HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:36:32 GMT
Organization: NRL

In article <1993Jan27.170412.11348@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J
H Woodyatt) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
># > The incredible misogyny of deciding a person vs. a perhaps-we-aren't-sure-
># > and-anyway-it's-harming-it's-host not-person in favor of the latter 
># > boggles the mind.
># >
># > The incredible mysogyny of reducing a woman to a breeding animal because
of
># > *your* *personal* values also boggles the mind.
># >
># > It isn't a simple either/or scenario.  What abortion restriction entails
is
># > returning women to the status of chattel, and nothing less.
># 
># Sheesh, and to think that *I* get accused of "cheap emotionalism"
># because I use the term "child" instead of "fetus".  Ms. Regard goes
># whole hog here, using heavy emotionally-laden terms like "breeding
># animal", "misogyny", "chattel", all the while ignoring the simple 
># fact that the vast majority of women in America do not support 
># unrestricted abortion-on-demand.
>
>Actually, Mr. Holtsinger, if you wanted to be honest, you'd write that
>a majority of Americans of *both* genders don't support unrestricted
>abortion on demand without apology.
>
>Furthermore, Mr. Holtsinger, if I were you, I would dismiss charges
>that I employ `cheap emotionalism' as trivial and concentrate on the
>much more damaging charges of `egregious lying and distortion.'
>
>#                                  Are the women who oppose abortion
># "misogynists", Ms. Regard?
>
>Are the *men* and women who oppose abortion `misogynists?' -- would be
>the appropriate question.

What's the difference?  I'd like to see an answer to either.  So would my women
pro-life friends.

>
>#                             Do they think of themselves as
># "breeding animals"?  Surely you must have a better opinion of
># American women than that.
>
>Some of us have grown to harbor a certain contempt for the majority
>opinion, Mr. Holtsinger -- there is no shame in that.  A majority of
>Americans think miscegenation is immoral, and a truly shocking (but
>not quite a majority) proportion of them think it should be illegal.
>I have contempt for that majority opinion as well.
>
>Are the majority of American women who oppose miscegenation `racist?'
>
>

How does this relate to the question????
  
>-- 
>+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
>| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
>| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
>+---------------------------+  large to shade out.
>
>

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Keegan, "forgery," and attributions
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:15:35 GMT

In <1993Jan22.125008.15013@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727658850@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> 
>> Like Kaflowitz, you are an expert in deleting evidence in your favor.

>And you are a liar, like, well, like you actually.

>Let me see, is this accusation the one where you say I deleted
>material from a posting when the deletions had been done by
>the previous poster.

The previous poster was me, following up to Susan Garvin, following
up to Don Beaver.  I did not delete Garvin's garbage.  You did.

I told you before, you are confusing this October incident with something
that happened much later.  I told you this in the post "Feigned indignation
by Dean Kaflowitz."  When you replied, you deleted this, and made some
cute remarks about mosquito bites.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to them.  I'd hate to have you
get malaria, or encephalitis.

>Once again you show me that you are a stupid, stupid man as well
>as a liar.  I suppose you think that if you tell a lie often
>enough it becomes true.

You are projecting your deficiencies onto me, I'm afraid.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:28:00 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes ...
>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?

What if we _don't_ kill the fetus?  What if we just remove it?  Unless
it has a right to use a woman's body, that is hardly violating its
rights.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58128 alt.flame:19442
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:23:07 GMT

<1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) :
><1993Jan22.211348.18894@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>><C19po4.87y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>>><1993Jan21.213023.24642@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>: The pope, 
>>>...
>>:  continues
>>: to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.
>>
>>>   How?
>>
>>	By not allowing women to have the opportunity to have
>>leadership positions. Will a woman ever be a priest? Bishop?
>>Archbishop? Cardinal? Pope?
>
>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>will be taken as men.

This is fairly assinine.  Women have only recently been allowed to become
college professors.  Do you consider any female professor to really be a
man?

>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>the natural differences between them.

What "natural" difference exists between a man and a woman that would
qualify one for popehood and one not?

