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 21:46:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.092317.127931@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> In  <1992Sep25.170000.19435@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > In article <r69n15#.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > >
> > > egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> > > >In article <x98n8hc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > > >>
> > > >> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> > > sperm and eggs are also human, but you insist that they are not people.
> >
> > Do you understand why?  If not, let me explain again.  Left seperated, the
> > egg and sperm will _never_ develop in a child.
> 
> Left by itself, the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus will *never* develop
> into a child.  Do you understand yet?  If not, please reread until you do.

Left by itself would be classified as bad interference.

Also, left seperated is completely different from left by itself.  I do not
feel this needs further explanation, but if you or anyone else would like
one, I can do this.  

> > I am not making up definitions of words to suit my whims...I've thought
> > about these definitions and argued them over a few years with many people.
> > They are not new to me.
> 
> They may not be new *to* you, but they're new *with* you.

And...?

> > In any case, the point of the discussion would be then to show why my
> > definitions are useless, unclear or not understandable.
> 
> They're useless because they're not used by anyone but you.  They're unclear
> because the words you're using have a clearly defined, well known meaning,
> and you're using them to mean something else.  They're not understandable
> because when a reader sees "interference", they naturally think of the
> standard definition of "interference" they will find if they look in a
> dictionary, and *nobody* in the world except you would think of the
> "Eric Gorr definition of interference".  Clear?

But they are useful because I can state clearly what they are so that
everyone can understand what they mean and how I use them.  By my doing so,
it could possibly make it easier for people to show why my definitions
don't make
any sense when used in other circumstances...

If someone doesn't understand what I am trying to say and really wants to,
they are free to ask.  Or, (actually this is a good idea) I could include
them at the end of each of my messages to solve the problem.  What do you
think?

In addition, the terms that are familiar to everyone are inadequate for
what I am attempting to get across.  What do you suggest?

> If you want me to explain further, I'd be happy to sit on your chest and
> bonk you on the head with the condensed version of the Oxford English
> Dictionary until this point becomes clear.

I ain't stopping you...but the law might 
;-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an abortion two days ago]
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:45:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.717711689@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> 
> > Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.
> 
> Behold what Martin meant by dehumanization.
> 
> Fetuses are no more interchangeable than you and I.

Nor are trees or cabbages.  What's your point, assuming, of course, that
you actually have one?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:26:37 GMT
 <adams.717882733@spssig> <1992Oct1.070245.29369@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <adams.717882733@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>
>>>>You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>>>>a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>>>>and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>>>
>>>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>>>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>>
>>So, decide.  Whose rights take precedence here?  Isn't that what the
>>argument is about?  A born woman's rights vs an fetus' rights to
>>**POTENTIALLY** be born alive?
>>
>>NOTE WELL: pregnancy does NOT guarantee a live, healthy baby at birth...
>>
>
>The unborn child exists as a human life.

No.  It is *potentially* a human life...until the child is born (one way or
another, live birth is only a probability, not a certainty).

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:53:47 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Oct1.064201.767@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>Latest?  The OT was written in Hebrew and has been translated pretty much
>>the exact same way for many many years.
>
>Are you really this dense, Storga, or do you really think Suzanne
>can read Hebrew, or keep up with the latest translations?
>
>From the 1966 Jerusalem Bible:  {What does "many many years" mean?}
>
>"You shall not kill." [Exodus 20:13]
>
>The Jerusalem Bible makes a real effort to cling to the Hebrew original,
>rendering the Tetragammaton consistently as "Yahweh" throughout and 
>using other names of God without translation, like the archaism
>"Shaddai" in the book of Job.

The NIV (1978) translates it as "murder" with a text note saying that the
Hebrew term clearly implies pre-meditation.

The NRSV (1980) translates it as "murder" with the text note "this
commandment forbids murder, not the forms of killing authorized for Israel,
e.g. war or capital punishment"

The NIV and NRSV are both widely accepted and available.

Dr. Nykios, I challenge you to explain how it could possibly be 'kill'
given the direct orders of God to kill others under the right
circumstances.

The KJV got it wrong.  As did the Jerusalem Bible in 1966.  I wonder what
the New Jerusalem says?

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Absolute knowledge (was Re: Biblical support ...
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 06:19:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>If I am within 1 cm of ground-zero of a h-bomb explosion and have absolutly
>nothing to protect me, I will die.

You _probably_ will die.  It isn't absolute.  Physics certainly allows
some (rather intensely improbable) exceptions to this outcome.  But they
are only improbable, and not impossible.

To skip a couple steps in this discussion ...

The question of what can be known absolutely has been pondered by some
philosophers over the past few hundred years.  As far as I know, the only
thing anyone has been able to come up with is the conclusion that since
I think, I must, therefore, exist.  (Descartes: Meditations on First 
Philosophy)

That's it.

Is this useful?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Oct 92 13:10:09 GMT

In <6355@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> 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.
>#
>#I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
>#Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?

>I wondered the same thing.  Suzanne's comments are phrased the same
>way that Mark's were.

Andy, Ray, and now Mark.  Who are these people?

>I doubt that he will complain, though.  Dennis will cite his "two
>wrongs make a right" rule and carry on.

Now wait a minute.  A conditional threat is different from a wrong.
For all I know, Andy and Ray may be a pair of sociopaths who are
impervious to any appeal to human decency and will only pay attention
to direct threats, and not your slap-on-the-wrist variety either.
Remember, I do NOT know who Andy and Ray are.

>Susan

I also don't know whether you are merely posting from U. Pgh. or 
have transferred there from CMU.  If the latter, my condolences, and
advice to hit those books hard so that you can once again aspire to
be a CMU alumna.

Peter Ny.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was: THE SUFFERING...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:14:49 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <5779@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <nyikos.716944702@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>There is strong evidence that the cause of Becky Bell's death was
>>pneumonia, and that the abortion was spontaneous, not induced.
>
>Uh huh.  I keep hearing this claim being made, with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.
>Please post the "strong evidence" or retract this statement.

Well, I will do that myself:
Dr. John Curry said that the virus that killed Becky was unlikely to result
from an abortion.

That and your side has absolutely no proof that she had any damage
whatsoever in any part of her reproductive system.

Those who said Becky Bell died of an illegal abortion, need to SHOW US
PROOF. The fact is, there IS NONE.


>(Of course, I'm not holding my breath, folks.  This is the same guy who
>claimed that there was a Planned Parenthood that did not offer anaesthesia
>for abortions--and guess what--he didn't offer either evidence or a retraction.
>Why the heck is that, Nyikos?  Is the truth so frightening for you that you
>have to invent your own?)

If he claimed there was a PP clinic that *did* offer anesthesia, I'd demand
proof.


>>And more than one woman dies NEEDLESSLY each year from LEGAL abortion.
>Sigh.  And more than one woman dies NEEDLESSLY each year from LEGAL birth.
>What's your point?

That abortion ain't as safe as everyone in your camp is brainlessly
touting.


>---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------

Tens of K$'s worth of education wasted... How can a teacher willingly
attempt to put knowledge into a trash can?

=============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 00:00:24 GMT

In article <1af39vINNdal@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.071141.446@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1ad6r3INNfc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>

>Let me also take this opportunity to point out that no one is dehumanizing
>the child.  Pro-choicers 'de-personify' the child, certainly.  But there 
>isn't anyone here who things a fetus is a canine before birth.

Ummm... I'm not sure about this. Having read some of the materials that
the anti-choice think should be part of mandatory education for women
having abortions, I believe that some anti-choicers did believe that
human fetii were nascent Toyotas or canteloupes until set straight by
their local clergyman. :-)

>>Yes, I value human life, mother, father, daughter, son, the unborn son
>>or daughter, cousin, uncle, etc.

OK. Who do you value more? What if your wife were in labor and suddenly
it was discovered that the delivery could not progress. It's too late
for a caeserian. Do we decapitate the gestation, or open her up enough
to deliver the infant? Remember, In any case where there is a lock with
the body delivered, an incision large enough to pull said infant back 
through the pelvic girdle and out will probably cause her to bleed to
death.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40908 talk.politics.misc:49841 alt.sex:32102 alt.rush-limbaugh:6666 alt.politics.elections:15366 alt.politics.clinton:8717 alt.politics.bush:7912
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:17:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct6.161911.4291@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <Oct04.222555.96000@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>>>  Abortion is not a crime.
>>>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>>>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>>>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>>>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
>>
>>"Fetuses aren't borned persons." and  "Murder involves, among other things,
>>the killing of borned persons." are the only statements  that are absolutely
>>TRUE.  All the others are a little too fluid.
>
>Since when is abortion a crime?  How many of the 1.5 million women whjo
>obtained one last year were arrested and prosecuted?
>
I'm not up on my Roe v. Wade, but is it not illegal to abort a fetus in the
third trimester?

>Since when is murder not a crime?

Right now.  Go to Bosnia.  Shoot some Croats.

>Since when is murder not a legal term?

Well, okay, you're right about that one.

>Where has abortion been murder?  When?

That depends on how you define murder.

>Abortion can never be murder unless the constitution is changed.  That will
>never happen.

Never say never.

>The legal definition of a child implies successful birth.
>
>Sounds to me like each and every statement I wrote is true.
>
Not to me.  At least one statement is unverifiable.  The others are opinions
or legal definitions.  (Legal defininitons are not quite as fluid as opinions,
but nowhere near as solid as facts, whatever they are.)

Big Al.  Attacking a position he believes in.  One of these days I gotta
get my directions straight.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39674 alt.abortion.inequity:4165
From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx02.louisville.edu (Shaitan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:03:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <BvAnLI.AvL@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)      writes...
>In article <1992Sep28.045401.16061@menudo.uh.edu> mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde) writes:
>>In article <Bv4x9H.Crz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>[lotsa stuff deleted]
>>
>>>I don't know about Peter Nyikos, but I believe the proposition can
>>>be "exported into Law" in a consistent and meaningful manner.
>>>Rape/incest/unhealth changes the balance of rights between woman 
>>>and fetus, permitting her to remove the fetus from her body.
>>
>>This sounds suspiciously like you are advocating murdering the fetus
>>for something for which it wasn't responsible. (The fetus didn't
>>rape anyone.) Hardly seems consistent with "Abortion is Murder".
> 
>Your suspicions may arise from not having followed/seen all the arguments.
> 
>Even though it *seems* that way on the face of it, my point is that
>this objection is incorrect.
> 
>The essence is this:  rape/incest may alter the balance of rights
>between woman and fetus, because it nullifies a "voluntary" acceptance
>of obligations and because it may represent an extra burden to the woman
>not present in the case of voluntary sex.

Ah, I see!  The child isn't a "real" child unless its conceived in a manner of
"voluntary acceptance."  Then the woman gets to hack up the suddenly *inhuman*
foetus.  Clever, clever.  Well, now we know that a foetus is only a human
foetus if created *voluntarily*.  Take heed, all!
--Shaitan--

>The "responsibility" of the fetus is irrelevant.  It is not being
>punished or killed for any action of its own.  Its right to life via 
>life support from the woman, however, may depend on whether the woman 
>entered into any obligation to the fetus voluntarily, and whether such 
>an obligation threatens her life or her other rights.

A foetus has a right to life based on whether the woman wanted to engage in
sex, not whether the woman wanted a foetus?  So the issue has nothing to do
with the child; rather, it has to do with punishing women for having sex
voluntarily.

Hey:  whether woman X was raped or not, there's a foetus that could possibly
become a human (if).  If you are saying that it's not an official foetus unless
conceived *voluntarily*, I beg to differ with your line of reasoning.
--Shaitan--

>AGAIN:  I am arguing whether this is *consistent* or not.
>Please avoid "you are advocating" responses, thanks.

Hmmm. . .not sure whether I understand or not.  If I misinterpreted your
intent, I'm sorry; take my words in the same way :)  I just got in on the
"conversation" so I might lack the "secret information."
--Shaitan--

> 
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:21:13 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep29.191402.13243@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.045541.19478@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >
> > So you consider the natural failure of a fertilized egg to implant (which
> > happens on the order of half the time, I believe) to be murder.  That's,
> > umm, an interesting concept.  Who are you going to prosecute?
>
> No.  Accidental death is not murder.  Sorry.  Trap failed.

"Trap"?  No, your own words.  You said, in article
<1992Sep27.211130.8098@nntp.uoregon.edu>:
# > > > 2.  Left by itself and with no interference, no zygote will ever be
# > > >     "born" either.
# > >
# > > True.  But that would be bad interference.
# > How does *no* interference constitute *bad* interference?
#
# Because, IMHO, it would be murder to prevent a wanted and healthy child
# from comming into the world.

By your definition, the natural failure to implant constitutes "bad
interference", which prevents a wanted and healthy child, and therefore
constitutes murder.  Now you're changing your definitions again.

> > > See someone fall off a cliff and they just happen to catch hold of
> > > something, which saves their life temporarly...they will no be able to hold
> > > on forever.  You are able to save this persons life with absolutly no risk
> > > to yourself in any way, shape or form.  Is it permissable to allow this
> > > person to die?
> >
> > Rescuing them would be interference, but good.  Not rescuing them would
> > be bad, but would not constitute interference.  Causing them to fall would
> > be bad, and *would* constitute interference.
>
> You _are_ interfering with their possibility to go on living.  That is
> bad.

Nope.  Gravity is.  If I do nothing, then *I* am *not* interfering.
I agree that that would be "bad", but not "bad interference".
Non-interference.

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