HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:55:19 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) wrote (in article <1992Oct4.190659.1324@newshost.unh.edu>):
>Yeah?  Really?  Well, I just discovered the solution to the homeless problem!!
>KILL THEM!  KILL THEM ALL!  Leaving them to be raised in such poor conditions
>is morally irresponsible!  Encourage suicide as a way for them to escape their
>fate!

If they want to commit suicide, that's their option.  I'll do
everything I personally can do to talk them out of it, but there are
times when a person has to be allowed this choice.

>"Well, I'm sorry, kid, but if you live long enough to see the outside world,
>you're going to have to live at home alone, so hold still while the nice man
>pokes a needle through your brain."

Bzzt, nice try.  How can you poke a needle through the brain of a
fetus that doesn't have a brain?

You're missing the point here, too.  Killing homeless people is NOT
the same thing as killing z/e/f's.  The homeless people are _people_.
The z/e/f, for half a year after conception, is an organism with, at
most, as much mind as an animal has.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an abortion two days ago]
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:15:37 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>> I dunno about you, Martin, but I'd rather see my children thrive 
>>> than fail.

>> And if it looks like they will fail...

> Why, Peter, what a gem!  What a responsible, adult kinda thing to say.
> What a sensible argument!  What a *useful* approach!  What a purposeful
> debating technique!  Boy oh boy, I'd save this one!  It really cuts to
> the heart of the question of abortion, yep, it shore do!  So masterfully
> dealing with the issues!

More 24-carat Ad Hominem from Dr. Science!  He's buried the needle on my
rhetorical fallacy meter!

I gots to hand it to you, Adrienne.  If there be an Official Virus[1]
lurking in the heart of a pro-lifer, you draw it out somehow.

>> [But I forget: Adrienne does not think of the unborn as children.

Nor do any other pro-choicers.

>> Perhaps not even those further developed than the prematurely born.]

How brave of Peter to speculate on something Adrienne has never told him.
Too bad he wasn't brave enough to finish his sentence fragment up there.

[1] nominally, a nickname for dennissteve; could also be a moniker for
the habit of ignoring the woman's perspective.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:35:24 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <25820@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>>Surely, the unborn person is innocent of any charge and deserves the right
>>>to life.

>>Except for maybe injury, battery, and assault on the mother? These are
>>allowable reasons for killing in self-defense, you know.

>Hehe.  I just *do* love this type of thinking.

Hey, you claim they have the right to life and that they are innocent
of any charges. You don't think. As the exceptions seem to prove. (Or
were you so flabbergasted that you couldn't come up with a reply worthy
of comment and so typed this weak rejoinder?)

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Premies (was Re: FOCA: And I quote.....)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 20:30:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>If you're going to flame me, at least flame me for something I actually
>DID, Dumbo.  Ray Fischer and I WERE talking about PREMIES.   They`re
>not "premies" unless their birth was PREmature.  Ray was suggesting we
>withhold neonatal intensive care from them so that the money used
>to care for them could instead be funneled through some mythical chute
>to some other charity he himself took it upon himself to designate.

"If you're going to flame me, at least flame me for something I actually
DID, Dumbo."

I did NOT propose anything of the sort.  I was trying to point out that
intensive care is expensive, and that the money spent on preemies doesn't
come from thin air.

>But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
>services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
>I will pull the plug on YOU.

I would never attempt anything of the sort.  You, however,  have made it 
quite clear, that given the choice of preventing one abortion or feeding 40 
people for a year, you'd rather let the 40 people starve.

I, for one, don't plan on giving you that option.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 08:10:42 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  <1992Oct3.185856.23373@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct02.233957.17714@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Oct2.185339.28770@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Mart
> >> In article <1992Oct02.052949.12333@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
> >> >
> >> >Well, sure.  So does masturbation, ovulation, and surgery.  So?
> >>
> >> You are still into the sperm/egg are humans
> >
> >I *never* made such a ridiculous claim.  They're human (adjective), and
> >so can be called "human life" in any sense that a fertilized egg can be,
> >but they are certainly not human (noun), which means a person.  But neither
> >is that fertilized egg.
>
> Well, you are implying that sperm/eggs are, in a sense equivalent.

I'm stating that sperm, eggs, and zygotes are equivalent in the sense that
they are all single-celled human organisms.  (That's human as an adjective,
qualifying "organism").  None of them are human in the sense of being a
person, and none have any moral obligations due them.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:05:22 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <oem7OqS00WB5JDRg1H@andrew.cmu.edu>, ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
|>Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
|>by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
|>> Do we show people pictures of murdered adults to convince them
|>> that murder is wrong?  It seems that if you need that kind of
|>> thing to make your point, your point must not have been very 
|>> strong to begin with.
|>
|>That's an interesting statement. Maybe if murderers were forced to
|>really see the suffering they were causing, about to cause, or
|>previously caused, we would have fewer repeat murders.

"Fewer repeat murders"?  You do realize that murder is the felony
least likely to be repeated by the perpetrator, don't you?  I once
read an interveiw with a homicide detective where she said "Murder
is the easiest crime to solve.  Nine times out of ten when you get
to the murder scene, you find a person standing over the body with
a gun in their hand and a very surprised look on their face."
Perhaps you should have picked a different crime for comparison,
but then you wouldn't have that implication that abortion is 
murder.

|>Interesting.

Not especially, since it was pretty far off the mark.

|>I prefer to think of the abortion films this way. Some people
|>(not all or most) think that the child isn't even a living being.

You actually know people who think that children are not living
beings?

|>Showing them something like this shows them their wrong.

Showing them the definition of "alive" would show them that
children are alive.
 
|>Some people think abortion is a painless procedure. Showing them
|>something like this shows it's not a painless procedure. And it
|>is not a painless procedure for the mother either.

Again, why do you attribute something to conscious volition that
can be easily explained by elementary fluid dynamics?

|>ag
                      
                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:41:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.160929.37145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In  <nyikos.718031409@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
## In <6355@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## #In article <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
## ##In  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) write
## ###
## ### But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
## ### services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
## ### I will pull the plug on YOU.
## ##
## ##I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
## ##Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?
##
## #I wondered the same thing.  Suzanne's comments are phrased the same
## #way that Mark's were.
##
## Andy, Ray, and now Mark.  Who are these people?
#
#Andy and Ray are the "either of you" at whom that Suzanne directed her
#"threat".  Mark is the one who made a similar "threat" against
#Suzanne.  Chaney's ravings about the latter occurred before you were
#posting here, but Andy and Ray were quoted in Suzanne's post.  Don't
#you read these things before you comment on them?

(I wonder who'll volunteer next to explain things to Nyikos.
He seems to need special help.)

#(Perhaps if you asked the questions *before* making the ignorant
#allegations, your reputation here would be more like what you think
#you deserve, instead of the one you've earned.  Just a friendly
#suggestion...)

Now, now, Larry.  You're asking Nyikos to change his entire
philosophy of life.  I've yet to see him do the research
before making allegations.  

## #I doubt that he will complain, though.  Dennis will cite his "two
## #wrongs make a right" rule and carry on.
##
## Now wait a minute.  A conditional threat is different from a wrong.
#
#To a rational person, yes.  But Susan was talking about Chaney, who's
#been flaming Mark for months about an identically phrased conditional
#threat.

I wonder if Nyikos will explain this to Chaney.  They seem to
speak the same language.

Susan,
whose academic affiliation is not that hard to determine
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39283 talk.politics.misc:48505 alt.politics.bush:7100
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:59:07 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <=#_pfkp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>	I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
>>activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
>>avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
>>are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
>>to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.

>Fine.  Driving a car can result in injury or death.

	What a stupid analogy. Preventing, or correcting injuries
recieved in a car wreck does NOT necessitate the taking of another
human being's life. I wish that medical science had a way of removing
the fetus from a mother, and keeping it alive. I have no problem with
that. But until such time as we have that technology, allowing people
to kill is not acceptable.

>Are you now going to claim that anyone who's is injured in a car
>accident should be allowed to die?  Or the people who live in Florida
>should _not_ get any federal assistance?

	No. Neither did I claim that anyone who get's pregnant should
be allowed to die, or should be exempted from assistance. If a woman is
in immediate danger of death from pregnancy, then abortion is a valid 
course of action, since the child would likely die with the mother. But
this occurs only in a small number of cases. 
	As for assistance, I applaud anyone who makes the difficult
decision to keep their child, and am more than willing to have my 
tax dollars go towards their assistance.

			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:43:29 GMT

In article <490n#c-.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> Eric writes:
> >are you saying that baby is not totally and wholly dependent on the
> >specific person who happens to be taking care of it at the time?
> 
> YES!  YES!!!  That's EXACTLY what he's saying!  PRECISELY!  You've GOT
> it!  He's getting THROUGH!


Loose the sarcasam please...it's rather childish.  I have a low tolerance
for
people who enjoy acting this way in a serious debate...

Well, then don't you think that's rather silly?  The baby is in fact
totally and wholly dependent on the specific person who happens to be
taking care of him/her at the time.  

What happens if some disaster occurs and the loving and caring parents are
not at home and the child is being watched by a baby sitter.  That child is
totally and wholly dependent on that sitter to save it's life because it
would surely die if someone did not.

> If I change a baby's diaper or feed it its bottle, that does NOT mean
> that the baby is TOTALLY and WHOLLY dependent on me during that time!

Your vision appears to be a bit to narrow.  See above.

> In fact, if mommy and daddy are sleeping, then NOBODY's taking care of
> the baby at that time, but the baby still SURVIVES, meaning that it's
> obviously TOTALLY and WHOLLY dependent on NOBODY!

Sure, for that limited period of time.  But it will always become totally
and wholly dependent on someone again - which is the critical point.

> >Please note, that at no point have I ever said that abortion is totally
> >out of the question once you have a person.  If you have made that
> >assumption, it was not correct.  Please be more careful in the future about
> >the assumptions you make because they just might be wrong as they may have
> >been in this case.
> 
> Whoooa, _Dangerous_ point.  You're rationalizing abortion by saying
> that a human is always a person, but that sometimes it's okay to kill
> a person?  Or maybe that some humans are "more of a person" than others?

No.  Ever heard of Self-Defense, for example?  Or clear cases where
euthanasia
is permissable.  In these cases, a "person" is still being killed, but
it is ok.
 
> >All I want to do is find the point at which the fetus must be considered a
> >person so that any choice the women makes should be made with extreme
> >caution.
> 
> I thought you already said it happens at conception, and that there
> was no room for argument on that decision?

Oh, there is plently of room...I just haven't been able to find it yet and
was wondering if anyone else
could.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:57:40 GMT

In <6356@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <9tgz#dh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>#nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#
>##I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>##whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>#
>#No.

>I have some pictures of fetal pigs around here somewhere.  Maybe
>I could mail you one.  (I used to show them to pro-forcers as we
>talked about fetal development.  I'd ask them to explain how
>the various parts of the fetus were going to change as the
>pregnancy progressed.  All of them assumed that they were human
>fetuses, I guess because they're indistinguishable from human
>fetuses in the early stages.

I'm really curious to see those pictures.  Please note, I am using the
FAQ definition of "fetus" as one past the 8th week of development, so
you need not bother sending the pictures if they are really of 
pigs in an earlier stage of development, UNLESS they are pictures of
fetal pigs used in comparative vertebrate anatomy labs for dissection.

  I wonder what Nyikos' point was.)

>Susan

Does this satire explain it?

**** Fetal pigs is pigs, but fetal humans is only potentially human ****

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40356 talk.politics.misc:49357 alt.sex:31811
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: n
Date: 4 Oct 92 01:55:22 EDT

In article <2772@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mjcrouch@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Matt J. Crouch) writes:
> Also, don't you pro-lifers think about the quality of "life" that the
> unborn child might receive?  I would not like to be born to parents who
> would not want me, or support me, or care for me!  this new "life" could
> only complicate real life for the family and others.  Think about it.


I think the subject line sums it all up :D

- Garrett


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: a good test of chaneyhall's veracity
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:30:55 GMT

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

I'm still waiting for him to post that Margaret Sanger .gif.

(I notice that poor old Chaneyhall has QN confused with
pride celebrations.  Oh, well, coming from someone who
thinks Naziism and the "Jews of New York" are places, I'm
not really surprised.)*

Susan,
who apologizes for the unfortunate juxtaposition above*





Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: You are hereby sentenced to nine months hard labor...
Summary: Why not allow abortion during all nine months of pregnancy? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 00:25:42 GMT

In article <80713@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>
>There seems to me that there are four main positions on abortion:
>
>1) Abortion on demand: abortion is always OK through all nine mos. of
>pregnancy

[...]

>
>Let's examine these positions, shall we?
>
>1)  I think none but the most calloused among us can seriously believe that
>abortion up until live birth is acceptable, as this requires delivery to
>be a prerequisite to humanity/life.  How can on argue that 3 inches separates
>a child from rights and no rights?  (If anyone *does* support this position,
>I'd *love* to hear the logic involved).

It's actually very simple, and the only workable solution.

A woman is pregnant.  At any time during the pregnancy, she can decide to
obtain an abortion.  If she does, she gets it.  No questions asked.

If she obtains the abortion before the z/e/f has a reasonable chance of
survival on its own, it dies.  If she obtains the abortion after the z/e/f
has a reasonable chance of survival on its own, it is saved, and given to
the woman who obtained the abortion, or to adoptive parents if she doesn't
want it.

>If I've missed a position let me know!

Well, in your rush to to get to your "OneTrueGodFearingBibleThumpingPosition
OnAbortion", you missed about six, but who's counting?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Oct 92 16:04:47 GMT

In <10467@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.072730.14377@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>You know, I threw a couple of pieces of bacon in a hot frying pan once.
>>They sizzled and popped, writhed and curled up, they even changed color.
>>
>>I never thought at any time that they were aware and feeling pain.  Do you?
>>

>  All the abortion rhetoric aside, do you really intend to imply
>  that a human fetus doesn't have the capability to feel pain?  What
>  gestational age are we talking about?

In the case I quoted at length from, which Storga purposely deleted
so he could make his tasteless joke, the little victim of saline
abortion was at five and a half months, already viable, "that is,
potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with
artificial aid,"
in Blackmun's curious phraseology [_Roe v. Wade_, 410 US at 160].

>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

>"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk

Something we could use more of where the unborn are concerned.