>If a man can carry a baby to term, he is a woman and not a man.
>So, the church, as an institution, has posts which are for men and 
>posts which are for women. 

Are you saying that the church has assigned the "post" of *breeder* to
woman?  "Woman have babies and men run everything else - where's the
discrimanation?"

>>	I don't think I'd want to bother the Church about this sort of
>>thing if I could possibly avoid it, but if they meddle in others'
>>lives, then I think that they are fair game. As the saying goes, your
>>rights end where my nose begins.
>
>So, because the Church does something which is wrong, you have the
>right to do the same thing to them
>Great!

Sometimes the only way to get through to an oppressor is to oppress them.
That's the golden rule, isn't it?  The Pope treats certain people a
certain way, he must expect to be treated that way back.


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: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:58:29 GMT

In article <6015@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.170443.23758@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>#All the quotes you have are from the Old Testament and as I have stated 
>#earlier that the Old Testament is Old history and no longer valid....
>#Although it is useful for studying history all the laws are not valid...
>#Before Jesus came the OT was what counted and If I am correct still counts
>#taoday for Jews but Christian follow the NT as the Law....
>
>But there is no NT law proscribing abortion.  Therefore, the OT stands.
>
>--Teddi
>-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------

   I didn't know you were a _Sola scriptura_ person, Teddi.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: care to enlighten me?
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:46:49 GMT
Organization: erehwon

My position is this:                                    27 Jan 93

0) I'm likely to edit, reword, and/or clarify my opinions regularly.  
   I might even change them.

1) An early-term fetus, being incapable of any significant type of thought 
   process, is very much unlike a normal, born person.  Thus, to kill such
   a mentally & physically undeveloped (possibly brainless) human being is 
   very different than killing a born person.  If abortion is wrong, it is 
   not because it is equivalent to the "murder" of a normal, born person.

2) While a late-term fetus is in many ways very much like a born person, 
   there is a *major* exception: it is inside a woman.  Because I feel the 
   right to control your own body is *almost* absolute, the abortion 
   decision should be *very* heavily (if not completely) weighted in favor 
   of the woman's choice.  Next, while there may be some hypothetical 
   abortion situations that I feel shouldn't take place, I'm not aware of 
   any such situations that exist today.  Finally, it seems there is a 
   rather large natural disincentive for a women to willfully get into 
   *any* late-term abortion situation, thus frivolous late-term abortions 
   are likely to remain virtually non-existent.

3) What if we agree "abusive" abortion situations do exist?  While being 
   ineffective (alone) would not necessarily be a good reason not to 
   outlaw "abusive" abortions, being ineffective COMBINED WITH serious 
   and unintended negative side effects would be a good reason not to 
   outlaw abortion.  My perception of the situation is that outlawing 
   would be marginally effective in stopping "abusive" abortions (if they 
   exist) while effectively creating potentially deadly obstacles to 
   needed abortions.

This all adds up to me being, for the most part, "pro-choice".
If anyone cares to enlighten me, please include the point in question, 
and then try to make succinct and coherent counterpoint.  And remember, 
innuendo & flammage generally make an argument more dubious while 
degrading your credibility, whether you realize it or not.

-Brian (have a nice day)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 00:55:34 GMT


In article <C1Frr7.9zA@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
 
>I'm apparently much older than you.  When I was in high school, prior to RvW,
>abortions were not readily available.  Teenage sex was extremely rare by
>today's standards.  To my knowledge in my school of 3,000 kids there were no
>pregnancies.  In any case, they were very rare. I knew some sexually
>promiscuous guys and they ALWAYS carried a condom in their wallets and used
>them.  Believe it or not, the fear of getting a girl pregnant was very real to
>these guys.
 
If these are some of your arguments for why abortion should be
illegal, isn't it also a very good argument for why condoms should
be illegal.  You say how the availability of abortion makes kids 
less concerned about getting pregnant, but in this paragraph you
also say how promiscuous guys ALWAYS carried condoms.  Wouldn't
making it tougher for them to get condoms also make them less
promiscuous?  Could you please explain the difference to me?
 
>Many types of contraceptives kill the recently conceived human.  To many
>pro-lifers this is no different than an abortion.  Please take this into
>account before jumping to the conclusion that all pro-lifers are against all
>birth control.
 
But the argument you use in this article can also be used by
those that oppose all forms of birth control.  
 
>I can't speak for Edward but I would say to you (as I would my daughter),
>"Please please don't have sex until you are financially and mentally able to
>bear a child.  If you must have sex, find ways that don't involve intromission.
> Insist that your partner use a condom and you a spermicide and barrier
>contraceptive.  Ask your mother or school nurse or read a book on how to use
>them.  Know that I will not allow you to have an abortion unless your life is
>threatened. "   Aside from the anti-abortion statement, is what I've said so
>unreasonable?
 
I have taught my children that I don't believe they should have
a sexual relation until they are ready.  I have described to them
the pitfalls as I see them to having sexual relations prior to
being ready.  I have also explained to them, much as you have,
what to do just in case they do not head my advise and have sex
prior to being ready.  They should be responsible in that case and
use birth control.  Just as I can not always count on them to head
my advise regarding when to have sex, I also recognize that they 
may not head my advise in how to have sexual relationships 
responsibly.  In that case, I am glad that the option of 
abortion is available to them.  So why do you allow your children
to take precautions if they don't listen to you in one instant,
but don't allow them precautions in another.

>- Paul
 
Dan King
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:34:47 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <C1I2qp.8Dv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>>In article <1993Jan25.235837.1790@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian
>>Kauffman) says:

>>>Q1: when did life begin?

On earth, several billion [outside the USA: several milliard] years ago.  
But this is talk.abortion.

>>>Q2: when does an individual life begin?

No later than the point where twinning becomes impossible.

>>>Q3: when does an individual's (ie. a person's) life begin?

Sounds like this is covered by the other questions, so I'll skip it for now.

>>>Q4: when during individual's life does the individual life become a "person"?

Well, if you are asking what the 14th amendment says, I suggest you read
the US Constitution and the Opinion of the Court in RvW.

If you are asking at what point I think the individual life becomes what
I would call a person deserving *some* legal protection, my answer is
at sentience.

>>>It's all too common that someone will ask Q2, get an answer, and then carry
>>>on as if the answer was to Q4.  So what is "THE question" really asking?

>I don't think something that isn't sentient is much of a "person".  I don't
>think a single cell can realistically be considered sentient, whether or not
>it "has a soul".  Doesn't a "person" have a "personality"?  Does anyone ever
>say that a single cell has a "personality"?  (ignoring anthropomorphism)

No.  A person does not have to have a "personality" in the sense of certain
character traits persisting through time.  All it needs is consciousness of
*something* however faint or fleeting.

>When *you* say "person" you mean the same thing as "human".

No.  The Andromeda Galaxy probably contains lots of persons, but no
humans.

>  Since it is
>a waste of a term to refer to something that can be easily specified with
>another term without ambiguity or much debate when the first term could be
>used to refer to something more specific, most of us who disagree with you
>use the term "person" to refer to a *sentient* being.  This is both more
>general and more specific, and--*we* feel--more appropriate.
>[love those three-sentence paragraphs!  ;)  ]

I agree.

Peter J. Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:36:29 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1993Jan27.075023.3495@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#Anyone who asserts that genes make each person unique is operating in
#a state of extreme ignorance and/or naivite.  To claim that anyone is
#solely the product of their genes is easily refuted by pointing out
#that one's knowledge of set theory, quantum physics, or LR(1) parsers
#is NOT instinctual and is, in fact, learned.

Which in turn is easily refuted by pointing out that some people choose
to learn about QM while others choose set theory.  Sooner or later we reach 
some choice which cannot be attributed to learning, but only to a unique
individual. Therefore uniqueness is prior to learning, and learning is
not required for uniqueness.

Do you think Shakespeare learned it all, or had he something to bring to the 
party in the first place?

#Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
#ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Frank O'Dwyer
odwyer@sse.ie
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:24:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.171605.23629@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Heh. Sarcasm noted. Most linguists I've met have nothing for disdain for
>self-styled "language purists" who attempt to impose their ideas of how
>people "should" communicate, on the rest of us. That disdain usually turns
>to outright loathing when a specialist, whether it be from the field of
>law, medicine, computer science, physics or whatever, attempts to usurp
>terms in the common lexicon with their particular flavor of jargon. Let 
>jargon stay jargon, I say. If I wanted to talk in medical jargon, I would 
>have gone into medicine. But I didn't.

Kevin, on the other hand, seems to be one of those who would like to 
define and purify terms in the "common lexicon" and tell us what they 
mean and inform us on their use...



       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:34:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.082038.24613@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Oh, and the rule you are thinking of is, "Do unto others as you would have
>>them do unto you."  Somehow, you mistakenly stated the "eye for an eye"
>>philosophy.
>
>Nope, it's the golden rule.  The Pope should know it and should live by
>it, right?  If so, then the way he treats people is the way he'd like to
>be treated, right?  He's doing unto <group> the way he would have them do
>unto him.
>
>Seems pretty simple.

   Yep, and that's why he didn't take a gun with him when he visited
his attempted assassin in prison.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58133 misc.test:15891
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:21:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1993Jan25.205825.13772@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>In article <kkelly.10.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca> kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.171758.17571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
>>>Subject:  CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
>>>Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
>>>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:17:58 GMT
>>>Copied without permission from:
>>>The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
>>>
>>>CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
>>>
>>>By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons
>>
>>It's crap like this that makes me wonder how strong the anti-abortionists 
>>grip (this person in particular) on reality really is. How about sticking to 
>>the issues and leave the anti-christ crap out. 
>>
>>Rest of garbage deleted 
>>
>	True, of course, but one must make allowances for the boy's youth.  It
>is not uncommon for children in their late teens to honestly believe that they
>have already acquired all the world's wisdom and most of its knowledge.  When
>(or if) they mature emotionally and intellectually, they often come to regret
>the silly things they said or did during their youth.  Such is life.

There used to be a saying that went; 'When I was 16 I thought my father
was pretty stupid, by the time I reached 21, I was amazed at how much
he had learned'. :-)

Think about it.

>	In any case, let's not assume that kids like Booth are in some way
>representative of the pro-life movement.
>The_Doge

The old Grouch.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:54:58 GMT

In <1993Jan20.055842.12539@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727465959@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <C10KIH.5D3.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1993Jan16.162107.2532@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan16.104626.2659@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
>>>[everything deleted except this phrase]
>>># While I don't consider myself to be pro-life (or pro-choice), 
>>
>>>This is because the Reverend thinks that women should have neither
>>>a choice nor a life that doesn't include his interference, no
>>>doubt.
>>
>>I doubt it, and so would you, if you had any sense of fair play and
>>rules of evidence.
>>
>>>  His opposition to abortion is as obvious as his fear

>You mean like the rules of evidence you follow, Mr ' a 5 week fetus is
>sentient, because I say it is' Giggles?

I did not make either of the two claims implicit in the above paragraph.

>we're still waiting for the proof of this little gem.

Ask someone who has the attitude you attribute to me for a proof.  
Why should I do your research for you?

>>  "PHoney" I can at least *comprehend*,
>We're awfully glad that you've finally recognised the obvious, PHoney.

I recognized it in an instant.  Along with its falsehood.

>>although there is nothing phoney about me, but why "Reverend"?  

>This is obviously false, as anyone who has read your bilge can
>testify.

Oh, you can say anything about the empty set.

"Mark Cochran supports infanticide, as anyone who has watched him kill and
carve up a healthy, but unwanted neonate for 1 heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys,
1 liver, and 2 corneas can testify, as can anyone who watched him testify
that he did it to save the lives of 6 WANTED babies and the sight of two
others."

There are several descriptions of the empty set up there.  Can you 
spot them?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion