HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:33:07 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>Ray Fischer, welcome to the Trap. It was set a long time ago by pro-life
>intellectuals using the power of scientific fact.

Isn't "pro-life intellectuals" an oxymoron?

>Did you know that finger cells do not differentiate and, without advanced
>"Star Trek"-style chemical manipulation, that finger will never be anything
>but a finger?

Finger cells clearly _do_ differentiate.  Pretty much all the cells 
share the same genes (red blood cells don't carry DNA), yet bones cells 
produce bone cells, fat cells produce fat cells, and so on.

>Well, numbskull, a human zygote differentiates, and at conception s/he is
>budy carrying out the process of physically developing arms, legs and a
>head - far more than any cell in your entire body could EVER do, unless
>manipulated by genetic technology far ahead of modern science.

During conception the zygote hasn't even split into two cells yes, much
less develop arms, legs, and organs.  And it can't even do that much
without a very specialized and chemically tailored environment.

>Your finger has no relevance to a z/e/f because it lacks the fundamental
>qualities of an individual, whereas the z/e/f is his/her own complete body.
>And in fact you may bring one of your voodoo scientists out to look at what
>I've said (and this time, I got it checked first so there will be a battle
>between embryologists if this is challenged), they'll also tell you that a
>finger is a genetic part of your body while the z/e/f is a genetic part of
>NO ONE ELSE's body but his/her own.

Unless it splits into a twin, in which case it has the same genes as another
person.  Also, cancer cells are genetically unique.  Do you proposed to bestow
upon _them_ personhood rights?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:33:22 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep26.222403.3653@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Cut off your finger and tell me that that part is indeed a member of homo
>sapiens.  Most people would probably say no.  Sure it is part of a being
>which probably was a human, but is your finger a human life?

>Now cut off the an unborn baby a few weeks before birth.  Would you consider
>that the unborn baby is a human life?  You might say yes (I have to say
>might because of the amazing rationalizations some people have).  Now
>look to the mother.  Is that human life?  I'm sure you'll say yes.  Now
>ask, are they one and the same thing?

>People of good will will have to say that the unborn child is a complete
>member of homo sapiens and because of our general sense of rights and
>privileges, that unborn child must be afforded the same protections as us.

You know, I'm SICK AND TIRED of pro-lifers saying, in essence, "all
moral people who consider the facts will see things my way".  I
believe that one's moral rights derive from one's sapience/sentience,
rather than one's species membership.  I could be wrong, but that's my
honest opinion formed through a good look at the facts.  I hereby
assert that I'm a person "of good will", and I'm sure I could get some
people with net.access who know me well to testify to that.  Numerous
other pro-choicers are "people of good will" who for one reason or
another think the woman's rights in pregnancy outweigh the fetus's.
For all I can prove, all pro-choicers may be tragically wrong on this
issue ... but that would mean that we all guessed wrong on an
important issue, not that we are all EvilNastyPeopleWhoLikeToSeeCute-
FuzzyUnbornBabiesDie.

-- 
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: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:11:33 GMT

Time for t.a rules 101.  Listen up, college boy.

In article <1992Sep27.211356.8173@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.033029.124744@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
>(Larry Margolis) writes:
>> 
>> 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.  

No.  that's not how things work around here (or anywhere else in the worlf
for that matter)  YOU use STANDARD TERMINOLOGY and we all will understand.
WE do NOT CONFORM to YOUR definitions and terminology.  YOU CONFORM to the
standard.  

Right now you are making up your own terms and definitions.  You are not
following the rules.  Use the standards, please.  If you need help as to
what ARE the standards, we will be happy to fill you in.  You are the
newcomer here and I do realize that it takes some time to understand 
how things work.

>> > No, they are not - not at least the way I define them.  Left seperated,
>> > they will *NEVER* be "born."
>> >
>> > Clear?

Now, here is an example of you using YOUR definitions and terminology.  You
see what confusion you have caused?  Please use the definitions and terminology
that is standard--not your own personal definition of such.  We should NEVER
see you write "not at least the way I define" as YOUR definitions are
meaningless to us.  Nor do we CARE what your definitions are as YOU are
clearly the one who is not conforming to the standard.

>> 
>> 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?  
>

We chose not to accept your axioms because they are pooly reasoned and poorly
postulated and poorly defended.  If you can post some clear, logical and
acceptable reasons for your beliefs, then you MIGHT have a chance to make
some sort of an impression.  Right now, all you're doing is causing confusion
and participating in a manner inconsistant with logical reasoning.

>


Lesson 1 over.  There will be a quiz.

Jennifer
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:55:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

Routed solely to t.a. That is where it belongs.
In article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
>support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??
Huh? I don't think this is true.

>I think life is a good choice.
I think it's an acceptable choice. I'm not at all sure it's a BETTER
choice than abortion.

>I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
>BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>sarcasm of the replies I get???
What's wrong with it is that I want to have sex, and so, typically,
do the women I have sex with. Contraception, when properly used, is
highly effective in preventing pregnancy. An example. I like to ride
motorcycles. I am concerned that I will have an accident. What you're
saying, in essence, is "What's wrong with not riding as a means to prevent
motorcycle accidencts?" If I followed that kind of logic, I'd never
leave the house.
-Ekr






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Correctus to you, Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:57:01 GMT

In article <r99nq!d.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes ...
>>what would you have us do with them? lock them away because they espouse
>>certain religious beliefs? lock them away because they espouse certain
>>political beliefs? constrict their right to free speech or to assemble 
>>freely? i know, let's sterilize them so they don't raise any more
>>like thinking people.
>
>Denounce them has heartless extremists and show that you care as much 
>for pregnant women as you do for "unborn children."

Easy: join Feminists for Life. One half of their agenda is caring for
pregnant women and preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.


>That would be a good start.

Well, they've got the head start, chump. You'd better get moving quick.
Membership's only $15, or so I hear.

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:25:29 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


In article <1992Sep28.180629.14172@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

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

Actually I think that was Paul Anka.  Though it does seem easy to
confuse the two "artists".

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

Yea, but I bet she could if she wanted to. 

>nadja@node.com (prefered email address)

Dan King
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:32 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep22.160307.12159@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>> And condescending, and pretending to be literal-minded.
>>> I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting.
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> This sentence gets my vote for "most hypocritical" for the month of
>> September, 1992.
>
>Mine too.  I'm beginning to wonder if that's really Professor Nyikos
>behind that keyboard at math.scarolina.edu, or some Graduate Student
>From Hell using Nyikos' account.  He's doing the same sort of parallel
>behavior I noticed with DearOldDoug:  using a dishonest tactic and
>accusing his opponents of the same thing at the same time.

Oh hardy har har, you two. Two 50-gallon pots are now calling the kettle
black. Nyikos exudes more intelligence when he signs his name than anything
that's ever come from either of you.

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:43:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.191639.23339@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>In  <1992Oct1.230209.25750@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>> DO YOU SEE LARRY MARGOLIS RECOGNIZING THAT SUZANNE WAS TALKING ABOUT
>> PROTECTING HER CHILDREN'S LIVES ?!

>DO YOU SEE STEVE CHANEY RECOGNIZING THAT MARK WAS TALKING ABOUT
>PROTECTING HIS FEMALE RELATIVES ?!

DO YOU SEE GROWN MEN STANDING AROUND SHOUTING SILENTLY VIA THE 
USE OF ALL CAPS ?!

I do.  Sheesh!  Turn down the volume.   :-)

Cascade!  Cascade!




>> How many times must I prove myself right in debates with you

Is this like a light bulb joke or something?

Ummm.... Let's see....   Only once, but you have to do it 
rather than simply say you did it.    

Naah. Not funny enough.

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:03:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.020302.32597@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct05.190925.119410@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
>> >In  <nyikos.718168127@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
>> >> In <1992Sep29.004310.110764@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ib
>> >>
>> >> >In  <1992Sep28.223941.23600@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
>> >> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> >> >> In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> >> >> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> >> >> There is a difference between that which exists and has been terminated
>> >> >> and that which has never existed and as a result, can never
>> >> >> be terminated.
>> >>
>> >> >Does this mean you'll stop referring to the fetus as an "unborn child"?
>> >> >:-)
>> >>
>> >> Could you please explain this apparent *non sequitur* of yours, Larry?
>> >
>> >Since "child", to me, implies "born", the "unborn child" has never
>> >existed.  The fetus was terminated, but, according to Martin's logic,
>> >the "unborn child" can never be terminated.
>
>> Wrong.  The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
>> the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
>> you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
>> right?
>
>Right - if you buy your premise that the living human sperm/egg isn't human,
>or that it isn't alive.
>

Please note that the premise does not come from an out of this world 
supposition that the sperm/egg isn't human.  Instead it just makes plain
old sense.  When you add the scientific and biological supports, what
seems right via common sense is confirmed.  

Hopefully, we have all put to rest the sperm/egg is human debate.  
Of course, this is guaranteed to make at least one person say no and
the debate continues ad nauseum.

Let's start aborting this debate like the laws of this land allow us to!  :)
From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Real Men Don't (was Re: The fundamental question of KillFiles)
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

(drieux, just drieux) writes:
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>] We should ask drieux if killfiles are a valid metric in a
>] DickSizeWar.
>Actually there is an Inverse Factor to be dealt with in
>terms of KillFiles, RealMen[tm] do not need them as they
>do not have any problem constructing, on the fly, the
>necessary Regular Expression, as they are RegularKindaGuys[tm],
>and hence have no Need For them at ALL!!!!

>RealMen[tm] Use vi and rn!!!!!

>RealMen[tm] Have Bigger Members!!!!

>RealMen[tm] are For WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
>               and the restoration of our God given Right to concubines.


Shit! 1 for 3.

Well, at least I can work on the other two.

(already sorry I said that)

Matt
Workplace Quote of the Week:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:39:59 GMT

In article <BvAnLI.AvL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> The essence is this:  rape/incest may alter the balance of rights
> between woman and fetus, because it nullifies a "voluntary" acceptance
> of obligations and because it may represent an extra burden to the woman
> not present in the case of voluntary sex.

Why is a woman, in your view, "obligated" to carry a pregnancy
to term if she had sex voluntarily?

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:37:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.233604.26552@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <6648@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Bogus) writes:

>>Chaney lost posting privileges during the flap that ensued
>>when Scott Roby exposed his fraud.  PoorOldChaney has never
>>been able to explain why he was punished if the account, in
>>fact, belonged to someone else.  

>NOT! 
>Bogus has put her boot in her mouth once again!
>I was ALWAYS posting from chaneys & chaneysa! 

>Dennis was unable to post from cs 60 because of something he did. 

>I have never lost my posting privileges, whereas he did. 

In other words, you were told to stop posting under the name 
of "Dennis Hall".  Got it.  Thanks for clearing that up.

>If you can show where I lost my posting privileges, please post it.

See above.  The "Dennis Hall" account was issued to you.

All-in-all, it sounds to me like you were simply told to clean up your act 
as opposed to being "punished".  



>Of course you cannot explain your lies about Dennis Hall. 

I've explained the truth about "Dennis Hall" in great detail 
in the past.

>You cannot
>provide any proof because this was a prank pulled by Scotty Dog Roby and
>you can't bear to drop it. 

Dean found proof.  I found proof.  It's there if people want it.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:39:38 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

Yahoo! Ahm back in the saddle agin!

#   nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
%%  sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu writes:

%%  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..  Should she get pregnant, she would have
%% to quit her job or take an extended leave of absence.
# 
# WHILE PREGNANT?? Does she
# work with hazardous chemicals? Is she in the military?  

Here, Mr. Nyikos suggests that parents with newborn infants need only
take a couple of weeks of vacation time to care for a new child --
that a couple who relies on a dual income need not change their work
routine on account of the newborn.

%%   Thus causing a 
%% substantial impact on our financial situation.
# 
# If the two of you got married, would that change her employer's attitude?

What in the world inspired this question?  It completely befuddles me.
Is Mr. Nyikos confused into thinking that the only reason sparker's
fiancee would have for quitting her job in the event she became
pregnant was because her employer presumably doesn't approve of
pregnancy out of wedlock?

%%   Plus, she would have
%% to pay for prenatal care (which we cannot afford..)
# 
# Really? with both of you working? neither of you has insurance?

Thirty-some-odd million Americans with no health insurance and this
concept completely evaded Mr. Nyikos.

%% So don't tell me that she must have a baby, thereby ruining two lives
%% in the process of creating one....
# 
# What's wrong with putting it up for adoption?

The fact that they may have personal objections to adoption aside...
one wonders what Mr. Nyikos thinks happens to all those children put
up for adoption who go unadopted every year because they don't meet
the requirements of any potential adoptive parents.

# OK, so maybe you really are sincere about all this and you really
# are so financially pressed.  What bothers me, though, is that you
# do not even consider the alternative of abstinence.  Are you really
# willing to ruin one life after creating it?

Did sparker indicate that he and his fiancee have never considered
abstinence?  No, Mr. Nyikos, he did not.  Inquiring into it would be
bad manners, and so is assuming you know the answer to said unasked
question.

-----

Mr. Nyikos, has made five errors in judgement in one post.  My
recommendation is that he stick with his day job in mathematics and
not attempt a career change to family counseling.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:26:16 GMT

In article <9365@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>  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.
>
>Try this on for size.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>

You might be more convincing, if you would give us A HINT
about your point.

Don't forget:

Kill files can be a responsible solution to unwanted idiocy.
Kill files can be a responsible solution to unwanted idiocy.
Kill files can be a responsible solution to unwanted idiocy.

>-- 
>Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Don't hold your breath.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:45:56 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>>>In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>>>
>>>>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>>>>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
>>>>Well, you could say she's committed herself.


I get it. If she has sex voluntarily, she's agreed to die. Great thinking.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion