HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Originator: jsue@pluto.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:04:32 GMT

In article <BxB8ov.3p7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
> Murder is not the
>killing of a human being, it is the killing of a *sentient* being.  How do we
>distinguish when an "existence" has ... a right to exist?  When that 
>"existence"
>is sentient.  The unborn do not have the complex experiences that develop
>sentience...until they are born.
>

Again... WHAT?!!!

Sentience implies a sense of "awareness".  The newborn baby has about
an equal sense of this as he/she did just prior to the event of being
born.

If you believe that the unborn fetus has no awareness (and thus
sentience), then you just plain don't know what you're talking about.
Hell, I've played with an "unborn" child before.  They do respond
to outside stimuli.

Besides, you *keep* forgetting:  this is about valuing our own humankind.
NOT about reproduction.



-- 
-----
Jeff Sue   
 - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:29:57 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov5.211833.2926@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>>You're a science fundie then - why do you believe the brain to be related to
>>sentience/consciousness/awareness/intelligence?
>
>Strong correlation between brain function and intelligence.  A damaged
>brain with few exceptions leads to an impaired/altered intellect.

Perhaps a brain is only necessary to communicate intellect.  Maybe the real
thing is in some other part of our body.  Maybe it's nothing to do with our
bodies at all.  And maybe intellect has nothing to do with personhood,
either.  It's even possible, as a lot of the major world religions seem to
believe that personhood has nothing to do with one's physical body at all.

>>  All the outward signs are
>>that 49% of the population think with the tip of their penis.
>
>Sexist bigotry.

A belated smiley to you then.  I'm not sure if you're serious, but no offence
was intended.

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Claptrap or not?  You decide. (formerly: Jay Stein stops...)
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 12:41:18 GMT


A plurality of anti-abortion people do condone clinic
bombings.  Jay isn't lying.  It's interesting that Jay's
comments make the Reverend Holtsinger so uncomfortable that
he's resorting to his old tactic of "assign a nasty characteristic
of DOD's to that person."  

I don't think that you should waste your time on the hate-driven
Reverend, Jay.  Only two or three people take DODie seriously.
Everyone else recognizes him for the liar that he is.
The Reverend has made his choice - he could react to the news that
many anti-abortion people condone clinic bombings by trying to
convince those people that this violence is wrong, or he could
maliciously attack Jay's character.   He reminds me of the harasser
that was at a clinic on Thursday, in a way.  She had all sorts
of beautiful new baby clothes sewn to a vest she was wearing.
She could have given these clothes to a child who needs them, or
she could wear them herself as a political statement.  (What
was that about selfishness again?)

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Charles Don Hall -- are you paying attention?
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 17:29:21 GMT

In <1992Nov10.010113.19522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>Doug says it was all a joke.

>Peter says he thought it was all a joke, followed closely by an
>assertion that the big, bad math prof was protecting someone.

>Dennis^H^H^H^H^H^HSteve has not been heard from.  (Thank you, Patrick)

>Darcy is liable to look in Black's, and tell us that "joke" and
>"protection" do not mean what we think they do.

>It's 8:00 pm here.  Why shouldn't I expect the sun to rise?

>ps  one thing you can be sure of, however:  bats are better than frogs

I'm still around, but I haven't had much to say lately. Thanks for
thinking of me, though. I was leaning towards "frogs" for a while,
but now my vote is firmly in the "bat" column.

Why did you bring my name up? Are you psychic? Your article could
almost be a reply to something I tried to write last week...I was 
going to comment on how Mr. Nyikos, Mr. Chaney, and Ms. Forgach had 
all made unusually clueless remarks[1] and then vanished from the net 
in disgrace. I was further going to call for restraint, pointing out 
that if they get pushed too hard, they'll leave for good, and then 
NO ONE will be able to make fun of them.

Anyway, I was never satisfied with my wording, and wound up junking
the article unsent, so it seems strange that you're replying to it...

 ---

[1] These remarks being "Careful examination of attribution lines
proves that Ms. Garvin is a forger.", "You sent me E-mail and now
you'll be sorry!!!!!!!", and "Gay men hate everyone, including 
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!
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic)
Subject: re: Quote from John Calvin (1509-1564)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 17:19:11 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


In Message-ID: <1992Nov11.044552.28091@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>

>"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already
>a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the
>life which it has not yet begun to enjoy.  If it seems more
>horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because
>a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely
>to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before
>it has come to light."

I am surprised that ANYONE would use John Calvin as any sort of moral
guide to life. Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for
heresy over the writing of the book "On the errors of the trinity".
The theology of Calvin has, in my view, done more damage to the name
of Jesus than almost any theology before or since.

--john chadwick      johnchad@triton.unm.edu
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:31:59 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov4.070430.7819@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-031192101449@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov3.071957.3801@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
> >Darcy) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Is this the same Linda Birmingham who couldn't help but hurl obscenity-
> >> laced article after obscenity-laced article over something as ridiculous 
> >> as an admittedly-mistaken joking comment about child molestation?
> >
> >Kevin, once again, displays his complete inability to Get It.
> >
> >The only "joke" in that entire exchange, Darcy, was your incredibly sorry
> >excuse for an apology.
> >
> >The only "ridiculous" thing has been your subsequent behavior.
> >
> >Your comment was offensive, your puling attempts to minimize it were
> >disgusting, and your continued protests that it was all "just a joke" are
> >an insult to the intelligence of the rest of the net.
> >
> >All in all, perfectly in character for you.
> >
> >The idea, by the way, that one could even _make_ a "joking comment about
> >child molestation" amply demonstrates just how shriveled and appalling the
> >state of your soul must be.  If you had the slightest shred of a sense of
> >decency, you would hurry down to the nearest landfill and offer yourself up
> >as biodegradable, albeit toxic, waste.
> >
> >Are you planning to make any "joking comments" about rape in the near
> >future?  How about some funny stories about cripples?  You're a nauseating
> >little fuckwad, Darcy.  I suggest that you run out and contract rabies, but
> >I imagine no one would be able to tell the difference.
> 
> Sounds like your blood pressure is a tad elevated there, Lefty. Perhaps
> you should heed Ms. Birmingham's advice and get thee to a deserted island.

Perhaps _you_ should heed the advice of so many others on the net and
liberally apply 5 minute epoxy to your lips and nostrils.  I promise you,
you'd be making better sense than you ever have to date within half an
hour.

I'm astounded at the complete lack of a) empathy, b) sense and c) decency
you consistently display.  Were I to catch myself behaving as you do, I'm
quite confident that I would immediately immolate myself, if only to alter
the stench assailing my nostrils.

Try to improve yourself, Darcy.  You might, against all odds, make it to
human in your next life.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:14:15 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov8.033559.13432@netcom.com> 
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> But a child is killed during an abortion, the child is not 
>> just 'left to die'.  You can't escape the fact that during
>> the vast majority of abortions, the child is intentionally
>> killed by the abortionist. 

> ... instead of being left to die a slow death of oxygen deprivation.
> Is this more 'humane' to you?

I'm simply pointing out that an unrestricted abortion right does not
follow from the right to bodily autonomy.  That says nothing about
a 'humane' death.  I'm not defending killing and leaving persons
to die; that's the job of the pro-choicers. 

>Brian Kendig                             


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert Scott Parker)
Subject: Re: Who are the enemies to women?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:01:40 GMT

Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Oct27.211834.23009@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
>>In article <92299.121706ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>>> Mr. Overpeck lobbies for the removal of a woman's right to
>>>>> make decisions over her body.  I personally don't care if he
>>>>> is given sainthood tomorrow or takes in stray kittens.  To
>>>>> me he is an enemy to women, as are all like him who attempt
>>>>> to make women pawns in their own morality play.
>>
>>>> What about the vast majority of women who support restrictions
>>>> on abortion?  Are they "enemies to women"?
>>
>>> I take it Mr. Holtsinger you missed the word "all".
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You didn't answer the question, Ms. Birmingham.  Are the
>>women in the United States who support restrictions on
>>abortion "enemies" to women?
>>
>>> I do not see that word as gender specific.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This line, and her line above, together answer your question.  If Doug hadn't
been so quick to interrupt and separate them he might have noticed that.
She said "all like him", and cleared up that "all" was indeed meant as "all"
and not as "all men".

Her answer is clearly, "yes".  Happy now?

>>
>>Neither do I, but that doesn't answer my question.

Besides, it was clearly a *rhetorical* question which did not expect to be
answered.

>I did answer the question Mr. Holtsinger.

I guess Doug just wasn't expecting a "yes", and the suble way you responded
just went over his head.

>This isn't harassment is it?

Rhetorical harassment?  My mom does that all the time.  Maybe it should be
outlawed?  ;)

>Linda

-Rob
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Keegan's Harassment of Women
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:54:09 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct27.180612.14289@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I value and respect the opinions of all women who post to talk.abortion.
>Can either you or Keegan say the same thing?

I don't know about Suzanne Lucia or Keegan, but I certainly couldn't
say the same thing.  Nor do I value the opinions of all men who post
to talk.abortion.

Expecting someone to value a give 50% of the participants in such a
nasty argument is asking rather a lot.  Congratulations on being able
to pull it off....

-- 
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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: A RISK IS A RISK IS A RISK....
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:47:23 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <ra_134b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> This analogy fails because no person is intentionally killed during 
>>> a medical procedure, other than abortion.

>> This statement is not correct.

>Oh sorry, I should have said, ``In my opinion, this analogy fails..''.

But then you'd have looked pretty silly, not giving a reason WHY
the analogy fails.

>Doug Holtsinger

                       -rocker

MOMMY!  Dougie's trying to harass me off the net!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Look it Up (formerly: Jay Stein stops insinuating...)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:58:07 GMT

In article <I'm.Jay.T.Stein.and.You're.Not.B0692.305pm@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- pro-whatever) writes:
>What: <1992Nov5.221657.7618@cs.yale.edu>
>Who:  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
>
>>> = Doug Holtsinger to Jay
>
>>>Gosh, Jay Stein says that a plurality of pro-lifers condone
>>>abortion clinic bombings.   He even asked a "huge" number of
>>>them to support his conclusion.  I'm really convinced now.
>>I'm trying to figure out what Jay MEANS by a "plurality".
>
>From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate:  plurality (n):  a large number.
>
>What's to be confused about?
>--

In reference to polls or votes, "plurality" means the votes or poll answers
which number the MOST. This is not necessarily the same as "majority", of
course, when there are more than two choices. If, for example, proposition
"A" and "B" get 2 votes apiece, and proposition "C" gets 3 votes, then
"C" has a plurality, but not a majority, of votes cast.

For the case in point, however, there are only two choices -- "condone" or
"not condone". So the use of "plurality" is equivalent to "majority" here,
although I find the usage a little unusual.

								- Kevin
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 18:53:25 GMT

> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>*Obviously* there will always be some areas of contention wrt to what 
>constitutes a "person", but I think it's useful to narrow down the points 
>of disagreement.  Is anyone interested in doing this?  Or are we only 
>interested in wholesale acceptance/rejection of other people's ideas?
>
>To that end, I challenge you to provide concise answers to the following:

I'd like to think the statement "all people should be treated equally"
is intuitively true, but this is based on some intuitive notion of "person".
(It's also based on some intuitive notion of "equally")
So what is my notion of "person"?  To make my opinions clear...

> Q1: Do you agree that the physical presence of a brain is necessary, 
>     although perhaps not sufficient, for "personhood"?  <yes xor no>
YES.

> Q2: (I'm trying to establish that we agree that "persons" actually exist)
>     Do you agree that being a "normal, adult human" is sufficient, although 
>     perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>  
YES.

> Q3: Do you agree that being a "normal, human infant" is sufficient, although 
>     perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>
YES.

Hence, using only the above answers as premises:
1) I don't consider an early term fetus to be a "person" and so it's NOT 
   "intuitively true" that early term fetus' should be treated the same as
   "persons".  (Note: this does not imply they have no value, etc)
2) I do consider an infant to be a "person" (barring some abnormal 
   physical conditions), and so it IS clear that infants should be
   treated as "persons".

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Pro-life ad
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:00:30 GMT

mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>
>An advertisement for pro-lifers.             

Who are you quoting?  Or are the '>'s in your article just for effect?

>> I've just put together a pro-life poster/flyer.
>> It has a picture of a 17 week human fetus taken from a medical  
>> school textbook.  It reads: "FROM": and the title page of the medical
>> text on human development is listed.  Next to it is the picture of the
>> human fetus.  Below these you read "FROM" again, but this time the
>> Cleveland Plain Dealer is listed.  And what is listed are some classified
>> ads which proclaim that abortions "up to 24 weeks" are done for $$$.
>>                                      
>> And finally the bottom of the poster reads "No rhetoric.  No slogans.
>> Just two undeniable facts".  It's left for the reader to put it
>> together.                    

I've tried, but I just _can't_ put it together.  What does a picture
of a human fetus have to do with the fact that abortion clinics are
advertising?

I figure maybe your point is that some abortion clinics are charging
money to perform abortions... so?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Re: A new battleground
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date:  8 NOV 92 13:23:11    

In article <1992Nov5.214908.15148@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes...
>I'd be interested in seeing Lynn and Galen argue the relative
>merits of frogs and bats.  I haven't made up my mind on either

I have not (or don't remember) seeing Galen argue the merits of bats.  But 
the frogs are a wonderful small animal and well worth anyone's support.

>yet, and I'm trying to economize on my affections towards
>small animals, so I'll only be picking one.

There can only be one choice.  Frogs forever.

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/    o\
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: I'm back, did I miss anything?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:11:31 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Fellow netters,

After a very relaxing trip and a wonderful election, I'm back.
Thankfully, SFO managed to avoid a major shaker while I was out there.
There were 968 messages on T.A so I killed them all.  If there was
anything I really should read, let me know.

SJM
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil does not understand circular reasoning.
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:19:48 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.720822858@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual nonsense in
response to me (>>):

Deletia about Blackstone's definition of infant, which (surprise,
surprise) has nothing to do with the original post in reference to who
qualified as a person that could be murdered:

>>I have made a statement of fact about how our legal system defines
>>citizenship.  If you dispute this statement of fact, then I suggest
>>you demonstrate how it is wrong.
>
>I don't know about the "citizenship" part, but Blackstone's uses of
>the word "infant" are much to my liking.  It is right around 5 weeks
>that the infant is able to stir in its mother's womb, in response
>to various stimuli.

I had originally posted in response to a claim that abortion was
murder.  As to the definition of murder, it is a legal matter;
therefore, the legal definition and not Blackstone's is the relevant
one.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:37:40 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>I would like to thank Brian Ceccarelli for reminding us that
>throughout history people have been killing children and denying
>them the right to life.  It's important to be aware of this because
>I have seen people on here claim that they will continue fighting
>to deny them this right.  There will always be murderous people
>like those addressed by the writings Brian has quoted.  We the
>defenders of our smallest brothers and sisters will never go away.
>We will forever be pricking your consciences.

Suzanne, I'm curious.  Do you have any children?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion