HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:13:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.211442.10398@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <Bv6wHK.FnG@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Redneckus) writes:
>>In article <vyfzky@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Rockbitus) writes:

: Then why don't I just refer to you, Rockbitus, as one of the militant
: bra-burning feminazi's I probably saw turned homeless when one of your
: burning bras caught fire on your curtain and consumed your environmentally
: correct, flower-mural-painted house, and never apologize for it?

	And you call yourself a feminist, O Borgie Boy!

: It's no one's business whether or not I ever apologize to you for that.
: Largely because that's the way life is with headbangers like you.

	Same to you, buster!

: =============================================================================
: -----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
: 	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

	Time to get deborged, buster.

	And to turn in your propeller beanie.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some people think I got scared off..
Keywords: NOT!
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:28:13 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <46fzdg_@rpi.edu> Rejectus, posting as
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>the chaneyhall thing posting as
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>->Of course, some of us are getting a college education.
>
>who said the little tyke didn't have a sense of humor?

True. All I have to do is mention your name and I get people laughing.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40972 talk.politics.guns:21789 alt.conspiracy:11014 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4992 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6366 talk.bizarre:33060
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: For Mr. Misogyny (yeah, Bruce Varney)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:05:40 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Question for Bruce Varney:
     Why should a zygote have the same rights you or I have?

Additional note:
     No one said you weren't entitled to an opinion.  Cathi Cook
was trying to tell you that calling pregnancy a mere "inconvenience"
does not do it justice.

     You may now return to your usual misogynist thoughts.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:38:41 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.193112.29758@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>   If you certainly are not going to get rid of a 2 year old's right to life
>   then why will you get rid of a fellow human's right to life, namely 
>   the unborn child?

Because the fetus is hampering a woman's freedoms and putting her at
considerable medical risk. 

"But she implicitly agreed to pregnancy by having sex."  Not true; a
lot of people just don't KNOW that sex leads to pregnancy, or that
condoms can fail.  And some women were forced into sex.

"Let's ban all abortions sought for convenience, then; that would
help."  Who's going to define convenience?  You?  Me?  Can we come up
with a nice simple law that would apply to any case?  Where do we draw
the line?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:15:25 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>->>->interesting to see you support a claim that I am not intellectually
->>->>->honest. Can you do so?
->>->>seems to be that you've supported it quite nicely.
->>->That's not an answer, Mr. Keegan. 
->>please post your credentials for determining is something
->>is or is not an answer. after doing so, please specify
->>how these credentials make your opinion more valid than
->>anyone else's opinion.

->Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
->of he who propounds them.

that being the case, there was absolutely no
reason for you to blatently assert that my answer
was not an answer, ws there?

->Your argument falls on it's own.

i think you should repeat those words to yourself,
several times.

->I repeat:

yes, you do that quite often which nicely displays
your immature pettiness.

run along.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:56:43 GMT

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>: >But are you proposing to divert to the starving millions all the 
>: >monies used to obtain, provide, maintain and extend abortion rights 
>: >for women in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter...?
>: 
>: No.  But neither am I proposing that money be spent to force women (who
>: can clearly say they don't want to be pregnant) to remain pregnant with
>: an embryo/fetus (which does not object to anything) instead of spending the
>: money on thinking, breathing people (who can and do say that they would
>: rather not starve to death).
>
>This "silence gives consent" thing does not become you, Ray.
>If you ask the Amazon Rain Forest if you can napalm it, it will say nothing.
>Does that mean that it's O.K to to napalm the rain forest?

Please respond to what I wrote, and not to what you read.
Given that the embryo cannot object, and the woman does very strongly,
why would you give the embryo greater weight than the mother?

>The silence of a fetus, alone, is a shabby justification for anything, let 
>alone abortion rights.  
>You've got better reasons than that, I hope.

Why does an embryo deserve any rights?
What makes an embryo a person?
What makes your decision the best one?

Do you have good answers to those questions?

>: The only reason money is spent on abortion rights is because many
>: misguided people think that they know what is best.  In my experience,
>: people who think they know what is best are almost always wrong and
>: almost always dangerous.
>
>Heartily agreed.  I don't care much for people who think that they know what 
>is best either.   Do you know what's best, or not?  You seem fairly sure
>that an embryo is not worthy of human dignity, for example.  Is that wrong,
>or is it just dangerous?  Because in my experience, people who know what's 
>best often call those who disagree "misguided".

It is wrong.  It is also (IMO) irrelevent.  I don't think I have any 
right to impose my opinion regarding the personhood of an embryo on
people who have a lot more at stake in the matter than do I.  You are
arrogant enough to beleive that not only should your _opinion_ about
the personhood of an embryo be enacted into law, you also seem to think
that you know what is the best thing all those women should do.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:53:22 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct5.023010.6885@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>The following is an article that refutes all arguments that justify abortion.
                                          ^^^
>These 19 arguments are refuted:
>
>	 1.  A woman should have a choice.
>	 2.  The case of rape.
>	 3.  To reduce illegal back-alley abortions.
>	 4.  To prevent child abuse.
>	 5.  To save relationships.
>	 6.  A woman has a "right" to control her own body.
>	 7.  To prevent possible suicide.
>	 8.  To relieve stress.
>	 9.  To protect a woman's mental health.
>	10.  To relieve women of unwanted pregnancies.
>	11.  To fetus is mere tissue or only uterine content.
>	12.  Abortion is safer than childbirth.
>	13.  At least for teenagers, abortion is safer than childbirth.
>	14.  Abortion is permitted only in early months of pregnancy.
>	15.  A human fetus cannot feel pain.
>	16.  The child may be handicapped or deformed.
>	17.  To control population and food supply.
>	18.  To save welfare (taxpayers') money.
>	19.  An unborn child has no rights.

You failed to address at least one that is important in my book
(I'm sure others can point out additional arguments you missed.):

        20.  Equal opportunity for women to "walk away" from unwanted 
             pregnancy as some men choose to do.

Equality between the sexes is one of the strongest arguments for the abortion 
option, IMHO.

So much for your claim of refuting ALL abortion arguments.
Tricky word -- "all".



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:34:33 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Sep28.180212.11160@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>> I'd like a source that is not so obviously biased as this woman who
>>> has been the target of several lawsuits, including one where she
>>> allegedly had a woman held down and performed an abortion on her 
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> against her will.

>'This woman' being Dr. Mildred Hanson, who, according to her associates,
>hasn't lost any of these nuisance suits against her.  (I'd like for Peter
>to explain to me how Dr. Hanson, who is 50+ years old, can hold a younger
							^^^^^^^^  	
>woman down on a table by force and put a band-aid on her, much less
>perform an abortion.)

Boy, Lyman, you don't even care how transparent your misrepresentations
are, do you?

>> Isn't that sooo convenient?  Last I looked, every time you
>> posted about one of these lawsuits we discovered they were
>> just harassment or the case had been thrown out.

There was ONE case like that, and your "discovery" hinged upon the
word of one of Hanson's assistants.

>>  Remember the
>> one you posted about the woman who claimed they never informed
>> her of cancer, where the court found that the clinic had
>> tried for months to inform the woman that she had it?

Right, that was the case, but unless I missed a post of yours, the
only evidence the court "found" these things was the word of the
assistant of Mildred Hanson.

>>> BTW does anyone know of the present status of THIS lawsuit?  My sources
>>> are over a year old, and at that time it was still pending.

>> I'm surprised you even care.

>I asked Peter to post the names of the plaintiff(s) in these lawsuits, so
>I could check the public record.  He never responded.

Ah, so, apparently I did miss a post.  The name was Kathleen Marie
Maki, and these lawsuits can drag out for years.  The abortionist
of COERCED ABORTION got involved in an unlawful death case that
dragged on for four years, and finally the State Supreme Court
ruled that the father of the dead woman could get the award of
$100,000 that a lower court had awarded long ago.

And the vote was 3-2.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:45:36 GMT

In article <9478@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.061730.13587@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>>                                  You are going to have to convince me
>>>otherwise if you want me to support your position.

>>For starters, read the Constitution.

>I did, I didn't find anything to do with abortion in there.

Try the first amendment, and the fourth. The one about search and seizure.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:48:42 GMT

In <1992Sep28.051014.10293@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:

>In article <9tgz#dh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>>
>I have !  I have!  And I've seen a rat embryo (lots of em too)
>and a fish embryo and a buncha others that I just can't remember!
>Do I get a prize, Peter?  (sorry I don't know what the point is here)

The original post said something like: ...that was not recognizably
a pig.  The point partly revolved around my quote:

***  Fetal pigs is pigs, but fetal humans is only potentially human  ***

Get the point now?  Why are you fishing for a prize?

>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
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: watching Nyikos scramble
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 03:17:23 GMT

In article <6673@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717906130@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>#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. 
>
>Ooohhhh.  Be careful, Keith.  He might threaten to spank you next.

That's fine by me.  But he'll have to bring his own handcuffs. :]
--
=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???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:32:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.023143.20915@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>You do know that you cannot call a sperm/egg members of homo sapiens.  Doing
>so would be a very big leap.  By human life, I do not mean that which is
>alive and is merely a messenger cell from a human.  Messenger cells are
>not members of homo sapiens and therefore, cannot be called human life,
>for the umpteenth time.
Mere assertion will not make it so, sir.

WHY can one not call gametes "human life?"
WHY are gametes not members of homo sapiens? I was not aware that this
was something addressed by biologists?

If you're going to be in the business of deciding what is and
is not "human life" perhaps you will grace us with a coherent
definition.
-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."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40250 alt.sex:31743 talk.bizarre:32632
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
Subject: Award Announcement (was: Re: I hereby declare...)
Date: 3 Oct 92 14:48:28 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct1.071914.1089@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>I hereby declare drieux the winner of the
>  Person who has created the most 'threads' or new subject headings in
>     the last few days.

In article <16873CA0E.TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu> TMCCART3@ua1vm.ua.edu writes:
>And I hereby declare that drieux's postings make the least sense.

                    A W A R D   A N N O U N C E M E N T

I hereby Declare the Esteemed Drieux of Wetware to be the recipient of the
Subjunctive Attributation Award -- that is, if only we had such an award.
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:48:12 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
|In article <19vn3aINNm00@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J.
|Silverio) writes:
|> Fertilization isn't any guarantee of reproductive success-- 2/3
|> of fertilized eggs naturally fail to develop, for various
|> reasons.  Implantation isn't any guarantee of success either.
|> I don't particularly value either stage.

|That may be true today.  But I would hope that you are aware of research
|that is attempting to make all fertilizations successful.  What happens to
|your arguement when this is the case?

Absolutely nothing.  Such technology will only be used by
couples attempting to conceive, as an act of will.  Most
fertilized eggs will continue to wash away, unnoticed,
unmourned.

|> I choose "birth" as the important point for my position on
|> abortion rights, because after that point, the woman isn't
|> involved & her rights are no longer in danger of trampling.  I
|> choose "consciousness-capability" as the important point for my
|> personal behavior, because intelligent life is valuable to me.

|Can you expand upon this concept called "consciousness-capability"
|please...

What is a person?  What's the key part of "humanity"?  

It isn't "human DNA", because my pinky finger contains human DNA, 
but isn't a person.  And an AI wouldn't contain human DNA, but 
would be a person.  

It isn't "aliveness", since fish are alive & I have no trouble
killing them & eating them.  And omnivores kill & eat cows
without qualms, and cows are definitely alive.

How about the ability to think, be conscious, be self-aware?  
This looks better to me, because it covers my test cases:   my 
finger fails the test, an AI passes the test, a cow fails the
test (as far as we know now), a brain-dead person fails the test.  
A human infant would probably fail the test (since some more
psychological development is required), so I will amend it 
to be more tolerant:  I will accept *capability* as passing.  

The developing brain doesn't have the capability of conscious
thought until about the 24th week, when myelination begins.
Until that time, nerve impulses travel too slowly.

|The women is most definitly still involved until:
|1)  The child dies
|2)  Is given away (adoption, etc..)
|3)  can't think of anymore at this moment.

|So long as the women takes care of the child, she is wholly and totally
|involved and there are many laws which could trample rights she may or may
|not have.

But the point is that she *can* give away a newborn.  Their
bodily systems are not inextricably linked.  It is no longer
a direct drain on her resources and (possibly) a direct danger
to her health.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too."
				-- Voltaire, in his "Essay on Tolerance"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 01:13:58 GMT

In <1992Sep24.024111.20319@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:


>It's becoming more and more obvious that if Nyikos has a stray 
>thought, he considers that thought to be convincing evidence.
>He and Suzanne have both made claims about Ms. Bell, and neither
>of them have substantiated them.  It is true that Ms. Bell
>had pneumonia when she died.  The cause of death on her death
>certificate was "septic abortion with pneumonia."  Nyikos
>gets his "information" from proven liars.
			     ^^^^^^
>Susan Garvin

As Elizabeth Bartley once said:

Proof, please.

I really don't have time to dig up the information right now, but I 
can tell you some of what it contains, in capsule form.

1.  Heather, Becky Bell's roommate, maintains that Becky Bell 
had a list of Kentucky abortion clinics and also adoption agencies,
and had not made a decision whether to abort.

2.  Becky Bell was not in good relation with her parents, did not
confide in them, because her parents had taken her to a Planned
Parenthood clinic when they thought she was pregnant on an earlier
occasion, and her father told her in no uncertain terms that she
better not "screw up" again.

3. The coroner could find no sign of tearing in the cervix.  This
is rare enough in a legal abortion (freestanding clinics usually
do not use laminaria for suction curettage) and even more surprising
in an illegal one that supposedly butchered her.

4. When Becky was admitted to the hospital where she died, the doctor
said to Heather, "I don't know whether we will be able to save her
baby."

More details to come.

Peter Nyikos


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40551 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4917 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6294
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 10:42:25 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:

> Sunil Gupta (sg@monsoon.com) wrote:
> : 
> : If someone constantly attacks my values, I know that person is
> : my enemy. Simple, nicht whar?
> 
> Nein, es ist nicht.
> 
> If my mother were to constantly attack my values, would she be
> my enemy ?  No!  Only seeing my best interests differently 
> to the way I do.
> 
> 	Ben

Well, there we have it: Mommy Rush LameBoy! Maybe you guys have
been suckling at his teat far too long.

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion