HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:26:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.194834.19404@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <z0#pm1q.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>Kendig) writes:
>> 
>> How is birth arbitrary?  It is the specific point when the human is
>> removed from the mother's body and begins to obtain oxygen and
>> nutrients on its own, rather than having the mother's body supply them.
>
>Because that specific point is not fixed in time after the moment of
>conception when a process beings that will lead to the birth of a newborn
>child if nothing happens along the way to prevent it.
>

Does anyone else have a problem understanding this sentence?  I've tried
to get it and even substituting simpler terms, it just doesn't make sense.
"because birth is not fixed in time" makes sense but "after the moment
of conception when a....." seems like several run-on sentences with
no coherent linkage.  And what is a "process beings"?  Is he trying to
say that conception leads to birth, generally speaking?  Is he trying 
to say that conception is the starting point? Is he trying to rationalize
that birth isn't fixed in time, but conception is? (Which, is false, and
he needs to be told that)

Call me stupid, but I just don't understand the english they're teaching
in college these days....


Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:18:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.045702.14711@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}That's why bank robbery should be made safe and legal...

It is, if you have the right political connections.  Some people who
advocate laws to ban abortion would have it exactly the same way --
illegal for the poor, but safe and accepted for the rich.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
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: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:02:45 GMT

In article <adams.717882733@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>>>a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>>>and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>>
>>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>
>So, decide.  Whose rights take precedence here?  Isn't that what the
>argument is about?  A born woman's rights vs an fetus' rights to
>**POTENTIALLY** be born alive?
>
>NOTE WELL: pregnancy does NOT guarantee a live, healthy baby at birth...
>

The unborn child exists as a human life.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39295 alt.flame:13118
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: And a happy coitus interruptus to you...
Keywords: NOT!
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:21:15 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep28.172942.9130@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Correctus to you, Nadja) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.021544.3447@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned) writes:
>>
>>Hi, Potty Mouth, ready to play? 

>>It looks like you've confused your hemorrhoids with someone else's. Not
>>surprising for someone of your maturity level.

>Well, if it isn't the Little Cobra, the Snake in the gr(ass) herself.

Oh, talk dirty to me. You were much more interesting when you were doing
your fifth rate imitation of drieux. 
 
-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40654 alt.abortion.inequity:4252 alt.birthright:520
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:04:13 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct5.162127.25163@spectrum.xerox.com>  rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
> In article <adams.718032997@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> >But again, the ramifications of carrying the child to term
> >(this was in '81) were FAR worse than the risks associated with the
> >abortion.
>
> That's simply not true.

Sure it is.

> To say that abortion is safer than birth is repeating something
> that someone taught us somewhere along the way which is unsubstantiated and
> un-true.  Abortion is not, nor has it ever been, safer than giving birth.

Actually, it's both substantiated and true.  I recently posted statistics
from a number of sources that proved this; I'd be happy to email you a
copy if you missed it.

> I suggest that it is
> more likely that she really did what 1) her parents wanted, or
> 2) her boyfriend wanted.

Well, I suggest it is more likely that she really did what *she* wanted.
And I suggest that since Steve knows her, and you don't, it's far more
likely that his estimation is accurate than that either yours or mine is.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:02:37 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:

: I'm not up on my Roe v. Wade, but is it not illegal to abort a fetus in the
: third trimester?

There is currently no legal federal legislation regarding the (il)legality
of abortion.  Such legislation is (supposed to be) beyond the scope
of Congress's powers.

Roe v. Wade ruled, essentially, that state laws prohibiting first and
second trimester abortions violates a woman's Fourth Amendment rights.
Third trimester abortions are not protected by Roe v. Wade, but are
legal in some states.

: >Abortion can never be murder unless the constitution is changed.  That will
: >never happen.
: 
: Never say never.

A woman's rights with regards to abortion are protected by the Fourth 
Amendment.  An unborn child's rights with regards to abortion
may be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  If that is the
case, then it becomes a question of whose rights take precidence --
the born person's or the unborn person's?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:30:09 GMT

In article <BvppHG.Ds9@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)
Then you REALLY need reprogramming.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:09:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct04.081042.31313@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
>s:

>>I'm stating that sperm, eggs, and zygotes are equivalent in the sense that
>>they are all single-celled human organisms.  (That's human as an adjective,
>>qualifying "organism").  None of them are human in the sense of being a
>>person, and none have any moral obligations due them.

>   While sperm, eggs, and zygotes are certainly single-celled human organisms,
>I am certain, trsuting your common sense illuminated by science, that
>you would not call a sperm, an egg, any human cell in my body (or in yours)
>human life.  A sperm/egg/human cell in my body, cannot be members of
>any species and are definitely not a member of homo sapiens.  The unborn,
>starting at concpetion, can be called a member of homo sapiens, however.

Martin, it is human life, when you use human as an adjective. No, it
is not a member of homo sapiens, although it is the gamete. Neither 
is a fertilized egg. It is a z/e/f of homo sapiens, but not a member 
in the sense that an adult is. And in case you missed it, they are presently
trying to determine the interchangeablility of tumors and embryos, as
it appears that mere location in the body is enough to cause to very
different types of behaviors in both. (If you wish, I can post this
article again.) In the studies done to date, tumors placed into ovaries
(they used mice) became embryonic growths, while embryos placed elsewhere
became tumors. What does this mean? You tell me, but to me it indicates
that conception is merely a starting point for human development, and
that tumors are starting points in another arena of human development
where the location was poorly chosen. This completely negates the "specialty"
of conception, since similar things are occurring every time a tumor
develops, and we have no qualms about ending the "life" of those.

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.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:28:40 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.204440.7668@csus.edu>
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:39:04 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>Of course, as a pro-lifer, I don't find my position to be
>uncomfortable, either. I find great comfort in knowing that I do not
>support interfering in other people's lives, and I would legislate to
>let the live as they see fit. However, when discrimination is taking
>place, I find it necessary to ban it, and when the fetus is not a
>person, we have discrimination. 

Chaney, you're a hypocrite.  You obviously don't believe in eliminating
all discrimination and are just using this line of argument in a feeble
attempt to make a point.  It isn't working.

>And of course, as most Americans would agree, if banning
>discrimination means getting involved in people's lives, it is okay to
>interfere in people's lives to stop discrimination. 

"Most Americans?"  I may be an optimist, but I think the average level
of intelligence in the country is higher than that.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:00:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.233604.26552@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Mentally Ill Poseur) writes:
> In article <6648@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (The Delightful Ms Garvin) writes:
> >
> >If Chaney really wanted to put an end to this, he could simply
> >ask Dick Smith to post an article that said that the account
> >in question was not issued to Steve Chaney, but to Dennis
> >Hall.  This will not happen.  Mr. Smith has informed more than
> >one person that Chaney owned the account.  Chaney will
> >never suggest that people write to Mr. Smith, either.
> 
> Why should I? He didn't want any part of this, and neither do I. 

He was interested enough to call me on the phone and tell me that
Stephen Chaney was the owner of the Dennis Hall account in question,
and a few other interesting things, including the fact that he
suspended Chaney's posting privileges for a while (I have a copy
of email he sent to another poster in which Mr Smith states that
he suspended Chaney's posting privileges).

> I have never lost my posting privileges, whereas he did. 
> 
> If you can show where I lost my posting privileges, please post it.

I'll send email to the poster from whom I got the copy of
Mr Smith's letter and see what I can do about this.

> Of course you cannot explain your lies about Dennis Hall.

It is hard to explain a lie when the lie is the truth.
What need anyone to explain these simple truths that we
have uttered?  Thrash on, Chaney, in your fevered
desperation.  The "prank" you pulled haunts you only
because of your own inability to own up.  It is a character
issue, and you have not the character to deal with the
issue honestly.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40777 talk.politics.misc:49721 alt.sex:32043 alt.rush-limbaugh:6614 alt.politics.elections:15288 alt.politics.clinton:8630 alt.politics.bush:7838
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:31:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Oct05.181154.97596@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:

In article <9464@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
AS:"Fetuses aren't borned persons." and  "Murder involves, among other things,
AS:the killing of borned persons." are the only statements  that are absolutely
AS:TRUE.  All the others are a little too fluid.

MW:Where do you get your definition of murder.  My copy of Webster's says
MW:that murder is the killing of a human being.  No mention of borned.

AS:Well, killing of a borned human being is murder too.  You gotta look at the
AS:"among other things" phrase right.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the intent.  I thought that the original 
author was emphasizing the borned part.  If she or anyone else had felt
that unborned was inherent to the "among other things" phrase, than her
definition would not have supported her argument.

BTW, I felt that by adding the word "borned" to the second phrase also
implied that unborned was not part of the first.  If borned and unborned
had been the intent, it would have been much simpler to have merely left
the word borned out of the second phrase.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Rich Lee is an idiot   
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 03:46:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.152344.1261@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, f_williams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <Bv49L3.FtD@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:K> 
>
>> I'm a baby worshiper.  
[stupid remarks, by a uninformed male]
>> So how can you justify 9 months of inconvience for the mother with a 
>> humans life?
>
>Nine months of inconvience [sic]?  Let me tell you about my "nine months
>of inconvenience."

[heartrendering story of a mother's "inconvience" with enough pain,
sickness and details to make my little tummy a mite upset; and I won't
even have to go through it (I'll just faint in the waiting room when
my SO's time comes, thankyoukindly)]

Please, Leigh, save a copy of this story and re-post it everytime some
unthinking moron talks about pregnancy being "just" 9 months of a small
bother.  I may not be typical; but it does drive the point home that
pregnancy certainly isn't a small inconvience in all cases.  Nor would
I even say "most" (luckily most woman don't seem to have *all* the
problems you did or our species would probably die out quickly :-).

>Was it worth it?  You bet your life it was.  I loved and wanted my daughter
>(still do, although she's now ten and *really* messy).  I count the physical
>cost to myself as a small price to pay for something I wanted so much.

Rich Lee, please note this part where she says it was worth it because
*she* WANTED it.  It would probably been even more hellish if she'd been
FORCED through this if she didn't want it.  Punishment even?

>But how in the hell can this jerk Rich Lee say that pregnancy and birth
>are a mere "9 months of inconvenience"?  Do my experiences sound like a 
>trivial thing?  I lost my livelihood and my health during the pregnancy, and
>believe me, neither of those is an "inconvenience".  How dare some creep
>who will never face a pregnancy trivialize the amount of blood, sweat, and
>tears that goes into creating a new life?
>
>Wise up, Lee.  You've thoroughly alienated every woman in this discussion
>group.

Ah, Lee doesn't care about alienating women.  If I remember correctly
(sorry if I misattribute this) he considers women second class citizens
because *men* won't *let* women defend the US in combat roles in the
military. (Again, I think it was him that said this...maybe some other
person).

>Leigh Williams
>Stephen F. Austin State University
>I speak only for myself.  
> 

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
From: waldbyjf@o233-03.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Julian F Waldby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: yesterday
Date: 7 Oct 1992 03:44:02 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: waldbyjf@nextwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: o233-03.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

My sister had an abortion yesterday. She said it was a rather enjoyable
experience.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: This Christian "Thing"
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:15:07 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Happy Happy Joy Joy!

DOD is back, with his usual witty rejoinders.

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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:11:48 GMT

<1992Oct2.003522.4832@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) :
><nyikos.717897446@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>nb. Storga has admitted to being a confirmed atheist.  I wonder whether
>>that rules out being a Wiccan.
>
>I doubt that it does. Many people who call themselves Wiccan or neo-pagan
>are animists and do not believe in a god or gods.
>
>>"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and
>>utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.
>>...Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
>>		----The words of Jesus, spoken during the Sermon on 
>>		    the Mount [Matt. 5:11-12]
>
>Storga should soon be a saint by this criterion. St. Gordon and his
>Unvirgin playmates... I like that one.

Wouldn't that be "De-virginized playmates", or is it "Deflowered
playmates"?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:43:08 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>to avoid posting a statement and then contradicting
->>it in your next post on the same thread.
->Please show how my statements contradict each other, Mr. Keegan.

you already did. at least this time you were smart
enough to delete them. a generation ago in this thread,
they were just inches apart on my screen.

now run along.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:33:13 CDT

In article <1992Oct2.194552.408@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>So the existence of a human life, you would agree, is dependent of the
>location of that human life.  I didn't know I would be less of a human 
>if I were in a small jail cell compared to where I am right now.
>
A Small Clue for Martin:

You just equated a woman's body with a mere physical location.
You even thought of a rather unflattering location to compare 
us to.

We hate it when you do that.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40550 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4916 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6293
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 10:32:46 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> In article <wiuNRB1w165w@monsoon.com> sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:
> 
> >If someone constantly attacks my values, I know that person is
> >my enemy. Simple, nicht whar?
> 
>  Which one of your values is under attack and who is attacking it ?
> 
>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Oh, DennisSteve, you're really cute when you're obtuse!

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion