HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.040921.19361@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep25.171439.21087@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.e
> u (Eric Gorr) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep24.164318.2360@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writ
> s:
> >> 
> >> In article <1992Sep21.170517.22349@nntp.uoregon.edu>, Eric_Gorr@coglab
> psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
> >
> >> > 
> >> > After the conception, the natural thing to happen is for the fetus t
> 
> >> > implant.  If that does not happen, then something occured to prevent
> it. 
> >> > In other words, interference occured.
> >> 
> >> This natural thing happens only 50% of the time...  The other 50%,
> >> the natural thing to happen is for the zygote *not* to implant.
> >> How are either of these "interference"?
> >
> >What happens when medical technology is capable of preventing the zygote
> >from not implanting?
> >
> > 
> 
> What happens?  Well, I thought that already happened, myself.
> For one thing, I would consider such an act of science to fit
> your definition of "interference". 

Well, do you think there exist such things as good and bad interference?


Bad interference is something that should not be done.
Good interference is something that should be done such as doing everything
possible to bring a _wanted_ child into this world.


> That doesn't change
> the fact that 50% of the zygotes implant naturally and 50%
> don't implant (also from natural causes).

So, are you saying that if a couple wants a child, we should not utilize
every means available to help them have that child?

> Besides all that, it is my opinion that the potential of the
> unborn human does not become great enough to warrant moral worth
> outweighing the woman's right to control her body until it has
> implanted.  

When did I ever say that I wanted to take away a woman's right to control
her body?  I'm sorry.  But I am getting sick and tired of people making
assumptions and displaying their ignorance.  Please, get facts - I beg you.
 Assume nothing about what I may or may not believe!!  

> As for personhood (which I guess is the basis for these above arguments
> you make), I don't think a human becomes a person until long after
> birth.  I don't think personhood should dictate moral rights,
> I tend to focus upon potential personhood.

So, what you are saying is that we should be free to kill any born child
until it passes that line?  By the way, what is that line?  Could you
please define it clearly...
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 15:50:50 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->However, it would be
->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.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 00:17:18 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct1.122444.28354@spectrum.xerox.com>  rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
> >
> I make a point in reference to your z/e/f usage.
> Take a baby who is 26 months old.
> It's a 'baby' if it's in the NCU, but a z/e/f in it's mother?
> That doesn't make sense.

You're damn right it doesn't make sense - if a baby over two years
old was inside its mother, at least one of them would be dead.
Now, if you're talking about a *fetus* at 26 *weeks* (not a baby
at 26 months), then it makes perfect sense.  See if this makes sense
to you (and note the proper use of "it's" vs. "its".  :-)
   It's born if it's in the NCU, but not born if it's in its mother?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:56:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.192300.14909@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>I am also a person.  IMHO, so is a 2 week embryo.  As a result we should
>both
>be treated in the same way.

I'l glad you said that.  Now, please answer my questions...

If, as you have previously6 implied, you support a woman's right to
abort, why then do you insist that an embryo and a borned person be treated
the same way?  If it is okay to kill an embryo through abortion, why is
it not okay to kill a borned person?  Are there two kinds of persons?
IF it is not okay to kill an embryo, they why do you imply that you supprt
a woman's right to choose?  Either it's okay or its not.  If its okay,
then obviously you support treating embryos differently than you.
But you just said.....

You see the confusion you are causing?

Probably not.

Jennifer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40085 talk.politics.misc:49170 alt.sex:31680
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Female Contraception: Article References
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:44:25 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz writes:

|> I recently asked why pro-choicers generally don't include education
|> of the risks of abortion when talking about education. Someone felt
|> that I was using scare tactics and that I should back up my assertions.
|> 
Your question must have snuck by unnoticed.  Planned Parenthood does
include a discussion on the risks of abortion when counseling pregnant
women.  I assume other family planning clinics do likewise.  Also,
since this is a surgical procedure, the patient is required to sign
a statement that there is medical risk and that this has been
explained to them.

You are not incorrect about the importance of including risk as part
of the education process, but you are incorrect when you assume
it is not included.  When someone makes this choice, the law and 
common medical practice (cover your ass to protect yourself
from litigation) prevents anyone from going into it without
understanding the risks involved. 

You want to know about scare tactics.  Just read the form you have
to sign the next time you have any medical procedure performed.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:46:35 GMT

In article <#=mzanc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>this was so funny that i thought it called for a repost,
>->>unedited.
>->I take it you won't be substantiating your assertion, then.
>
>take it any way you want. i told you earlier in this
>thread that it had been publically substantiated. others
>told you the same thing.
I was referring to your claim that I had contradicted myself.
It would now appear that you will substantiate neither claim. 
How unsurprising.

-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."
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:50:16 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Oct5.212542.15227@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
>would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
>cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can?  Surely you
>wouldn't mind having the same thing done to you which you advocate
>for others.
If I'm living in someone else's body, she should feel free to have me
vacuumed out. Until then, it's not the same thing.

-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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:00:11 GMT

In article <!nkz-l-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->If you can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider retracting
>->the accusation.
>
>sure i'll consider it. but i really don't think my position
>will change. why don't you ask cj? i'm curious if she'll
>tell you the truth.
And I'm curious to see if you will have the intellectual honesty
to support your position--or retract it.

-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: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:12:41 GMT

In article <ld497uINN6ou@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.190757.21860@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <ld3d2qINN337@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>>>>>[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc. ]
>
>>>>Nope.  Human life, in my terminology, is synonymous with being a member of
>>>>homo sapiens.
>
>>>Ahhh.... I see...
>
>>>Heck of a way to win an argument. All you have to do is redefine the
>>>terms.
>
>>I never REdefined any terms.  I have always held that.  It's just that other
>>people, without my consent, have redefined it for me.
>
>Your definition of what human life is appears to be yours alone. Therefore
>in the context of this discussion you are redefining usage of the term
>"human life."
>

A problem with communication does not mean I redefined any terms.

>>>>>If you wre to take a single cell off my cheek, isolate it and keep it
>>>>>alive, by your definition it would be a member of species homo sapient.
>
>>>>A definite no.  Read an article I posted/wrote regarding this.
>
>>>Again, I see you making a lot of blatant assertions, rather self serving
>>>assertions IMHO, and claiming them as fact. Just because you say somethign
>>>is true does not necessairly make it true. Of course you can claim that
>>>you have that power, but I can also claim that you are a frog.
>
>>The scientific fact that human life begins at conception is common knowledge.
>>I make "assertions" because it is almost a given.
>
>But the sperm and egg are living human life. You admitted it yourself in
>another post to me. You can't have it both ways. 
>
No, I said the sperm and egg are alive, and that they are merely specialized
human cells which are part of a male or a female.  Being a specialized 
human cell does not make it a member of homo sapiens.

>>>>>It is just as much a living human cell with its own genetic code as is
>>>>>a fertilized egg. In fact, it might even divide and make more cells.
>
>>>>Oh a human cheek cell is defintely a human cell.  But note that the human
>>>>cheek cell is a mere portion.  In and of itself, it is nothing.  A fertilized
>>>>egg, however, in and of itself, in its entire sum, is a member of homo 
>>>>sapiens.  Its entire genetic code is contained in its whole sum of parts.
>
>>>My living cell has a complete genetic makeup. I would say that it is 
>>>complete as cells go. Put it in the right envioronment and it will even
>>>grow. 
>
>>Grow, but that doesn't make it human, in any sense of the world.
>
>It is human and it is life, is it not?
>
But it isn't a NEW human life in and of itself.  And it isn't a member of 
homo sapiens either.
>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:36:55 GMT

In article <mykes.0e43@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.232409.27608@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> Because in the real world, Pat Robertson is, while wrong IMO with
>> regards to his Church -> State activism (I believe in separation of
>> Church & State, BTW), not so bad when it comes to helping the sick,
>> starving, and illiterate.
>
>Curious minds want to know.  Why is REVEREND Jackson more paletable
>as a presidential candidate than Reverend Roberston?  I suppose it's
>OK if you're a democrat...

I'm a Democrat and I'd rather marry Adrienne Regard before I vote for
Jesse Jackson. (Translation: I'd rather die 400,000 very painful deaths.) 

He, too, seeks help of certain african-american churches, for votes. Or
so he did in 1988, I heard. 

That and he's an utter loonie, as bad as Jerry Brown.


=============================================================================
>##       "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. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:55:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.212840.11036@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.052443.12902@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

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

>I heard Cthulhu is a religion, Elizabeth. Making one of them a President
>would horrendously endanger the First Amendment.

Not a religion, nit.  A god.  But only in H.P. Lovecraft's horror
stories.  (Most powerful and nastiest of the gods, all of which are
thoroughly evil....)

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39597 alt.abortion.inequity:4155 alt.birthright:486
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 30 Sep 1992 14:53:49 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep29.183713.3166@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>In article <1a9ruoINN4hq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>Not true.  The methods they were using are KNOWN to fail!  There is ONE known method which is 100% effective!  Anything less than abstainence is gambling! 
>I have a vasectomy, I'm told that even that is not 100% effective.  Therefore, I have a choice, take the risk, or abstain.  

Bully.  Have a wonderful life.  The rest of us drive cars, live in homes,
and occasionally walk under trees.  What *risk* we bear.  Of course, we all
believe we shouldn't receive medical treatment in case of accidents, too.

>>You would rather this teen-age girl who won't clean her room was having
>>UNPROTECTED sex?  You would rather this teen-age girl who won't clean her
>>room had a BABY?
>I would rather these kids be armed with the TRUTH.

Somebody's lying to the kids?  Somebody's telling them there ain't no 
chance?  Boy, that's bad news. 

Adrienne Regard
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was: THE SUFFERIN
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:44:00 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

[--edited for clarity--]

>> 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.

> Can someone get us info on a famous president whose autopsy was
> mistaken as "accidental death" when it was actually poison?

There is also some controversy about the manner in which the composer
P. I. Tchaikovsky died.  What's your point?

> The fact is, Susan, an autopsy can be wrong especially when the
> autopsy has no info as to where the damage occurred. We know it can
> happen in several places in the reproductive system.

I see that you're parading your ignorance of forensic medicine and 
pathology now. When did you have a chance to examine the body?  Did
anyone claiming that Ms. Bell did not die from a septic abortion
with pneumonia examine the body or review the coroner's documents?

> This is at best a sloppy autopsy and by average conditions, a lie that
> can be proven ONLY BY RE-ANALYSIS.

In your extremely uninformed opinion only.

> In other words, Becky Bell's case is pure horseshit and is not to be
> believed.

Mr. Chaney, have you ever considered that there are many readers out
there who are neutral or ambivalent about the abortion issue, making
up their minds on the basis of what we write?  The one silver lining
in your hateful tirade is the probability that you've driven these
neutral readers closer to the pro-choice side of the fence.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:46:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?
>An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.
>BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.

It appears that a "1" was dropped in front of that 9.  Your should
proofread more carefully.

>There is a difference between that which exists and has been terminated
>and that which has never existed and as a result, can never
>be terminated.

And what difference is that?

Besides, an egg exists before _and_ after fertilization, as does the
sperm.  Both are alive before _and_ after fertilization.

>In the near future, I shall visit you with a an uzi with a silencer, as well
>as some other goodies and shoot you and kill you for arguing with me.  
>Terrible?  Nah.  Life & death decisions are made daily.  Killing you is
>not more terrible than is the universe:

Nor you.

And why do pro-lifers resort so often to images of murder?  Sheesh.
First Forgach, now you.  Both in the space of a week.  Pro-life my ass.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:02:09 GMT

In article <BvGICD.89@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Redneckus) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.165935.16938@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> Tweedledum posting as margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>
>>>> But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
>>>> services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
>>>> I will pull the plug on YOU.
>>>


It should not be MY PROBLEM that you DO NOT CARE ABOUT PROTECTING KIDS'
LIVES, PATRICK !!! 

You have NO INTELLIGENCE, NO LOGIC...

You have NOTHING, PatricKKK. You can prove nothing, say nothing, think
nothing... 

What the hell can you do, punk? Threaten people to come down and say
stuff to your face and make racist remarks? That's about it. 

>The only "proof" that exists is in that diseased skull of yours, Bore Boy.
>Point out to me *exactly* where Larry said he'd "just sit there" if someone
>tried to 86 his kid's life support.  You can't -- because you made it up
>yourself.

The article was made in response to his lack of RECOGNIZING THAT SUZANNE
FORGACH WOULD PROTECT HER CHILDREN. 
>>>I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
>>>Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?

DO YOU SEE LARRY MARGOLIS RECOGNIZING THAT SUZANNE WAS TALKING ABOUT
PROTECTING HER CHILDREN'S LIVES ?! 

DO YOU SEE IT, PATRICKKK ?!

How many times must I prove myself right in debates with you before we
all realize just how stupid you are? 


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