HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mhollowa@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway)
Subject: Re: Siamese Twins: How Many People?
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:54:15 GMT

In article <l9kkn8INN6lm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>I recently had an ongoing conversation on the subject of what constitutes
>personhood. I contend that what we value in a society is the sapient
>being that we often label a "person." My opponent argued that any human
>tissue that has the potential for cell diferentiation is a person.
>

My comment isn't related to your case of siamese twins but with another flaw
in the argument of your opponent and something that I've found wanting in the 
arguments of anti-abortion folk in general.  I have in the lab now human 
cells that can be caused to differentiate.  If need be I could (hypothetically)
obtain biopsy tissue and differentiate that as well.  Your opponent could 
refine their argument and claim that the tissue would have to have certain 
specific characteristics of a zygote or embryo but they would find that they
were still on slippery ground since unimplanted spontanious abortions and 
zygotes of in vitro fertilizations that are not successfully introduced into 
a womb are not considered "persons" in that no one is burying petri dishes 
and carefully checked tampons in hallowed ground (so far as I know).

Mike

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:21:33 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>Doug Holtsinger

>>      "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>
>     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
>     -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
>     -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here>
      -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)

What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?

>Chris Lyman  

                 -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Third party request
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:30:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194440.22741@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Btxquu.DJr.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#
###garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#### Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in
#### Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  Can someone explain his
#### reasoning to me, please?
#
### He apparently believes that a lie repeated sufficiently often acquires a
### ring of truth.
#
## You're probably right.  
#
#The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act also included a provision 
#which prohibited sex selection abortions, in addition to a  
#provision which prohibited certain post-viability abortions.  
#
#Is that law also constitutional, Ms. Garvin?  How about the abortion 
#laws in some states which have remained on the books despite their 
#unconstitutionality under Roe? 

We weren't discussing constitutionality, were we?  We were
discussing whether or not the law was being enforced.  I
called the state attorney general's office and asked if it
were currently illegal to violate those sections of the
ACA.  They said "ye"  

#I hope that you and your pro-abortion buddies will be able to finally 
#understand that the mere existence of a law does not necessarily 
#imply that it's constitutional, or that it's being enforced.  

I hope that you understnad that the mere fact that a law is
unconstitutional does not prevent it from being enforced.

#      "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#

What is it about Judaism that bothers you so, Holtsinger?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:04:11 GMT

In <1992Aug18.002226.21765@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment
>for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
>exist within the United States."

>   Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
>against her will, to bear young?

Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, who had
no say-so in where he/she is, like a condemned prisoner awaiting 
execution for the crime of being where he/she is not wanted?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Shocking News About Clinton!!!!
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:35:22 CDT


In article <farenebt.714924650@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
> >emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> >] In article <l9ni49INNorq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
> >] 
> >] >	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
> >] >American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
> >] >"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
> >] >kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.
> 
> If you are rich enough to be able to afford choosing your own doctor, then
> good for you. But 40 million Americans cannot; 70% of whom are working
> full-time jobs (or their families), according to ABC News.

    "Contrary to the assertion that Mr. Bush made last night, I want to
  preserve what's best in the present system-- your family's right to
  choose the doctors and hospitals and medical providers or your own
  choice."        
                 Bill Clinton, Economic Club of Detriot, Aug 21, 1992


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DRIEUX - FetalXxxxXxxxXxxx - fill in the blanks, please.
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:30:01 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

The subject line says it all....

drieux, could you please fill in the Xxx's to let the rest of us
know how you describe yourself, since you seem to have mastered 
the art of using CapitalizedWordsWithNoSpaces to describe others.

drieux - FetalXxxxXxxxXxxx - fill in the blanks, please.

Another thought, for me it is easier to relate to someone, if you 
know their name.  Mayber this is a FAQ, but drieux, WHAT IS YOUR
FORMAL/LEGAL NAME?  And if you don't mind, what is you state of residence.
I post mine, so I'm not asking anything that I or most the others don't
already do themselves.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: If I could find it, I would know what it is.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:47:01 GMT

In article <23917@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>> Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does
>> not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
>> that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my unwanted,
>> illegal or immoral actions from a man.
>
>It does show you to be inconsistant, though.

Both sides of this issuce, pro-life and pro-choice, are inconsistent.

And depending on your belief system, he is not being inconsistent.

>After all, what does the
>fetus do in the case of rape or incest that is different than a fetus
>created from a consensual sex act?
>What is the difference in the fetuses?

Nothing.  The fetus is being killed as punishment for the crimes of the
father.  This does has biblical precedent.

>Why is it allowable to kill one and not the other, why does one not
>have "The right to life" while the other does? It smacks of hypocrisy
>and the "punishment" theme.

Both have the right-to-life.  To be consistent, a man convicted of a rape
that gives rise to a pregnancy in his victim, should conceivably be
convicted of murder, as well.

>If you must guess, let me alleviate it for you. I'm fully pro-choice.
>I can no longer see a reason to legislate anything regarding when an
>abortion can or cannot be allowed. I forget if it's rocker or Adrienne
>Regard, but one of them holds the opinion (maybe both, or someone else)
>that why should there be legislation for something that isn't a problem.
>I concur.

It is obviously a problem, or there would be no controversy, and no
debate.

There are very good reasons for at least limiting abortion.  Such as:

1)	While we can argue whether or not a very early term abortion is
	murder, very few people would agree that aborting a fetus of
	38 weeks gestation is not murder.

2)	Making it illegal to abort a fetus that is the product of
	consensual sexual intercourse would at least give both the
	father and mother equal levels of responsibility, rights and
	obligations.

>Ron

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: With God On Our SIDE....
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:24:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.045341.986@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# ps: now watch some NeoPsuedoRadFemManHatingBallKrushingDykeWannabe
# get all emotionally upset......

I'm not a NeoPsuedoRadFemManHatingBallKrushingDykeWannabe, but I'll
pretend to be one for a price...

Bidding starts at three quatloos.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Followup-To: misc.test,alt.flame
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:36:09 GMT


Here's your response, Dennis.  

Get some help.  I don't know if your hatred of women is
due to the fact that your biological mother gave you
up for adoption, or due to the abuse you received from
your adoptive parents, or because normal women typically
reject the advances of immature boys.  I do know that
you  have emotional problems that can't be solved on
the net.  

Susan,
who wonders if Holtsinger still wants Chaney as a moderator of
his newsgroup

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Beth Bartley on Misogyny
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:51:57 GMT

Usually I think that the pro-choice shouts of "misogyny" and
"misogynist" are misplaced or at least unproven.  A pro-life position
is not necessarily evidence of misogyny; one can believe premises
which lead inevitably to a position which hurts women without caring
any less for women than for men.

However, I have now found a position which is in itself misogynist, as
its premises are necessarily misogynist.  This is the position that
since the "father" and the "mother" each contributed 50% of the fetus,
they each deserve equal power over whether or not the fetus is
aborted.  This position is misogynist in and of itself, as it
necessarily assigns no value to the woman's right to control her own
body; assigning any value whatsoever to her "right to choose" would
give her over half of the power to decide whether or not to have an
abortion.

By comparison, the position that "Abortions should be permitted only
when the mother's life is in danger" can be derived from the premises
that "the right to life of all humans who are potential people are
equal (unless they waive said right to life by knowingly committing a
crim)", that and that "the right to life is more important than the
right to control own's body (and therefore, no own is allowed to kill
a human who hasn't committed a crime in order to control own's own
body)".  The pure pro-life position probably would have more
deleterious effects on woman than a "father's consent" position would.
However, the premises of a pure pro-life position need not be
misogynist; one can acknowledge a woman's right to control her own
body but think it is overriden by the z/e/f's right to life.  A
"father's consent" position cannot be logically supported unless a
woman has no right to control her own body, and thus the position is
misogynist from its very premises.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Aug20.223004.13850@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug15.194628.2118@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> (Suzanne Forgach):
>> 
>>> She will be going to an NFP class at the first sign of her first cycle,
>>> and she will know exactly how her body works, how boys' bodies work,
>>> and where babies come from.
>> 
>> Excuse my ignorance (I don't read all articles on ta), but what is NFP, and
>> why do you have to wait til her first cycle?  
>
>Natural Family Planning.   Certainly she will know about it, but she cannot
>possibly observe her own body's cyclic fertility changes (much less chart
>them) if she doesn't even have cycles yet.

This sounds like "1984".

>> Why not educate her before
>> and spare her the fear and ignorance, even if it only lasts a day or so?
>
>Oh puleez.   She will have neither ignorance nor fear.  It's just physically
>impossible for a female with no cycles to chart cycles.

What he is saying is, why not tell her about the female cycle, menstruation,
etc before the fact instead of allowing her to go through an experience like
Carrie in the Stephen Kimg book of the same name.  

>> Also, just wondering if this education includes info about contraception
>> because if she were provided with that in the first place, then maybe she
>> wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, and none of your
>> grandchildren will have been killed.
>
>Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
>popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.  
>Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.

And pigs have wings.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:45:57 GMT
 <1992Aug25.140639.6280@bmw.mayo.edu> <1992Aug25.165321.25266@ncsu.edu> 
 <1992Aug25.211935.12233@bmw.mayo.edu> <1992Aug27.013022.2371@ncsu.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: Reinforcements

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

>In article <1992Aug25.211935.12233@bmw.mayo.edu> 
>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>>> right to kill a member of the human species.  

>> Roe v. Wade did not create a constitutional right to
>> kill a member of the human species. It expands the 
>> boundries of the right to privacy.

>Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to kill certain 
>members of the human species by expanding on the boundaries
>of the right to privacy. 

>> The constitution empowers the government to wage war
>> (organized killing of members of the human species).

>People have constitutional ``rights'', governments don't.  

>> The constitution does not prohibit the people from killing
>> each other, in fact, it could be argued that since it is 
>> not prohibited, it is a right of the people.

>The constitution gives the people the right to commit murder?

What you don't seem to understand is that the Constitution does NOT give
rights.  The Constitution was designed as a document that was to limit
government.  It assigned a LIMITED set of powers to the government and that
was it.

There was a large objection from some of the founding fathers to including
a 'Bill of Rights' for fear that people (and governments) would assume that
those were the ONLY protected rights.  They are not.  The authors of the
Bill of Rights attempted to allay these fears with the 9th and 10th
Amendments.  Unfortunately, they did no succeed.  You are living proof.

The Constitution is a document created by the people that assigns LIMITED
POWERS to government.  The people retain EVERY right, except those directly
ceeded to the government.

Thus, the 'privacy right' was not expanded.  It was simply enforced.  

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34515 misc.legal:16830
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:38:40 GMT

In article <nyikos.715480570@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <vzwyq6m@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>	[allegations of abuse deleted]

>The police believed these allegations to where they made an arrest.

Clue: Arrests are *always* made on the basis of "allegations".
The word "alleged" is properly used prior to a conviction in a court 
of law.  An arrest does not automatically prove criminal wrong-doing.

Note: I am not defending the doctor in the Miami Herald article, 
I am pointing out that the use of "alleged" by Rocker is normal and 
not an attempt to make the actions sound less credible, as I suspect 
Peter may have been thinking based on his reply.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33398 alt.abortion.inequity:3263
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:59:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: None that I can discover.

In article <1992Aug21.181204.1035@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>You seem to imply that you're not making a religious argument. I
>don't see how this can be. The basic religious argument is: "Sex
>is for reproduction only, because God says so." You can't convert
>this into a secular argument like: "Sex is for reproduction only,
>because Biology says so." Biology clearly says that sex is
>both for reproduction and for pleasure. 

But biology also says that the two are inseparable in intercourse.

>Well, I'm glad to see that you realize that fetuses are potential humans,
>and not actual humans.

All forms of murder remove only the POTENTIAL life of the victim.  You
cannot guarantee that anybody has any life left to steal, you just
assume so.

>But wouldn't you agree that unfertilized eggs
>are also potential humans? If a woman has the opportunity to get 
>pregnant, and doesn't, then the unfertilized egg is cruelly expelled
>from her body. Celibacy and abortion have exactly the same effect.

Then instead of attempting to define absolute points, perhaps we should
talk about degrees of potential.  And base our limits on abortion on
potential.  If a newly fertilized egg has zero potential for life,
and a new born has 100% potential for life, then perhaps abortion
becomes murder when the potential for life reaches or exceeds fifty
percent. . .

Of course, IMHO an egg is not a potential human being, as it has not
been fertilized.

>Could you expand on your reasons why the fetus' right-to-life
>only exists when the woman wasn't raped?

Every fetus has a right-to-life.  But the right-to-life is not AND NEVER
HAS BEEN absolute.  The law lists exceptions to the right-to-life, usually
based on criminal activity, but not exclusively.  Obviously, a person who
has a curable terminal disease, but no money for medical treatment, is
being denied the right-to-life.  And being LEGALLY denied, I might add.

>When you make statements  
>like this, it really looks like pregnancy is a punishment to be 
>inflicted on women who have sex willingly.

Nope.  You make the assumption that pregnancy is a punishment.

>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 19:23:08 GMT

In <1992Aug31.234316.4909@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715294372@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scaroli
>a.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <Btrr8A.4GJ.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>

>>>I think that there's a "moral gulf" between Nyikos and Dr. Tiller
>>>as well.  From everything that I've read about the man, George
>>>Tiller is a principled man.
>>
>>You obviously haven't read what one of his former employees, pro-choice
>>Luhra Tivis, has written about him.  But don't despair.  A post will be
>>coming your way on this in a week or two.

>No, I haven't read the piece of propaganda to which you refer.

You call it propaganda without having read it, eh?  Have you read 
excerpts from it, or paraphrasals?

>I have, however, read things written by Dr. Tiller's patients,
>and I've spoken with people who work with him.  I admire the
>man.

>>As for your implication about me, I suspect you wouldn't recognize a
>>principled man if you met one.

>I've met several.  They have a characteristic that is foreign
>to you - integrity. 

I was indulging in a little joke.  Let me spell it out for you.

I am one principled man.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize me if you met me.

Therefore, I suspect you wouldn't recognize a principled man if you
met one (assuming that one is me).

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion