HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:26:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> I think pro-choicers are MORE likely not to trust women to make decisions
> than pro-lifers.  Why are they so afraid of laws that give women the
> OPTION to view information on fetal development.

What woman doesn't have the option *now* to view any information
regarding fetal development that she wants?  Why is a law needed?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:03:51 GMT

In article <gnlzl!p@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>->Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
>->>->of he who propounds them.
>->>that being the case, there was absolutely no
>->>reason for you to blatently assert that my answer
>->>was not an answer, ws there?
>->Sure. To point out the vacuity of your argument.
>
>then you're withdrawing your statement above, "Arguments
>stand and fall ...." i take it?
Nope. Why would I be?

> i'm not at all
>surprised. i didn't think you meant it when you
>wrote it.
Then you were wrong.

> no need for you to apologize.
Why would I apologize?
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A new development
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:18:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes ...
>I just read a news story about a new development in diagnosing cystic
>fibrosis.  It described a study done on couples who had one child with
>cystic fibrosis.  Ova were harvested from the women and fertilized
>in vitro.  When the resulting embryos reached the 8 cell stage, one
>cell was removed from each embryo and examined for the gene which
>causes C.F.    [...]
> ... the
>technique could also be used to screen for diseases such as
>hemophilia, Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, and Duchenne
>muscular dystrophy.   [...]

Another interesting wrinkle is that once they've got an embryo that
they know is free of genetic defects, they can split it into three
or four embryos to improve the odds of one of them developing into
a baby.  (the article I read may have come from the same event)

Which brings up the question, if personhood begins at conception,
what happens when this one person is split into four people and
two actually are born?  What does this do for the notion of personhood?

Just trying to muddy the waters a bit.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39399 alt.abortion.inequity:4127
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:53:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <r_0nyh+.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <1992Sep24.203912.637@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|> ><1992Sep23.220955.24713@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
|> >><1992Sep19.175612.1754@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) said:
|> >>>>2.  rape/incest:  the fetus has a right to life, but for the woman
|> >>>>to bring the pregnancy to term would be a cruel and unusual punishment,
|> >>>>thus her rights now outweigh those of the fetus.
|> >>>"Cruel and unusual punishment" is not relevant here. It's a limitation
|> >>>on what the government can do to people convicted of crimes. This is
|> >>>not the case here.
|> >>You missed the implication Eric, a non-rape-induced-but-forced-pregnancy
|> >>*is* punishment, just not "cruel and unusual".o
|> >Merely because the woman feels it to be unpleasant does not make it
|> >"punishment".
|> 
|> You misunderstand me.  The person to whom you originally responded was
|> claiming that making a woman bear a rapists child would be cruel and
|> unusual punishment.  Ostensibly because the woman doesn't want to do so
|> and had no choice to avoid sex.  A little twist and some Freudian logic 
|> makes it appear that this person might be implying that a woman who
|> voluntarily has sex and gets pregnant has to bear the child as
|> punishment - it is just not to be considered "cruel or unusual" in this
|> case since no rape occurred.
|> 
|> If a woman is forced to remain pregnant against her will by people who
|> would let abort it if she had involuntary sex (i.e. was raped) then
|> they are punishing her for having voluntary sex.  And if she considers
|> it punishment, then who are we to argue?

	And if she considers it Mount Rushmore, who are we to argue?  Rational
people, that's who.  It's clearly NOT Mount Rushmore; and, albeit less clearly,
it's not punishment either.
	The mother voluntarily had sex.  She could have chosen not to, but she
didn't make that choice.  If she didn't become pregnant, no problem.  If she does become pregnant,
she is responsible for the new life in her womb.  She cannot kill it.  I am not
insisting that it must remain in her body; only that she is responsible for its
life and cannot kill it or neglect it to death.
	The woman is responsible for her child just as a military recruit is
responsible to obey the orders of superior officers.  He or she signed a contract
agreeing to do so and is bound by it.  Although the woman's agreement is less
explicit, by putting the child in a potentially dangerous situation she certainly
implicitly assumes responsibility for the child's life.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: proof of chaneyhall's veracity??? (A good test of Rejectus' (non-)intelligence (was Re: a good test of chaneyhall's veracity)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:21:56 GMT

the chaneyhall thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>the hallchaney thing posting as
->>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
->>-> patrick@is.rice.edu (Redneckus) writes:
->>->>Well, you had to steal that "PRIDE=POWER" line in your .sig from somewhere.
->>
->>->I was using it before they got here, PatricKKK.
->>
->>this statement, if true, should be relatively easy
->>to support.

->Oh, gee, do I have to go get the Students for Life and have them e-mail you
->over this account? 

you don't have to do anything, stevedennis. i really don't
think anyone expected that you would.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Peter Nyikos, Net.Accountant!
Summary: By day, a mile mannered math professor...By night... 
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: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:28:52 GMT

In article <nyikos.718390470@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>>of us.
>
>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.
>
>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.

Watch out, Gordon!  Peter Nyikos, Net.Acountant, is about to hold you
accountable for things!

I guess he got tired of threatening people with net.censors, and "de facto"
killfiles...

--
=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???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:27:34 GMT

In article <38lz!t-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>then you're withdrawing your statement above, "Arguments
>->>stand and fall ...." i take it?
>->Nope. Why would I be?
>
>to avoid posting a statement and then contradicting
>it in your next post on the same thread.
Please show how my statements contradict each other, Mr. Keegan.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 12:57:13 GMT


for days, eric has been doggedly flaming me to support
a post in which i called cj a liar. he has made all
sorts of arguments to this end. he has been joined by
ms. adolf and larry margolis in his wail for evidence.

i have decided to help eric, ms. adolf and the others
focus their efforts to expose unsupported allegations 
by pointing them in the right direction. i made this
decision reluctantly as i didn't think it was a good
idea to provide the anti-choicers with a weapon to use
against a person who sometimes posts credible material
supporting the concept of choice. but, with the exception
of DODie, all of the posters demanding data call 
themselves pro-choicers. it would appear that they
have considered this possibility and decided it was not
important.

what follows is a post by cj, complete and unedited. in
this post, cj states "I know that Keegan used the
mailing list to try to get people to post in support of
him." this is the specific item i have been referring
to as cj's lie about me.

cj, of course, never supported this allegation.

if mr. rescorla and the others who have been
clamoring for supporting evidence or an apology have
any integrity whatsoever, i am sure their attentions
will now be focused on the initial allegation. i am 
equally sure that they will doggedly pursue their goal 
of truthfinding.  to do otherwise in this particular case 
would paint them as hypocrites of the worst type.

equally important, for them to do otherwise would
prove without a doubt that they would gladly impost
a standard of behavior on one person and not on another.

on the matter of suzanne lucia, who i have stated was
one victim of cj's false insinuations, cj infers that
suzanne lucia was the recipient of my non-existent
mailing and was simply posting in response to my
mailing, rather than as an act of her own free will.
not only does the mailing claimed by cj not exist, but
suzanne lucia had not been on the mailing list for
almost a year. worse yet, cj was the maintainer of the
list and updated aliases regularly. in other words, cj
had to know that he inference about suzanne lucia was a
lie when she made it, imo. initially, i had considered
the possibility that it was all just a mistake, but
that possibility disappeared when cj declined to
address it in several postings by several people. among
those people were suzanne lucia, rocker, linda
birmingham and me.

here is the complete, unedited post from cj.

>From rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!odin!news Thu May 28 20:11:03 EDT 1992
Article: 8205 of talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
Date: 28 May 92 18:41:05 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
GB0012@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU ("Suzanne Lucia Demitrio") writes:
|The new 'moderates' are really saying that we can get away with honoring
|people's rights only some of the time.  They're saying that only *some*
|women have the right to abortion ... but also that only *some* z/e/f's
|have the right to life.

I really think you've got this completely wrong.  I think
many of the moderate pro-choicers understand that it's an
issue of balancing rights.  They ask themselves the question:
   - When does the fetus become a person with rights?
   - When do those rights become as important as the woman's
     rights?
   - What are some reasonable, compassionate answers to
     the very painful questions raised when a woman's rights &
     needs conflict with a 3rd-tri fetus's rights & needs?

You're going off the deep end accusing these people of moral
bankruptcy.  You haven't stopped to think about why they might
think the way they do.  Take a moment & bother to look at things
from their perspective.

This is really unlike you-- you're usually more thoughtful than
this.  I know that Keegan used the mailing list to try to get
people to post in support of him.  Are you letting friendship
take precedence over thoughtfulness?  I'm sorry, Keegan!   I
like you, but I won't agree with you if I think you're wrong.

Besides, this really seems to me to be a self-defeating argument.  
If pro-choicers can't empathize with more moderate pro-choicers,
how can they ever expect to understand (& thus defeat) the
anti-choicers?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I would not wish to be hasty in censuring any one; but I always
speak what I think."  --Jane Austen
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 4
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:45:46 EDT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <5713@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 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.

What about poor people who are born and raised there because their
parents are to poor or unable to move somewhere else? How about people
who live in the slums of cities in the paths of these hurricanes? Did
they choose to live their lives there?

EMIL CHUCK, you are a sleazebag just like Fearless Leader. You and
the rest of your ilk are piss.

> 
> 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 hope this is just a bad joke...

> 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.

-Garrett


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:01:29 GMT

In article <l!9n90q.bskendig@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> Here's my position: 'Personhood' begins when myelination occurs in the
> brain.  I choose this point because I believe that 'personhood' must
> be defined in such a way so as to distinguish a human person from an
> animal or any other lower life-form.  The most significant difference
> between humankind and other animals is our better-developed
> intellectual capability, so I choose the point where the human brain
> begins to function in the same way that it should be functioning for
> the rest of its natural life.  

Many animals possess more "intellectual ability" than newborn 
infants.  Would you assign personhood status to these animals, 
or would you deny personhood status to newborn infants, or
would you do both?  



Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39888 alt.abortion.inequity:4192 alt.birthright:505
From: kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:51:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct1.194804.10828@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.214722.12081@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>It only proves that legal abortion is utterly anti-American in principle,
>>historically. In addition to it being logically discriminatory.

>I suggest you study the history of abortion laws in the US. Outlawing
>abortion was a mid-19th C thing that was promoted by white protestants
>who feared that Irish and German Catholics would soon outnumber them.
>They were also afraid that the 'darkies' would soon outnumber the white
>folks.

No.  A mid-19th Century ban on abortion enveloped due to the AMA's 
position that it was potentially dangerous to the woman
receiving the abortion.  The medical technology was inadequate
to compensate for the adverse reactions possible in such
situations.

Your reply is that of but a small segment.  Perhaps you should read
Roe to find out more about these laws.


>nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
>nadja@weitek.com

kcw

--
Kevin C. Welch
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 17:19:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <BvJwK6.7H2@rice.edu>  patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
> In article <1992Oct03.005334.20257@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larr
> >In  <6703@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >>
> >> I'm wondering when Suzanne will tell us what "black facial
> >> features" are.  Does she mean that the baby had white skin
> >> everywhere other than its nose, ears, and mouth, or does she
> >> imagine that all black people look alike?
> >
> >What *I* want to know is, did it have a black ass?
> >
> >:-)
>
> Yow.  Well, at least you have an idea of what'll happen...:-)

Gee, I don't understand.  I'd expect a black baby to be black.  Since
Suzanne claims it's born white, I'm simply inquiring about the color of
a certain part of its anatomy.  Surely nobody could take offense in
regards to the suggestion that the posterior of a black person is, indeed,
black?

:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 02:29:51 GMT

<1992Sep28.195929.16359@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers:
><adams.717438740@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) 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!

My god, man!  Press the Return or Enter key once in a while!  I'll wrap
this one for you.

>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.  

Someone has lied to you BIG time.  If this were true the police would have
been notified a long time ago.  In fact, why haven't you called the police
about this mass murdering?

>                                                        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?     

Why don't we draw it at birth?  It seems reasonable to me.

>>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.

Jeez, another "She shoulda just kept her legs closed, duh" pro-lifer.  Get
this, unless she is sterile a woman cannot always choose when she will get
pregnant and when she will not.  Go ahead and try to disprove that.


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 all.
-- 
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.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>In article <1992Oct5.163708.18721@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpec

>>One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously
>>derogate the religious convictions of others.  If only we were
>>all Wiccans...

Maybe it has to do with those who seek to impose their irrational beliefs
on the rest of us through law. Bill, I though you held yourself above
this low-level sniping.

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.