HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:10:43 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.717627005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>>>> >Father.

>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>>apologize for it.

>Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
>"castigation" for the hoax that it is? 

 Ummmm, well, actually, I don't either. I've had a sensible e-mail
conversation with Ivan in which neither of us have mentioned exposing
one another, appealing though the idea may be. ;-)

> And I've addressed this
>"castigation" myself several times.

 Apparently not since I responded to it (unless I missed the post).

>And is M. Price really a Christian? 

 By whose definition, Petie?

> Who are the others who have
>"castigated" Suzanne, and is any of them really a Christian?

 I don't know, Petie. I try not to pry.

Then, to Gordon:

>I note your failure to address the question of whether Christ faked his
>suffering.  Since you are, by your .sig, a professional atheist,
> I suggest you get the
>"Christians" who "castigated" Suzanne to address it.  Note especially
>how M. Price uses the terms "trivializes the agony and suffering."

  I hope it was in a complete sentence. If it was, I'm not sure what
else you're getting at...

>Peter Nyikos (SAT)

                                                                 MP
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:16:21 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep21.141041.1804@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>> A few more such posts, and you go into my de facto killfile.
>
>Whatever you do, B'rer Bear, _please_ don't throw me
>in that briar patch! :-)

No, please don't. Tweedledee might land on his backside and pierce his
brain.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:02:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
>If you press up against a woman without her permission, she doesn't have
>the right to blow you away.  If you try to stick your dick in her without
>her permission, she does.  

Only in some states.

Only as a recent innovation.

Only for deterrent effect, which doesn't apply to the abortion issue.

Please stop citing this aberration as if it were a relevant, established 
legal principle, Larry. I've corrected you multiple times now, you're starting 
to border on intellectual dishonesty.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Eggs and sperm being human life
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:38:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.045138.146072@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>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.

Yes, sperm/eggs come from humans but they, in and of themselves, are not.
When I say human life, I mean that which is a member of homo sapiens.

>
>> >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.

I will allow you to use some whacko definition of human life
but don't pretend that that follows from *my* definition.  There is no
case for a sperm/egg being human life.  The only case is really a
case in terminology.  I say human life is synonymous with being
a member of homo sapiens.  Others say human life is anything which is alive
and in any way, shape, or form, part of a human.  That last definition of
course, is not my definition, and can never be so.  I have never claimed
any part of a human is a human life in and of itself.  Common sense
illumed by science would back up the fact that the sperm/egg is not
human life in my sense of the word.  

But once conception take place, a specialized human cell from the male
combines with a specialized human cell from the female and "create" a new
human life.  No longer is this human life just a mere part of a human.  In
and of itself, it is human, no ifs ands or buts.  Not just a human in your
sense of the word but a new member of homo sapiens.  

>
>> 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?  

I never did.  Recheck terminology and reread the above.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:17:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.000859.7012@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes:
> 
> From article by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
> > In article egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > 
> >>Because all humans become persons.  The question is when.  I pick when
> >>human life begins - conception.
> > 
> > Glad to. A conceptus may become a hyatidiform mole, which no one who has
> > ever see one would claim is a person. 
> 
> The way a hyatidiform mole begins is as a _normal_ fetus.  The "mole"
> itself is a disease which transforms the normal fetus, bit by bit,
> into a massive clump of cysts.   Most fetal victims of a mole
> pregnancy die and are miscarried within 4 months, but a few have
> been born live with only partial damage and survived.

Ok, then, this would be another case were abortion would be ok.  I can 
expand if anyone wishes it...

I am wondering why anyone would be confused about this answer?
(It must be that some of you are making false assumptions and not even
 bothering to get the facts you need to make a coherent responce)
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:08:45 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.031526.7490@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep27.211859.9370@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> >
> >I will grant you that given the current state of technology there are
> >serious problems with doing what I truly believe must be done...and maybe
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Um, and just how do you propose to make sure that "what you truly believe
> must be done" gets done?  Legislate it?

Nope.  There are many way to accomplish things that are longer lasting and
more powerful then
legislation.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:03:44 GMT

In <19o7ocINNjh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep22.210713.18099@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>In article <19nvaqINNqm1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
>>(Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>}Why?  This is the part I really want to know about.
>>Suzanne, to her credit, extends her philosophy of "no abortions" to
>>include rape, even if she herself is involved.  I find that rather
>>uncommon.

>I'd agree that it's uncommon, but that wasn't the word originally used.
>Some people extend their philosophies throughout a principle, even though
>there is another, easier choice, because they feel the principle is impor-
>tant enough to be maintained against many challenges.  Some other people
>extend their philosophies because they can't grasp anything more than simple
>and inflexible rules.  That latter I have a hard time having respect for.

>Which is not to say that's the case with Suzanne -- I believe I already
>disclaimed there.  But I am interested if you would find the same devoted
>preoccupation with training dogs -- all dogs, and any dogs -- to be as
>admirable, given that it is an extension of a deeply held philosophy that
>someone maintains even to their (probably) very high personal cost.  I
>wouldn't.

Is this a reference to some earlier exchange about training dogs?  I just
don't see the connection.

>Bravo.  And I agree.   I'm sure you've also found it interesting on this net
>that some would INSIST that a woman-contemplating-abortion needs teaching
>and brainwashing and *informing* whereas they have no similar insistance
>that a woman-contemplating-birth needs the same. 

Because these women are very well informed, most of the time, by their
ob/gyn, with visits every month and lots of advice on what to eat, etc.
Their Significant Others are now allowed, and even encouraged, to take
part in the birthing process.  If there is a danger of complications,
that can be addressed ahead of time, and in the rare case of life-
threatening pregnancy, an abortion can be had in a HOSPITAL, with 
plenty of quick expert help in case of emergencies.

Do I need to go into the contrast of all this with a typical abortion?

>However, I don't find that one choice -- to bear -- is any more virtuous
>or disgusting than another choice - not to bear.  Which is what had me
>curious in the first place.

If I had seen this before I posted, "Adrienne's appalling attitude 
towards the unborn," I would have been tempted to include it.

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Nyikos
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39475 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4721 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6081
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:07:48 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <Bv00BD.Cx7@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
>
>Look this taking a baby out of a mothers womb and not killing it is a non
>issue.

As much as a nonissue as putting a living zygote *into* a woman? Wasn't that
aburd just a while back?

>The "bad" thing about abortion is the fact that a human being 
>dies (the baby WILL become a human begin) so there is no
>distiction.

There is no distinction between a zygote and a human being? Wait, let's hear
what your personal definition of a 'human being' is first.  How does the
sperm and egg rank in there? Is jacking off killing millions of 'human beings'
because they could have all fertilized an egg?

Heck, why stop there!? Let's form a Mensus Patrol, and any women found disposing
of a 'feminine napkin' (gotta love that term) or tampon will be hung in the
court yard! Yeah! Those women are proabably all goddam commie faggotts!
They have no family values at all! What you and I, and those like us, need
is a strong leader; a father figure to the masses that will help lead us
to salvation. Where is Hitler when you need him?






-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Anti-Abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:01:27 GMT

In <YekuyC_00WBLA8cFpq@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Mr. Kolker,

>    I did have slight quibble with your post.  Though I would be glad if
>Dworkin and McKinnon were stoned in the streets by their fundamentalist
>christain allies, I thought calling them "left wing bitch lesbo dyke" a
>little extreme.  It seems homophobic to use two words to get across Ms.
>Dworkin's sexual orientation, when you could use just one.  I would
>suggest merely using "left wing bitch dyke".  Thus, you can get you idea
>across with unnecessarily alienating gay people who may agree with you. 
>For instance, I am gay.

I'm confused.  I thought "bitch" was so derogatory that it spilled over
into words following it, like "dyke".  Would you not suspect a person
of homophobia if he called you a "bastard gay"?

BTW what is the proper term for "I would be glad if ... were stoned
in the streets by their fundamental christian allies?"  A hate
crime, perhaps?  Would the stoning itself be an example of a hate crime?

I've deleted a remark you made about the Pythagorean Theorem.  With
friends like you, it might not need any enemies.

Peter Nyikos
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To Eric Gorr, eternal college freshman and all around geek
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:55:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>> Hey, Eric,

>> I'm pretty tired of you saying things like "what happens when medical
>> technology makes..." and following up with "They're working on that,
>> you know".  Tell me, knowledgeable college boy, just WHERE is all this
>> wonderful scientific research happening?  in WHAT publications have 
>> these things been reported?  Please cite me each publication and report--
>> and something concrete, please, not "some movie somewhere" as that
>> means absolutely nothing to me.

>> Oh, and I can afford your mere pittance of $8/hour.  I pay my babysitter
>> more.

> Wonderful...I let you know how many hours I spend doing the
> research and once I receive payment, I give you the
> references.  

> By the way, How does it feel to have some much rage towards another
> person building up inside?  I am curious....

Eric, this is the second time you've speculated that someone has some sort
of 'rage' building up inside.  Not only that, but your speculation is
a bit non-responsive to the issues.  Is this some sort of projection
on your part?

> (You may also consult your near-by university library...there are
> people there waiting, and willing to help you)

You made the claims, Eric.  The burden of proof is on you.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: A good test of Rejectus' (non-)intelligence (was Re: a good test of chaneyhall's veracity
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:14:42 GMT

In article <!#gzbf+@rpi.edu> Rejectus, posting as
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>the hallchaney thing posting as
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>-> patrick@is.rice.edu (Redneckus) writes:
>->>Well, you had to steal that "PRIDE=POWER" line in your .sig from somewhere.
>
>->I was using it before they got here, PatricKKK.
>
>this statement, if true, should be relatively easy
>to support.

Oh, gee, do I have to go get the Students for Life and have them e-mail you
over this account? That would be highly suspicious - I wouldn't trust that
kind of evidence from you any further than I could hurl you. Well, that's
the wrong way to put it because I would have to trust you very far... 

Excuse me while I find another way to put that...


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:49:56 GMT

the chaneyhall thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>the hall chaney thing posting as
->>(Stephen A Chaney) writes of steve novak:
->>-> I say we should boycott this dolt. 
->>
->>i can't wait to see how many net.readers jump to
->>your support on this one.

->No more, probably, than the ones who supported a 
->boycott on me. 

then you agree it was another meaningless post on
your part?
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:08:00 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Oct2.004310.953@noao.edu> 
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
 
>>         "All fetuses _are_ white.  "White" means lack
>>         of pigment.  Black newborns are born white, and
>>         turn black shortly thereafter."
>> 		Suzanne Forgach <1991Jun13.232919.9128@noao.edu>

> This was once again validated in a medical tape I watched recently of
> women who'd just delivered newborns.   The black woman's baby was, you
> guessed it, white.   (Yes, her husband was black.  The baby did have
> black facial features, so of course it turned black later on.)

You can't be serious here.  I've seen pictures of black women
who have just given birth (holding the infant) and those 
babies were black.  I can't believe you could make such a 
statement.

 

Doug Holtsinger
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:00:53 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.152940.23813@nuchat.sccsi.com> lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717204801@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <3v6nc#l.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>
>>
>>>One final question: Would you still insist that abortion is not an
>>>option if you knew for a fact that the baby, once born, would have to
>>>stay in its mother's apartment all day alone because she can't afford
>>>day-care but couldn't bear to put it up for adoption?
>>
>>>If you answer 'yes' to this, then I really don't know that we have any
>>>common ground on which to debate.

My answer is yes. I guess we have no common ground. Oh, well. Not that I
care. Actually, I'm glad - when the tac nukes start flying, I'd hate to
share the same ground as the enemy when the MIRV's drop in on their front
doorstep. (Well, in PatricKKK's case, the tac nukes he lobs, keep coming
back at him...)

>Hey...happens all the time, and would happen MUCH more frequently if
>abortion were to become illegal...face the facts...outlawing abortion
>would hurt more children than it saves....why don't you worry about
>the kids that are already here?

Killing is always worse than abuse. At least abuse victims have a chance:
victims of killing have no chance, you stupid dolt. Get lost - 1.5 million
killings of children a year is mega child abuse, and on top of that, since
1973, they're no longer called children.
And for all you "Oh, cut that out fetuses weren't ever kids" - why is it
that all abortion laws made in the US were based specifically because the
fetus had legal rights and recognition under the law? The AMA referred to
it in the 19th century as wanton destruction of human life, a solid
contradiction to your claim.

And arguing that unborn children should be ignored in favor of born
children, is as stupid as rednecks who said minorities should be ignored in
favor of some rednecks who would lose their jobs in the age of equality.
You know... more "persons" equals more competition for jobs...


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38565 alt.abortion.inequity:4044