought that counts.  :-)

>>Ever thought that these "Yahoo's" are just defending life..

>Heck no; what a silly thought.  Everyone knows they're just trying to
>cram their religious agenda down everyone's throat.  I mean, have you
>ever SEEN some of these creeps?  Tossing their own kids in front of
>cars?  

...or sending them inside the 30-meter limit (imposed on the pro-forcers by
state District Judge Eileen O'Neil in preparation for the RNC craziness last
summer, and still in effect -- except that the 30 meters has shrunk to
7.5...) to get them arrested, while Mom and Dad cheer them on from positions
of safety?  (That's happened twice in the last four months when the fetus
fanatics tried shutting down the Women's Clinic at Arena Towers II, about a
mile away from where I live.)


>[...]
>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>>you wind up losing yours.....

>What a surprise.  Another pro-"life" piece of shit wishing death on a

Ayup.  Just goes to show what I've suspected about a lot of 'em's view of
life:  it starts at conception and ends at birth...


>Jeffrey, you human pustule:  go suck some mucous; but watch out for that
>thermometer!
It makes me *really* wonder just what's in the drinking water up there in
Wake County -- first DJR, then the Rev, now this clown?  (Okay, okay -- so
Chapel Hill is in Orange County.  It's close enough.)

--PLH, I ain't planning any trips down I-40 past Asheville *this* summer...

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: an3329@anon.penet.fi
Subject: how i become pro-life
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: talk.abortion
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:53:32 GMT

For a long time I was pro-choice because I thought pro-life people were
crazy religious nuts. I thought they were trying to impose their religious
beliefs on the rest of the nation. I was scared they might try to get other
things outlawed and this nation would become a religious nation. I didn't
want religious nuts taking over this great nation of ours. I saw it as a
culture war and I didn't want their culture pushed on me because I thought it
was hateful culture. They hated gays and atheists and women and I wanted no
part of a hate-filled culture like theirs.

Then I began to think about my abortion beliefs. I didn't have any! I just
despised the culture of the pro-life people. They were the enemy to me. I
didn't even try to think that abortion might be killing babies because I
despised the pro-life culture so much. I began reading books and articles
on abortion and I became convinced that abortion is killing babies. Democrats
have always been the ones who have helped the sick, the weak, the helpless.
It saddens me to see that many of my friends don't share that belief when
it comes to abortion.

I see many pro-choice people saying hateful stuff at pro-life people here
and I think maybe they should think about why they're saying that stuff.
I think many of them were like me and they just despise pro-life culture and
they haven't really thought about their abortion beliefs. It's easy to say
lots of nasty stuff at pro-life people because much of the public despises
them and makes fun of them. But abortion is not funny.

I also see bad stuff from some pro-life people and I wish they would be more
loving and compassionate towards pregnant women. Don't just tell women not to
have abortions, help them and love them! We can't prevent every abortion but
we must show our love and respect towards women and babies no matter what.
Many of you will never know what it's like to face an unwanted pregnancy. It's
wrong to judge women for getting abortions. They need our love not our hate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:27:01 GMT

In <1iijiaINNfia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>>you wind up losing yours.....


>My, my,
>what a positive, nay
>                      pro-life
>                                sentiment.

Ain't it the truth? You know, Adrienne, I always wanted a daughter, but
then I would have spoiled her and if she turned out as kind hearted as
Florence, she just might have dragged home a JJP out of pity, and then
I would have had to call the Orkin man. Children can be an expense....

>Adrienne Regard

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:53:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.163857.10936@mksol.dseg.ti.com> 
noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

>>> 4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.

>> Position 4 is not logically consistent if a person does not
>> condone infanticide in all cases. 

> Your statement is only correct if the person believes the infant
> is not a person.  Position 4 is logically consistent if the person
> believes the fetus is not a person.  

The belief that a child becomes a person when the child is born
is a belief with no logical foundation.  I have not seen any
reasoning which could support that belief, in which the position
is derived from a set of general moral principles.  I don't see 
why an unsupported position can be labeled as being 'logically 
consistent'. 

> This does not make it correct.

Agreed.

> The main point of my post was that the two extreme positions seem
> to be logically consistent to me, and that I required more
> explanation to understand (position 2) why if abortion is wrong
> there can be exceptions ("liberal pro-life"), and (position 3) why
> abortion is wrong for one person and ok for others (pro-choice).

Positions 1,2, and 3 have some logical foundation, in which 
the position is derived from a set of general moral principles.
The differences between the positions is a result of the differences
between the underlying moral principles.  Position 4 has no 
similar foundation--it is an unsupported belief.

> I appreciate your attempt to explain position 2.

You mean I wasn't successful?  :(

>Mike Noonan


Doug Holtsinger
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:09:47 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):

>> considering forced birth as the alternative.

>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
*force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:26:14 GMT

<1if1h7INNb5g@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
><C0FtDD.1oE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1idavcINN5dp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

[much deleted]

>2.  My definition of AA is the equitable standards I've used so far in
>answering these questions.  I know you've deleted those portions, but I
>trust you can go back and find it again.  
>
>Done.

Thank you for making this explicit.  It's too bad it came out
after such resistance.  Otherwise, the conversation could have
ended simply on my side with:

As a native English speaker, I do not find "equitable standards" 
to be a synonym for "affirmative action."


>>(By the way, I'm not sure why this should be posted to talk.abortion,
>>especially since it was you who objected to multi-groups.)
>
>talk.abortion is the only group I read of those in the header.  If you'd
>care to tell me which group you are reading, we can spare the others this
>bandwidth, which I *know* is of great concern to you.

The bandwidth flames started with you, or have you lost *those* archives, 
too?

I'm reading alt.dads-rights, but it looks like this "conversation"
is cleared up, anyway:  

I disagree that ensuring equality is the same as AFFIRMATIVE action.  
Ensuring that new hires are in the right "proportions" is nowhere 
near as active or affirmative as declaring that companies must have 
the given "proportions" overall.  You propose the former but reject 
affirmatively hiring disproportionately more minorities/women until 
an overall balance is reached.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:21:46 GMT

Jeffrey, you suffer from three misconceptions in your post:

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>So now that we can kill anyone that uses something of another persons w/o
>their permission we may kill them...I think I'll go out and kill all the
>welfare recipients because they are using my money because I don't want
>them to...

(1) "A person using my money when I don't want him to is the same as a
fetus using a mother's body when she doesn't want it to."

>Who forced the female to get pregnant? Will someone please provide some
>numbers here? I have heard that less than 10% of abortions are due to
>rape/incest/mom's life...Sounds like most of these babies were not forced.

(2) "If a woman is seeking an abortion, then she was either raped or
she carelessly got pregnant when she didn't want to be."

>... I fail to see how you can justify murder and killing 
>innocent children...as you have already stated you are doing.

(3) "Abortion is nothing more than the murder of innocent children."

Please think about these three points, and see if you can figure out
why I called them 'misconceptions'.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55352 talk.religion.misc:25944 alt.atheism:25767
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:14:19 GMT

> = (Steve Adams) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>[I haven't commented on the aspects of christianity that are so silly to
>>me as to be laughable...but really, it's the way Xtianity is *twisted*
>>to fulfill hateful agendas that just PISSES ME OFF.  Not that people
>>practice it.)

>There are some notable, exceptions, eh?  One or two, perhaps?

Exceptions to people twisting Xtianity?  Of course.  Probably the
majority of christians.  You just don't HEAR about them much (except you
:) because they purposefully enjoy their own faith and leave others
ALONE.

>>Return Christianity to the Christians!  And leave the rest of us to our
>>own beliefs.  

>Amen and preach it!  Sounds good to me...



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:19:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.154210.3147@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <C0FBKp.BzK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>>I will give you a moral absolute.
>>
>>Murder is wrong.  
>>
>Definition of murder:
>1. to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.
>2. to slaughter wantonly.
>3. to put an end to.
>see also KILL
>
>According to definition 2, what is happening to you here, in this
>forum, is murder.
>According to definition 3, killing a burglar who enters my home (thus
>posing a threat to my family) is murder. Won't stop me from doing it,
>nor will it make my actions morally wrong. Unless you are seriously
>going to claim that killing a buglar in your own home is not
>justified?

I would be inclined to pass off Definition #3 as a figurative usage, but
at the same time, I would point out to both of you that MALICE is generally
considered a necessary component of "murder", and since there is no malice
in the case of abortion OR shooting_burglars_in_the_house, it could not be
considered "murder". And, in the case of the burglar, at least, if there
was a reasonable belief that the property-owner or their family was in
immediate danger, I don't think the shooting would qualify as "manslaughter"
either... 

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:28:01 GMT

From article <29411@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
> 
>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
> 
>>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.
> 
> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....


But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:05:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>                Most pro-lifers I know are genuinely concerned about the 
> well-being of the 1.5 million who are being legally killed every year.  

If anti-abortionists were really "pro-life", they'd value living intelligent
adult human beings more than fetuses.  And if they did, they'd spend their
time campaigning to save the lives of the millions of adult humans who are
murdered, starved to death, tortured, poisoned, or killed by disease, rather
than wasting their time trying to save a few fetuses.

Is it only American lives you care about?

> I could characterize Pro-choicers as hate-filled killers.  But I know that
> in reality, the motivation of those who are "pro-choice" is not to kill 
> children.

Obviously it isn't.  Fetuses aren't children, so campaigning for the right to
abortion as a way of killing children would be completely ineffective. 
Unless you allowed abortion after birth, of course.

>            Most sincerly believe that abortion is not killing (I hope.)

No, most believe that fetuses up to a certain age are not sentient human
beings, and that it's therefore none of their business if the mother decides
to kill one.
  
Oh, and you didn't have to quote the other 175 lines of the article you were
responding to.


mathew
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:20:00 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: No insecticide tough enough to kill christianity

Christianity has had 2000 years of developing rationalizations for the
many problems that may be found in its doctrine.  The effect of this
evolutionary process can be in paragraphs like the one by Ms. Zinn's
below.  I am awed by the seeming impossiblity of eventually ridding the
world of christianity and its mutating nonsense.  On the bright side, we
should remember that IBM no longer dominates the computer industry the
way it did in the seventies.

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 11-Jan-93 Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
by Linda Zinn@cleveland.Fre 
> I don't believe that the "higher powers" referred to in Rom 13:1 can
> possibly refer to government leaders; rather, it seems to refer to
> authorities in the Body of Christ, elsewhere referred to as ruling elders,
> etc. This concept is a hard one for modern Christians to swallow because
> we have seen so many examples of the misuse of position or authority 
> among Christian leaders. That doesn't make God wrong...just points out the
> weakness of men.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome : -)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:52:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

> 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

Have you been to alt.folklore.urban lately? Just wondering. Now prove
to me that a fetus is a human being. Go ahead. I'll wait.

> 2. A person has a right to do whatever they wish so long as they don't
>    infringe upon another person...now the baby is using the body of
>    the mother we can say it may be removed...BUT...this will result
>    in the death of the fetus. So the lesser of the 2 evils must be
>    followed and the life of the fetus is more imp. than the choice
>    of the mother...in the event of life threating situation bla
>    bla bla bla... [sorry, I couldn't take it anymore]

First off, _why_ is the life of the fetus more important than that of 
the mother? That is something that no one has ever satisfactorily
explained to me. Secondly, since when is a fetus a person?

> 3. Conclusion...abortion by todays standards is murder and must seen
>    as such with the penalty required by law imposed on both the
>    doctor and mother expect in above said case of threatening.

The penalty for murder is execution. By your standard, you would send
two people to their deaths to save the life of one fetus. At the same
time, I've gotten flak for suggesting that we should salvage what we
could from an anencephalic baby who will never have a life to speak of
and use organ transplants to save five or more already established
lives.

Am I missing something here?

>    Somalia OK because we are trying to save
>    lives even if we do end up killing a few...The same with abortion
>    of course a few women will die perfoming illegal abortions but we
>    will save many more.

So we _can_ save lives if we do end up killing a few. That means we can
use that anencephalic baby after all? Thanks! Many organ recipients
will cry your name from the rooftops!

And if we could use fetal tissue to perform medical experiments that
could save thousands, nay millions, of lives... are you _sure_
you're anti-abortion?

Tep
-- 
If you wake up and don't want to smile, if it takes | Dear Lord, give
just a little while, open your eyes and look at the | me chastity...  
day, you'll see things in a different way. Don't    |    but not yet. 
stop thinking about tomorrow.       --Fleetwood Mac | --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion