HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates)
Subject: Re: Some opinions from pro-choicers on the personhood status of infants
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.182912.11120@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>   "Given a definition of "person" which depends upon brain function,
>    I think the argument can be made that the newborn infant is not a
>    fully functional person.  I, personally, would not hold that a three-day
>    old infant is a person in any useful sense of the word."

> jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates)
> <JBATES.92Oct30113645@pinocchio.encore.com>

Yes. Now please show where I explicitly advocate laws which would allow
people to kill infants merely because they do not possess the brain
function of a full grown adult.

Really, Doug, you're clutching at straws. You'll do anything to get your
way, hmm?

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Conservative Position, and Why it's Morally Correct
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:58:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.221350.2733@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>The Conservative Position, and Why it's Morally Correct

>     Generally speaking, the conservative position on abortion, or
>pro-life position,

Uh....  Brian, there is no one conservative position on abortion.  I
think most people would consider The Wall Street Journal editorial
page "conservative".  But their opinion on abortion is basically that
allowing abortion until quickening is a good enough compromise / close
enough to accurate for them.  Ye olde "pro-life" / "pro-choice" labels
may evoke emotional reactions, but at least they're understood to mean
the positions you're assigning to them....

Otherwise, in general so far a good paper....

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

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:11:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov4.182400.14587@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> Linda entered this thread when she commented to Dean about 
> my alleged disrepect for women...

*Yawwwn*  Snortle, chort, hmmph...Did somebody call me?

> Again, she jumped into this thread by commenting to Dean about 
> my alleged disrespect for women...

Hmm? Ahump, ahump.  There it was again.

> That *is* what happened.  First, her original comments were not 
> to me*, they were to Dean regarding me...

Damn.  And I was having such a lovely post-election nap.

Wha's up?

> If you're implying that I may some difficulty in that
> regard, you are sadly mistaken.  The character flaws
> that have been assigned to me of late only reinforce
> my observation that this forum is more about character
> assassination than anything else.

Oh.  That again.  Yes, that's it all right.  You should
feel good about it though, Bill.  Take Dennis Hall.  No
character to assassinate.  The Reverend Doug Holtsinger
is another one who has not enough character to assassinate.

Now don't wake me again, dammit.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Summary: Or, It's Time For The Darcy Quiz! 
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: Thu, 5 Nov 92 05:57:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.184440.6220@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, Keith Cochran candidly
>admitted:
>
>"...let me
> tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>
> -------------------------Start Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
> 1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
> ---------------------------End Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>"
>
>Is this as harmless as it looks?

[Kevin attempts to improve his "pro-choice" standing by making me look
foolish, deleted].

Pop quiz time, Kevin!

(1)Have you ever seen me advocating enacting _any_ legislation wrt abortion?

(2)Have we ever seen you advocating "forcing" a woman to give up her child?

--
=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???=
="When we're free to love, anybody we choose; then we shall be free.  We shall=
=be free" - Garth Brooks, paraphrased. Still a RadikalFeministLesbianBitch....=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46833 soc.men:18723 alt.dads-rights:2556
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos and SAT
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:05:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <nyikos.720736852@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}In reality, I wanted to conceal my credentials on the net as long
}as possible.  

Why did you want to do that, Peter?  If they are so unimportant
to you why would you desire to conceal them?  Why would you wish
to make an effort one way or the other?

[I said the following, I deleted the attribution line, but believe me,
I said it]

}>Second, it reveals that you believe that your scores and math 
}>achievements somehow leak over into your performance in talk.abortion.
}
}I never said anything like this.  

Uh, Peter, I never said that you said it, neither did I say you wrote
it.  I said that it reveals (note, a revelation does not have to
be spoken or written) something about your belief.  You may dispute
that, but your denial that you ever said something has nothing (zip, zilch,
nada) to do with it.

[The rest of Peter's denial deleted, along with his concern for snowballs,
along with his personal doubts about the existance of hell.]

Peter, your continued attempts to portray yourself as the somewhat
innocent victim of an "in-joke," as you put it, misses the mark 
entirely.  You look like a fool.  Whether it is due to egotism,
shallowness or dishonesty I don't know.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Maryland: An anomoly?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:02:22 GMT




Sorry, my Newsgrazer is a tad dysfunctional this week (the Next system at  
Maryland has gone down - again - forcing me to use 'rn' - yeah, I know,  
most everyone uses 'rn', but I'm not a great mathematicina and mensa  
candidate like Petey (just a humble anthropologist so these things are a  
little more difficult for me than for the average camper), so I suppose  
I'll have to answer another question here that I should have archived:


Re: Maryland support for Question # 6
Maryland MIGHT BE an anomoly. We are pretty much a conservative state, yet  
we vote for democrats pretty much all the time. On the other hand , I like  
to think that Maryland is what all the other states would be like if only  
they could (with the possible exception of NY - can't wait till  
thanksgiving,  real deli at last)..................................



ciao
jeff




"God Bless Y'all Real Good"
	- Maryland State Treasurer Louis Goldstein
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Myelination and Fetal Brain Development (Criteria for Personhood
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:39:13 GMT

In article <nyikos.721337097@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1d66v0INNk2s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov1.160407.2673@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>>In article <nyikos.720216719@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>Why should the momentary dependency of the fetus on
>>>> the mother, in the case of offspring past the 24th week, 
>>>Momentary?  9 months x 4 weeks = 36 weeks.  36 - 24 = 12 weeks.
>>>12 weeks is momentary?  I thought you were a mathematician, Peter.
>>>Mathematicians usually have at least a tiny grasp of relativity wrt
>>>the concept of time.
>
>I also happen to know that premature births can happen any time, and
>with modern medical techniques the offspring past 24 weeks now have 
>a better than even chance of survival.
>
Source?  Thirteen years ago the chances were only about
50-50 for a preemie at 32 weeks.  Can you document that
a 25-week preemie now has _better_ than a 50-50 chance?
(As of one year ago, the odds at 23 weeks were < 5%.
My source is the neonatal ICU at Presbyterian Medical
Center in Albuquerque. Note: the preceeding figures are
based on 40 weeks as fullterm gestational age.)

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 14:47:55 GMT

In article <BxMw2q.Ivw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
|> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|> I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
|> >|> anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
|> >|> "be let off the hook".  Any man who has sex is as responsible for the
|> >|> child conceived as the woman, and neither should be allowed to kill/abandon
					 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >|> that child simply because s/he is inconvenient to their plans for the
       ^^^^^^^^^^ 
|> >|> future.  Children are not sacrifices to the gods of expediency, despite
|> >|> the fact that at least 3.2 million people every year think they are.
|> >|> 
|> 
|> >Since you are arguing that the parents of a fetus/child be required by
|> >the state to care for that child regardless of the expedience. Then,
|> >should the state provide for such services as adoption, social services,
|> >etc (after all these services allow for parents to abdicate some or all
|> >of their resposibility to the child)?
|> 
|> The child should not be killed, in utero or ex utero.  Period. 
|> Adoption doesn't result in the child's death, therefore it's perfectly
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> acceptable.  If the mother carries the child to term, SHE certainly hasn't
   ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> abdicated responsibility.  Has the father?  Depends on where he's at.
|> If he isn't helping to take care of his lover and their unborn child,
|> then, yes, he's abdicated his responsibility.  
|> 


In the first paragraph, you state that death and abandonment are
unacceptable and neither parent should be allowed to have those
options. How do you reconcile this with the statement in your 
second paragraph, that adoption is acceptable? Haven't the
parents abandoned the child; after all they have no idea or control of the
type of care the child will receive.

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: A new battleground
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:19:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.182458.16036@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu 
writes:

}                                                                       But 
}the frogs are a wonderful small animal and well worth anyone's support.

Bats are all of that, plus they are warm and furry.  Btw, their mouths
are generally too small to bite humans effectively, save perhaps on the
tip of a little finger if you hold it *just so*.

Also, bats are not blind, neither do they get tangled in your hair, 
they are both communal or solitary (depending on the particular
species), vegitarian or carnivorous (again, depending on the 
species) and a host of other things.  In North America, they
generally consume many, many flying insects (including mosquitos).

}There can only be one choice.  Frogs forever.

If I had never met a bat I might indeed choose a frog.  Frogs are
indeed second, although not a close second...

Besides, frogs are green and slimy and ikky.  Besides, kissing
one may destroy the frog as you know it.  "Bat" is easier to 
spell, too.

}I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?

The frog probably took it.  Bats think for themselves.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:16:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.183007.14101@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:

> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
> abortions?

I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:22:17 GMT

>  = kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> How do most people here perceive what the word 'person' means? I thought 
>>> I knew what it meant. But I've never thought of a person as 'cognizant' 
>>> which is one definition that's been proposed.
>>
>>I think a "person" should be defined as an entity which possesses
>>rights under the Constitution.  
>
>Then a fetus isn't a "person" since currently it possesses no rights under 
>the Constitution. Agreed?

There is a major distinction between 
1) the *current* technical, legal interpretation of "person" and 
2) the layman/colloquial/moral concept of "person".  
Let's not confuse the two.  

I think the "layman/colloquial/moral sense" is the real issue of this thread.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Maryland Freedom of Choice Act : Margin of Passage
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:35:18 GMT

In <1difqrINNe47@haven.umd.edu> spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:



>First, let me apologize for wasting bandwidth with like, facts, but I  
>failed to archive the post asking about the margin by which Question #6  
>passed in the Maryland referendum, so I couldn't, like, keep ta pristine  
>and like  take it to like e-mail. 

>That having been said, let us recap:

> - according to the Washington Post early edition for Wednesday, November  
>4, the margin of passage, with 98% of all precincts reporting,  was
>997, 636 in favor of Question # 6 versus 618,551 opposed (for the Mensa  
>candidates like Petey in the audience, that'd be roughly 62% in favor, 38%  
>opposed - slightly smaller than the margin by which Barbara Mikulski  
>defeated (Gott Sei Dank !) Alan Keyes, which was 69% to 31%).

Amen to that!

>We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamefest, already in  
>progress................

Not quite, cause today I hit <shift> u on t.a. As the man said, when
he stopped beating his head against the concrete wall 'Gosh, that
sure feels good'. As Drieux noted, there are just too many children
being allowed access to terminals.


>shalom

And to you too.

>jeff

>"Let no one build walls to divide us
>Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
>Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
>We'll live together or we'll die alone"

You've got that right!

Old dog.
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: usa says the unborn are not alive.
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:08:11 GMT

In <1992Nov9.074023.276@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
> 
>>  i think i have seen enough scriptures pulled
>>  out of context to support the anti-choice
>>  movement.

>The absurdity of the following is obviously designed to illustrate
>some perceived absurdity in the preceding.  I'm intrigued by
>the "scriptures pulled out of context" that you have "seen".
>Would you care to provide more info?

>>  now i will turn the tables and pull a law out
>>  of context to prove the us government does not
>>  recognize a fetus as living.
>> 
>>  our laws do not see those born in other countries
>>  (outside us property) as americans without 
>>  substantial paperwork and proof. it is where you are
>>  born that matters. not where you were conceived.
>>  the point where life begins is where your
>>  citizenship begins.
>> 
>>  that concludes this week's invention exchange.
>>  what do you think sirs?

>Good thing I'm a male :-)

 specific examples escape me of out of context scriptures.
 i usually try to push them out of my mind before they
 corrupt me. because the bible can say whatever we want
 it to if we find the right verse. 

 what does john 3:16 mean on its own? 

 of course the above law example was tongue-in-cheek.
 but it seems as useful as any single line a bible thumping
 self-rightous king james babbling televangelized net user
 has put forth.

 i am not mocking the !word of god!, just those who 
 misinterpret and misapply it. 
 they are dangerous.

 the sky is falling.

 mark.
>--

>Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
>sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 04:13:12 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov3.164133.5451@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.010429.12789@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30.190619.16180@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>>And before you start salivating over that bit of info, Doug, let me
>>>>tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------Start Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>>>>1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>>>>---------------------------End Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>
>>>Yeah, right, Keith. This implies that, prior to your "point" of viability, the
>>>woman DOESN'T have to ask the doctor to perform one, i.e. that abortions can
>>>legally be performed on her without her consent. Is this what you _really_
>>>want to say?
>>
>>Kevin, did you miss the line that says, "Start Of Legal Restrictions"?
>>My *PERSONAL* opinions and the *LAWS* I would vote for/support are two
>>different things.
>
>I will note for the record here, that Keith Cochran has already admitted to
>supporting one, albeit not very burdensome, legal restriction on abortion.
>I support *NONE*. I therefore consider him closer to Pro-life than myself.

Are you then stating that you are in favor of forced abortions?  Is this what
you _really_ want to say?  Or do you in fact support the same "restriction"
that Keith does?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:26:10 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>>> i wanted to see if you would have the courage to admit
>>> that you rejected her offer and the honesty to admit
>>> whether or not you had even given her the courtesy of a reply.

>> I did reply.  

> prove it.

You made the accusation, so you've got the burden of proof.
BTW, I didn't place myself in a position of authority to either 
accept or reject her offer to moderate a newsgroup, I merely 
proposed a moderated newsgroup.  You seem to have trouble
understanding the concept of allowing people the freedom
to act on their own.
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections