HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:07:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.002024.4669@coopsol.com> 
gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>>> If you had been aborted, you would have been killed before YOU could
>>> exist -- before that which is known as Doug Holtsinger, with all your
>>> hopes and dreams and individuality, had come into being.  

>> The exact same argument applies to infanticide. 

> Pardon me for butting in here.  The difference is that in the case of
> abortion, the woman does not want to be pregnant.  There is no one who can
> be pregnant for her once she finds out she is pregnant.  In the case of
> infanticide -- there is no need to kill an infant.  If a women can't
> handle her child she can take it to the authorities where someone else
> can care for it.

So your argument then, is that infants can be killed when a 
person can't immediately transfer custody of an infant to 
another person.  

> Part of the argument for abortion is inability to transfer
> gestation to a willing person.  That argument does not exist for infants.

Why restrict yourself to gestation? 


>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer)
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:03:28 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

>In article <Bx3I9x.G8y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
>(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
>> 
>> In the case of a pregnancy it is perfectly natural for the baby to be inside 
>> the mother to grow.  Human beings cannot grow normally in any other 
>> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The mothers body accomodates
>> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  Women are designed to be able
>> to be pregnant.

>Hmm.  Let's see what we can do with this, through the magic of "search and
>replace"...

>> In the case of cancer it is perfectly natural for the tumor to be inside 
>> the host to grow.  Tumors cannot grow normally in any other 
>> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The host's body accomodates
>> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  People are designed to be 
>> able to develop cancer.

>Do we have an accurate analogy to your reasoning here, Bernard?  Should we
>outlaw surgery removing tumors anytime soon?

>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Do you really think that there is anything substantive in your 'analogy'?
And if there is, could you explain it?			-B Schnaufer
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 05:16:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov1.220127.9405@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bx20sw.JEt@cs.uiuc.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>> Show me a so-called "pro-lifer" who doesn't eat meat, doesn't use any
>> animal-derived products, is against the death penalty, wants to outlaw
>> cigarettes and automobiles as well as guns, and is willing to take a
>> trip down to the Barrio in L.A. and talk to gang members, and I'll accept
>> that the term "pro-life" is meaningful, at least in that one instance.
>
>Show me a so-called "pro-choicer" who supports the "choice" to kill
>and abuse born children,  who supports the "choice" to commit
>murder, rape, robbery, and arson, who supports the "choice" to
>evade income taxes and the "choice" to sell drugs to children,
>and maybe I'll accept that the term "pro-choice" is meaningful.

OK, so pro-choice really means "supports the availibility of abortion as a
choice", and pro-life really means "pro-foetal-life and doesn't give a damn
what happens after birth".  Glad we got that cleared up.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Date: 7 Nov 1992 20:57:57 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
: 
: If you agree what is with the flames?  God owns the world and is the CREATOR 
: or all life.  Don't you think he had a reason for a baby.  We only go through
: the process, but God gives the life.  The world needs Jesus.  That is a given. 
: It is a seperate subject, true, but the world needs Jesus.  We, his
: ambassadors, should stand up for him.  I don't know about you but I don't want
: Him ashamed of me for not doing something.  Remember in Rev. when he flamed the
: church for allowing evil to come in among them.  Why don't we learn a lesson. 
: If our 'freedom' as we define it goes against God's creative power, We DO have
: a problem.  Don't you agree?

1. If God has a reason for an aborted fetus, what precisely is God's reason
for those infants who die (at over one a minute) from dehydration as a result
of gastric infections in poor rural areas, largely in subsaharan Africa?
Didn't God have a reason for the animal whose meat the other day?
What about the civilian Iraquis killed in the Gulf War?
Trust me.  If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity existed, innocent people
would not die horribly.  They do, ergo there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity.

2. There is no `truth' that the world needs Jesus any more than it needs Ra
and the river Styx.  If you are so willing to assert this kind of thing in
a public forum, please provide evidence that Jesus or the worship of him
has done more good than harm.

	-Hal 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: A one line quip...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:05:48 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
# This is amazingly disgusting.  
# 
# Every time waiting periods are discussed in this group by
# pro-lifers, I am more & more convinced that they're a coverup
# for an attempt to prevent women from exercising their rights.
# 
# We have Petey Honey & other sidewalk "counsellors" advocating
# that they do something that prevent them from having even minor
# surgery, and endanger their lives if they do.
# 
# We have Overpeck talking in his condescending way about women
# under stress making bad decisions, and about how they need
# counselling.
# 
# We see terrorists frightening abortion providers into giving
# up their practices.
# 
# They're trying to do an end-run around the law.  Having failed
# to make abortion illegal, they now try to make it difficult for
# a woman to carry her decision through.



Concern for the lives of the unborn?

                or

             Misogyny?


You make the call.

(Oh dear, now I've done it.  I suppose some puddinghead is going to
try to come back with some kind of brain-damaged line of horseshit
about how these `counselors' aren't misogynists -- some of them are
women, after all -- they're just concerned that these women may be the
victims of exploitation, or something...  I can't wait.)


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: does ray fischer want to imprison women who have "banned" abortions?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:25:27 GMT

continuing to dodge a simple, straightforward
question,
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...

i see you deleted my question. here it is again.

"do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
abortions, ray?"

->>did you have a problem with my question, ray? it was a
->>very simple question.
->>
->>had someone asked me the question i asked you, i would
->>have replied "no." i would have gone on to say "i don't
->>want to ban abortions." now i'm not suggesting you go
->>that far, yet. i am suggesting that your apparent
->>inability to answer "yes" or "no" to a question as to
->>whether you want to imprison women who have "banned"
->>abortions strikes me as cowardly.

->Tough.

gee ray, you sound, well, testy.

do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
abortions, ray?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Hall)
Subject: Re: Quote from John Calvin (1509-1564)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:00:36 GMT

In <1992Nov11.044552.28091@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already
>a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the
>life which it has not yet begun to enjoy.  If it seems more
>horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because
>a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely
>to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before
>it has come to light."

But what if it's one of those new-fangled "smart" houses, and the
man is doing structural damage to it, and the house doesn't want
him there?

I'm not altogether sure what you hope to accomplish with this line
of argument, anyway. All you've really established is that four
famous dead people opposed abortion. If I felt like it, I could
easily produce quotes from four equally famous and equally dead
people who supported abortion-rights, but what would be the point?
These quotes raise as many questions as they answer, and Mr. Calvin
isn't alive to tell us what he meant.

That being the case, all I can do is ask you to clarify your views:
Am I right in assuming that you believe that killing a zygote is
just as bad as killing an adult? If that is the case, do you 
believe that women who obtain abortions are guilty of conspiracy
to commit premeditated murder, and that they should be punished
accordingly? Are there any cases where you think abortion should
be allowed?

For whatever reason, most of the pro-lifers that turn up here are
either unable or unwilling to answer these questions. My respect
for you will greatly increase if you take a stab at responding
to them.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Protecting newborn infants as non-persons
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:51:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.190448.12335@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.012415.769@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> Yes, I still don't get your point. 
>It means that if society's interests aren't served by protecting
>a particular infant, such as a crack baby, or a severely mentally
>retarded infant, then that particular infant may be killed if
>they are defined as non-persons.  
The fact that society's interests are not served by protecting it
does not entitle society to kill it. Non-protection!=killing.

>> This is in practice true for persons
>> as well. See below.
>No, it's not true.  Innocent persons are always protected from 
>being killed, independent of society's interests.  
That's certainly not true. the police are empowered to use deadly
force to apprehend murder suspects. Frequently these suspects are
innocent. QED.

>>> The draft is not an example of society killing its own members.
>> Gee, they seem to end up dead, don't they.
>But it's not an example of our society (the United States of America)
>killing its own members.  The members of some other society kill them.  
Yes, and we would kill them if they refused to fight. I fail to
see the difference. The draft, like any other law, is enforced
under penalty of violence, Mr. Holtsinger.

>>> Please define the phrase "a value just short of persons".
>
>> Value V such that !(Ef):((f has value V')&&(!f is a person)&&(V'>V))
>
>Define the values V and V'. 
Are you really as stupid as you come off here, Mr. Holtsinger?

That statement DEFINES the value V by reference to whatever valuation
scheme you use for all other objects. V' is object dependent. I.e.
it is a function of f.
Allow me rephrase: Given a valuation scheme for objects x: x are not
persons and x are not infants, assign value of infants such that
it is greater than the value of any object in x.

-Ekr









-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 07:55:48 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov3.190947.7988@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.000334.27842@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
>>You have yet to present any evidence that the rate of disfunctional
>>--whatever that means--activity in individuals who take drugs is
>>any different from that in non-drug users. You are engaging in
>>pure emotional appeal here, nothing more. The fact that there happen
>>to be individuals who have bad relationships with others and that
>>some of them happen to use drugs does nothing to show that the drugs
>>are causative. Remember, correlation is not causation.
>
>That's naive, Eric.  The family life of drug abusers very often
>centers around that activity.

Drug abuse is dysfunctional activity.  Eric pointed out that you have
yet to show that the rate of "dysfunctional activity" in people who take drugs
is any different than the rate of dysfunctional activity in those who don't
take drugs.  You essentially said that the ones who are dysfunctional are
dysfunctional.  That's true, but it doesn't answer the question.  Do you have
any evidence that the rate of drug abusers compared with the number of casual
drug users (non-abusers; not dysfunctional) is any different than the rate of
other dysfunctional activity among non-users?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:22:05 GMT

I see Peter got his system working again.  Coincidently, I'm sure, my
responses to his last flood of posts has probably expired.  If you wish to
me to repost them just let me know.

<nyikos.720809215@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Oct29.084242.24379@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
[mucho deleted]
>>Again, since you state "by Storga's atheistic standards..." I assume that
>>you believe I have some special Atheistic standards that deviate from the
>>norm significantly.  Please explain what they are, or just confirm that
>>you did not mean that I had any special standards.
>
>You have atheistic standards.  Nothing special to distinguish you
>from the "normative" atheistic standards is implied thereby.

Thank you.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Today's Quiz
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:56:31 GMT

In article <Bxnz26.2wG.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

and asks us to try to decide which of the two is more disgusting:

}Holtsinger                             Nyikos
}
}quotes out of context                  quotes out of context
}
}makes false accusations                makes false accusations
}
}reprints false information             reprints false information
}about court cases                      about court cases
}
}lies habitually                        lies habitually
}
}cannot admit errors                    cannot admit errors

I think this might be in error.  While I can agee that Doug may indeed
lack the capacity to admit errors, I think our dear Dr. Giggles might
indeed have the ability, but will not, rather than cannot, admit errors.

Peter would rather insist that he is right than actually be right.  I've
met many of those folks in an academic situation.  

My brother used to tell me that before you made major (he's a retired major)
in the Marines you had to have an operation where they cut open your
head and removed your brain.  I think they must have something like 
that before you can be a professor at a university...

I deleted the description of possible prizes, because I do not believe
this to be a legitimate entry.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Saving money instead of saving lives
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:24:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.221446.15875@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Last night, I was watching a CBS television program called 
>"Street Stories".  They had a segment about a physician who
>was worked as part of a HMO (Health Maintenance Organization).
>In this HMO, a pool of money was set aside by a group of 
>doctors for patient treatment and tests, and at the end of 
>the year, these doctors would split up whatever money remained 
>from the pool.  This HMO plan was criticized because it  
>gave financial incentive to doctors to refuse treatment to
>patients.
>
>One doctor was accused of refusing to resucitate an elderly man
>who had suffered a serious heart attack.  This elderly man
>was alert and awake, but I was thinking, suppose that this
>man had been unconscious.  If he had died from the heart attack, 
>he wouldn't have known that a doctor had ordered that he not be 
>rescuitated.  He wouldn't have known that he had died, or that 
>he had suffered.  And the doctor could have saved himself some
>money.  
>
>Most people would feel that a wrong had been perpetrated by
>this doctor.  We feel horrified that a person is allowed to die,
>knowing that they could have been saved. And even worse, they
>are allowed to die because it would save money.  Even though
>the patient, had they been unconscious, wouldn't have known
>about it. 

A) The elderly man's family and friends would suffer from the man's death.

B) The elderly man quite possibly still has a lot to contribute to society.

C) The doctor has taken a solemn oath to help the sick. We, collectively, 
   expect him to live up to that oath, or face the consequences of not
   living up to it.

D) The doctor almost certainly has more than enough income to live 
   comfortably even if he saves the elderly man -- so the only motivation 
   would seem to be unbridled avarice and/or materialism, which is despicable 
   in and of itself.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Where Do these AntiVet Types Come From?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:11:47 GMT

joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
] 
] 1)  Don't you pro-aborts give a shit about life at all?


Will You WimpLiberalScum Please Collect your 
children when you leave the Room!

They get to be annoying to the Vets around here....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:10:10 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov9.190227.4880@ncar.ucar.edu>,
by kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman):

>>  = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman):
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Obviously* there will always be some areas of contention wrt to what 
>>> constitutes a "person", but I think it's useful to narrow down the points 
>>> of disagreement.  Is anyone interested in doing this?  Or are we only 
>>> interested in wholesale acceptance/rejection of other people's ideas?
>>> 
>>> To that end, I challenge you to provide concise answers to the following:
>>> 
>>> Q1: Do you agree that the physical presence of a brain is necessary, 
>>>     although perhaps not sufficient, for "personhood"?  <yes xor no>
>>
>>A very qualified "no" (see response to Brian Kendig's post).
> 
> But you did say: "[...] So I would say that no living thing exists 
> that lacks a brain that I would call a person. [...]"  So appearently, wrt
> "living things" & abortion, a brain in a prerequisite for "personhood".

I said that after pointing out that there is no *living thing* which
*completely lacks* a brain.  A brain is a prerequisite for (human) life,
and hence, trivially, a prerequisite for (living) personhood.  Notice I
did *not* say a fully functional brain, or a fully developed brain,
or an intact brain.
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject:  On Frogs!
Summary:  come on children, get it right!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date:  6 NOV 92 12:08:06    

In article <1992Nov4.170452.15265@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
>In article <1992Nov4.152704.17296@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com 
>(Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
>}Those same words could be used to argue that frogs are people too.
>}How would you distinguish between frogs and humans?
> 
>Easy.  Frogs croak every night.  A human croaks but once.

Tisk, what untruths get unleashed in this newsgroup.  Female frogs don't 
croak, only males do.  And males do it only certain times of the year.

Besides, frogs are people too.  Ask a herpetologist 
(zlraa@marlin.jcu.edu.au for one).

This message has been brought to you courtesy of the frogophile association 
of nowhere. Membership in the association is 2 and we are growing fast.  
Join now, and be introduced to the wonderful world of frogs.

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/     \
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?