HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:01:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <BvoDE2.AEE@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>>  Abortion is not a crime.
>
>	Unfortunately
>
>>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>
>	Murder is more than just a legal term. If you kill my dog, I
>have every right to call it murder -- even though that term might not apply
>in a "legal" sense.

Of course you have every right to, but that doesn't make it so.
I can point to your dog and say "That there's a cat," and I have
every right to, but that does NOT make it a cat. You can point
to a fetus and say "child," but that doesn't make it a child, in
the "legal" sense.  And, as you said, you can point to an abortion
and call it murder, but no matter how loud you yell it, it just
doesn't make it true.

-Kristy
-- 
   +==========================+============================================+
   |Kristy Patterson          |"Jack's favorite author is the man who wrote|
   |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu |'Pull tab to open.'"      -Jewel of the Nile|
   +==========================+============================================+
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:04:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.154812.17843@cs.yale.edu>,
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep26.224638.24714@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:
> >In article <1992Sep25.213302.16675@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
> >(Eric Rescorla) writes:
> >Oh, read:  (There is to much for me to type it all)
> >
> >MATT 7:1-6
> >MATT 23:1-12
> >MARK 7:1-15
> >LUKE 6:37-42
> >     11:37-54
> >     16:16-17
> >John 8:1-11
> >
> >Making abortion illegal is very similiar (if not equivalent) to what the
> >pharisees were doing, which Jesus hated so much.

> This would support a general argument that ANY law enforcing a morality
> is wrong. Is that an argument you want to make? Kiss murder laws goodbye.

Please also note:

Matt 22:21:  

"...Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to
God what belongs to God."

Granted, Jesus was specifically speaking about Taxes in this passage, but
Jesus is noted for speaking in symbolic terms also.  As is the case here. 

Jesus says here (and in other places) that we are to obey the laws of the
state where they do not conflict with what he preaches.  Murder laws are
still
valid. 
Sorry.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:28:51 GMT

Before Roe v. Wade, there was never any Constitutional right for 
an individual to kill a human being.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:13:48 GMT

eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>In article <jlbzyx_@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> 
>> Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
>> 
>> >There is no point after conception that is a reasonable place to draw the
>> >line.
>> 
>> Sure there is.  Birth.

>Why?  Please defend as best you can.

One of the strongest points for choosing birth is that WE ALL KNOW when
birth happens.  It's there, it's visible, and there's generally a good
deal of noise involved.

When were you conceived?  Not, "on a camping trip" or "after a few
bottles of wine on Mom and Dad's anniversary", but the day, hour,
and minute.  You don't know, and you can't find out.  But I bet you'd
have no trouble finding out the day, hour, and minute of your birth.

Until you are born, your life is a gigantic question mark.  Many
babies do not survive the birth process.  So until birth, it's
almost impossible to estimate how successful a given fetus will
be as an air-breather.  This happened to someone in my birthing
class.  Normal pregnancy, not a problem detected, happy parents,
and a stillbirth.  The kid just wasn't destined to live.

Not to mention the blatantly obvious fact that once you are born, you
are no longer bodily dependent on another human being.  

>> >If anything happens to the fetus after conception that does no allow it do
>> >become an adult, that would come under "interference."  If nothing
>> >interferes, that fetus will grow up to be an adult person.  I can explain
>> >further if you wish.

>> Yet another variation on "Why is conception so special?  Because
>> conception is so special."

>Because it is the start of human life.

Human life began several million years ago.  Conception is just a
stage.

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:57:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.225425.25128@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu 
writes:
}In article <-50nk1h.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

}>Myelenation is the point where myelin forms around the nerves.  Without
}>myelin, nerves don't work.  MS (or is it ALS?) is a disease involving the 
}>deterioration of this sheath.  Invariably fatal.

Multiple sclerosis (ms), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (als) and primary
lateral sclerosis (pls) all involve deterioration of the myelin sheath.
Neither the cause nor a cure is known.  While sometimes fatal, they
are not invariably so.  Most often, someone with such a diagnosis finds
that their condition is not life threatening, but the quality of life is 
certainly affected.  Perhaps the most famous example of als is Stephen
F. Hawking.

}>Before this stage in the development of a fetus, it is clearly incapable
}>of thought or sensation.  Thus, it becomes a useful measure of human-ness.

}Many adults in a coma are like this also.  

Not at all.  Most patients in a coma have nothing whatever wrong with 
their myelin.   Mri scans can prove that this is not the case.

Perhaps Mr. Gorr knows something unknown to the rest of the medical
establishment.  If so, I would suggest he contact:

NIH/National Institute of Neurological Disorders & Stroke (NINDS)
9000 Rockvill Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:57:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.212737.10910@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Wasn't it YOU who also jumped in on that Dennis Hall prank that Roby
>started, which made me killfile you?

It was your prank, started by you.  I found out the truth and posted it.

>Your unconcern with lie-mongering shows how hypocritical you are.

That you can write things like this and still *not* be struck by lightning 
is clear evidence to me that God doesn't believe in you either.  :-)



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:43:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>: I did, I asked if they minded, I got no reply which I took as consent.
>>: "Let them speak up now, or forever hold their peace."
>>
>>What arrogant crap that is.
>>
>>Did you ask any 1-year old infants?  2-year olds?  4-year olds?
>>Comatose people?  Sleeping people?  Mentally retarded people?
>>Senile people?   

(would be) mothers?

>Bravo. Finally, someone nixes this stupid "consent" argument of the
>pro-aborts.

And pro-lifers.  Except in that case it's called "implicit" consent.

>I say we should write a general law that says that unless you get consent,
>you cannot put an innocent life to death, in any fashion.  [...]

Or force a woman to give birth?

>A simple, quick, easy and final piece of law. Really, can these
>pro-deathers show us how it is that non-response from someone who can't
>respond, means they are giving consent?

I'd ask if anyone was stupid enough to think that such a law would quick,
easy, or simple, but I already know the answer to that question.

>If they can show this, they have hence shown that newborns consent to being
>killed, in the legal sense, because they cannot possibly give non-consent.
>
>My law wins purely by means of Catch-22. :)

Awww, how cute.  The official virus thinks he's being clever.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:34:04 GMT

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

>In <1992Sep20.012026.15757@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:


>>Wrong.  The fetus is already dead.

>Not always.  In the drive for fresh, "live" brain tissue, a new method
>of abortion has evolved.  Here is Bernard Nathanson's description:

>"Pregnant women at 13-18 weeks are placed on an operating table, 
>the cervix is dilated, the bag of waters broken, the fetal head is
>guided into position just above the open cervix, the fetal skull is
>then drilled open and a suction device is placed into the brain.
>The brain substance is then suctioned out and placed immediately on
>ice to preserve its viability."
>	[ALL About Issues, March/April 1992]

Let's just check Nathanson's credibility on the subject of fetal
tissue research a weeee bit further, shall we?

	...[some people] are pushing hardest for the transplant of
	fetal brain tissue from aborted babies into the brains of
	adults suffering from Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's
	disease.  Do they realize that in proposing such a procedure
	they are advocating putting the body of one individual into
	another human being to creat a somatic multiple person (this
	concept is common to all tissue and organ transplant), but
	also in placing brain tissue into someone else's brain they
	are creating a second personality as well?  Think of it:
	two human beings of separate tissues and separate personal-
	ities within the shell of one being.

	-Bernard Nathanson, _ALL About Issues_, August-September 1991

Does Nathanson have any evidence to back up this bizarre claim?
If so, exactly HOW did he obtain this evidence?  Has he been doing
experimentation in this area?

                    -rocker
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:54:48 GMT

In article <BvCrr9.L79.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> 
> I understand that one of these people (it could be Bailey) won
> the primary.  I'm not sure if he ran the ads during the
> primary race or not.  
> ....
>  Parents were complaining that they didn't want
> their kids to see the bloody fetus pictures, and the "candidate"
> answered that "children need to know what abortion really is."
> I'm willing to bet that this guy would oppose sex education
> in schools because only he should decide when his children
> are ready to know about sex and what they should be taught.

Susan - it bothers me when people have to make presumptions about
other peoples motives, in this case Mr. Bailey, to bolster their
own position.  Bailey may be a hypocrite but that doesn't detract
from his point that "children need to know what abortion really is."

Just trying to figure out why people believe the way they do.

Paul
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: What can be known absolutely.
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:25:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>I pointed this out to you in Email, Mr. Gorr. Physical properties
>>are predicted by QM to at least appear to be nondeterministic.
>>Therefore any method of death you choose has some nonzero probability
>>of you not dying. These probabilities are so close to zero as to be
>>uninteresting practically, but you claimed certainty and that is
>>unavailable.
>
>Ok, how about this, you believe that there is a nonzero probability
>that my death will occur.  I think this is wrong.  You disagree.
>
>I know this absolutly, unless, you are saying that you were lying
>above...

Well then, you betray your ignorance of physics and philosophy.  Eric 
is not only correct in his statement, he is being accurate and fair in 
is description of your chances of survival.

I recommend you read Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy"
for a discussion of what can be known absolutely.  The first and
second meditations are relevent and only span some 16 pages.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:33:56 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: misc.test

In  <4jkz=t+@rpi.edu>  keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> 
> why would anyone care if a person like you, who has
> lied about people who considered you a friend, respected
> someone or not? you've demonstrated that your respect is
> as worthless as your word.

You can, no doubt, document this?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), MARGOLI@watson.IBM.COM (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: On the Nature of 'Flamage' - a Reprieve...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:55:04 GMT

ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:

] Jennifer,
] 
] Don't be so condescending.
 
He said, condescendingly....

] This has brought up a nagging question. If people really want to
] discuss this issue, or any issue, why do they continually throw 
] flames at eachother? It's not like anyone's going to listen to your
] point. They're going to get angry and throw more flames back.
] 
] What I wrote above is a perfect example of what I see every day.
] 
] And I just don't understand it.


Small Clue for you:

1. There are Those of US Who are Patriotic, and wish to defend
the Republic from the Threat of Fascism.

2. There are those of US Who are Seeking to defend Traditional
Family Values from Radical Extremeists.

3. There are those of US Who are Seeking to maintain
traditional Christian Values in the Face of SeXularHumanism.


Then there are AntiAbortionists.

Does this Help clarify that it really is a simple matter
that those who Wish to Destroy the Republic, with their
Fetal Idolatory are on the Wrong Side, and MUST BE STOPPED!!!!


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:40:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

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 wonder what Nyikos' point was.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:50:49 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  <1992Sep29.191554.13775@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.050829.27458@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> >
> > If you don't understand why I consider that declaring human life to be not
> > human life is irrational, then I don't think I can explain it to you.
>
> Try.

"Human life" implies "human life".  It's a tautology.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.204011.8370@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>Of course they're still alive.  The point being that there is little
>>>difference between an egg and a zygote, and that the personhood bigens
>>>at conception reasoning is no less arbitrary than the personhood begins
>>>at birth reasoning.  Given that they're both pretty arbitrary, and
>>>that the conception model is really tough to manage, why not birth?
>>
>>There is a big difference between an egg and a zygote.  In its current form,
>>put the egg in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.  Any screaming,
>>crying baby?
>
>Sure.  Just add one sperm, nutrients, waste removal, water,
>temperature regulation, chemistry, shelter, a little luck, and 
>viola!
>

The existence of a human life has nothing to do with the circumstances
around it.  A human life exists because it is there.  Sure it may die
when not given the right surroundings.  But nonetheless, it still exists.

Also, you cannot call a sperm or egg in isolation a member of homo sapiens.

>
>>Also, I hope you can agree with me here, an egg/sperm/any human cell in my
>>body is not a member of homo sapiens while the zygote definitely is.
>
>Because you say so?
>

Because it makes sense.  Science says it makes sense too.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 09:56:05 GMT

>bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS) writes:
>
>
>>Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
>>spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
>>no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
>>plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 
>
>This is a good question; what is it doing on "alt.rush-limbaugh", though?
>
>>Brian
>>Tetsu Yama

I deleted all irrelevant newsgroups.  Let's keep this thread in the sex
groups, okay?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:12:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.003545.1568@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu 
(Eric Gorr) writes:

}Huh?  I don't quite understand your point here.  Please expand.

Jesus would neither campaign for a secular law, nor would he be found
at a "pro-life" rally.  As a matter of fact, I doubt you can find
any New Testament support for any (*any*) secular law...

Ask your minister (or priest, or whatever) what belongs to Ceaser and 
not to G(g)[h]od(d)[ess]...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:34:08 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  <1992Sep29.082752.1337@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <k4_pjhr.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writ
> >
> >That wasn't the question.  It's empirically verifiable that it's
> >human, because it has human DNA.  But is it a PERSON?  If not, why not?
>
> The pro-life movement (I can't speak for it though)

Then why are you?

> and I are concerned
> about HUMAN life BORN and UNBORN.  Human life begins at conception.  A
> discussion on "PERSON" (a fight over semantics) may not even be that
> relevant.  It's a human life.  Doesn't that count for anything to people?
                                                                    ^^^^^^
(More things that make you go "Hmmmm."  :-)

Nope, just because it's human life doesn't mean anything.  Men's sperm is
human life, and billions of them die every day, but you don't see people
whining Onan-on about "spilled seed".

*People* matter to me, and the women that you would force to go through an
unwanted pregnancy just happen to be people.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt you for a little while" - "Prince"
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:53:25 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
>>>Please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder for
>>>using lethal force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.
>>
>>(Somewhat) relevent case happened recently in this part of California.
>>Man breaks into house, rapes woman.  She gets away and runs to kitchen
>>while the guy trips over the pants around his knees.  By time he
>>catches up to her she has a large knife.  Result: if the police hadn't
>>found him unconcious in his car, he would have bled to death.  He's
>>facing many years in prison, she isn't.
>
>Well, he didn't die, so they couldn't charge her with murder.  Do you
>happen to know if she is facing any charges at all?  Maybe assault with
>a deadly weapon?  Anything?

Are you kidding?  She's in court pushing for a tougher sentence for
the rapist.  It is hard to conceive of any scenario that would allow
the DA to both keep his job _and_ charge her with any crime.  Granted,
I omitted some details from the story (like how he tried to get take
the knife from her by force), but it is clearly a case of self
defense.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity