HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Ragu Spaghetti Sauce:  It's In There!
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:54:35 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
# c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
# >The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
# >a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
# >be dead?)
# 
# Since when? Do you see it granted or stated anywhere? I see lots of
# other rights granted, but not the one to life. We are granted other
# rights (and yes, that is granted, because they can be taken away, and
# have been throughout history) that we can claim while we are alive.

When people make statements like this, I am reminded of the arguments
against ratifying the Bill of Rights -- that an enumeration of rights
would encourage the idea that rights not enumerated didn't exist --
and sometimes feel that perhaps that argument has merit.

Mr. Bense, you should know better than to fall into the cheap trap Mr.
Guerrero has sprung on you...

Amendment IX:
	The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
	not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
	people.

This amendment was added to the Constitution as a loophole so that Mr.
Guerrero could make his argument, and incidentally, the decision in
Roe vs. Wade relies on this amendment as well.

Furthermore, when the United States adopted the Constitution it did
not throw out the English system of Common Law.  A good example is the
right to free speech.  Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the
doctrine of No Prior Restraint.  It's Common Law.  The Declaration of
Independence, while not a binding legal document, *is* an example of a
document containing the expression of sentiments in Common Law, thus
the importance of the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness phrase in
American jurisprudence.  The Right to Life is part of Common Law.  It
may be interesting to note that the Right to Life was not explicitly
enumerated in the Bill of Rights, though, and therein lies the thread
that, when pulled, brings down the myth that the Founding Fathers were
anything other than a cabal of landed white male gentry whose primary
claim to fame is that they developed the best system of government yet
for keeping power in the hands of the elite.  After all, look at the
former USSR -- all they got was a lousy 75 years.  The U.S. has been
going strong now for over 200, and its system has been more or less
emulated around the world.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 22:46:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.213302.16675@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.211330.15342@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu
(Eric Gorr) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.175213.14117@cs.yale.edu>,
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:


Oh, read:  (There is to much for me to type it all)

MATT 7:1-6
MATT 23:1-12
MARK 7:1-15
LUKE 6:37-42
     11:37-54
     16:16-17
John 8:1-11

I will summarize briefly.  Basically, in each of these passages Jesus was
speaking
about or to the pharisees.  If you are unfamiliar with the pharisees, they were
the ones responsible for creating and enforcing (?) the laws which were
primiarly
designed to make people lead artifically "moral" lives.  

Making abortion illegal is very similiar (if not equivalent) to what the
pharisees were doing, which Jesus hated so much.

-------

Oh, as an aside, the proof for 0<1 is:  (sorry it took so long)

(Given by prof. Koch at the University of Oregon)

(a) If x is any Real number, then one of the follow is true:

x = 0
x is containted with in the positive numbers
-x is contained within the positive numbers

(b)Also:  If x & y are Real numbers, we say x<y if y-x is contained within
the postivie numbers

(c)Also, if x & y are positive, then x*y is positive.

Now that that is set,

By (a), either 1=0 or 1 is positive or -1 is positive.

By the laws of algebra, 1 != .  If -1 is positive, then by (c), (-1)(-1) is
postive, so 1 is positive.  So in all cases 1=1-0 is positive, or 0<1.

done.
 

For a reference see:

Elementary analysis:  The theory of calculus, by kenneth a ross.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:26:34 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:

>1)  MCP = Male Chauvanist Pig.  It was used freely and often back in the
>seventies.

Thanks, I do recall this one, although it usually is spelled out.

>2)  Its not fare for you to "read between the lines" without checking in with
>me.  Forget the "women be damned" part, please.  The failure of our society to
>take care of the women and child is as reprehensible to me as the concept of
>abortion.  One does not justify the other,though, in my mind.

I do admit I put it in a way you probably don't like. It is an ugly
side of what you propose, and should be handled very delicately, unless
you wish to be seen as a misogynist. Fair warning. I'll leave the rest
of the above paragraph for later, as it will surely come up again.

>3)  Unfortunely words like "fetus" or "unborn child" are so loaded that to use
>them can short circuit any argument one is trying to make.  To me, saying,
>"have that fetus", makes it: "woman" vs. "thing"- thats an easy choice to make.
>The real issue to me is "woman" vs "baby" - that's why its not so easy.

Fetus is not loaded, it is a clinically and traditionally correct term
used to describe a specific stage in the development cycle of a human
being. Calling a fetus baby in the argument at hand is an emotionally
loaded usage. And it is just a woman issue to me. If she wants it out,
get it out. If it can survive, alone or with minor help (no heart-lung
machines, etc) then great, unless the purpose was to abort it due to
problems with the fetus. If this is not possible, why should measures
be taken to remove it alive?

>You're right, it probably wouldn't change your mind about abortion.  I also
>have no doubt it would be upsetting to anyone.  But, I think the rationals that

It would have the same effect as open heart surgery for me, I think.

>some people use to "dehumanize" the fetus, even at that late stage, would slip
>away.

I also don't support "trivial" abortions at this stage, but I'm not
supporting any laws to restrict it, since I don't believe they happen
often, if at all. They do happen for medical reasons, which I do support.

>I realize that these late term abortions are rare.  But that seems such a red
>herring to me.  I've read in some recent postings that if certain crimes rarely
>occur then its a waist of time to pass laws against them. The intrinsic
>"badness" or "goodness" of an act doesn't seem tied in with its frequency.

How about making a law against someone "throwing" a heavy tool or the
like down to earth from orbit? It could kill someone, but there is no
law against it. It also is not very likely to happen.

Ron                          Think about this, 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
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:09:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.200000.21233@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Sep22.114814.13838@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
>   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
>In article <1992Sep21.192121.9494@acd4.acd.com>
>   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>[to adrienne]
>
>>> I've actually been interested to see how far Keegan
>>> would go with this.  Someone warned me (not Darcy
>>> :-)) privately that he would "never, ever stop", so
>>> I thought I'd see how it played out.  That person
>>> was apparently right.  Jim kinda reminds me of the
>>> little Energizer bunny.
>>
>> how odd! that's exactly what someone (not darcy)
>> privately wrote to me and said about you. they even
>> called you the energizer bunny. is that where you
>> picked up the energizer bunny term?
>> 
>> so i decided to see how far you'd really go. it looks
>> like that person was right about you.
>
>"I know you are but what am I"?  Pee Wee would be proud
>of you, Jim.

Hey! I was comparing Keegan to Pee Wee as far back as early 1991, Bill!
Don't you owe me some royalties here? :-)   (I seem to remember an Energizer
Bunny comparison, too, somewhere back there).

Seriously, though, it takes two to tango, but what folks should remember is
that while Bill is doing this particular tango ONCE, Keegan does it regularly, 
almost exclusively, to the tune of dozens of times a month, with a whole range 
of partners. As opposed to Keegan, Bill's usual fare is known to be calm,
interesting, rational posts (even though I invariably disagree with his pro-
life points of view). That's the huge difference between them, even though 
they may appear fairly similar in this thread right now.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 02:27:36 GMT

Since this thread has gone on for so long, I thought I'd answer
the question, even though I answered it on other threads:

No. I consider it to be homicide.  Next question.

In <BvBGz8.DKt@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>This depends on belief.  One can believe fairly reasonably that 
>participating in sex, even with contraceptives (whose unreliability
>implies that "reasonable" precaution is itself a matter of belief),
>is a voluntary decision to risk pregnancy and the ensuing [proposed] 
>obligations.  This is the hardest of the hard-line positions.

Not if those obligations increase as the pregnancy progresses, starting
out on a low level.

Peter Nyikos
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:00:01 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
->> ->I'm not sufficiently interested to pursue this any further.
->>
->> i didn't think you would be.
->>
->> funny how things change, isn't it?

->Nothing's changed.  I was mildly curious, so I asked.  The effort to get
->answers has proven to be more than I feel is worth the satisfaction of
->seeing this answered.

no surprise there. after all, you did direct all of
your inquiries towards the target of the allegations
rather than towards the maker of them. some people,
with an interest in seeing allegations be supported,
might see that as a rather strange approach; like
asking the accused to prove innocence. in your case, i
didn't think it at all odd though.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:06:59 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep28.233422.24373@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.222140.22720@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>Are you not taking into consideration that the technology would get cheaper
>>and cheaper over time?  What happens when it only costs a few thousand
>>dollars or about as much as it costs to have a baby in a hospital today?
xAnd as for the cost to have a baby....When I was born, the hospital, ob,
xand other related bills were....are you ready?   $50.  Yep.  Fifty dollars.
xWhey my first son was born, the total bill was over $10,000. 


And, of course, the costs of *raising* children haven't diminished appreciably
over the years, even in dollars corrected for inflation.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 02:22:10 GMT

In <1992Sep25.003741.1481@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.212119.2323@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>You're a jerk, Kathi.

>Gee, Suxanne.  From the looks of it, you're just *SO* compassionate, *SO*
>caring that I'm sure you're going to be adopting those cracck babies any
>day now...
>--
>=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???=
>= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
>=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =

Cochran, I have been looking at some of your past posts, and a most
uncompassionate person is taking shape from them.  So what I said to Larry
(in the line you quote above) goes for you too. 

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Eggs and sperm being human life
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 04:51:38 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct6.023143.20915@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <ld1pc0INNqg2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric
> >In article <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (
> >
> >>The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
> >>the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
> >>you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
> >>right?
> >
> >So a sperm/egg isn't human? If not, what is it?
>
> Sperm/eggs are specialized human cells which acts as messengers.
                             ^^^^^
So you admit that they are human.

> >So a sperm/egg isn't alive? If not, what is it?
> >
> N/A
>
> >If a sperm/egg is human and it is life, then does that not mean
> >that _by_definition_ it is human life?
>
> Certainly, you wouldn't start calling sperm/eggs human life would you?

By whatever definition you'd call a zygote "human life" I would.

> You do know that you cannot call a sperm/egg members of homo sapiens.

No, I don't know that.  Besides, up above you said that the topic involved
"human life".  Are you changing the topic because you now agree that sperm
and eggs *are* human life?  If so, please acknowledge the fact before
moving on.  If not, please start a separate thread for the other topic.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:43:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Oct4.022619.21355@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
writes:

}I'll meet you halfway on this.  I'm all for letting women know what
}they're really doing when they go in for an abortion; I'm in favor of
}showing them a chart of the development of a human fetus and letting
}them see what they're un-making by having an abortion.  But I DON'T
}want to see people feeding them subjective propaganda like so many
}pro-lifers seem to like doing.

Halfway?  You're going to meet this guy halfway and confer upon
women some special knowledge that you seem to think is known or
discovered only by those with a Wand of Wonder?  Shoot, let the
women figure it out for themselves.  They can, you know.  

--
       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: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:30:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.050730.10253@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu
(Martin Guerrero) writes:

}As I've said time and time again, sperm isn't human life!  No scientist
}or biologist will agree with you on that assertion.

Did you miss the haploid vs diploid controversy?  Seems like it.

--
       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: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 18:19:09 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
: In talk.abortion, frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
: >bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
: 
: >: I did, I asked if they minded, I got no reply which I took as consent.
: >: "Let them speak up now, or forever hold their peace."
: 
: >What arrogant crap that is.
: 
: Mmmm..., and your's is less arrogant? Blatant assertion get you there
: blatantly.

Ron, this is the last time I will give you advice before I have to
start sending you bills for consultancy.

All I am saying is that your argument is:

(a)  Easily refuted. I have given you several counterexamples, which
     should show you that the destruction of anything and everything
     just because it does not object to being destroyed, is a bad idea.

(b)  Not necessary for your case.  
     
(c)  Fairly offensive.  See (a)

If these reasons are not good enough for you, then I warn you that I may 
have to come on over to 'navy.mil' and transpose the keytops on your 
terminal, if that's what it takes to get you typing sense.

: 
: >Did you ask any 1-year old infants?  2-year olds?  4-year olds?
: >Comatose people?  Sleeping people?  Mentally retarded people?
: >Senile people?
: 
: Keep looking, esp in "The fundemental ... of abortion" thread for a
: post soon from me defining personhood. Actually, I challenge you to
: read it and come up with a reason that this definition is incorrect.
: I'll even mail you to notify you that I posted it. (It should be tomorrow)
: 

In the name of Yoda, what are you saying now Ron?

You are going to post something _tomorrow_ that will make me look really
foolish, after all?

Sounds like a _potential_ post you've got there Ron?  Isn't that the type 
of offence that you're always saying children should get the death penalty 
for?

But since this post of yours is Not Yet Born, I suppose that means it is 
not real, and I can safely ignore it?

Tell you what, though, I'm going to follow up this unborn post of yours 
without even seeing it.  You may take this followup of mine, and stick 
whatever the hell you care to write about personhood above it.  O.K.?

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes tomorrow:
>whatever the hell he likes about personhood

1) seems like an arbitrary definition to me, Ron.

2) In the immortal words of Ray Fischer: "why should I give a flaming rats 
   ass about your opinion [ of what constitutes personhood ] ? ".

3) Look for a post from me next 4th of July which will make you feel very 
   silly, after all.  In fact I challenge you not to feel silly when you
   read it.

: 
: 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.
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:40:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep17.222754.12556@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

>> What does euthanasia (mercy killing) have to do with abortion?

>Both are the killing of those in a society who are weak, for the simple
>reason that they _are_ weak, and the arrogant of that society don't want to
>be bothered caring for them.

Dear Suzanne,

   I know this will come as a total shock to you; however, there are
those of us that believe that a fetus's life is worth less than a
pregnant woman's bodily autonomy because potential by itself doesn't
confer personhood on a mindless bunch of human cells.  The strength or
weakness of the z/e/fs is not relevant to this viewpoint, and denial
of this point of view is hardly the most effective way to combat it.

   It would be in everyone's best interest, including yours, if you
would stop deluding yourself into thinking that everyone agrees with
you but won't admit it because they're selfish worthless types.

-- 
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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:31:51 GMT

In article <6738@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.211200.17332@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>##This is a lie.
>
>#Whether he's said it or not, he just criticized Forgach.
>
>I haven't seen it.
You have. You just don't think it's criticism.

>(Are you referring to the "I can't believe you said that"
>article?  I don't call that criticism, I call that skepticism.
>I'm still not convinced that it wasn't just a set-up line
>for Suzanne, anyway.)
Ok. Whatever. Matter of opinion.
-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."
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: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:51:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.081042.31313@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>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.

That is the general sense I got from you.  

Let me just end it (you may put your closing comments too later) by saying:

   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.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism