HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Contributions (was Re: Observations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:23:04 GMT

In article <4azn_6q.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep10.033903.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>><1992Sep2.210420.9617@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Aug31.150147.12678@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>>><1992Aug25.204749.4281@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>[fetus]
>>>>Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.
>>>
>>>This argument has been used before.  My reply is this:  You contributed
>>>1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  At the eight week abortion point the fetus
>>>consists of millions of cells.  For sake of argument let's say 3 million
>>>cells.
>>
>>Fair enough.
>>
>>>You get 1/3000000 worth of the decision.
>>
>>And the woman only contributed 1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  So her share
>>in the decision is, Ummm . . . (click, click, click of mouse using X
>>windows Hp calculator program . . .) 1/3000000 of the decision.
>
>Please read any standard biology book.  Read the newspapers for crying
>out loud.  This is as pathetic as Suzanne claiming that breast milk is free.
>
>Get this:  The fetus gets it's nutrients from the *woman*.  Without those
>nutrients the fetus doesn't grow to 3 million cells.  It does't grow at
>all.  That's why babies born in starving third world countries weigh less
>than 5 pounds at birth - because the mother didn't have enough food to
>contribute to the growth of the fetus.  The man can eat all the food he
>wants to and it won't contribute *one* cell to the growth of the fetus.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The only nutrients (if any) that the man contributes is whatever is in the
>head of the sperm cell(s) that penetrate the egg.  That's it.  Everything
>else comes from or through the mother.


Get this:  the woman contributes nutrients (involuntarily), NOT cells.

The idea that a baby grows out of a woman's body is archaic -- although
there are still a few 80-year-olds around who were taught that in school.

I don't know your age or your educational background, but if you *had*
read any standard biology book, you might have noticed that CELLS DUPLICATE;
they are not created by an external cell-making factory.

An ugly way to think of it is that the fetus is a parasite, but even so,
it makes its own cells.  Whether the molecules come from Mommy's womb
or Daddy's hunting.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?clo
Date: 15 Sep 1992 04:34:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <01wnh_-.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
>>Although I'm not an expert in this, as I'm sure you're not also, I believe 
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                         ^^^^^^^
>>you're wrong about the unborn not feeling pain.  If it can feel then it can
>>feel pain, I presume.  Ever touch a bump on your pregnant wife's stomach and
>               ^^^^^^^
>>then have it move in response to your touch?  I have--the child felt me.  I've 
>>talked in detail with my sister-in-law about the unborn.  She's an expert-an
>>OBGyn, has worked on hundreds (or more) of pregnant women, delivered hundreds
>>(or more) babies. She says they can feel pain. That's her business.  I believe
>                                                                         ^^^^^^^
>>her.
> 
> First off, your opinion, while interesting, is hardly going to persuade
> many women to undergo the difficulties of pregnancy and birth unwillingly.
> I'll also note that some 15% of the population believes Elvis is still
> alive and many believe the world is flat.  Their evidence is just about 
> as good as yours.
> 
Okay, so you've chosen not to believe an expert...are you one?  

> Second, we're not talking about babies.  Ever felt the belly of a 12 week 
> pregnant woman?  Nothing much there, eh?  Late term abortions are only done 
> in rare and necessary circumstances.  Sure babies feel pain.  But a newborn
> baby is rather different from a 3 month fetus.
>
Sure I've felt the belly of a 12 week pregnant woman.  There's a lot there: a
baby.  The same baby that's there until he/she is called a toddler.
 
>>> 5) Can you see how the pro-choice position lets you enjoy your beliefs,
>>> while allowing others to enjoy theirs? (Unless of course yours involves
>>> making decisions for others against their will.)
>>> 
>>If you were walking around and saw someone beating somebody a lot more   
>>helpless than they were, wouldn't you feel it was your duty to help (or
>>would you rather not get involved)?
>>
>>If you were walking on a sidewalk and saw someone drowning in a backyard pool,
>>but there was a "No Tresspassing" sign on the grass, wouldn't you break that
>>law to go render aid?
> 
> Well gee, most people in such circumstances are able to indicate that they
> want help.  (Kind of like a pregnant woman asking for an abortion, isn't it?)
> But a 12 week fetus has never indicated any objection to an abortion.
> 
> How about that?
>
OK, so you won't stop to help a person who's been already knocked unconcious,
or who has just gone under the surface.  You say you won't help a person unless
they ask for help.  OK, just keep on walking. 
> -- 
> Ray Fischer
> ray@netcom.com
-- 

Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Evaluation Office (VF3)  NASA JSC
			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:52:30 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Sep11.165627.2516@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>I doubt that anyone I know of would stop you from voting...

In supporting a Constitutional restriction on certain types of legislation,
you render the vote invalid.

>}I feel the burden of proof is on you here.

>Gee, I'm not proposing any legislation whatsoever.  And you feel the burden
>of proof is on me?  I'm supposed to prove that your (unspecified) legislation
>wouldn't work?  What a curious notion!

More curious is your request for evidence on the efficacy of an extension of
child support legislation.  Why shouldn't it work? 
Murder laws work.
Rape laws work.
Or do you disagree?

If you proposed a hang-gliding festival, would it be reasonable for me to
demand that you first show that there would be no danger from low flying
jets - considering that the past 10 years of festivals had had no such
problems?

Besides, what does the efficacy or otherwise of a proposed law have to
do with whether or not I should be permitted to have that law - providing
that a sufficient democratic majority demands it?

>...Consider two unprincipled,
>corruption-ridden candidates.  A law is proposed mandating
>killing Tommy Kelly.  The candidate who finds abortion no more
>repugnant than ordering a hamburger states that he/she wouldn't 
>even consider such a law.  However, the candidate who things
>abortion is evil responds that they would take such a law into
>consideration.  You'd vote for the one who'd consider the law,
>right?

In your scenario, all things are not equal.  I would have to
compare the two evils: 1. A law to kill me on the one hand, and
2. A lack of an abortion law on the other.

tk
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES, NFP SUCCESS RATES
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:07:58 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep11.002747.28086@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> I've posted for you all I have on the matter, but I can tell you this, that
> the _expectations_ of a couple using NFP do _change_ during the course of a
> month as to whether participating in an act of intercourse will produce a
> pregnancy.   Certain times of the month they expect they will not get pregnant
> if they have sex, and certain other times of the month they fully expect they
> _will_ get pregnant if they have sex.

So, you posted success rates, but not contraceptive success rates?
too bad we couldn't access the contraceptive success rate.  One might
think that a couple in the study who accidentally got pregnant
(either by having sex when they should have abstained or impregnating
when they expected not to) might say that they actually wanted
a pregnancy to occur to avoid embarrassment.  Never know...

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36409 alt.abortion.inequity:3701
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Definitional Structures
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:41:48 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
] Pro-aborts want their morals legislated; making murder nice and antiseptic -
] removing all feelings of guilt.
] wanliss@phy.uct.ac.za
 
1. are all abortions murder, by definition?

2. can any Unborn Persons be Murdered, or are only
a small subset of UnBornPersons Murdered ?????

ciao
drieux


ps: I presume the person is new to these discussions, and
hence not aware that their posting is both amusing, and
a bit old....

pps: we will save the discussion about the use of 
terminal force and whether or not this person would
allow close air support for another time....




-- 
Modern Day Problems

I just restructured my mail queue hierarchy and 
I can't do a thing with it.....
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Five questions for Larry Margolis 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:36:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.201631.5018@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

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

>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>>> Well, DOD, can you answer any of these questions?

>>> Of course he *can*

>> But apparently you're incapable of remembering the answers which I
>> have already given.

> I don't believe you've given answers to all these questions; I certainly

Sure, I've answered all the legitimate questions -- you just don't
want to accept my sources.  Why should I bother to answer your  
questions again or to accept your pro-abortion sources if you're 
just going to label my unbiased sources as "speculation"?  It's a
complete waste of time to get you to accept any source which doesn't 
agree with your opinion.  



>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 18:45:29 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Keywords: abortion

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote (in article <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu>):
>In <lb4486INNm30@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.133845.13714@cs.rose-hulman.edu> luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>
>>>It has occurred to me that the fundamental debate over abortion is really  
>>>about whether one says that a pregnant womb contains an unborn, but  
>>>living, child or a fetus, which is just tissues.
>
>Please! "Fetus, which is just tissues"?  Would you call a mammal, a
>reptile, a fish, or even a worm "just tissues"?

I agree that a fetus at eight or nine months is much, much more than
"just tissues".  But I believe that a fertilized egg _is_ "just
tissues", and this single cell has a long, long way to go before it
even begins to approximate anything that could be called a "person".

I understand where you're coming from.  But pro-lifers frequently
overlook the fact that for several weeks after conception, the fetus
doesn't have a nervous system, a brain, or anything that could even
vaguely approximate consciousness!  In fact, for a while, it resembles
a fish more than it resembles a human -- it even has gills at one
point.

I agree that abortion is wrong if it means putting the fetus through
pain just for the convenience of the mother.  But for several months,
the fetus is unable to feel pain or even sense anything else, and
quite often the mother has concerns other than "convenience" in mind.

So the fetus is nothing more than a mass of organic tissues for a
while before it becomes a living, but unborn, child.  The point at
which it becomes a "person" is subject to opinion, but I think it's
safe to say that this point doesn't come for a few months.

>>So what do we have here? When you boil it all down, we have a group
>>of people that are trying to remove the rights of people based on
>>a set of beliefs that do not square with reality.
>
>Yes. Pro-choicers have been largely successful in removing the rights
>of unborn people based on a set of beliefs which do not square with
>reality.

If the fetus is eight or nine months into development, then yes, I
would argue that abortion of it is murder of an unborn child.  But, as
I keep saying (and I would very much like to hear a dissenting opinion
to check my reasoning), a fetus at two or three months isn't a
"person" yet, so I would have a lot of difficulty seeing a woman being
chained to supporting it against their will.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:22:33 GMT

ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>> So do I.  But then I have also read some rather heart-rending
>> stories of women who died due to septic abortions.

> I have read similar stories of women who died of legal abortions.
> I have met two women who have long-lasting physical damage from
> botched but entirely legal abortions.
> I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
> women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.

I would like to echo Chuck Lavazzi and express my earnest desire to 
see the source for your statistic.  I would also like to see your
definition of 'Post Abortive Stress Syndrome' including symptoms.

> Legal abortion is by no means safe.

But a first-trimester abortion is more than an order of magnitude
safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36268 talk.religion.misc:16140
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:16:52 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.716333895@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <BuCyC9.M6x.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >Indeed?  Do you define Christianity, now, too?
>
> Christianity is something I have done an enormous amount of reading
> and thinking and discussing about.

That doesn't answer the question.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:24:50 GMT

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>> And, of course, by speculating on what the 'someone up there' thinks, es-
>> pecially in the negative (What if they are mighty pissed off?) you are
>> admitting you haven't a *clue* what someone-up-there thinks.
>> 
>> Be worried.  Be very worried.

> I'm terrified.   If the "pro-choicer"s are wrong, I count more dead
> people than if the other lot are wrong.  But the problem doesn't arise,
> since *neither* side ever, ever, gets it wrong.

This sounds an awful lot like Pascal's Wager:  "If I believe in God and it
turns out that there isn't a God, then I haven't lost anything."  Actually,
it turns out that you _have_ lost something; the free use of your mind and
the free exploration of ideas.

In this instance, of course, we must paraphrase:  "If I'm not sure how God
feels about abortion, I'd better play it safe and take the pro-life stance."
The problem with this is that, for the most part, the God of the Bible has
nothing to say about abortion.  In one instance (Numbers 5:12-31), God
appears to be pro-forced-abortion, a position as repugnant to pro-choicers
as pro-forced-pregnancy.

IMHO, God has pretty much left the issue for us to decide.  I think He is
amazed at our inability to deal with ambiguities. :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: wouldn't you think ....
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:11:27 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

wouldn't you think, with this kind of volume......

==================
From: newsstats@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: news.lists
Subject: Top 25 News Submitters by User by number of articles for the last 2 weeks
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:30:40 GMT
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc


         No. of       % of
Rank Articles KBytes Total   User
[...]
   4   162     334.8  0.1%   nyikos@math.SCAROLINA.EDU  (Peter Nyikos)
			      92% talk.abortion

=======

... that the man would correct his, ummmmm,
misstatements?


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:40:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
>>coincidentally is the the current viability age.
>
>There have been cases of children being born at 20 and even perhaps 19
>weeks and surviving.  According to Bernard Nathanson, there was a case
>in a Chicago (!) hospital of one Madeline Mann, born on June 27, 1989
>weighing all of 280 grams; she spent 4 months in the premature nursery
>and was 
>
>"discharged home on October 26, weighing 4 pounds, 3 ounces, healthy
>and with reasonable assurance that she would have no significant health
>problems in the future related to her extreme prematurity.  She is the
>smallest survivor on record to date...but, as athletes say, records
>are made to be broken.

And at $300/day for 4 months, it probably cost at least $40,000 (and note
that I'm using _extremely_ conservative cost estimates).  How many lives
were lost to save this one person?  How do you justify spending this kind
of money on a regular basis to "save lives" when it means trading one 
life for hundreds?

While I think it's great that wanted babies' lives can be saved, I am
puzzled at the pro-lifer's glee at this news.  Don't born people count?
Don't Africans count?  Don't Indians count?  Don't poor people count?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:19:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <SCOTTS.92Sep5142954@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>, by scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier):
>> In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>    From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>>    > Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>>    > they won't have sex with them".
>>    What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
>> Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>> are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
>
<smile.>  A man who champions the rights of women
and has no possible ulterior motives in doing so.
Can you say, 'hero'? 

>Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to respect
>for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful to them), a case
>can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.    There is only the
>occasional exception.
>
Proposition B is false as a general rule.
I think a pro-choice position is much more conducive
to respect for women and mothers.  I'm a woman and a
mother, and I assure you that both Keith and Scott
respect me.  Just ask them.  While these lovely men
may be exceptional in some ways, I have found much
love, respect, and valued friendship in the gay men
I have known.  Supporting the rights and abilities of
women to make thoughtful choices in their reproductive
lives is not hateful towards women, except in the 
subset of humanity that resides on the inside of your
circle.

muriel
standard disclaimer

"The nice thing about being bisexual is that you can be in love
with everybody."  --Rebecca L.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.usage.english,alt.peeves,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: henry@netcom.com (Henry Polard)
Subject: Safe science (was  I See a Great NEED)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 03:13:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep9.112726.3848@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>What this sountry needs now more than Ever is 
>
>SAFE SCIENCE!!!!!
>
And to do safe science, we need safe math.
It's time to revive MADD -
Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving
(NOT my invention)
If you derive, don't drink.
If you drink, don't derive.

Farce vobiscum.
-- 
 ________________________________________________________
/ Henry  || We are such stuffe as dreames are made on;   \
\ Polard || and our little life is rounded with a sleepe /
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:40:56 GMT

In article <3x6ypsp@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:


[text deleted]

#I have real problems believing ANYTHING Nathanson claims, ever
#since I read an article he wrote where he claims that people
#who receive fetal brain tissue will have two personalities.
#
#                    -rocker
#                     who will post the quote if there is sufficient interest


I'm interested.  Please post it.

He seems to get more ridiculous in his claims with each passing
year.  

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity