HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: NEWBIE ALERT! (was Re: Supreme Court) 
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:19:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.155357.1654@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

|> Could there be no difference between the taking of the "life" of a
|> human fetus and that of an animal one? 
|>

If we are avoiding religious and moral specifications, and looking 
purely at the "science", then, we need to accept the idea that life
is determined by a cell's ability to utilize energy (cellular
respiration). A cell that is not using energy is not alive.
 
|> Well, is there a difference between killing an adult human and an
|> adult cow? In America, there is: one is of the HUMAN species and the
|> other is not. 
|>

Two minor points,
	1) the fact that a human is a member of homo sapien and the
	   cow is not holds true in places other then america.

	2) again, if we are to look at this issue purely in a scientific
	   manner, there can be no difference between the termination
	   of a human life or the termination of a bovine life.
 
|> Since we know the human fetus is a member of the human species (well,
|> many pro-choicers tend to forget that, given that they continually
|> mix & match human fetuses with monkeys & chimps), by scientific facts,
|> it is a provable fact, and not a religious issue. 
|>

This is true, but the idea that a fetus holds any value or the idea that
a fetus may hold more value then the adult is a religious/moral issue.
 
|> And when the Supreme Court wakes up and realizes that scientific fact,
|> legal abortion will begin seeing its days numbered. 
|>

The fact that a human fetus is a member of the human species is of little
relevance to the scientific validity of abortion.

Scientifically, the validity of abortion should be determined by the
effect abortion would have on a species' evolutionary survival. If
abortion is an invalid practice, then it would have a significatly
decrease the evolutionary success of a species (i.e.: the species
would become extinct).

Now, since a number of species "practice" abortion, infanticide
and homosexuality in responce to detremental environmental pressures,
it would appear that these have a positive rather then negative
effect on species survival. That by insuring the survival of the 
breeding pairs this year, thus increasing the chances of offspring
next year, a species has a better chance of long term survival then
if it were to invest limited resources in the young at the the cost
of the breeding pairs.

This is also observable for humans. The only difference is that
because humans are able to manipulate their environment and are
(perhaps) more aware of their social interactions, the triggers
for abortion include social pressures as well as the more purely
environmental ones (shelter, food, water).

-- 
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 24 Jul 1992 18:50:34 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

         I  was  intrigued  to  see  so  many  messages regarding Clinton's
    position on abortion, none of which cited the New York Times report  on
    Monday.  Here is a quote from a letter to a constituent in Fall 1986.

         "I am opposed to abortion and to Geovernment funding of abortions.
    We should  not spend  state funds  on abortions  because so many people
    believe abortion is wrong".

         It  is  quite  likely  that  Clinton's  position and Bush's actual
    position are not  all that different  and their different  actions have
    more to do with where they are `shopping for votes'.

         I  was  heartened  by  the  last  word  in  Clinton's   acceptance
    statement:  "abortion  should  be  safe,  legal  and  rare".  But is he
    actually going to do anything to see that it IS rare?  I am afraid that
    his political realities (like Cuomo's) will prevent his actually  doing
    anything  to  bring  about  a  situation  where  we have NO unnecessary
    abortions  i.e.  where  abortions  for  convenience  are  very strongly
    discouraged.  The  reality is  that the  New York  Times thinks  that a
    Pennsylvania law giving rights to fathers is "Draconian" and  Feminists
    tied up   the Hudson  tunnel because  they were  angry about  a 24 hour
    waiting period.

         On abortion, there are three groups  in this country as I am  sure
    most  know.   (1)  People  totally  opposed,  (2)  people  in favour of
    abortion on demand, and finally, (3) people in favour of abortions only
    in severe  situations.  While  I have  much sympathy  with people  like
    Susan Forgach, I  fear that an  insistence on a  total ban on  abortion
    will ally the last two groups and we may lose the chance to have a sane
    policy that attempts to respect all rights.

         Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: Chaney does hypocrisy
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:25:36 GMT

> = (Susan "Chaney Buster" Garvin) writes:
>> = (Stephen A Chaney (at the moment)) writes ...

>>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 

>I think that I know the source of Chaney's new .sig lie.
>I think that some adult who supports legal abortion said
>"fuck you" to him.

:-)  

I nominate Garvin for being on the most impressive roll this month.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:26:19 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  <1992Jul29.012524.3335@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <Bs2BLt.pE@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin
> >In article <lefty-270792112623@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >>In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan
> >>Garvin) wrote:
> >>> #In article <1992Jul26.001305.18495@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
> >>> ##n article <3739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) wri
> >>> ##
> >>> ##Suzanne, my SO asked me to tell you that he finds you disgusting,
> >>> ##and he said that he is willing to explain to you just what
> >>> ##adult/child sex involves...
> >>> #
> >>> #Willing to explain, as in, speaks from experience? Gee, sounds like you
> >>> #hooked a real winner there, Susie dear. Say, how long is Mr. Right's
> >>> #prison furlough?
> >>>
> >>> You sicken me.
> >>
> >> Fuc* off and die as quickly as possible, would you?
> >>[lefty]
> >
> >To be fair I think that the original poster's quote was easy
> >to misinterpret.

In fact, I think the prison reference makes it fairly obvious that Kevin
*did* misinterpret it.

> Thanks for the effort, Steve, but once a witch-hunt is in full swing, it's
> often very difficult to demonstrate to the mob that the victim isn't actually
> a witch (shades of Monty Python and the Holy Grail :-). I have a feeling this
> one is no exception.

Except it's not a witch-hunt, it's an asshole-hunt.  And it's easy to
disprove the accusation - simply admit that you misinterpreted it, and
apologize.  (If you can't bring yourself to apologize to Susan, then at
least to her SO.)  Continuing to attack merely proves the accuracy of the
accusations.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: And Fischer's Down! (was Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Organization: Four weeks and counting...
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.001713.19641@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <l8gmtvj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>>> = Susan Garvin writes:
>>>>>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
>>
>>>Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
>>>gave it to you guys on the chin. 
>>
>>Who here is surprised that borg-for-brains refuses to admit his error?
>>Nobody?  Didn't think so.  His credo seems to be "Lie, and if caught, 
>>come up with another lie."
>
>Planned Parenthood DID run an advertisement with the statement that
>Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion. 

They did?  How come you're the only one who seems to have seen it?
(This sounds a lot like your NY Times article that said pretty much the
opposite of what *you* said it did.)

>Maybe THEY misprinted, but no one around HERE misread what we saw. 

Obviously not -- since no one else saw it, it'd be no problem to just make
the whole thing up.  Nothing out of the ordinary for you in that.

>Maybe YOU need to go fish, Ray. Say hi to Jaws. But don't worry; he
>won't eat you because he's scared it might make him stupid like you. 

Well, you're safe from ever being dumped into either the American *or* the
Sacramento -- too many people downstream are depending on clean water...

>>Given that he keeps shooting himself in the foot again, and again, 
>>and again, you'd think he'd just give it up since his credibility is 
>>by now worthless.
>
>And now... 
>
><POOF!> You're awake again and there's a great, big bullet hole in
>your foot, Ray! 

Great non sequitur there, Dennis.  Your credibility isn't worthless -- it's
non-existent...

>>>>Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
>>>>of your ass like Holtsinger does?
>>>
>>>Well, we would first have to learn the skill from you and Garvin, undoubtedly
>>>masters at the art. The art of blowing smoke out of your ass...  
>>
>>Whoops, there went the smoke alarm.  'Scuse me for a minute ...
>
>Yeah, put out that fire in your brain. You're thinking too hard and
>it's causing shortouts in your head. 

At least he *can* think.  When are YOU ever going to start?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
   A mind is a terrible thing to waste -- just look at Chaney if you don't
                                 believe me...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Love of Money (formerly: some gods are _not_ creaters...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 22:50:44 GMT

<1992Jul8.202057.6435@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- lite rock, less talk) said:
>What: <1992Jul8.184427.18628@noao.edu>
>Who:  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
>
>>Anyway, common examples of idolotry in wealthy western society are
>>love of self-indulgence, and love of money.  The first causes abortions,
>>and the second causes abortionists.
>
>Funny, when I saw "love of self-indulgence" and "love of money" I thought
>of televangelists.

I just thought of the birthing industry.  Let people indulge themselves
with more babies than they can afford, and charge them $40 for a pair of
baby shoes that will be worn for 10 days.

Talk about a racket.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More Interesting methods to gut the bible
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:45:23 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
] In <1992Jul23.174509.14362@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
[ traditional reading on Ex XXI. ] 

]   Gee, I guess we forgot that the New Testament is what Christians
] are supposed to follow, since Jesus said what he said was to take
] precedence--while we're bible-thumping here.  Unless you meant this only
] for those of the Jewish faith around here.

Interesting Position to present in Light of what you say below...

] >    "And if men strive together and hurt a woman so that her fruit
] > depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, as this
] > woman's husband shall lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges
] > determine.  But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for
] > life."
] >   
] >   This passage means that if a woman is caused to miscarraige, an
] > appropriate fine would be levied.  But if an harm followed, which
] > meant if THE WOMAN DIED, then it shall be "life for life."  It is
] > clear that the fetus was regarded as property, but the woman is a
] > LIFE, a human being, and only her loss would be regarded as death
] > to a person.
] 
]   Which only shows that the ancient Jews (like many, many, other cultures)
] held a lower regard for life than MOST of us today.

Dangerous position continues to expand...

Now after espousing the 'christians repudiate old testament' notion,
we see the start of the Classic XtianAntiSemeticDogma rear its ugly head...

Anyone wish to remind this person who taught saul of tarsus?

]   Laws change.  Once upon a time, it was legal in many countries (let alone the
] southern US) to own slaves.  Olde laws and customs are not NECESSARILY valid
] today.  Try another tack.

So lets see where we are....

The New Testament is suppose to be useful,
and since it supported Slavery, it too
can be trashed, now that cultural values
have evolved by way of SeXularHumanism....

So where are we to stand now that both the New and Old Testament
have been gutted and left bleeding along the way...

] semper fi,

Interesting notion....

But to what have you remained Faithful?????


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I rant a bit  (was Re: Abortion providers who oppose sterile conditions (was Re: Things)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:14:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul16.032915.25780@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.230048.18750@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>}Let me see if I understand you, Galen: you are "against" it, but you also
>}would vote for it and would support candidates who endorse it (?!?!?!).
>
>}What is your definition of "against", then?
>
>My definition of "against" is that I am not in favor of something. 

Galen, Galen, Galen, why do you dig yourself into these little pits of 
despair? Now you've been reduced to redefining "against" in such an absurd
way that you leave absolutely NO NADA ZERO ZILCH middle ground or room for
indifference or apathy. Everything is either "for" or "against" (== "not for", 
according to your definition). How binary. How one-dimensional. Are you
"for" or "against" concrete, Galen? How about polka-dots -- are you "for"
or "against" them?

This little semantic detour from common sense also seems to jar pretty 
badly against some other statements you've made too:

[re: laws prohibiting murder]

"Folks who see in binary and feel that you are either 'fer it 
 or again' it' are doubtless perplexed by such a feeling.  I 
 confess to being somewhat apathetic about it, being neither 
                                                     ^^^^^^^
 for or against.  I just don't much care." 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
			<1992Jul13.025936.21993@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

So apathy is okay when we're talking about murder laws, but not when we're
on the subject of abortion legislation, eh?

Sometimes you make no sense, Galen. Other times, you're ridiculous...

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29571 alt.birthright:166 alt.abortion.inequity:2754
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:59:37 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>
>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.

Answer this one, folks: 

Name one instance, even one, in which we can legally kill someone and
then cut them up for body parts. 

Or better yet, name one instance in which we can kill somoene for the
express purpose of cutting them up for body parts. 

I say that it shouldn't be done to anyone who doesn't have a donor
card that they voluntarily signed. That way, no one can be told,
"Well, you have to die because someone wants your body parts," and
then killed. 

Simple, isn't it? 

>-- 
>David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
>Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
>Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
>            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: where is a copy of 'evidence that demands a verdict'
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:32:33 GMT


What an absurd reference!


	_Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ is aa book that presents "historical
evidences for the christian faith".  It is produced by the Campus Crusade for
Christ, Inc and was prepared by a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Talbot 
Theological Seminary.  

	Since I'm a lot better with logic and the scientific method than
languages and history, I will primarily be concerned with the massive
logical flaws present, though I will include other items.  The entire
text is rife with circular reasoning,  attempts at incremental
confirmation, pleading to authority, and insufficient set definition,  but 
there are many other logical errors.  Please do not assume that just because 
it isn't mentioned here as an error I believe that it is correct.  He also
made up his own outline format.  I'm going to try to keep his organization.
Lines beginning with "}" are direct quotes taken from the book.  The material
I present is either written by me, or by someone on USENET, a mailing list, 
or email.  Where appropriate, I asked their permission to quote.  Look upon
them as "witnesses" for Josh's "verdict".

	Since his title seems to indicate SOME judicial standpart, using
"verdict", I believe that this will show that it is either wrong, unconfirmed,
debateable, or biased.  Thus, it "demands" no such thing.  Given the wide 
press this book gets, I expected better.

..................

And then over 3000 lines of where this guy's book is a joke.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:00:15 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul27.235200.27091@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:

> <adams.712206449@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
> >
> >God has created all that has been created.  He has always been, always will
> >be...He is an uncreated, eternal being.
> 
> Ah, the age old question...  What was he the day before he became an 
> uncreated eternal being?

  Same thing the universe was before the first Big Bang.  Where did it all 
start?  Why?  Why not?  All scientifically unanswerable questions.  I'd let
you know what's out there after I kicked off this mortal coil, if I had any
idea what my e-mail address would be.  (maybe Jammer@home.gates.of.heaven?)

  But enough sophomore philosophy.  On with the countdown!

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 03:53:26 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul28.005520.17198@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Jul27.061331.19284@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
#tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
#
##dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[text deleted]
## Ok, four simple questions:
##
## Pre-infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
## Infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
## Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
## Pregnant Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
#
#Since you're the one who's promoting the concept of bodily autonomy,
#why don't you tell me how your questions should be answered? 


"Please answer the question directly. ... Your last follow-up 
didn't address the question which I am asking. A "yes"
or "no" answer would be sufficient."

- Doug Holtsinger), <1992Jul25.201249.26851@ncsu.edu> 

"Why can't you answer the question directly? Is it that hard for you?" 

-Doug Holtsinger, <1992Jul26.152511.19843@ncsu.edu> 

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc