HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:45:33 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <g0#pfaq.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> Eric writes:
> >Galen writes:
> >> Multiple sclerosis (ms), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (als) and primary
> >> lateral sclerosis (pls) all involve deterioration of the myelin sheath. ...
> >
> >Interesting.  Just curious...how much myelin sheath is necessary for a
> >human
> >to reach a state of human-ness?
> 
> I don't know if myelin is an "either you have it or you don't" sort of
> thing, or a thing which can be measured.  If there are varying degrees
> of myelin sheath, then I'd say enough of it is required that nerve
> impulses don't propagate randomly through the brain and instead travel
> along distinct routes.
> 
> >By the way, what exactly do you mean by human-ness anyways?  (I may be
> >falsly
> >assuming that you using it in the same way I use person)
> 
> It's taken this long for you to figure this out?  'Person' is not the
> same thing as 'human'.  'Human' is a physical thing; 'person' is a
> philosophical thing.
> 
> >> }>Before this stage in the development of a fetus, it is clearly incapable
> >> }>of thought or sensation.  Thus, it becomes a useful measure of human-ness.
> >> 
> >> }Many adults in a coma are like this also.  
> >> 
> >> Not at all.  Most patients in a coma have nothing whatever wrong with 
> >> their myelin.   Mri scans can prove that this is not the case.
> >
> >It was being argued though that to be able to think or feel was a necessary
> >condition for human-ness.  I was merely pointing out a case where this was
> >not possible to demonstrate.  
> 
> It is still possible to demonstrate that the brain of someone in a
> coma is still capable of functioning normally -- it just _isn't_ for
> some reason.  This differs from a brain-dead person, defined as
> someone whose brain has been damaged to the point where it can no
> longer function at all.
> 
> >If you still don't like that example, ever heard of people becomming "brain
> >dead" for a few moments, but then comming "back to life?"
> 
> No, I've never heard of this.  It isn't possible, because it would
> mean destroying someone's brain so that it could no longer function,
> then expecting it to function again.  If the person comes "back to
> life", then he was never brain-dead to begin with.

umm..it has occured...I suppose I could spend the time finding references
for you.

> 
> >In the time
> >between, was it ok to hack them to
> >pieces?
> 
> Mu.  ;)  Your original supposition is impossible, so this question
> makes no sense.

Assume it is possible (for the moment), and answer the question.
From: vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: War of words.
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:38:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:


>   Let's create a new weapon in the war on words, shall we?

>   The quote file.

Good idea! How about:


"We will put the family or the doctor under surveillance at various 
times, yes. In order to do an effective protest, you have to know 
pretty much what the family patterns are." 

Tom Cyr, director of the Dallas Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN)
wrt harassing doctors who perform abortions.


Vickie
Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education, Pro-life
                   Feminist for (the rest of my) Life

       *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:39:37 GMT

In article <_vfzvqn@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> 
> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> 
> >In article <jlbzyx_@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> >> 
> >> Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
> >> 
> >> >There is no point after conception that is a reasonable place to draw the
> >> >line.
> >> 
> >> Sure there is.  Birth.
> 
> >Why?  Please defend as best you can.
> 
> One of the strongest points for choosing birth is that WE ALL KNOW when
> birth happens.  It's there, it's visible, and there's generally a good
> deal of noise involved.

Much to arbitrary.  Especially when it can happen at any time, either 
naturally or unnaturally.  Do you see a problem with it being
arbitrary.  If not, why?

> When were you conceived?  Not, "on a camping trip" or "after a few
> bottles of wine on Mom and Dad's anniversary", but the day, hour,
> and minute.  You don't know, and you can't find out.  

Not now, but what happens when this does become possible?

> Until you are born, your life is a gigantic question mark.  Many
> babies do not survive the birth process.  So until birth, it's
> almost impossible to estimate how successful a given fetus will
> be as an air-breather. 

What happens when it is possible for every conception to lead to a birth?

> Not to mention the blatantly obvious fact that once you are born, you
> are no longer bodily dependent on another human being. 

Yes, you are.  The child needs to be fed by someone hand.  Need to feel
the loving touch of another human.  Need to be spoken to....I could go on,
but you get the point.
 
> >> >If anything happens to the fetus after conception that does no allow it do
> >> >become an adult, that would come under "interference."  If nothing
> >> >interferes, that fetus will grow up to be an adult person.  I can explain
> >> >further if you wish.
> 
> >> Yet another variation on "Why is conception so special?  Because
> >> conception is so special."
> 
> >Because it is the start of human life.
> 
> Human life began several million years ago.  Conception is just a
> stage.

Jeeze. Oh, fine.  If you are too ignorant to insert a simple "a" in the
sentence, then I would rather you not reply to any thing else I've written.

I appologize that I neglected to do this, but this kind of stuff is really 
starting to get on my nerves.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: The College Perspective? (Was): Re: The christian perspective...?
Summary: Gee, Eric, what _will_ you think of next? 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 02:47:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.201712.3856@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>(It must be that some of you are making false assumptions and not even
> bothering to get the facts you need to make a coherent responce)

Gee, now why don't you listen to what you just wrote, and let the real college
students use the computers, Eric?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39672 alt.abortion.inequity:4164 alt.birthright:489
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:19:11 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>>Let's face it, the ONLY fail-safe birth control known is abstainence.  
>>If 'she' chooses to use a form which is less reliable, that's her fault.

Thanks. Obviously Christianity is the biggest fraud on the planet if
the above statement is true. So who was screwing Mary?
 
-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:20:10 GMT

In article <1ykzq+b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>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.

> _I_ will support keegan's position on this.  But as keegan has posted
> that he does not want the details public again, you'll have to email
> me for the story.

I e-mailed you for the story, and I'm still waiting to hear from you.
I also e-mailed Keegan for the story, but he explictly refused to give 
it to me.  Perhaps there is no "story". 


>               -rocker


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:02:19 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.26.79.24

---
smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
|You know, I've always felt that someone who spends weeks and
|thousands of lines of typing flaming someone else for 
|one sentence looks like a twittering fool, particularly
|when that is their only contribution to the newsgroup.

I take it you think Keegan is a twittering fool, then.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:35:20 GMT

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

>In article <_-pz9z@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>> ...that is residing within her body.  Gosh, this whole debate is
>> so easy if you just ignore the pregnant woman.
>>
>> Are these welfare folk you disdainfully refer to currently residing
>> within your body?

>The debate becomes even easier when the pro-aborts such as yourself 
>turn the woman into a mere physical container.  

Holtsinger, I'd be absolutely fascinated to read your explanation 
of how I'm doing that.  Can you perhaps provide me with one?

>Doug Holtsinger

                 -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Oct 92 23:01:29 GMT

In <1992Sep29.194134.14241@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

: > Peter Nyikos writes:

>: >[The fetus has a right to]
>: >be spared a death perhaps more agonizing than most of us will suffer.

>: How can abortion be agonizing pain for the fetus if it doesn't have
>: fully-developed and connected nerves yet, nor a brain to register
>: pain?  And even if it does, why can't the abortion just include the
>: injection of a nerve-deadening drug into the amniotic sac to keep the
>: fetus from feeling anything?

I'd like to know why this is not already being done.

>This sounds like a licence to kill just about anyone, 
>just so long as we can afford the morphine...

Frank, you've missed the point of my word "perhaps".  Perhaps the death
is not agonizing at all, but even so, as Martin Guerrero ably shows
on the "I had an abortion two days ago" thread, pain is only one facet
of the picture.  You and I and Martin are in agreement on this.

Peter Ny.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:01:49 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>At least you are consistent in recognizing that black slaves don't
>necessarily have the right to be free and human beings don't necessarily
>have the right to life.  So, in a sense, both slavery and abortion can
>easily be justifiable with that position.

A thought came to mind that's been brewing for a good while in the back
of my mind, probably for years, ever since I first became aware of the
right to life movement. Exactly what is life, how you define it. I'm
interested in your definition, because there are several questions I
have regarding whatever your answer maybe. I'll go ahead and list them.

If you say to be alive:
1) What is being alive? Does it include being trapped in a tiny cell?
If not, what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

2) What is your opinion on the death penalty? On war? Should we ever
fight one and deprive some people, including innocent civilians of life?
Or are there instances where the taking of life is ok, and this supposed
right can be taken away? (Clue - the founding fathers though so, as
they encouraged the killing of quite a few people.)

3) Should people be allowed to risk their lives? After all, why should
they be allowed to risk it, if it is such a valuable commodity that
is intrinsic to their being?  Your stance that a fetus should not be
deprived of life through abortion, because it has a right to life, whether
it wants it or not, is akin to forcing someone to live without sky-diving
or driving, since both activities could kill you, and the only reason
I can see for forcing the one to stay alive that is consistant with
the other is to also force people to live careful lives.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
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 19:20:52 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->>_I_ will support keegan's position on this.  But as keegan has posted
->>that he does not want the details public again, you'll have to email
->>me for the story.
->Then your support is useless.

is this the same eric rescorla who earlier today asked
for an example of his intellectual dishonesty?

heh. "intelectual dishonesty," indeed.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:53:00 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep22.204128.15069@pdnfido.fidonet.org>, joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
> In article <1992Sep20.163843.13776@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep20.011452.11192@pdnfido.fidonet.org>
>>joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep17.042441.4502@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>>>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe   
>>
>>>Yea, "The Choice" occurs in the Bedroom... not the Operating Room.
>>
>>Oh, you're one of the "I believe in a woman's choice; I believe she
>>should choose to keep her legs closed" types, I see.
>>
> 
> Well granted, I'm one of them 'frothing at the mouth Christians', so I 
> belive the only time you should be worrying about a baby is in wedlock.

Always an odd position to take (imo) unless you reside in China or India.

> But still there is plenty of ways to prevent conception.  You are speaking
> of a world where women get raped every other day and conceive each time.
> (its not this world)

Are you certain?

> I'm speaking of THIS disgusting world where there are 400 THIRD TRIMESTER
> ABORTIONS EVERY DAY IN THE US ALONE.
> Babies are born and live in the Third Trimester.
> 
> But to your accusation no, its both the stupid man's and the stupid woman's
> fault they now have to take meat tongs to their offspring and rip it out
> of his/her mother's womb.

So: if a man and a woman properly use reliable birth control which happens
to fail on a 1 in a hundred chance or so, and they are unable to afford
to feed an extra mouth (just suppose), they could not bear to put
their own flesh and blood into someone else's family, and they choose
to abort their misconception, then they are both stupid?  You certainly
have a nice way with people, don't you?
 
> Vulger culture we have here eh?

Seems to be accentuated by your vulgar attitiudes toward other people.

[...]
> I don't recall the Constitution saying a damm thing about rights
> to 'safely rip your offspring out of your womb'.  I do recall rights
> to 'freedom and the pursuit of happiness'..... but oh yea, babies don't
> have rights do they?

Babies have plenty of rights.  I know that, and I'm a Canadian (never cared
to read your constituition).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Recommended reading
Organization: Georgia State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:52:33 GMT

jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:

>In article <29SEP92.20404326@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> A Randall Terry quote: "I was conceived out of wedlock.  I could have 
>> been aborted.  I hope and think that my parents wouldn't have, but I'm  
>> just real glad they didn't even have the choice."  

>Frightening, absolutely frightening. I have enough of a problem 
>with the fact that my delivery severely injured and nearly killed
>my mother. I owe her something for choosing to make such a sacrifice. 
>The idea that someone could have forced her to make it for me (and
>hell, what had I done for her? Really?) would have turned me inside 
>out. I'm glad women have a choice, and I say that not as a potential  
>mother, but as a daughter, or shall I say a former fetus.

My mother was 42 years old when she became pregnant with me.  She
had 6 children, the oldest was 19 and the youngest 6.  If, at
the time, abortion had been legal and she had wanted one, 
I would not be here today.  If she came to me today and said that
she had developed a time machine and was going to go back and
have an abortion so I wouldn't be born because she felt she 
had given up too much being a mother for those extra years, or
that my siblings had suffered because of the expense of another 
mouth to feed, I would tell her to do it.  I like my life, 
don't get me wrong, but, as a former fetus, I *still* respect
the right to choose.
>>                             .... Heather.

>    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions....

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39436 talk.politics.misc:48622 alt.sex:31333 alt.rush-limbaugh:6210 alt.politics.bush:7186 alt.politics.elections:14660 alt.politics.clinton:7804
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:33:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
*eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
*> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
*> -rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
*> ->we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
*> ->do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control,
*> ->perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.
*> -
*> -Well, well, well...
*> -
*> -I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
*> -a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
*> -hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
*> -Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
*> -  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
*> -  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
*> -  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
*> -
*> -There.  Is it sinking in yet?
*> -
*> -(nod your little head.)
*>
*> Bare with me.
*
*I did, then I realized you probably meant "bear"...  :-)
*(Actually, you want her to bear *for* you...  :-(  )

Well, I thought I wore a condom on my little head...

*> A hard-core pro-lifer would respond...
*
*Are you an idiot, or do you just speak for them?

I've previously played advocate for both sides of the abortion debate in
discussions with friends before. In other words, I'm an idiot.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Sadomasochist extraordinaire.
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:48:51 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1aaa0gINNq5a@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>|In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>|>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>|>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>|>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>|Try this on for size.
>|Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>|Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>|Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>
>Did you have some kind of point?  You really ought to, if
>you're going to broadcast your posting to this many newsgroups.
>
His point was thus:

Killing can be a responsible solution to an unwanted inconvinience.
Killing can be a responsible solution to an unwanted inconvinience.
Killing can be a responsible solution to an unwanted inconvinience.

Which is about as distilled as it's gonna get. 

Just for the record, I don't give a flying fuck who kills their own unborn
baby, or cancerous grandpa for that matter.  None of my business.

Big Al.  WHo should learn how to spel.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39125 alt.abortion.inequity:4105