HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:33:58 GMT

roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> If it is a person at conception, do we charge the woman with involuntary
>> manslaughter if it fails to implant?  Just for your information, about 1/3
>> of all products of conception fail to implant and get washed out during
>> menstration. 

> Do we charge mothers and fathers with involuntary manslaughter if their
> children die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?  Of course not and there
> is no reason to bring charges against a mother whose embryo failed to
> implant.  A charge of involuntary manslaughter requires not merely a lack
> of ordinary care but a wanton and reckless disregard for the life of the
> victim.  In addition, the prosecution would have to prove that the death
> of the embryo resulted from the negligent act or failure to act on the
> part of the mother rather than from natural causes.

So perhaps we should settle on a later point in development to define legal
personhood?  (After all, that was the point I was addressing in my statement.)
Say, at birth?  That would harmonize nicely with the 14th Amendment.

>>  Just a little reality check here...

> Glad to provide it.  Now can we put this strawman to rest once and for all?

Don't strawmen have a right to life? :-)

I suspect that this particular argument will be around as long as there are 
people who push the idea that personhood begins at conception.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 22:35:51 GMT

In <1992Sep05.072518.28382@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.715648972@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <24537@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>
>> >In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> >>they feel perfectly justified in quoting from the Alan Guttmacher
>> >>association, etc.  Since they have us outnumbered, they feel they
>> >>can go on treating us this way.
>>
>> >Well, if honest reporting, like Koop, who is pro-life btw, makes you
>> >think it is all biased because it doesn't show what you want it to show,
>> >too bad.
>>
>> Sorry, I've been on talk.abortion only two months and this is the
>> first mention I've seen of Koop.

>Have you ever heard of the Universal Almanac?  The Federal Centers for
>Disease Control?  Any of the *other* sources that have been quoted?

Sorry, missed them all. On which thread should I have looked?

>Didn't you just post that you believe that the fact that a single lawyer
>reports seeing more rape cases than incest gave you reason to believe
>that doctors who perform abortions are learning of incest and failing
>to report it?  

This lawyer has been around for a long time, and knows what is going
on even if he "sees" little of it.  

Also, I have not heard of a single abortionist turning in someone
for incest.  It takes a while to find out whether any such cases
have actually occurred, though.  Stay tuned.

>Just what the hell do you consider to be "founded"???

We mathematicians frequently publish what we call "preliminary
reports," with articles giving the full details to come later.
You wanted to know whether your guess that abortionists reported
incest 100% of the time was correct.  (Would you say that was
"founded"??) I did not want to leave you completely in the dark.
I see you would have preferred to go on believing in that 100% figure.
Go ahead and believe it if it makes you happy, but you may be
rudely surprised later.

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

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions? Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:21:36 GMT

In <#q7yv=f@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

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

>>Elizabeth thought the umbilical cord was a part of the mother's body.

>This is not what Elizabeth posted.  She said "that part of the 
>mother's body which attaches to the umbilical cord", in reference
>to what the mother might reasonably have removed.

>>>Do you have reading comphrension problems, Peter?  You've just "waved away"
>>>most of a woman's control over _HER_ body when you "wave away" her right
>>>to obtain an abortion.

>>I never waved it away under all circumstances.  And what sort of 
>>units of measurement do you use in your "most"?  My mother hid her
>>last pregnancy up to the day she went into labor, and went on teaching
>>in public school all the way up to that day, despite a rule that
>>pregnant women must quit teaching long before their due date.

>Your little anecdote, while tedious, still does not address the
>above paragraph.

It does, but to explain why would have made the anecdote even more tedious
to you.

My point was simply that my mother's freedom to do what she normally
did was essentially untouched by the pregnancy.  Granted, the birth
and its aftermath did tie her down considerably, but my brother who
was born on the day in question has repaid his "debt" to my mother
many times over.

>>Peter Nyikos

>                          -rocker

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Children's Crusade (was Maury Povich & Brainwashing, or similar)
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:25:09 GMT



I just thought that I'd add my comments on this thread.

I'm surprised that people are focusing on the 13 year old -
I was saddened by the fact that she felt it necessary to ask
her father if she could ever change her mind, and I think
that she's not really hearing both sides of the story, but
she wasn't the one who really haunted me.  

I wonder if anyone is willing to say that a seven year old
child is capable of making the decision to get arrested, or
of even understanding the abortion issue.  I think that
this child is being abused.

(My position on the parental involvement laws/getting arrested
while protesting debate is this:  many 13 year olds are
capable of making decisions regarding their own personal
safety and well-being, but fewer are capable of making
decisions regarding the safety and well-being of other,
unrelated people.)


Susan
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Once Again, Hypocrisy (WAS Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?)
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:46:54 GMT
	    <1992Sep4.233740.18662@noao.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Sep4.233740.18662@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes about Gloria Fedlt's
Talmudic view of abortion:

>As with every other pro-abortionist, she is attempting to impose her
>view on the unborn and newborn children of our entire country.

Ms Forgach, can you see the hypocrisy in this statement?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36609 alt.abortion.inequity:3766
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:01:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

> They don't need any excuses.  Because women do not WANT to be in
> combat roles.

That's a really sexist thing to say.

Nobody in their right mind would want to be in a combat role, but somebody
has to do it.  The women in the armed forces that I have seen interviewed
do NOT want to be relieved of combat duty simply because they are women.

> Have you EVER seen a march-for-the-right-to-be-drafted-and-put-into-combat-
> roles?  If so, how many people participated in that march, vs the retain-
> the-inequitable-abortion-rights marches?

I certainly have.  Back in the '60s, I often saw Young Republican yahoos and
ROTC-wannabes stage counter-demonstrations to whatever anti-war protest that
was going on.  These guys were big on massive displays of Old Glory, and
stentorian boasts of what they'd do to Charlie if they ever got the chance.

	"So how come you don't enlist and march right over to 'Nam?"
	
	"My dad worked so hard getting me this deferment, he'd kill me!"

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:51:54 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <s6yncrh.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep14.221203.24674@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
> >In article <1992Sep12.221826.29672@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> ><margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >> In <__wnybq.bskendig@netcom.com>  bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> >> > a fetus isn't a child.  In fact, I personally don't consider a fetus to
> >> > be a person or anything more than a mass of organic tissue until eight
> >> > weeks after conception, at which time the brain and nervous system
> >> > begins to form.  Until then, the fetus is incapable of feeling
> >> > pain, and in fact has no consciousness.
> >
> >So, am I correct in assuming that a human must be able to feel pain and be
> >recognizably conscious to be a person?
> >
> >If this is not the case, then please explain your position more
> >clearly.
> 
> I see the trap in your question (if you get him drunk and he passes
> out, is he no longer a person?).  ;)

Well, I would hope the "trap" would be fairly obvious....

It would be rather frightening if someone couldn't recognize it...

> The reason I mentioned pain specifically was in response to another
> post which said that abortions involve a lot of pain to the fetus.  I
> disagree with this, because before a certain point in its development,
> the fetus doesn't have nerves to feel pain with, nor a functioning
> brain that can register pain.
> 
> And the "consciousness" I refer to isn't the same as "being
> conscious".  I'm still working on a viable definition of consciousness
> -- can anyone help me?  It seems like an intuitive concept, but I
> can't think of the words to describe it.
> 
> I'll provide an example, though: A human adult, a dog, Data from "Star
> Trek", a baby, and a nine-month fetus possess "consciousness" -- I
> suppose it's in that they are capable of having moods and of thinking.
> A brain-dead human adult, an ant, a chess program, and a two-month
> fetus don't possess "consciousness", in my opinion.

Unfortunatly, intuitive concepts don't work very well in valid
arguementation.
And I have a real problem with things people say are "intuitive."  It's to
much of a relative term for me.

Please define more clearly what you mean by consciousness and provide a
test
to prove that some does have it.  Without this, it is a meaningless
concept.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- with talent on loan from POC)
Subject: "Honor Is Important..." (formerly: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:24:15 GMT

What: <=aznyan.gordons@netcom.com>
Who:  gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)

>> = Stephen A Chaney [to Patrick Humphrey]

>>Everyone now knows just how severely I've pounded you, and it would
>>really be luney for me to continue to heap more verbal and emotional
>>abuse on your already troubled self. 

Of course Steve's great - just ask him.

>Your tirade against Patrick's wife speaks volumes about your morals and
>"honor".  Remember when you posted here that "honor" was very important
>to you?  I've asked you before, and you've neglected to answer, but what
>did you mean by that?  I see nothing honorable in attacking a person's
>spouse and wishing bad things on them.  Do you?

I've been waiting for an axplanation of that 'honor' as well.  In case you
don't remember, it was in an article to me in which he said that honor is
very important to him.  In that thread, he acknowledged his despicable
behavior toward me but justified it on the grounds that some of "my friends"
act that way.  In a later thread, he asserted without evidence that if I
had a child who somehow wound up pro-life, that I would disown him or her.
In an earlier thread he referred to me as a 'hyper flamer' without providing
evidence, and in yet another thread he accused me of writing a flame which I
did not, then VERY grudgingly retracted the claim after I hounded him, only
to make the assertion again the next day.

He has claimed to prefer peace - even as he explicitly says that violence
is an approriate response to violence, which is a credo shared by an
organization he claims to loathe - Operation Rescue.

He insists on an apology from Patrick Humphrey (which, incidentally, I
also think is due), yet refuses to come clean on his own hatefulness.
--
This world turns its back on God, we must fight to protect Him,
This world turns its back on God, we must die to join Him,
This world turns its back on God, we must kill to join Him.
                                                            -- _Bob Roberts_

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:21:50 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
>a form of cannibalism.

Cannibalism is the *eating* of flesh, not the use thereof. A closer
metaphor would be to cannibalize, but this apears to only refer to material
items, such as machinery, not to people or organs.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The 91% Regret Rate
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:52:32 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
>> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>>> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>>> So do I.  But then I have also read some rather heart-rending
>>>> stories of women who died due to septic abortions.

>>> I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
>>> women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.

>> I would like to echo Chuck Lavazzi and express my earnest desire to 
>> see the source for your statistic.  I would also like to see your
>> definition of 'Post Abortive Stress Syndrome' including symptoms.

> The source is the Alan Guttmacher institute, although they refrain from
> calling it "Post Abortive Stress Syndrome".   The Alan Guttmacher survey
> found that of all women who have had abortions, a FULL 91% would have NOT
> aborted, if someone had presented them with help for an alternative.
> (Which, honestly, does translate into some measure of regret.)

The source actually turned out to be an out-of-context reference to a PP
study written up in New Dimensions magazine.  Susan Garvin posted the salient
details last Friday, I believe.

From what I've discovered about New Dimensions magazine, it's not a real
credible source.  It's published in a small town in Oregon and has a monthly
circulation of about 85,000.  Articles include 'scientific studies' showing
that homosexuality is wrong, and biblical citations showing that God does not
want us to do research on AIDS.  I wouldn't be surprised if New Dementia staff
members wear cammies and have caches of AK-47's and brown rice stashed up in
those Oregon hills.

> Anyway, 91% is the exact same statistic as the founder of The Nurturing Network
> (1-800-TNN-4MOM) found, in her interviews with women who'd used the services
> of 10 different abortion clinics.  That was WHY she founded The Nurturing
> Network, to put women who need help in touch with all kinds of alternative
> services, all over the world.   If you want to move accross the continent
> to get away from family and boyfriend pressures to abort, she can arrange
> it.  If you need to transfer colleges, even in your senior year, she can
> arrange it.  If you need a job or to change jobs, she can arrange it.

It's incredible that you still believe that someone could get the names and
addresses of patients from abortion clinics over the phone.  Let's see; your
article is dated last Friday.  You must have had a huge craving for shoe
leather that day.

>>> Legal abortion is by no means safe.

>> But a first-trimester abortion is more than an order of magnitude
>> safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

> Not for the baby.

What baby?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00:03:23 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep14.221203.24674@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
>In article <1992Sep12.221826.29672@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
><margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> In <__wnybq.bskendig@netcom.com>  bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>> > a fetus isn't a child.  In fact, I personally don't consider a fetus to
>> > be a person or anything more than a mass of organic tissue until eight
>> > weeks after conception, at which time the brain and nervous system
>> > begins to form.  Until then, the fetus is incapable of feeling
>> > pain, and in fact has no consciousness.
>
>So, am I correct in assuming that a human must be able to feel pain and be
>recognizably conscious to be a person?
>
>If this is not the case, then please explain your position more
>clearly.

I see the trap in your question (if you get him drunk and he passes
out, is he no longer a person?).  ;)

The reason I mentioned pain specifically was in response to another
post which said that abortions involve a lot of pain to the fetus.  I
disagree with this, because before a certain point in its development,
the fetus doesn't have nerves to feel pain with, nor a functioning
brain that can register pain.

And the "consciousness" I refer to isn't the same as "being
conscious".  I'm still working on a viable definition of consciousness
-- can anyone help me?  It seems like an intuitive concept, but I
can't think of the words to describe it.

I'll provide an example, though: A human adult, a dog, Data from "Star
Trek", a baby, and a nine-month fetus possess "consciousness" -- I
suppose it's in that they are capable of having moods and of thinking.
A brain-dead human adult, an ant, a chess program, and a two-month
fetus don't possess "consciousness", in my opinion.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 17:41:38 GMT

In <Bu43sJ.792.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715650036@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Aug31.201542.26881@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>#
>##Act of 1989, has an ERA in its state constitution.  So
>##much for the ERA protecting abortion rights.
>#
>#
>#On the other hand, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled, citing that
>#state's ERA, 
>#"Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy
>#by not funding abortion...is sex-oriented discrimination."

>That's nice, Nyikos.  I applaud the Connecticut Superior Court.

>Of course, I was responding to a claim that an ERA would guarantee
>abortion rights, so all I needed was one counterexample.  (Are
>you really hoping to convince us that you're a mathematician?)

I am. If you doubt my word, go upstairs and talk to any number of
math professors, especially Juan Jorge Schaffer, with whom I even
co-authored a paper while still a CMU grad student. [Small world,
isn't it?]  Both he and "Ozzy" Wyler have kept up fairly well with
what I've been up to since then.

But to get back to your claim about needing only one counterexample,
I'm afraid the issue is whether the United States Supreme Court
would see it the way of PA or the way of Conn.   And back in 1983,
when _Thornburgh_ was still in the future, I'm afraid it would have
sided with the Connecticut court.  Even today, with the 5-4 majority
in _Casey_ reaffirming practically all of _Roe_ while overturning
most of what was left of _Thornburgh_, it's not at all clear what
the outcome would be.

Peter Nyikos

M. S. CMU 1968
Ph. D. CMU 1971
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:41:16 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
]>Ron

]>I do hold that just because it looks human, talks/walks like
]>a human, and may even think, that it not necessarily is a person. Take
]>Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahlmer for instance, they are more animal than
]>human (regarding civilized behavior). Take an intelligent chimp or gorilla,
]>they appear more human than animal. Which would you rather have in your
]>house?

>Well, the answer is obvious there.  But the two human beings are more (ARE)
>persons than are the monkeys.

>Persons can waive rights, since they have the ability to conceive and
>understand rights, right from wrong, good from bad ( in most cases).  These
>two men waived there rights.

I agree that they did, but the question you should ask for a truly philo-
sophical view is, did they realize what they were waiving during the
act, or were they not conscious of it then or even after it was pointed
out to them? If they were not aware even afterwards, then it can be
argued that they failed your criteria.

>Perhaps we should stick to the use of person to describe us and genetic human
>being to refer to fetuses.

This will be fine and acceptable.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc