HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:43:23 GMT

In <1992Sep28.030021.7074@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Sep27.203052.4629@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.013224.14982@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>> 
>>> Please explain why, IYO, "at conception, a person exists".
>>
>>It is the start of the process that will result in a newborn child if 
>>nothing interferes with it's development.

>This statement is not correct.  1/2 to 2/3rds of all z/e/f's fail to implaint.

I'm still waiting for a published source on this claim.
>>
>>I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.  

>So, tell me something.  Was Hurricane Andrew "good" or "bad" interference?
>Was Mount St. Helens "good" or "bad" interference?  Is a miscarriage "good"
>or "bad" interference?

Natural disasters are a different category from willed actions. [I do hate
to belabor the obvious, but Mr. Cochran's disingenousness is a little too
heavy-handed for me to stomach.]

>>
>>An example of bad interference would be anything that prevents the fetus
>>from being born and where cases occur which would result in euthanasia
>>being permissable.

>So if a pregnant woman gets struck by lightning, and has a miscarriage, that's
>"bad interference"?  I think I see your point here...

>>
>>An example of good interference would be anything that makes it possible
>>for the fetus to be born without any cases occuring where euthanasia would
>>be permissable.

>So if a pregnant woman doesn't want to be pregnant, we can strap her down to
>a table for nine months, force feed her lots of vitamins, etc etc etc, and
>that "good interference"?  I think I see your point here...

>Maybe you should ask Kevin about joining his net.cop group. (This last line
>is the only sarcasm I've used in this post.  Ignore it.)

Cute.  If you take "This last line" to refer to

>is the only sarcasm I've used in this post.  Ignore it.)

we get a kind of paradox.  Otherwise, we get another hard-to-stomach
example of Cochran's disingenouousness.

>= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
>=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =

You quoted it, not I.  It applies quite well to your disingenuousness,
except that I warned *you* about something quite different.

Peter Nyikos
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:06:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep25.173400.23838@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>Well, as an initial responce, I would encourage you to listen to or get the
>words for:
>
>What about the Love
>
>By Amy Grant on the LEAD ME ON cd.
>
>More is comming...

Yeah. I think another scholarly publication on the morality of abortion
is Neil Sadaka's 'Having my baby.' :-)

How about BIBLICAL support for / against abortion? To the best of my
knowledge, Amy Grant did not write a single book of the Bible.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:35:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In <25877@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wr

]>>How about making a law against someone "throwing" a heavy tool or the
]>>like down to earth from orbit? It could kill someone, but there is no
]>>law against it.

>>Litter laws.

Only if it lands somewhere where litter is against the law. There is
no law against the action, in this case, only in the result. (if it
lands in a trash receptacle, it is not littering)

>Reckless endagerment will do, also...

Again, a result. The action is not against the law. This would be the
basis of a suit, as it could, in all honesty, be argued that all precautions
were taken to not injure anyone.

The point was originally to show that a law against third tri abortions
was as pertinent as this obtuse case. Hopefully that point is made.

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,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:33:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.183054.15612@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.155709.18679@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>>>
>>>we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
>>>do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control, 
>>>perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.
>>
>>Well, well, well...
>>
>>I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
>>a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
>>hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
>>Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>
>>There.  Is it sinking in yet?
>>
>>(nod your little head.)
>>
>>Jennifer
>
>Jennifer, your statement works for anything up to the moment before 
>live birth.  Let me modify that statement for one moment after that.
>
>   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
>   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
>   Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted child.
>
>Why does your statement fail just because we wait one moment longer?  
>Perhaps because your statement is flawed.
>
>Ted
> 
Ah, Ted, Ted, Ted.  I see you need a lesson, too.

Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
  Abortion is not a crime.
  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.

There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
Are you getting it yet?

Jennifer 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 06:41:02 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  <1992Sep30.050730.10253@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.163408.142786@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
> >
> >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".
>
> As I've said time and time again, sperm isn't human life!  No scientist
> or biologist will agree with you on that assertion.

Are you asserting it isn't human, or that it doesn't constitute "life"?
I'll assume the latter.

Perhaps you'd better provide the definition you're using for "life".
If you mean "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional
being from a dead body or purely chemical matter", then clearly that
applies to a sperm as well as to a zygote.  If you mean "person",
then clearly that applies to neither.

As I said previously, *people* are what concern me.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Man-bashing Women (was Re: Don't push your morals on me.)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:11:09 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Boy, you sure got it made in the shade, bub, don't you.   You're
>gettin' her money and her sexual favors too, and you ain't even signed 
>on the dotted line yet.  Let me guess, Mr. Sleeze Bucket.  You ain't
>even set a date yet, right?   

Why must you persist in being the biggest male-basher around?
(ok, ok, the question was rhetorical)

You continue to spread your implications that no man is capable
of comitting to a woman of his own free will, that men must be
"caught" by women who, I presume, must use the lure of sex to
befuddle the poor fools until they are so confused that they'll
do anything to get into her panties.  This is, I presume, when 
the woman "gets" him to marry her?  What a sad, sad, world you
live in when you think men are incapable of love or committment.
What a sad, sad marriage you must have.  Or is this another one
of your endless list of "This applies to everyone on the planet
except me and my family."?

This may come as a shock to you Suzanne, but some men don't have
to be "caught".  Some men love thier wives, and entered into 
marriage of their own free will, not because they thought it was
the only way they could get sex.  Some men are actually more
anxious to marry and less anxious to have sex than some women.

But you're welcome to keep your smelly old stereotypes.  I, for
one, have no interest in them.  Bash away all you like, and be
confused when men get angry about it.

Have fun.

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.044229.9346@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu 
(Martin Guerrero) writes:

}          It might be better to disassociate abortion from the political
}spectrum altogether.

Might?  You have doubts?  Pray tell, what makes you think that abortion
should be a political issue?

--
       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...
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Substantiated Facts (was Re: Garvin forgets
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:46:50 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <nyikos.717800606@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Dennis who?  Oh, I get it, you are still repeating those 
>unsubstantiated rumors about Dennis Hall being Steve Chaney.

Hi Peter,

Steve Chaney owned the account from which the "Dennis Hall" posts came.
The administrator of both his accounts told this to me on the 
phone after Chaney unsuccessfully tried to get my account fried.

Feel free to contact me and I will give you the whole story.

One other person in this newsgroup has independently contacted Chaney's 
site administrator and was told the same thing I was told.

Incidentally, at the time that Steve's prank was exposed, his 
charade was so transparent that no one argued on his behalf -- 
from either side of the abortion issue.

I have to choose between what Chaney says and what his administrator 
says.  I choose the latter.  It is not an "unsubtantiated rumour" 
to me.

-Scott Roby  (roby@brahms.udel.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40544 talk.politics.misc:49505 alt.sex:31920 alt.rush-limbaugh:6527 alt.politics.elections:15140 alt.politics.clinton:8452 alt.politics.bush:7713
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
: 
: >  Abortion is not a crime.
: 
: Legal definition only.  It can be changed at any time by an act of congress.

Such an act would be (or should be) beyond Congress' power.  The STATES
have the authority to write criminal law.  With the exception
of treason, and "interstate/international" crimes (ex: kidnapping
across state lines, smuggling), the federal government does not have
the authority to legislate criminal laws.

: >  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
: 
: Why?  If congress passes a law that says that abortion is murder, then it
: is murder.

Again, such a law would be unconstitutional.  Congress does NOT have 
that kind of authority, despite what it thinks.

: >  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
: 
: Your definition, not universally accepted.  My copy of Webster's defines
: murder as the killing of a human being.

So the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of adults?  My goodness,
what interesting lawsuits could be created by ambulance chasers if this
were the case!  A child suing his mother for not eating properly or for
smoking while she was pregnant.

That's a can of worms we don't want to open.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Consistency and Law
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:34:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.182859.17633@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>] 
>] The question of whether laws banning abortion could be *consistent*
>] does not require an argument about belief - I should hope.

>I am afraid that this point is NOT as clear as it could be.
>
>Are you asserting that Abortion Laws should form a new
>class of laws, such as that they are to be clearly consistent.
>
>Or that as a General Theory of Jurisprudence it is
>wise to establish such laws as will provide consistent
>implementation of consistent theories.

>The former is clearly the case of Law as it is practiced,
>and all too often, in particular, with 'child support laws'
>as they are implemented.
>
>The Latter is a clear presuppositional position that has NOT
>in point of fact been held over the course of western history.


Your cynicism is refreshing.  I am not asserting any of the above.

I am asserting that objections to anti-abortion laws on the basis
that they are inherently inconsistent (with self or with other laws)
have a false basis.

You may choose for yourself how much "consistency" has to do with
implementing laws or valuing beliefs.

I think that current "child support laws" are not consistent with
legalized abortion, as they do not provide equal protection to men.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40348 talk.politics.misc:49355 alt.rush-limbaugh:6463 alt.politics.clinton:8350 alt.politics.bush:7632
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:51:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1aduobINNlht@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Daniel West) writes:
>
>Why is it unfortunate that we have on the ballot in California a
>measure which would allow physicians to assist persons wishing
>to commit suicide? (Ignoring for the moment the particulars of the
>initiative, which are somewhat dubious in nature, what is wrong
>with the idea?)
>A doctor should not be REQUIRED to assist a patient wishing to die.
>But if a doctor, like Mr. Kervorkian, wishes to help a terminally
>ill person in carrying out his wishes, what then is the problem? 

Because only one of the several people Dr. Kevorkian helped kill 
was terminal.  The others just wanted to die, they were not terminal.

Ted

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:10:15 CST
 <1992Sep26.005723.18401@cs.yale.edu> <1992Sep28.020302.7897@ncsu.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep28.020302.7897@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:
> 
>>>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>>>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
>>>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>>> of income in our relationship..  
                  **************** 
> I would expect a pro-"choicer" to blast the original 
> poster for insinuating that he would exercise some 
> control over his fiance's decision to abort. Is that
> expectation not applicable when the man's financial
> situation is at stake?  

What's surprising about a fiance having an effect on the woman's
decision?  The financial situation at stake was *the couple's* not
just the man's.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
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 21:13:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.033029.124744@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
(Larry Margolis) writes:
> 
> In  <1992Sep24.224638.22235@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep23.040913.29268@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > >
> > > In  <1992Sep22.232133.29152@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Go
> > > > In article <1992Sep19.164114.2317@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <1992Sep17.211955.9280@nntp.uoregon.edu>, egorr@hebb.uoregon.ed
>
> > Please note and as others have pointed out, I am not using the strict
> > dictionary meaning.  I am in fact free to define terms any way I wish, so
> > long as they are understandable, clear and useful.
> >
> > Any other comments?
> 
> Why, yes.  Making up your own definitions and using them instead of the
> standard definitions of words is neither understandable, clear, nor useful.

Then please let me know what those definitions are that you don't
understand and I will
explain further.  

> > > > A sperm or an egg, seperated, does not constitute human life.
> > >
> > > Are they human sperm and eggs?  Are they alive?
> > >
> > > They're *just* as much "human life" before conception as they are after.
> >
> > No, they are not - not at least the way I define them.  Left seperated,
> > they will *NEVER* be "born."
> >
> > Clear?
> 
> I believe so.  You choose to define some forms of human life as human life,
> and other forms of human life as not human life.  Not only is it clear, but
> it's irrefutable - if one accepts your axioms.

correct.  Why do you not accept my axioms...how does it lead me to believe
something
irrational?
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:05:44 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep30.023021.9364@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

an ungrammatical, poorly spelled paragraph of drivel and ends with

#P.S. Bite me weenies

I think that it was very nice of someone to go out and find a
friend for Dennis.  It wasn't really necessary, though, since
little Peter Nyikos has given up pretending to be an adult
and started posting similar excrement.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 00:48:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>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.  

Well then, if one person is feeding it and another changing its daipers,
does that mean it wholly dependent on TWO people?  And if a third cooked
the food, does that make it wholly dependent on THREE people?  And if
a fourth is providing amusement, does that make it wholly dependent on
FOUR people?  And since it's breathing oxygen supplied by plants, does 
that make in wholly dependent on FOUR people AND the whole of the plant
kingdom?

If you really can't see the difference between being pregnant and being
a babysitter for a few minutes, then you must either be exceedingly
stupid, exceedingly naive, or think we are stupid enough to buy into
this argument.

>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.

Nonsense.  I'm not even going to bother with that any more than to say
that the baby will survive days on its own and can breath quite well by
itself.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: For Adrienne and Kathi
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:06:32 GMT

In article <nyikos.718033017@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.104445.28790@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.717640402@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>>
>>>Adrienne, by the way, did not use a smiley when she came up
>>>with that story about hearing women screaming at doctors to
>>>stop delivering their children.  Part of her prerogative as
>>>Lady High Everything Else, you see, is to leave them off.
>
>>[Adrienne] is a doggedly consistent defender of individual
>>choice for women, and a system of values which places the life
>>and life plans of a thinking, feeling, living, breathing woman
>>above the interests of potential lives in all cases. 
>			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Please read my post, "Adrienne's appalling attitude towards the unborn,"
>noting especially her use of the word "kill" ["potential lives" indeed!].
>You are out of sync with even her terminology, dedicated pro-choicer
>though she is.
>
>I will deal with the rest of your insincere post, and also the
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Petey, honey, you misogynist slimeball sanctimonious slug,
please enlighten this poor heathen concerning which god has died
and appointed you the judge of my sincerity.

>words "doggedly consistent" when I am not so pressed for time.
>I'm giving my first two hour tests today, the last date for
>students here withdrawing without a failing grade being October 8.
>
muriel
standard disclaimer