HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:20:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.215046.16344@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <usglkrx.717515766@gsusgi1.gsu.edu>, usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
>(Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>> 
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Sep24.225014.1507@nwnexus.WA.COM>, jbrindle@halcyon.com
>> >(Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>> >> 
>> >> In article <1992Sep24.005929.6031@nntp.uoregon.edu> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>
>> >This is bogus.  Birth has got to be the most arbitrary thing on the face of
>> >the earth.  Not only can it happen naturally at almost anytime, but other
>> >persons are able to also pick, unnaturally, when the baby is to be "born." 
>> >Comments?
>> 
>> The same is true of conception.  What is your point?
>
>How is conception arbitrary?  It is the specific point when a sperm and an
>egg are joined.
>
>Please explain the point you are attempting to
>make.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  Sorry, but this is extrememly funny!

Let me see if I can sort this out logically....
1- Birth cannot possibly be the beginning of a person because it is
abritrary.
2- Birth is artitrary because it can happen at any time.
3-Conception is the only possibly beginning of a person.
but.,..
4-Conception can happen at any time, and therefore is arbitrary, too.

Why is birth not good when "it can happen at any time" and conception
good when "it can happen at any time"?  It seems to me that both birtrh
and conception can happen at any time and they both are arbitary.
so NEITHER is a good start for personhood, using that logic!

But, you say that conception is "the specific point where a sperm and
an egg are joined" and that's the reason why it's so good of a start.
Well I say that birth is "the specific point where the fetus becomes a baby
and no longer physically dependent on its mother for all care and feeding."
and that's why its so good of a start. Both are basic biological facts.


Let me ask you a question, eric...When birth occurs, it is known.
it happend at a specific point in time and being a public event, all peoples
around know exactly when that point in time was.  When conception occurs,
it happens at a specific point in time, but being a private event, no one
around knows exactly when that point in time was.  No one will EVER know
in ALL cases when conception occurred because it is a PRIVATE event.
In 99.9% of the cases of birth, it is public and therefore the public
knows when it happened.  right now, and forever has been.  Do you believe
that conception should be a public event and how in the hell do you intend
to make that possible?

Jennifer

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39431 talk.religion.misc:17430
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SATs as an insult (to Brian McBean & Peter Nyikos)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:16:56 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.717795214@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.ed
u (Peter Nyikos) provides a lesson in hypocrisy:

#Elizabeth, you ought to know by now that most of the ones who claim to be 
#convinced of it are among the bigger clowns in this talk.abortion
#group.
#
#I had a problem with seeing no responses to my posts for over a month,
#and when the responses started coming in, a great many were from clowns
#like Margolis and Hekhuis, and I tailored my responses to them accordingly.
#
#Even now I have the problem, that when I post something thoughtful,
#or informative, people often won't respond to it.  Look at all the
#un-followed-up posts at the end of your table of contents.  It's the
#zanier ones, like the hang-gliding one and the Mirror, that seem
#to get more attention.  Thinking I am a brainless twit because of that
#would be like judging authors by only their more lighthearted writings.

Now, for the companion post that Nyikos didn't want the folks
in talk.religion.misc to see:

In article <nyikos.717794611@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

#Note: I have removed talk.religion.misc from the newsgroups.

#In <1992Sep26.172647.7776@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

##In article <19qpavINNlq3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com# regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Borg Name: Doofus) writes:
###In article <nyikos.717270316@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
######
######The Lady High Executioner And Lady High Everything Else of talk.abortion
####
####Note please.  I ask you not to use these terms.             
#
#Is that you, Adrienne?  Chaney got overzealous and even put your Borg
#Name up there.
#
##Then we'll give you a Borg name: DOOFUS. 
#
#I don't get it, Steve.  I prefer names that are easily related to the
#behavior of the person they are stuck to.  (If you have an explanation
#for yours, I wish you'd share it.)
#
#If Adrienne is too modest to accept the titles I've bestowed on her,
#perhaps she might like "Cheshire Puss," for the way she fades into and
#out of threads, leaving little more than a (-: behind.
#
#I've got other ideas, but I'd like to hear her reaction to this one.
#
#Peter Ny.


I'm sure that everyone understands your frustration, Nyikos.
It must be tough, being such a serious, high-minded fellow
and still not getting any respect.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:12:59 GMT

In <1992Sep27.201712.3856@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.000859.7012@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
>Forgach) writes:
>> 
>> From article by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
>> > In article egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> > 
>> >>Because all humans become persons.  The question is when.  I pick when
>> >>human life begins - conception.
>> > 
>> > Glad to. A conceptus may become a hyatidiform mole, which no one who has
>> > ever see one would claim is a person. 
>> 
>> The way a hyatidiform mole begins is as a _normal_ fetus.  The "mole"
>> itself is a disease which transforms the normal fetus, bit by bit,
>> into a massive clump of cysts.   Most fetal victims of a mole
>> pregnancy die and are miscarried within 4 months, but a few have
>> been born live with only partial damage and survived.

Very interesting, and it certainly refutes the first sentence below as
far as I am concerned, unless it refers only to the first sentence in
the preceding paragraph.

>Ok, then, this would be another case were abortion would be ok.  I can 
>expand if anyone wishes it...

Now, if this just refers to Suzanne's first sentence, all is ok by me
as long as it is clear that we now have a big "mole" rather than a
possibly sentient fetus.  Otherwise, we have a serious communication
problem.

>I am wondering why anyone would be confused about this answer?
>(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)

You assume too much.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39406 alt.politics.bush:7161
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:19:35 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
|	Yes, but medical redress in the case of a car injury does not
|involve killing another human being. Don't you see that your analogy
|is ridiculously false??

Neither does abortion.  Thank you for playing.  The exit is 
to your left.

If you want to argue that zygotes are people, I suggest you start
talking about that topic.  You're going to get nowhere with this
"consent to sex == consent to pregnancy" nonsense.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Allow me to say that the arguments with which you have supported this
extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was
misjudged.  You have widely mistaken my character, if you think I can be
worked on by such persuasions as these."  Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:23:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct1.213814.25101@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.070324.149832@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <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 R

>>> >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.

I've looked at it and my conclusion is that atleast for the first 6
months the woman's rights far outweigh any possible rights of the fetus.

>>I think you're a little confused.  Nothing's being "dehumanized".  We all
>>know that it's a human fetus.  The point is, it's not a *child* until it's
>>*born*.

>Which allows us to say that abortion, does indeed, destroy and kill
>human life.

Yes, your correct. So what? 

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:52:27 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep26.052129.12750@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
><1992Sep24.183202.2979@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>PS: I think there's a little room left in my .sig, if you wouldn't mind.:-)
>
>Sure; why not.  I'd be proud to have such an interesting ex-boyfriend....

Done.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:26:30 GMT

In <1992Sep25.061216.6633@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:

> I had a look at whatever I could salvage
>from the news black hole. And I found this one piece of wisdom, by
>Nadja Adolf:

>>Perhaps the anti-choice men are afraid that if we don't spend our time
>>getting in touch with our bodies that we'll get in touch with our minds? :-)

>Spot on. The only thing I disagree with is the smiley.

Ah, good to hear that Aussie lingo! [My wife spent most of her life in
Australia, and we go back there every few years.]

>Now *I* would sooner have a 4-month old fetus aborted, all right, let's 
>not be squeamish: I'd sooner KILL a 4-month old fetus than a 10-year old
>cat, or a 3-month old kitten, or puppy, or crow, for that matter. Because
>a cat, a dog, a crow of those ages display a higher consciousness than 
>a human fetus in the womb. They are more conscious, more human, if you
>prefer, than an unborn human, even a newly-born one, even a 3-month old
>human baby. Having thus ruffled a few morally upright feature, I shall
>return into my nethole.

Well, there is some room for debate on that.  It could be argued, for
example, that human beings are genetically prone to picking up language
and reasoning, that even at rudimentary stages of development we are
already conscious in ways these animals are not.

However, rather than continue this rather speculative line of reasoning,
let me point out one you seem to have completely overlooked: if we do
not kill that fetus, chances are excellent that it will become far more
human than any of the animals you name.  Killing it deprives it of
this marvelous birthright.  

Analogy: stealing a million dollars is far more heavily punished than
stealing a hundred dollars, even though chances are that whoever the million 
was stolen from is better able to afford it than the one from whom 
the hundred was stolen, otherwise the million would not have been there in
the first place.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:47:47 GMT

In article <850nlnk.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>Abortion doesn't kill people.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Keep this in mind for a while.
>>
>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 
>>
>>  This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>>right?  
>
>Well duh.  So's my finger.  Relevence?

Ray Fischer, welcome to the Trap. It was set a long time ago by pro-life
intellectuals using the power of scientific fact.

Did you know that finger cells do not differentiate and, without advanced
"Star Trek"-style chemical manipulation, that finger will never be anything
but a finger?

Well, numbskull, a human zygote differentiates, and at conception s/he is
budy carrying out the process of physically developing arms, legs and a
head - far more than any cell in your entire body could EVER do, unless
manipulated by genetic technology far ahead of modern science.

Your finger has no relevance to a z/e/f because it lacks the fundamental
qualities of an individual, whereas the z/e/f is his/her own complete body.
And in fact you may bring one of your voodoo scientists out to look at what
I've said (and this time, I got it checked first so there will be a battle
between embryologists if this is challenged), they'll also tell you that a
finger is a genetic part of your body while the z/e/f is a genetic part of
NO ONE ELSE's body but his/her own.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: An essay on consistency
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:27:42 GMT

In article <6630@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
}In article <1992Oct1.174548.18672@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
}(Stephen A Chaney) writes:

}[text deleted]

}#Of course, as a pro-lifer, I don't find my position to be
}#uncomfortable, either. I find great comfort in knowing that I do not
}#support interfering in other people's lives, and I would legislate to
}#let the live as they see fit. However, when discrimination is taking
}#place, I find it necessary to ban it, and when the fetus is not a
}#person, we have discrimination. 
}#And of course, as most Americans would agree, if banning
}#discrimination means getting involved in people's lives, it is okay to
}#interfere in people's lives to stop discrimination. 
}
}The sad thing is that PoorOldChaney thinks that these 
}statements made sense.

Sad?  Yes, and a bit scary too.  Of course, clown that I am, (having been
so named by a brilliant mathematician -- just ask him) I find it a bit 
funny also...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39691 talk.politics.misc:48830 alt.rush-limbaugh:6295 alt.politics.clinton:7984 alt.politics.bush:7341
From: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Daniel West)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 1 Oct 1992 04:27:54 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


Why is it unfortunate that we have on the ballot in California a
measure which would allow physicians to assist persons wishing
to commit suicide? (Ignoring for the moment the particulars of the
initiative, which are somewhat dubious in nature, what is wrong
with the idea?)
A doctor should not be REQUIRED to assist a patient wishing to die.
But if a doctor, like Mr. Kervorkian, wishes to help a terminally
ill person in carrying out his wishes, what then is the problem? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:59:29 GMT

In article <adams.717438740@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>In article <syl.717230669@bcserv> syl@bcserv.wustl.edu (Syl the Wallydraigle) writes:
>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official Astro Boy Virus expert)  writes:


>You get to chose.  But so do I.  And I want to keep it that way.  You can
>do darn well anything you want, so long as it doesn't injure another
>person...try being a libertarian!


Yep, gotta agree here, especially the part about not hurting anyone else!  However, you must realize that one out of every two people entering an abortion clinic doesn't make it out alive.  I'd call that injuring another person. Abortion is legal (in NY state) throughout an entire pregnancy!  That means the day before birth, a baby can be legally killed.  The day after birth, someone would be jailed for the same offense!  One might argue that because the baby can't live on it's own, that it is not a human 




yet.  BULL!  A one year old baby can't live on it's own!  Where do we draw the line?     


>And yes, I can hold my own set of morals and live just fine without forcing
>them on anyone else.
>
>Lumping all 'pro-choice' people together is a stupid generalization.


True! I'm pro-choice. Yes, I agree that a woman should have a choice, and she DOES!  She can choose to get pregnant, or not to.  Her so-called right to choice, should however, disappear as soon as it involves another human being.


-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation               Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:05:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Elizabeth Cornelia Green) writes:
>Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?

>Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>the deaths of millions?!

Perhaps nothing, as there won't be a judgement day?

Get a life, and look outside of that liitle bitty portion of brainwashed
gray matter your church allots you.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39766 talk.politics.misc:48917 alt.sex:31533 alt.rush-limbaugh:6314 alt.politics.elections:14828 alt.politics.clinton:8037 alt.politics.bush:7385
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
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 4
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:39:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:] Bare with me. A hard-core pro-lifer would respond...
:] I think I need to write this about 1.5 million times.
:] [Significance (to put gasoline on the fire): that's the number of
:] abortions performed in the United States every year.]
;
:So basically You agree that People who live in the
:Paths of Hurricanes, KNOWING that there was a possibility
:that they MIGHT get run over by a HURRICANE, should
:Likewise learn to be Responsible for their Personal CHoices.

Well, they live with that possibility and they will take precautions
(aka insurance, build their houses to standards) such that when a
hurricane does come, they will not be totally devastated. If they do not
want to accept the risk, then they don't buy a house there and live more
inland.

Besides I don't follow the analogy that an unwanted pregnancy and getting
hit by a hurricane are similar. Unless you somehow think that your
lifestyle or your decisions will cause hurricanes to hit your house.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:03:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.221308.16445@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>>Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
>
>Sanctimonious hypocrite.  Why don't you give all of your money to save
>the lives of people who are starving?  After all, getting an
>education, reading t.a., watching TV, and the like are also just
>"social" reasons.  

Abortion is active killing.  I don't think anyone is intentionally starving
people.  If anyone was actively starving people, I would want to do
something to help, no doubt about it.

>Do _your_ social reasons take precedence over human
>life?

If my social reasons are directly starving certain people (like me buying
a better car at the expense of not getting my son or daughter some food)
then my social reasons are definitely not going to take precedence over
the life of my son or daughter.
>

BTW, Your lovely use of colorful metaphors is slowly catching on.  However,
you still haven't mastered the art yet.  Good luck! :)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: This Christian "Thing"
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:24:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.222550.15292@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BvGIwC.1C3@nic.umass.edu> 
>csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>
>> I certainly enjoy how discussions about abortion seem to revolve around
>> the "Christian" perspective.
>
>But have you noticed that it's usually the pro-aborts who 
>raise the issue of religion?  Your post provides another  
>data point to support that observation. 
>
>> I am not Christian, but in very many ways this majority runs all over my
>> minority religion. 
>
>What does this have to do with abortion?  
>

Simple, they're trying to stomp all over my rights again.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion