HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why the 5 week sentience point?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:36:47 GMT

In <1992Sep9.153955.2244@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>> In article <brandonu.ca mcbeanb.mail.abortion:12>, nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> 
>>>>      I forgot to ask why you choose the onset of sentience as
>>>> the cutoff point.
>>> 
>>> Well, to use the colorful words I picked up from one of the networkers
>>> (Elizabeth Bartley, I think) that's when you can say that "somebody's
>>> home."

>Well, you can say that, but I haven't an opinion on the matter.
>But are you saying you have a person 5 weeks after conception?

In the philosophical sense of the word person (=there is somebody home)
I think there is a good chance there is one very soon thereafter.

>>>>  Plants are sentient, so are animals...
>>> 
>>> The first is sheer speculation.  Which part of the plant is the seat
>>> of sentience?  With humans, you will hear it asserted that sentience
>>> is only associated with the neocortex, which is lacking in most
>>> animals.   

>Animals are generally sentient, neocortex argument or not... 

How do you define "animals"?  I would not speculate beyond warm-blooded
animals (mammals, birds, possibly dinosaurs) myself.  

Descartes believed there was "nobody home" in any animal except man.
This is just as unwarranted an assumption as the one people make about
"nobody home" in fetuses prior to mylenation.  An enormous amount of
very possible suffering can be laid at Descartes's door, only recently
being rectified in ever-stiffening laws against cruelty to animals.
How long must we wait until we see laws against cruelty to fetuses?

>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35559 alt.abortion.inequity:3609
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Let Galen speak for the undead (Was: Bats don't suck blood)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 19:05:51 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: na


gh>In article <1992Sep11.014759.10927@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
dk>In article <1992Sep11.133839.3909@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

gh> Vampire bats do not suck blood.  They make an incision, it bleeds, and
gh> they lap it up.  I'm not sure about other vampires, but I assume their
gh> mouth parts are similar.  I don't know of any documentation for that, but
gh> I expect I can dig up something from Merlin Tuttle (and if you don't
gh> know who he is, don't be surprised, but you don't know much about bats
gh> either).  This testimony is from an eyeball witness, is that documentation
gh> enough?

dk>Mr Mezias did not refer to vampire bats, but to vampires.  I
dk>feel secure in saying, given the context of the original discussion,
dk>that Mr Mezias was refering to those human beings who have become
dk>the undead and, in order to preserve their undeadness, must
dk>drink the blood of living humans.  This behavior in turn causes the
dk>victims of this ghastly imbibing to become vampires themselves.

It is possible Galen confused vampires and vampire bats.  But since
only Galen has the authority to speak not only for the unborn, but also
the undead, I'm sure he could take this opportunity to speak for
those undead.  So Galen, would the analogy hold for the undead?
What say they?

dk>Dean Kaflowitz

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:45:25 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to 
>respect for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful 
>to them), a case can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.

Since so many heteros are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to
respect for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful
to them), a case can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.

>There is only the occasional exception.
There is only the occasional exception.

[Warning...lesson in logic and inductive reasoning follows!  Beware!]

See the problem here?  Since a plurality of Americans support abortion in
at least ONE circumstance (health of the mother, rape, incest, etc), then
my statement would be true, if yours was.  Let's look at the logic:

Premise 1:  Many gays are proabortion

Premise 2: Abortion is harmful
  Minor premise 2a: to respect for women
  Minor premise 2b: to respect of mothers
  Minor premise 2c: to women physically

Conclusion: Gay men hate women.

Bzzt.  This is induction.  It involves a testable set of premises and a
conclusion.  Unfortunately for you, the leap you made does not follow from
the preimses.   Leaps are allowed (nay required!) in inductive reasoning.
But the leap has to be demonstrated by and drawn from the premises.

Good inductive reasoning means that the conclusion is probably true.  In
this case, the conclusion is unlikely, given your premises.  And since it
is testable, go ahead.  Test it!  Get the empirical data.

And take a class in basic logic.  

 -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
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why the 5 week sentience point?
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:11:51 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

>Peter:

>> The first is sheer speculation.  Which part of the plant is the seat
>> of sentience?  With humans, you will hear it asserted that sentience
>> is only associated with the neocortex, which is lacking in most
>> animals.   

>> I was safe-siding with my 5 week figure.  Somewhere in the 6th week, 
>> simple reflexes can be elicited.  Whether that is enough for sentience
>> is a deep and abiding mystery, but again, I am giving the embryo the
>> benefit of the doubt.

My biology books are in Chicago and I'm in New York (telnetting to my
U of Chicago account), but if I recall correctly, reflexes are handled
by the medula, which is sometimes considered the most "primitive" part
of the brain and sometimes considered a part of the spinal cord.
Certainly they are not handled by the parts of the brain considered
the seats of sentient/sapient thought.


-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: spinoza@next09wor.wam.umd.edu (J. Skorecki-Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:32:30 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep14.122811.14432@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.142500.29819@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep11.133839.3909@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
> > (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> > 
> > }Mr Mezias did not refer to vampire bats, but to vampires. 
> > 
> > So what are you trying to say, that vampires suck?   Do you have
> > any documentation?  Besides Scientific American, that is, that sounds
> > like a pro-vampire publication to me...
> 
> While I would have to read the relevant text to determine if
> Mr Stoker used the word "suck" or "drink," I do have a reference.
> 
> "Dracula" by Bram Stoker.  Available in paperback at a bookstore
> near you.
> 
Not to nitpick, goodness knows, but ol' Bram isn't exactly a primary  
source. There are dozens of tomes dealing with eyewitness accounts of the  
depredations and kinky drinking games of the various undead of Hungary,  
Romania, Russia, and all those other (former)  
IckyNastyCommieCountries(tm), where they seem to cluster. On the other  
hand, eyewitness reports of BloodsuckingUndeadFiends are rather lacking  
around here, tho'  we DO get Jessie Helms on C-Span, so it's almost even.  
According to the sources I've read, the undead engage in a wide variety of  
offenses against good manners, including, but not limited to: ripping out  
throats (the better to access the heme molecules with),  biting, slurping,  
drowning (Rusalka are a Russian variant, usually associated with young  
women who drown in rivers: if you meet one in the north, she'll torture  
you for a while by doing unspeakable things to you, then she'll really get  
nasty and start quoting InturdgentthePropellerChildfromHell. In the south  
you're lucky, she'll sing softly and sweetly to you as she leads you to a  
watery grave), throttling, and of course, the ever popular ripping off of  
blood banks.  Is Galen still spokesbeing for the Undead? Perhaps they're  
needing some positive pr, no?

nazhdaroveya!

jeff skorecki-weiss
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35446 alt.abortion.inequity:3581
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:13:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Communications -- Information Technologies

In article <Bu1EFH.DvD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <vzlnjl-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>>In article <_3kn9!-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Currently no person may use the body of another person without that
>>person's consent.  
>
>I disagree with your premise, one counterexample (IMO) being child support.
>This reduces to whether one feels forced labor is a use of the subject's body.

As a further example: what is a military draft?

>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for B
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:37:12 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Sep12.080031.56284@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <fzmnh9k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >
> >Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking,
> >talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
> >a slave.
>
>      In short: one is, in your arbitrary opinion, a human being sufficiently
> like you to deserve a right to life, while the other (again in your arbitrary
> opinion) is a human being not sufficiently like you to deserve a right to life.

One is a human being; the other is not.  (Using the normal meaning of the
term "human being".)

>      Prove, if you will, that walking and talking and thinking are
> prerequisistes to personhood.

Why are you asking him to prove something he didn't claim?  A fetus can't
walk, can't talk, can't think (certainly not in the first two trimesters),
and is not a person (ditto).  There was no claim that the first three are
prerequisites for the fourth.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Do liars need therapists?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:50:01 GMT

In article <29503@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
#In article <Bu25r5.B0w.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
#writes in response to Overpeck:
#
#### I think Holtsinger should see a therapist.  
###
###Why?  
##
##I think he has problems.  He has repeatedly set himself
##up on talk.abortion by quoting (or rather misquoting)
##text from easily accessible texts.  He has to know that
##people will look up his quotations and correct them.
##This is not rational behavior in my opinion.
#
#I agree that it is not rational but we are talking about a political
#rather than rational discourse anyway.  Now, some of us, in pursuing
#our political agendas may believe that standards of honesty enhance
#our credibility, thus, are worthwhile.  DOD apparently does not
#believe this.  However, to suggest that every person who lies in
#pursuing a political goal needs therapy seems a bit unjustified.  It
#wouldn't be practical for one thing to treat all the politicians and
#politician wannabes.  Nonetheless, if pointing out that DOD does seem
#to be a pathological liar when it comes to abortion and suggesting
#that he needs therapy damages his credibility, then it may be an
#argument worth making.  I certainly think that suggesting that the
#religious loonies on the net (Hi, Suzanne!) seek therapy is
#worthwhile, not to mention fun, even if one honestly believes that
#therapy would be useless.

It's not so much that he lies that makes me think he's got
problems, it's that he lies knowing that he'll be caught.
Of course, George Bush must have known that he'd get caught
when he told some of his whoppers, too, so maybe your point
is more valid than I thought.  Hmm.

Do you really think that it's possible to further damage
DOD's credibility?

(I think that religious loonies would probably insist on
religious loony therapists.)

Susan
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:18:56 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes: 

Hi Suzanne,

I see you're looney as ever - that's reassuring in an odd sort of way.
I also notice that you never responded to my original post in response
to your first reply to Brian: That children do not fear or loathe gays
until hompohobes like yourself teach them to.  Part of how you do this
is by spreading lies like you posted below:

>Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful
>to respect for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically
>harmful to them), a case can be made that generally as a group, they
>do hate women.  There is only the occasional exception.

Please provide one shred of evidence, not anecdotes, now, but
evidence, for any part of what you have written here.

All right, everyone, stop laughing.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:55:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.192507.22083@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <18824cINNhuq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.222229.16440@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Actually, this is a *great* proposal.  Any random woman can say, "Sex, sure.
>>No sperm."  And make it stick through force of law!!!!  Any random woman
>>who becomes pregnant by a man leaving sperm around when she said "No sperm"
>>has been raped, and can prosecute that man to the full extent of the law!
>>
>>What a terrific idea!!!
...
>>PPS,  all joking aside, WHY wouldn't this actually work, folks?  Does the
>>answer to that question buy you any clue as to why pro-choice people feel
>>women should be allowed to make up their own minds about abortion?
>
>Try the reverse, how about the MAN saying, "Sex, ok.  But no egg."  and
>making it stick?

Or, how about statements with various degrees of sensibility 
(and sarcasm/humor):

"You may visit but don't leave anything behind."
"You may put your hand on my stack of money but don't take anything with you."
"Take your hand off my stack of money and don't take anything with you."

"You may * but don't leave anything behind."
"You may put your * on my * but don't take anything with you."
"Take your * off my * and don't take anything with you."

Silly, no?

>All joking aside, does this make you realize why people like me think
>that pro-choice is a lie, it really means pro-female-choice-and-screw-
>the-men?

If you're +really+ cynical, screw-the-men-then-pro-female-choice.  :-(
Fortunately I haven't given up that far on the human race...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is supported
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:50:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715648645@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <8yxyyyd@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

##Why don't we see these same demands when Nyikos quotes clearly
##ANTI-abortion organizations?
#
#You see them all the time, from Larry Margolis, Susan Garvin,

[text deleted]

I do want to see unbiased sources when you make allegations.
I have not, however, seen Larry make the same requests.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:25:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.070009.6188@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):

>> Actually I put the dividing line at the beginning of "myelination" in
>> the brain, which I see as the last clear-cut step needed before the
>> brain can come "on-line".  

>Much as some people would like to remold these little children 
>into little machines and robots, they are LIVING BEINGS. 

Yes, Suzanne, of course z/e/fs are alive; that's why the quotations
marks around "on-line"; unlike "myelination", I figured everyone
reading a newsgroup was familiar with the term "on-line" and simply
wanted to signal that my usage was nonstandard.

Relevance (other than that you don't like my analogy)?

>> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
>> coincidentally is the the current viability age.

>Oh, and did you miss my post about the 22 week preie that just
>went home from the hospital?

Yes, but I've heard of other cases.  A <5% viability rate with defects
common does *not* mean "within the viability age range" to me.

>The age is moving younger and
>younger all the time.  And you know what?  It's NOT the babies
>who are changing.  It's just our medical knowledge of how to
>care for them that is.

I'm very well aware of that, Suzanne; that's why I said the *current*
viability age.  I think we're *all* aware that the viability age
changes with time and technology.

-- 
"The fools and the wise are equally harmless; it is the half-wise and the
half-foolish who are the most to be feared."       - Goethe

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu                              E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Response to Propeller Head's Pathetic Attempts at Flamage
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:36:53 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

Steve Chaney, the child who think's he's a Borg.

'Nuff said.

-- 
I feel like a gay man trapped inside a woman's body.

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:25:32 GMT

In <1992Sep10.034228.6912@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
the chaney/hall creature posting as chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu 
   (DEVASTATOR OF PATRICK HUMPHREY to you, PatricKKK) writes to patrick:

>> it would really be luney for me to continue to heap
>> more verbal and emotional abuse on your already
>> troubled self.
>
> yes it would. i'm glad you admit it.
>
> i wonder how long it will be before you display that
> characteristic yet again.
>
> [watch carefully bill overpeck.]

What characteristic is that, Jim?  Is it one of the 
"symptoms" that you're putting together to support 
your diagnosis? 

Bill
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fun things to do with pro-lifers...
Date: 11 Sep 1992 07:19:28 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <1992Sep11.021332.725@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <18j0o4INN2h1@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, by mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori):
>> 
>> clinic is not actually near the road, but they make sure and get real
>> close to the main drag, so you can see their "resolve".
>
>The odds are, the trespassing laws were what where _really_ keeping
>the majority of the demonstrators out of the privately owned parking
>lot.
>
>Suzanne Forgach


Maybe so... But why do they stand on both sides of the street?
(In front of, and across the street from the doctor's office
complex.) There aren't usually that many (5 - 10 or so) of them.
And while I'm on this, if their "resolve" is so great, why
aren't they out there during inclement weather? Or even week-
days, for that matter?

If they are being kept off the clinic's grounds by the law,
all I can say is it's about time the law had a postive effect.

Actually, I think we pro-choice folks should kind of use the
pro-life demonstrators as "abortion clinic locators". When you
just can't seem to find it, just look for the signs that say
"Abortion Kills Children", etc.. You know there must be a clinic
nearby. If you ask in a concerned voice, they'll even point out
the place out for you!

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions, not my employer's
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36300 talk.politics.misc:45223 alt.sex:29311 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5342
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Abortion rights and responsibilities
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
-> Just a thought (it's after midnight for this post).
-> Usually when one is accorded rights, one is also
-> accorded responsibilities with which one should use
-> these rights. For example, no slander/libel when
-> invoking "free speech," or shooting innocents when
-> owning a gun, and so on. As the signs from
-> pro-choicers/pro-abortionists say "Abortion rights
-> NOW!"  I am wondering what responsibilities are
-> accorded to this constitutionally protected
-> (according to the Supreme Court) right.

the same ones that are "accorded to" any elective
surgery. twit.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion