HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:08:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202217.12164@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>>  = kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> How do most people here perceive what the word 'person' means? I thought 
>>>> I knew what it meant. But I've never thought of a person as 'cognizant' 
>>>> which is one definition that's been proposed.
>>>
>>>I think a "person" should be defined as an entity which possesses
>>>rights under the Constitution.  
>>
>>Then a fetus isn't a "person" since currently it possesses no rights under 
>>the Constitution. Agreed?
>
>There is a major distinction between 
>1) the *current* technical, legal interpretation of "person" and 
>2) the layman/colloquial/moral concept of "person".  
>Let's not confuse the two.  

Oh, I'm not confusing them. But I think Doug is. That was my point, actually.

>I think the "layman/colloquial/moral sense" is the real issue of this thread.

If that's so, then why does Doug give his definition of "person" (2) in terms 
that sound suspiciously like the way he thinks "person" (1) should be defined?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:20:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.015713.29168@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Nov14.011725.17690@cs.yale.edu>, by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>>>Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>>>impeachment in a year or two.  :-)
>>
>> Even if Bill Clinton were to be impeached, the next person in line
>> would be Gore, also pro-choice, and after him, Foley, also pro-choice,
>> and after him the President Pro-tempore of the Senate, a Democrat, and...
>> Well, you get the idea. Clinton being impeached would do your cause
>> basically no good whatsoever.
>I'm glad to see you acknowledge how little character Clinton actually
>has, given you've just conceded to his possible impeachment before he's
>even in office :-)
It's always possible that any president will be impeached. I don't
think it's likely that Clinton will. Consider that impeachment is more
a matter of political will from the Congress than anything else, and
the congress is democratic controlled, it hardly seems likely.

Moreover, I'm not concerned whether Clinton is a crook, really.
I suspect he is. I suspect Bush is. I care if he's a crook who
will do what I want him to do.

>What does that say for _your_ "cause", ay?
Nothing. Provided that Clinton gets away with being a crook, I hardly
care whether he is one.

>  As it 
>is, the huge mess Clinton will make of the presidency will hand us the
>presidency for the _next_ 12 years, just like Carter did for us :-D
I hardly think that Clinton can make much more of a mess than Bush
did. What, you think Americans think Bush did a great job and voted
for Clinton cause they like to punish themselves?


-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:31:41 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1992Nov11.190043.8658@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> Sorry if I have been a bit behind, but school calls, ya know.  I will try to
> keep up now.

Come on, go have a good time on the hill with the rest of the eUNIcs.  :-)

> I thank God that he has been showing me some personal helps that I thought I'd
> share to help others.
> 
> ---Clinton is not the enemy. --- Just because he is the president that supports
> many anti- christian ideals (gay rights, abortion on demand, etc.),

"anti- christian ideals"?

>                                                                      he is only
> a tool that God uses to wake up his children and to shake the fence that people
> are trying to balance on.  We need to love our brothers and sisters (even
> clinton) and hate the sin.  This also is true for hating abortion but loving
> those who had them.  We need to tell the truth but not judge, that is up to
> God.
> 
> ---The only thing different not from before the election is that now we have a
> new challange to face.  Besides, as we see from those resigning before clinton
> comes in.  Many experienced people see him for what he was now --talk just
> talk.  I don't want to side track, but seeing that he wanted to bomb and begin
> a ground war with Serbia just a few months ago.  What will he do know?

"ground war"?  Do you get your news from the 700 Club?

> I think that is good for now.  Peter -- stay in there and all you others for
> the unborn.  Maybe people will wake up soon.
> 
> ...Ken!
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:42:56 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>2) This begs the question: what is human DNA?  And don't answer by
>>   saying that human DNA is found in humans, since that's just a
>>   circular definition.
>
>You should ask a genetics expert, not an agnostic computer security expert :-)
>
>Can scientists tell a human conceptus from a basketball or not?  If not, what
>are they doing with the taxpayer's money?  Maybe we give that money to the
>churches instead - after all some of those parade their beliefs as objective
>fact too.

The problem isn't with measurement, it's with definition.  What is
human DNA?  How to you define it?  If everyone (with few exceptions)
has different DNA, what's the common factor that makes them all human?
Are you going to include people with genetic defects?

And then there is the issue of nature vs. nurture.  DNA alone does not
define a person.  Not even close.  Environment has an enormous part in
defining the resulting person.  (did you know that identical twins
have different fingerprints?)

And lastly, enforcement is a problem.  What do you do about drugs 
that prevent implantation?  Taking such drugs isn't inherently illegal 
because they don't necessarily abort an embryo.  If an embryo _is_ 
aborted, how are you going to establish that legally?  How are you
going to determine whether it was naturally miscarried or aborted?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,soc.men,alt.dads-righ
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Fallacy: Roe V. Wade for
X-To: BOB KIRKPATRICK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:46:00 GMT

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes...
BK> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
BK> > Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes...
BK> > NA>    Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's oldest and
BK> > NA> largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is dedicated
BK> > NA> to the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to
BK> >                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BK> > NA> choose when or whether to have a child.
BK> >
BK> > If this is true, then I suggest that every person here, who is not just
BK> > pro-women's-choice, but pro-men's-choice, should give Planned Parenthood a
BK> > call and demand their support on behalf of Kingsley Morse et. al. from FRE
BK> > and other organisations which are currently petitioning the courts for a
BK> > man's right to abdicate legal parenthood during the first six months of
BK> > pregnancy.

BK> We interrupt this program to invoke the Emergency Broadcast System...

BK> Whoa! Steve. Holy Cow.
          ^^^^^

Oh no!  Even *you* are calling me Steve now.....  Heck, I don't call you
KIRK, do I?  :-)


BK> I don't believe FREE advocates for fathers who wish to abdicate their
BK> paternal responsibilities. As a matter of fact, it's just the other
BK> way 'round. FREE exists for *involvement* of fathers with their kids.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My apologies if I misquoted our position (Now am I EVER embarassed!).  However,
I know that while FREE does indeed exist for involvement with their kids, I had
thought that they also advocate the right not to be forced into parenthood.

(I guess that I ought to have read the policy files when I joined, eh?!  :-) )

I realise that this is not your personal position, but I had thought that the
organisation as a whole, advocates not only involvement in parenthood, but the
*choice* to freely become a father.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Me and You and a Borg Named Hugh?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 06:12:27 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov2.194806.1031@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Oct31.032532.28814@cs.yale.edu> : rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
>
>This defense is fine insofar as it applies to the individual drug
>user.  It fails to (and cannot) take into account the adverse con-
>sequences for the spouses, children et al of the user/abuser.  And

There are, generally speaking, no adverse consequences for the user.
Abuser, of course, is a different story.  You seem unable to distinguish
between drug use and abuse.

>those are the people that I see.  I wish you could meet some of
>them, especially the kids.

I do know some children of abusers.  (In fact, I just learned today that
someone adopted 5 siblings, so the family didn't have to be broken up.)
That they were abused is basically because their mother was abused, and has
little to do with her drug abuse.  Which, in turn, has nothing to do with
recreational drug use.

>It's no wonder there are so many angry conflicts in this group.
>I honestly didn't mean my question to be offensive.  I'll reword
>it.  Have you ever had to deal with the problems of a family who
>has a member that is regularly drug impaired?  When a father or
>a mother is regularly impaired (i.e., is unable to relate effec-
>tively with other family members; cannot be counted on to help
>with home maintenance, to assist the kids with their homework,
>to participate in family outings, to meet the emotional/companion-
>ship needs of the family, etc.), the consequences extend far
>beyond the life of the drug user.

But you're describing an abuser, not a user.

>At any rate, the incidence of such problems is widespread enough
>that one certainly doesn't have to work in my profession to have
>come into contact with it.

Do you think that the fact that in your profession the only users you
come in contact with (at least, where you *know* that they're users) are
*abusers* might have anything to do with the problems you seem to have
distinguishing the two?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:01:23 GMT

In article <Bx9n9K.Mu2.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>	medical standards, and in protecting potential life.  AT SOME POINT
>	IN PREGNANCY, THESE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BECOME SUFFICIENTLY
>	COMPELLING TO SUSTAIN REGULATION OF THE FACTORS THAT GOVERN THE
>	ABORTION DECISION.  THE PRIVACY RIGHT INVOLVED, THEREFORE, CANNOT
>	BE SAID TO BE ABSOLUTE.  

This quote from Roe v. Wade is completely consistent with my
documentation showing that Roe is unrestricted abortion-on-
demand throughout the term of pregnancy.  A woman's ability to
obtain an abortion is dependent upon the availability of a
physician who's willing to perform the abortion (see following
quote).  Ms. Garvin seems to be completely unable to address 
any of the four sources I provided in support of my statements.

   Mark Tushnet, "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey",
   Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986, 
   pp. 162

  "The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the
   fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate
   or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate
   medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman.
   This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's
   decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement
   ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional,
   psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the
   well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed
   the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently
   limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way
   that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians
   are willing to perform them."

   [4] 410 U.S. at 163-164
   [5] 410 U.S. 179 (1973)

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 9 Nov 1992 12:14:14 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov6.145325.24639@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>Yeah.  But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
>>brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
>>fluffy stuff.
>
>Try the argument from the other direction, then: does there exist
>anything which you would call a "person" but which lacks a brain?  If
>so, then how is this thing similar to an adult human person?

Sure there is.  A zygote or early embryo lacks a brain, and I would call it a
person.  It is similar to an adult human person in that it is human, has two
human parents, and that it was conceived.  It is also similar in that it
appears at the same point, or better, on the evolutionary scale.  Another
similarity to an adult human is that given a fair chance, it will one day
be free.

>Sure, it might be possible to fashion a computer brain.  But then the
>computer's logic circuits would function in the same capacity as a
>human brain.  Can you think of anything which lacks any sort of brain,
>organic or cybernetic or electronic or what-have-you, yet still
>appears to have consciousness?

A soul.

>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:08:53 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> Excerpted in _The Abortion Injury Report_, the same issue in which 
>> it is reported that the 11-year old daughter of Catherine Pierce, a 
>> woman who died of a LEGAL abortion, received a $2 million settlement
>> out of court from the abortion clinic responsible for her mother's death.

> Typical Nyikos bait.

>> Chris Lyman, in case you are reading this and are curious, ask Susan Garvin
>> to send you a clipping of the article from this newsletter she loves to hate,
>> in the May 1990 issue.

> This is obviously Chris bait.

*sniff* *sniff*  Nope, not a close enough resemblance to cheesecake.

> (I don't have that issue, Chris.  The harassers here haven't been trying
> to force that one into the patients' hands.)

>> This was one "_alleged_" victim of legal abortion.

> Maybe this is Susan bait - since Dr. Giggles put quotes around
> alleged, thus pretending that it's a proven fact.

No, that's more Chris bait.  He's referring an exchange we had a couple of
weeks ago and to the one instance where his stories about women victimized
by legal abortion panned out in a court of law.  Unfortunately, his news
server went down when I responded to his article "Meet What'sHisName,
Abortionist."  Too bad I didn't save that post.

> Well, Petey Honey made more stupid statements than usual in this
> article, but I still remember that he's a characterless twit
> who is unable to apologize when he's wrong.  I'm sure others
> do, too.

Reference to Petey's boorish treatment of Ms. Regard noted, and let's not
forget that he lied about Steve Mezias' use of the term 'butthead' as well.

I guess he'd rather be thought of as a liar than a person of character.
As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Some people would prefer to rule in Hell than to
serve in Heaven." (quoted from memory)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:45:48 GMT

mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes ...
> Ray Fischer
>> Keegan
>>>do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
>>>abortions, ray?
>>Do you want a woman in labor to be able to have the doctor kill the 
>>fetus just before it emerges if labor becomes too painful?
>
>This is not only a non-sequitur, it is also insulting.

It isn't either.  Keegan is apparently unable to distinguish between
restrictions on abortion and outright banning.  His comment was
designed to misrepresent Ms. Bartley's position and I responded with
an equally ridiculous question.  I am quite aware of and in agreement 
with all of your following comments.  

>1.  Most abortions done in the late 2nd trimester or later are done by
>    labor inducement.  So the labor is going to be painful, whether
>    the fetus is alive or dead.
>2.  You have undermined the pain that women go through durinng labor.
>    When you spend 12 to 16 hours passing a bowling ball from your
>    ass, I'll retract that statement.
>3.  It is insulting and ridiculous to think that women ask to kill the
>    fetus while in labor, and shows that a) you are wildly out of touch
>    with reality, b) you are shooting off at the mouth about things
>    that you are completely ignorant of, or c) you have some sort of
>    flaming-death wish.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:52:49 GMT

roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams) writes:


>I wrote on whether abortion laws constitute an "imposition of morality":
>
>>>
>>>OK:  consider laws prohibiting cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.  
>>>Do you think these laws constitute an imposition of morality on those 
>>>citizens who do not agree that cruel and inhumane treatment of animals 
>>>is in any way morally significant or wrong?
>
>In article <adams.721406520@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) replied: 
>
>>
>>The basic question comes down to whether or not the animals have rights
>>that are being violated.  Do animals have a right to be free from cruel and
>>inhumane treatment?  Our system of laws is designed to protect the rights
>>of the members of our society.  "Animal rights" is an area that is outside
>>the basic thrust.  
>
>OK, then, what is it about abortion laws that makes them an "imposition
>of morality" whereas animal rights laws are not? Couldn't it be argued
>that laws prohibiting abortion  come down to a question of whether fetuses 
>and embryos have rights that are being violated and which may therefore
>override the right of the mother to bodily autonomy?

Look at what I wrote.  I said that the system of laws was designed to
protect the rights of members of the society.  Fetuses are not members of
society, and thus, not protected.  Should they be protected?  That's a
different question alltogether.  The Contitution refers to born and/or
naturalized persons who are protected.  It does not extend protection to
the unborn.  Thus, no rights.  Want to change it?  You'll have to ammend
the Constitution.

Basically, the question comes down to whether or not an action by a person
infringes on the protected rights of another.  If it does, then some level
of restriction *MAY* be necessary.  In some cases, society is forced to
chose between two rights and give precedence to one or the other, based on
levels of harm that are caused.  In the case of abortion, under the
Constitution, there is only *ONE* person who's rights are at issue, the
womans.  Don't like it?  Ammend the Constitution to give protected status
to the unborn.  Otherwise, you have to allow the woman to exercise her
rights under the Constitution.

Animal rights is outside of the basic thrust of our system of laws, which
are designed to guarantee the rights of members of society and provide for
equal protection under the law.  Animals do not have any such protected
rights.  And they are really irrelevant to the discussion.

 -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