HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:58:51 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep11.014759.10927@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
#In article <29705@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU 
#(Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#
#}(1) If Ronald Bense were occupying your body against your will, say
#}he were attached to your neck sucking your blood because he is a
#}vampire, you would have every right to remove him, and probably even
#}kill him.  That is provided you weren't enjoying it.
#
#Vampire bats do not suck blood.  They make an incision, it bleeds, and
#they lap it up.  I'm not sure about other vampires, but I assume their
#mouth parts are similar.  I don't know of any documentation for that, but
#I expect I can dig up something from Merlin Tuttle (and if you don't
#know who he is, don't be surprised, but you don't know much about bats
#either).  This testimony is from an eyeball witness, is that documentation
#enough?

I believe you about the bats, but I want more documentation on
the other vampires, please.  

Susan,
who doesn't know anything about bats or vampires
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:11:56 GMT

---
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|From article by deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc):
|> In article chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney):
|>> What does Gloria Steinem have? 

|> Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with
|> 1.  Dignity.

|What?  With that stupid (graying) hippie hair do?
 
Suzanne is being strange again.  Is she heaping scorn on 
Gloria Steinem for being over 21?  For not using hair dye 
and instead aging gracefully?  For not using Suzanne's 
hair style?

I find Suzanne's statement utterly typical of Usenet rantings 
against feminism: stupid, shallow, and content-free.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief." --Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:28:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.201800.1379@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <BuDJzy.CEs@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:

>>Freedom of religion does not give anyone free reign to harm
>>other people.

>That's why they hurried up and made the z/e/f a "non-person." 

How many times do we have to repeat this: the z/e/f was never
considered a person in law, even when abortion was illegal.

Examples: tax deductions started at birth, abortionists were
prosecuted for abortion rather than murder, women who procured
abortions were not prosecuted for hiring a contract murder (only one
was ever charged with any crime; she was sentenced to two years
probation), etc.


-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Mommy, why does everybody have a bomb? (Was: Pits)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 02:10:18 GMT

In article <88950@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>
>By all means.  I'm not claiming that I say congrats to every pregnant woman
>who walks the streets.
>
>I realize that there are many circumstances that surround pregnancy.  I
>do have jugment, you know.

Yep.  You have enough "judgement" to say that "pregnancy is like a harmless
sort of slavery.  It's only nine months".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35644 talk.bizarre:29327
From: thinman@netcom.com (Technically Sweet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: been In Thearpy Long?????
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:41:53 GMT
Organization: International Foundation for Internal Freedom

kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:


>Oh, my God!  I've worked at both the hospital that treated Kent, AND ALSO
>the hospital that treated Drieux.....
>--scott

Yes, but did you work at Fort Dietrich where the CIA makes
assasin robots?  I believe Manson, Sirhan, Oswald The Fake,
Chapman, Berkowitz, and Hinckley all did time there.

-- 

Lance Norskog

Data is not information is not knowledge is not wisdom.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 20:49:03 GMT

For those of you who are christians and also want to make abortion illegal
in some/most/all cases, on what do you base this position exactly?

Just curious...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed,  9 Sep 1992 17:06:50 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 8-Sep-92 Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
by e elizabeth bartley@elli 
> >: In article <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
> >: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>  
> >: >The consequences of the so-called "pro-choice" argument being wrong 
> >: >seem rather more damaging than the consequences of the so called
> >: >"pro-life" argument being wrong.
>  
> Um....  *Which* pro-choice argument?  And which pro-life argument....?
>  
> I agree that more damage is done by assuming z/e/fs aren't people if
> they are is greater than the damage done by assuming z/e/fs are people
> if they aren't.  On the other hand, I think the probability of
> something with neither memories nor a functional past being a person
> is infintesinal (sp?).  Remember to take the probabilities of the
> propositions into account, not merely the damage done by guessing
> wrongly each way....

First, I'd like to mispell German or Austrian philophopher's name before
I misquote him.  Wittenstein said, "that we can talk about, we must pass
over in silence".   
The definition of personhood is whatever we agree for it be.  Thus there
is no right answer or no wrong answer.  Both Mr. Frank's argument and
Ms. Bartley's reply are equally meaningless.

Michael Loomis
p.s. Beth, you shouldn't play Pascal's wager.
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:58:47 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <18jgunINNno2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <43429@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

>Hello, Tommy.  Welcome back...

Hello Adrienne.  Thank you.

>>So in terms of value, the only significant differences between the human
>>foetus and the human baby/child/adult are:
>>	
>>	1. The level of value attributed
>>	2. The number of voting citizens who concur.

>Hmmm....  No mention of the fact of that one tiny little significant differ-
>ence that a fetus lives within the body of a (possibly unwilling) human woman.

That is implicit in point 1.
Surely the significance of the foetus living inside the woman's body is
a function of how much value we place on the woman's bodily autonomy?

Apparently you place the value of a woman's right to bodily autonomy at a
levl sufficiently high relative to that of a foetus to justify the
removal of the foetus (with its subsequent death) from the woman's body.

And I don't.

So we differ on these arbitrary valuations.  No problem.
That's what democracy is made of.

Let's vote.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 10:03:34 GMT

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
: >: In article <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
: >: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
: 
: >: >The consequences of the so-called "pro-choice" argument being wrong 
: >: >seem rather more damaging than the consequences of the so called
: >: >"pro-life" argument being wrong.
: 
: Um....  *Which* pro-choice argument?  And which pro-life argument....?
: 
: I agree that more damage is done by assuming z/e/fs aren't people if
: they are is greater than the damage done by assuming z/e/fs are people
: if they aren't.  On the other hand, I think the probability of
: something with neither memories nor a functional past being a person
: is infintesinal (sp?).  Remember to take the probabilities of the
: propositions into account, not merely the damage done by guessing
: wrongly each way....

Probability doesn't enter into it.  The proposition "a fetus is
a person" is either true or false.  It's not a 0.5 chance that it's
true - its 1 or 0.  You can't flip ten fetuses and count how many
of them come up people, elizabeth.

Your definition of "person" is extremely bizarre ... why does a 
functional _future_ not count for as much a functional _past_?  What 
has memory got to do with personhood?  Sounds like an utterly abitrary 
criterion to me.  Is an amnesiac a person?  

What does a past have to have to make it functional?

And why have you chosen this definition of person over "something 
with neither an amex card nor a funtop jeep cannot be a person"?
Wouldn't that be equally arbitrary?  

Or perhaps it's because _you_ don't have a funtop jeep ... :-)

(I don't either.   Oh my god, maybe my past is not functional!  I can't
remember!  help!)

: 
: -- 
: Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
:             Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
: 
: Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mixed emotions...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:15:30 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.114051.7600@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> [ pleasant part deleted as its far too wimpy ]
> ] Only problem is I began to delve into an account
> ] at nyx.cs.du.edu, and realized how much more news is received there,
> ] and at such a faster rate.  Yet reading news on this account is
> ] so much more convenient than the rn newsreader on nyx (how confusing
> ] for a newbie!).  Such terrible dilemmas I face!

[...]
 
> Wimpy wimpy wimpy little boys with small penises us
> other news readers than rn! And Their Little thingie
> shrivals up on them and withers away unto DUST!!!!!

Well I wasn't exposed to rn until just recently, and my penis
hasn't whithered away into dust *yet*...  As for the size...
Well shit, it's been that way for a few years now...  I
didn't know about usenet back then.  This is really unfair!!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:14:41 GMT

In <25017@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>         Your advanced hang glider, the one you do not let anyone go
>>> up in who has had no previous experience, has asked me to tell you that
>...
>>> inhabiting the hang glider, and not vice versa.  Your advanced hang glider
>>> has asked me to tell you that it alone is qualified to speak of what it
>...
>>>         It says that, as Ms. Regard might put it, giving you and other
>>> experienced hang gliders the right to inhabit it is giving yourselves
>...
>>>         Your hang glider tells me it thinks that's bogus.

>Is it me, or are pro-lifers all looney tunes? We have forgach claiming
>fetuses speak to her, chaney thinking he's a borg/airplane/hall/whatever,
>Welch claiming that starvation doens't kill you, and now Nyikos thinking 
>that an inanimate object talks. 

You deleted all the quotes I made from Hekhuis, a pro-choicer, claiming
to speak for fetuses, the dead, fish, and various other un-named things.
If this is your idea of fairness, you have a long way to go.

If you are this unreceptive to a bit of fictional fun about inanimate
objects, you'll hate Walt Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_, not to mention
_The Brave Little Toaster_.  And of course, you probably don't even know
that The Little Engine Who Could was feminine.

>Ron

>Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.

Hmmm.  Maybe you do like some inanimate objects after all.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Summary: Could it be...?
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:37:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.121203.13704@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.211120.2720@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> 
>> I just found out that our school's Associated Students board supports
>> a new resolution I've been drafting up. 
>> 
>> It bars CSUS from funding and advocating political issues outside of
>> our on-campus education and funding. 
>> 
>> That, because of religious freedom in the First Amendment. 
>> 
>> And what will that knock off? 
>> 
>> It'll knock off last year's pro-choice resolution. 
>
>Since all I have is Hallchaney's summary, I can't be sure of
>the wording and implications of this "resolution," nor does it
>sound like a binding document, since a resolution is not a
>fiat, but if it applies as such it coul dwell knock off
>the use of political discussion groups, such as talk.abortion,
>as part of the school's computer network, since the school is
>funding the groups, and the groups are a source of advocacy.
>
>Could knock himself off the net with this one.

All I can say is -- we should be so lucky...:-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                         You can rn, but you can't hide. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 23:02:52 GMT

In <1992Sep4.161014.17859@ncar.ucar.edu> sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan) writes:

>talk.rape is a newsgroup devoted to discussing ways of preventing
>rape. The scope of discussion tends to be rather broad, and the tone
>of the discussions can be heated. But the issue to be discussed is
>rape, and facts are needed if any argument is to be given attention.

>In the past month or so, talk.rape has been inundated with bickering
>about legal points. Now it looks as if the group is to be inundated
>by arguments about abortion.

>If forced abortions are occuring, that is a rape issue, and I would
>bet that it gets a lively discussion in talk.rape. However, I have 
>not seen any evidence on the scope of forced abortion presented in 
>the discussion that has been cross posted to talk.rape.

>Therefore, I request that you either present some evidence about the
>scope of the problem, if it exists, or stop cross posting this thread
>to talk.rape.

A good request, and one I will follow wholeheartedly.  I have some
purely rape-oriented issues to talk about as well.  As for this 
thread, this is the last time I will cross-post it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:09:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.015209.22867@u.washington.edu> jnorris@u.washington.edu writes:
>How do pro-choice
>people out there feel about a woman aborting a female fetus because she
>wanted a boy instead?

Personally, I find it mildly distasteful as I believe that males and females
should be valued equally.  Unfortunately, that is not true in most societies.

>Does a woman's right to an abortion include the right
>to abort a female fetus because she would grow up to be a woman instead of
>a man?

Absolutely.  I will not require a woman to give a reason to abort.  It is
*her* decision and *hers* alone and I would not second guess it as long as
the decision is made prior to the third trimester.

>I don't know whether this happens in the U.S., but it happens in
>other countries.

Particularly in India -- with good reason.  Parents of girls have to provide
a dowry to get her married, and some women are *KILLED* for their dowries.

I find this MUCH more distasteful than abortion, and can understand why some
Indian families may wish to avoid having a female child.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Sodd's Second Law:
	Sooner or later, the worst possible set of circumstances is
	bound to occur.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:07:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.164731.6013@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Sep11.164220.3051@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
>    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
> In article <1992Sep11.152346.21670@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>    (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
> In <1992Sep10.114521.21248@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
>    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>
> In article <1992Sep9.231533.14559@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
>    (Stephen A Chaney) writes: >>>>
> 
> > And Keegan, bless his evil
> > heart, doesn't think he's a cyborg or an airplane.  
> 
> If you could demonstrate that Chaney actually does/did, then
> Keegan would look a bit more credible.

All I can go by is what Hallchaney keeps claiming.  If a
man comes to you and says "I am an airplane" and insists
on it, and repeats it often, and so forth, do you conclude
that he doesn't really think that he is?

I know, I'm not qualified to make that determination.
 
> > If you
> > read that entire article by Chahallney, you'll realize that
> > his declarations of victory demonstrate a separation from
> > reality.
> 
> Your powers of inference must exceed mine, Dean.  I don't 
> see any indication of psychotic process.  All I see are 
> anger and immaturity.  

Yes, here we come to the nub, the rub, the pith, the inner
core, the leafless artichoke of the matter.  My powers of
inference are, in fact, greater than yours, dear William.
Unhampered by training that tells me I must refuse to believe
what I see and hear unless textbook that permits me to do
so, my powers of inference have grown far beyond the average.
Reminds me of a time when some birdpwatcher told me I
couldn't have seen a Lapland Longspur on a bird-feeder
in my yard, a mere half mile from the beach, because
Lapland Longspurs don't go to bird-feeders a half mile from
the beach.  Well, I have pictures of the bird and it's a
Lapland Longspur all right.  Unhampered by knowing better
than to know what is right in fron tof my eyes is real,
I accept what I see as real.

> > And you didn't answer the question, Bill.  You just provided
> > an example of someone doing something that appears, on the
> > surface, to be similar, but which isn't for the reasons I
> > cited.
> 
> The answer is:  we don't know - we lack information - there 
> is no indication of psychopathology in the information we
> have, i.e. his posts.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

I think he's a genuine nut-case, though.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:22:47 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

> Frank
>> yo, Adrienne

>: Hmm.  Well, folks of the net, what would you recommend as a useful approach
>: here.  First he wanted the opinion of one honest woman, and three were so
>: kind as to volunteer, from which he decided we must be fixated upon our
>: histories.  

>No, *you* decided that I decided that.  One woman didn't sound at
>all fixated, mainly because she didn't jump to conclusions and rant
>at me.

Merely because Adrienne is expertly dismantling you already, and I didn't
want to merely repeat what she has said.

There.  Am I fixated now? 

-- 
"We have seen pictures, where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If 
there's water, that means there's oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can 
breathe." - Dan Quayle, talking about Mars.
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:38:56 GMT

>: In article <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
>: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:

>: >The consequences of the so-called "pro-choice" argument being wrong 
>: >seem rather more damaging than the consequences of the so called
>: >"pro-life" argument being wrong.

Um....  *Which* pro-choice argument?  And which pro-life argument....?

I agree that more damage is done by assuming z/e/fs aren't people if
they are is greater than the damage done by assuming z/e/fs are people
if they aren't.  On the other hand, I think the probability of
something with neither memories nor a functional past being a person
is infintesinal (sp?).  Remember to take the probabilities of the
propositions into account, not merely the damage done by guessing
wrongly each way....

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.