HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Statistics
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:22:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.142445.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>,
mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (whoever s/he is) writes:

>A comment:  over 20 million unborn infants have been aborted since RvW
>in 1972.  This is three times the number of Jews that were killed by
>the Nazis in World War II.

And 50 times the number of people who can fit in the Astrodome,
half the number of people in the USA who like licorice jellybeans, and,
oh, maybe seven times the speed of light. So what?

You'd be surprised how many Jews are pro-choice. Not all of us have
to use religious arguments either...

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:06:33 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:

>>Any zygote has the *potential* to produce a unique child
>>(unless you can prove otherwise -- not in general but for
>>each one individually).
>>Just because the child is not born shouldn't deprive
>>him or her of all rights.

>You're missing something here.  Your first statement asserts that there
>is _potential_ to rpoduce a child (I doubt anyone woulde argue this),
>but by your second statement the child already exists.  When did the
>child come into existence?  If you believe the zygote is a child, why 
>did you insert the qualifier "potential"?

There is some dispute over when a "child" is created.
The potential to produce a child is, as we agree, not
in dispute.
To dismiss all rights of the child before birth
denies whatever potential there may be.

>>The fact that he or she is in no position to object to his
>>or her death does not give the other party total control
>>of the situation.

>Well, in fact it does.  The zygote isn't in control of the situation,
>so someone else has to be.  What you have failed to explain is why that
>someone should be you instead of the woman carrying the zygote.

Why shouldn't everyone be entitled to due process 
before their rights are removed from them?

>>Even those tried in absentia are entitled to legal 
>>representation.

>And those who are incompetent to make medical decisions are often
>represented by their next-of-kin.  In this case, that would be the
>woman carrying said zygote.

An excellent analogy because parents and guardians
are limited in what actions they can take by their
responsibilities to the person in their charge.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:59:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.132008.12165@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.051222.15504@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}In article <1993Jan3.162045.18984@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}>In article <1993Jan3.142319.12078@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>}>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>}>
>}>}I have never argued affirmatively for restrictions on abortion, Mark. 
>}>}Deal with it as best you can.
>}>
>}>Then what do you call your lecture to rocker about anticipating problems
>}>rather than putting out fires?  
>}
>}It was a mini-discourse on the perceived/possible value of preventitive 
>}legislation. 
>
>Sort of an affirmative argument for restrictive legislation...

Not all preventitive legislation is restrictive, and CERTAINLY only a 
tiny fraction of all preventitive legislation deals with abortion, Galen.
Be careful of drawing hasty conclusions.

>}I was so abstract in that article...
>
>Like the part about having blood on your hands, I assume.  

Figures of speech are generally more abstract than literal statements, yes,
especially when embedded in hypothetical questions.

>}I didn't even IDENTIFY any particular 
>}restriction(s), so how the hell could I have "supported" any? 
>
>Sort of like you have never identified what definition you mean
>when you say "viability"...

Not the same thing at all. "Viability" is a threshold that can and has been 
defined for legal purposes. "Specific restrictions which Kevin Darcy 
supports", on the other hand, has never been identified, let alone the 
"Kevin Darcy supports" proven. Therefore, a belief featuring viability is not 
necessarily irrational, but a belief that Kevin Darcy "supports abortion 
restrictions" is highly suspect.

>}Do you believe everything that Keegan tells you, without even bothering to 
>}check out the facts for yourself, Galen? 
>
>No, I read the article myself.  But now that you ask, if Keegan were to
>assert that the earth was edible, and you were to say it was made of
>rocks and dirt and other stuff that was inedible, I would probably take
>a bite.

I'd trust my OWN judgment long before I resorted to such behavior...

Galen, are you _really_ so insecure in your beliefs that you'd start chomping 
dirt just because of a silly disagreement between two guys on the Net?
 
								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Holy Mental Migration BatMan!
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:59:44 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
] In <1993Jan8.182534.8944@samba.oit.unc.edu> itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken) writes:
] 
] >I was curious as to the pro-life stance on
] >fetal tissue research.  
] >I just wanted to get some feedback from the pro-life
] >and anti-research side.
] 
] My stance on fetal research is about the same as my stance on KKK 
] donations of African-American cadavers to medical schools. Refusing
] the donation won't right the wrong, and accepting the donation may
] not increase the number of lynchings--but I'd still be against acceptance.


Forgive me if I missed where your message was migrating to....

Yes, lynching is a Not Nice Thing.
Yes, The KKK lynched more than Just African Americans.
	Are we to conclude that you would accept
	non_AfricanAmerican Cadavers?????

	{or does that break up your hoped for allusion that there
	is some sinister racist plot in the correlationship of
	abortions and the generation of Dead African Americans?}

Or is it the case that you were just trying to hope that
with enough PoliticallySensitiveBuzzPhrases one can make
the illusion that one is communicating?


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:01:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.014554.9607@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.224341.9574@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>...I dislike absolutes, whether they are pro-choice 
>>absolutes, or pro-life absolutes. Furthermore, I _care_ about the 
>>pro-choice position more than I do the pro-life position: if a pro-lifer
>>starts spouting absolutes, I generally just chuckle, sit back, and watch
>>him or her self-immolate, but when a misguided pro-CHOICER starts spouting
>>absolutes, my instinctive reaction is to quickly douse the spark before it 
>>does any real damage.
>> 
>With the end result being that you do indeed argue in favor of
>restrictions on late term abortions Kevin. 

Wrong. "In favor of" implies that I'd prefer their existence over their
non-existence, and that's just not true.

>Just admit it Kevin.

Why don't *you* admit that you jumped to conclusions about my position, and/or
have been influenced by Keegan's malicious propaganda that I'm a pro-forcer?

>There's nothing inherently *wrong* with your position, other then the
>fact that you won't admit that your position is, in reality that early
>abortions are Ok with you, while you favor late term restrictions.

No, I do >not< "favor" late term restrictions. The only thing that viability
marks for me is the point beyond which I _might_ think, morally, that it's 
appropriate for a given restriction to be decided by concensus. But I have no 
preferences as to the outcome of that concensus. I'm neither for nor against 
the enactment of even those restrictions I regard as "concensus-able".

>>In article <1993Jan02.035011.4843@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>It *sounds* the same as someone arguing for them.
>>
>>Then don't just "listen", Larry -- try actually READING what I'm saying. 
>>Carefully. If you do, I think you'll find that I argue against absolutes, and 
>>certain kinds of just plain old illogic, but _not_ inherently _against_ any 
>>(more-or-less relativistic) position on pro-choice.
>>
>>"Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to describe the way I see what I 
>>do, Larry. Maybe that's a little too whimsical, though, perhaps even bordering
>>on presumptuous...
>>
>It's way past the border Kevin.

Well, if I'm not Mr. Pro-choice QC, who is? With all of the specious pro-choice
arguments flying around here thick and fast, there's definitely a need for
someone to assume that role...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:09:25 GMT

In <1993Jan7.212033.16294@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>> Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>> fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

>Which is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy.  James Woodyatt
>built a pair of syllogisms regarding this not too long ago.  I think
>it's time to pull it out of mothballs:

>--- begin James Woodyatt's article ---

>A.  Assume: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
>    subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy, on the grounds that she
>    implicitly consented to the possibility of the grave matter of
>    pregnancy when she consented to sex, and abortion would
>    demonstrate her decision to have sex was careless.

>--- end James Woodyatt's article ---

Here's the weak link. Compare: It is iresponsible to use lethal force
to defend yourself against an attack made on a dark city street, on the
grounds that you implicitly consented to the possibiltiy of attack by
walking down a dark city street.

In fact:
A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
   walking down dark city streets; but
B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
   right to self-defense.

>Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: holtsinger perpetuates the truth
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:18:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.000720.20832@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.234254.8883@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>> Over 30 states have,
>> in fact, passed laws which are still in force, regulating the
>> performance of third trimester abortions. 

[DODie's ancient history lesson deleted]

How nice. Now go find the current numbers DODie.
Figures on how many laws were in effect in 1979 are really not
particularly relevant to a discussion which is based on today.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:12:18 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:
>From article <29411@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):

>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....

>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

Your scientific ignorance is showing again. Ceasing to breathe does
not bring "instant" death. A sleep disorder by a name I've forgotten
prevalent in small children has them stop breathing throughout the night
due to a weak portion of the esophagus. They don't die, they merely
wake up, or at least are prevented from staying in a deep sleep state,
and start breathing again. Furthermore, even were you to stop breathing
completely, it takes approximately 5 minutes (average) before you are
actually dead, modified by environmental conditions such as extreme
cold, which has actually enabled some boy to stop breathing for 30 or
so minutes. (A clue: he's not dead either, although people make a big
bugaboo that he was dead. A question: is death reversible? Can we cheat
death? Frau F - these are rhetorical, btw)

There are more cases that death is not instant. From something I read
about death by guillotine not being instant, it was noted that the victims
eyes were capable of controlled movement for up to a minute after the
blade dropped. If only they could scream....

Actually, short of "instant" incineration, I don't think anything causes
"instant" death, as it takes time for all the cells to die off.

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:55254 talk.religion.misc:25870 alt.atheism:25692
From: passaret@vane.med.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:40:34 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee WI


# In message <C0pBn6.1oA@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
# hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

link> Good debating techniques.  Call the opposition bad names
link> to diminish their credibility.  If you take a look at
link> some of the largest pro-life organizations, you will see
link> that they oppose violence, like bombing clinics.

Actually, you will see that they claim to oppose these
tactics, but do not put the energy into preventing them that
they do into blocading clinics, for instance.  Priorities, I
know, but I had to comment.  Claiming to oppose and doing
nothing about it bears a striking resemblance to support, or
at least to acceptance...

link> Operation Rescue protesters don't fight the police.
link> They lie still and have to be carried away.  

That explains the black eye I got from being kicked in the
face by one after having been knocked down by another.  I
wasn't police, just escort.  Of course the scratches and
bruises that they gave the mother were accidental too.  
Thanks for clarifying the policy for me...  

Incidentally, she was there for a pre-nate checkup and
consultation.  But then, that doesn't matter to Operation
Rescue either...

link> Most pro-lifers I know are genuinely concerned about the
link> well-being of the 1.5 million who are being legally
link> killed every year.

Thank you for avoiding the inaccurate term "murder".

link> I could characterize Pro-choicers as hate-filled
link> killers.  But I know that in reality, the motivation of
link> those who are "pro-choice" is not to kill children.

You're ahead of Rush Limbaugh on this one...

link> Most sincerly believe that abortion is not killing (I
link> hope.)  

Most sincerely believe that it is the womans right to choose.
Any other generalization would be inappropriate.

link> I have seen some examples of pro-choice protestors who
link> did appear full of hate.  One group of pro-choice
link> protestors blockaded a Catholic Church in New York.
link> These women were topless except for painted crosses over
link> their breasts.  THe elderly people who wanted to go to
link> church were unable to get into the building because of
link> this lewd display.  

Please explain the hate so evident to you in this behavior.
Scorn, perhaps.  Ridicule, even... but hate???

link> Of course, the news media for the most part i did not
link> cover this story, because it showed pro-choice in a bad
link> light.  

Ah, the great liberal media conspiracy.  So buy a(nother) TV
station, as if the GodSquad(tm) didn't own enough of them
already. 

link> My point is that I am not so ignorant as the think that
link> all pro-abortionists agree with these tactics.

Ignorant as the think?   As _to_ think.  Ah.  See my remark
Re: generalizations above...  

link> Link Hudson.
						-MM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:21:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.201750.18369@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan8.025210.9017@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>
>|>In article <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
>|>(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>|>
>|>> 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>|>>    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.
>|>
>|>Have you been to alt.folklore.urban lately? Just wondering. Now prove
>|>to me that a fetus is a human being. Go ahead. I'll wait.
>|>
>My corollary is that you can't prove that a fetus isn't...Are you willing
>to kill 1.5 million lives each year just because there is no proof that
>they are alive....?

Argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.

Can you PROVE that aliens didn't sneak into your abode while you were 
away, and replace all of your belongings with exact replicas? Must be
true then...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life (was: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:41:32 GMT

In <1993Jan12.193845.19994@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>> = markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>> = bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>>> = In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>You're half-right; at this point, it's vital (no pun intended) to
>>>>ask whether the z/e/f has the right to life. New thread, anyone?

>>>Have already started that in this thread. I have stated that no such
>>>right exists. Why don't you prove there is in one short post?

>>As to the z/e/f's right to life:
>>
>>A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
>>individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right
>>to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
>>hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact 
>>with the above definition only by expanding that definition of 
>>humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
>>for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential --
>>and so do z/e/f's.

>Fetus' maybe, zygotes no.

>a) "human" is frequently used in two very different ways, *roughly*:
>   human[1]      : made of human tissue
>   human-life[1] : made of human tissue & alive
>   human[2]      : a "person"
>   human-life[2] : a "person"
>   So let's be clear we're discussing "personhood"

>b) while "reasoning, free-willed individuality" probably won't be
>   an acceptable defn. of "person" to all, it does *suggest* the
>   essence of the concept.  While we probably will never agree on a 
>   completely unambiguous defn. of "person", it seems that
>   most reasonable people would agree that the current colloquial usage 
>   of the term "person" and any meaningful concept of "personhood" requires 
>   at *least* the possibility of something similar to "individuality" and 
>   "reasoning" (or some type of thought process).  
>   
>   Please: those who disagree please make a clear, concise statement
>   at this point.  There's no point in continuing if you disagree here.
>  
>c) assuming you agree with (a) & (b) above, a zygote cannot be a "person",
>   (in any normal/reasonable usage of the term) because clearly it is 
>   physically impossible for a zygote to have anything similar to reasoning 
>   (physically, it has no brain).  Hence zygotes cannot be referred to 
>   as "persons" in any meaningful way.

Are there any newborns who reason? If not, why are they persons?

>-Brian

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:00:08 GMT

parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>>I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is 
>>to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use 
>>certain words in certain situations.

>Close, but wrong.  *ZAP*  Your description is closer to describing the origin
>of "pro-life".  "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" mean almost the same thing, but
>"pro-life" sounds a bit nicer (and it describes the reasoning behind the
>position more clearly, which is the *real* reason).

>"pro-choice" does not mean the same thing as "pro-abortion".  Most politicians
>are "pro-choice" (as oppsed to "pro-abortion"), in part because it doesn't
>sound "immoral" but also because it better describes the position (abortion is
>"wrong" but is also a matter of private choice).  (Actually, they take that
>position because *it* sounds less "immoral" so they won't alienate as many
>conservatives.)

>On the other hand, I would be more accurately described as "pro-abortion"
>than "pro-choice".  (That does not imply *forcing* abortion on someone; it
>means I consider abortion to be perfectly "moral" in most cases.)

>>-Paul

>-Rob


Pro-choicers who claim that they PERSONALLY believe that abortion is
murder are perhaps the greatest hypocrites in our world.  If you believe
something is murder, you should believe it is murder whether YOU do it,
or someone ELSE does it (even if they don't believe it is murder).


Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -

Newsgroups: talk.abortion