HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:26:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nvgz6jh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> 
> >Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?
> 
> Freud would have a field day.

Having spent the better part of this morning at the Home of
the Herd, and having spent many hours with the Herd, I can
say with some veracity that there is no "Ram of the Herd."
We do, however, have a Birdman.  And that the Herd throws a
hell of a party.

Dean Kaflowitz

A book may be very amusing with numerous errors, or it
may be very dull without a single absurdity.
-Oliver Goldsmith
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: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:24:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.184340.113616@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct6.052642.26825@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct6.035312.9543@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
>> >
>> >I don't care if you're sick, elderly, deformed, criminal, rich, or
>> >poor -- if you try to violate my body against my will, I'll do
>> >everything I can to stop you.  If I have to kill you to stop you, then
>> >I will.  It's all well and good to say, "well, Martin will die if I
>> >don't contribute my body's resources to him," and it would be nice of
>> >me to lend my body to you while you need it, but by no means should I
>> >be coerced by law to do this.
>> >
>> >If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?
>>
>> You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of
>> trespassing, battery, and various crimes.
>
>You avoided answering the question.
>
The question was:
   If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?

To those women who are pregnant, it is their body.  However, there is 
another body in there too, a special human life.

Which, of course, reminds me of how sometimes, we can be overly competitive
and territorial.  Win win win, conquer, defeat the others attitudes has
its good points.  Unfortunately, this attitude carried out to a near extreme
leaves little room for cooperation, and sharing.

I don't know about you but when I was a young one, I was taught to share,
to love, and to take care of others.  When their is an attitude of being
able to "control" your own body even when another human body is in there, 
this sounds contrary to some of the basic teachings I learned when I was
young.  Instead of sharing, you try to fight with the unborn, exerting
territorial control as to who controls whose body.  

Why fight?  Why struggle?  Why exert control over another human body?
What about sharing?  What about cooperation?

The birth process is certainly a painful, gruelling one.  Expectant mothers
certainly have fear in them, are worried about support, have to endure
pains and wild streaks, and undergo numerous other things.  However, we must
also remember what exactly is inside of them, their human unborn sons
and daughters.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: A new development
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:10:28 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote (in article <yw#pg-n.ray@netcom.com>):
>Another interesting wrinkle is that once they've got an embryo that
>they know is free of genetic defects, they can split it into three
>or four embryos to improve the odds of one of them developing into
>a baby.  (the article I read may have come from the same event)

Hmm, this is interesting... what happens, then, if all four embryos
successfully develop into babies?  I'd hope they won't decide to
terminate three of them...

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:22:02 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

>>>>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.

I'm not very well informed on the actual physical process involved in 
abortion: is 'ripped limb from limb' strictly accurate? 




              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 08:33:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>In article <c8!pdw_.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes ...

>> >IMHO, yes.  It was conceived and therefore a person, IMHO.  
>> 
>> Irrelevent.  Pigs are conceived and are not persons.
>
>Why are pigs not persons?  Please explain...I would be interested...and
>yes, I am serious - I would really like an answer.

Practically because they don't have the necessary intelligence and 
language skills.  They don't act like people.  Neither, by the way,
does a zygote.

>In any case, the reason why a human is a person is because that human
>was conceived.

But pigs, fish, rats, cows, and insects are also conceived.  What 
I suspect you're trying to say that a person is anything that is 
biologically human, was concieved, and is alive.  Yes?

>> >Do you deny that there is research, that will someday be successful in
>> >allowing all conceptions to come to term?
>> 
>> Yes.
>
>Would you like me to do some library research and give you reference
>articles on this topic?  I unfortunatly do not have them in front of me,

Yes.  Please make sure it supports your assertion that it will be
possible to ensure that ALL conceptions come to term.


>> >>Name one "basic fact" that you've used.  Tell us what scientific research
>> >>supports your assertion that personhood (not "a human life") begins at
>> >>conception.
>> >
>> >That an early human embryo is _not_ an early fish embryo.  Simple enough. 
>> 
>> Irrelevent.  A rock is not a fish embryo and yet is not a person.
>
>Why is a rock not a person?  Please explain.

Pretty much the same reason a pig isn't a person.  It doesn't appear to be 
sufficiently intelligent.

>I know my definition of personhood isn't complete...but I do know that
>humans are persons (at least adult ones are)...the question is when do they
>become
>persons.

Actually, the question most on my mind at _this_ moment is why your 
posts have such odd line breaks.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.26.79.24

---
nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
|Of course they are not consenting to pregnancy. That is what I just said.
|Hi, CJ!

Hi, Nadja!
Varney is being rather dense, isn't he?

---
c j silverio
sigless and bible black
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 3
Organization: University of Florida
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:57:07 GMT

>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons

>   What a convenient definition - but one that you pulled out of
>   your butt.

In some states, CA (I think), it is considered murder if an assailant (sp?)
hurts a pregnant mother and consequently kills the unborn child.  Does not
that seem like a double standard when you consider abortion is not a crime?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Can some pro-lifer please answer this SIMPLE question?
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:24:12 GMT

>  = frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>: = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: Just answer the question, please refrain from wondering off or dodging.
>Don't see why I should, when so few here return the courtesy, but I'll try.

You should if you want to be thought of as one of the few who gives 
straight, honest answers, as opposed to someone who waffles & dodges.

>: > & >> = MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: >> In the case of rape or incest, why are you willing to sentence an
>: >> innocent baby to death for its father's crime?  It had no control 
>: >> over the manner in which was conceived.
>: >
>: > I posted a similar question earlier in this thread, and have yet to
>: > get a response from *anyone* who supports this position.  I suspect 
>: > they can't justify this position on moral grounds, so they ignore it.
>: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My present view is formed by the notion that you cannot kill a human being
> (small 'h') unless in self-defence, and that a woman's right to bodily 
> autonomy, which should obtain otherwise, should be nullified by her 
> obligations as a parent ('proto' or otherwise), by the fact that her child's 
> life is threatened, and by the fact that the threat presented to that 
> child's life is down to the woman and her partner.

If I'm interpreting this correctly (corrections welcome), you're saying: 

1) a woman does deserve the right to bodily autonomy (self-defense?), EXCEPT 
   in the case of consentual sex, wherein the woman has consentually 
   forfeited this right.

2) a fetus does in fact deserve a right to life

3) given the conflict:  woman's bodily autonomy  vs.  fetal right to life,
   woman's bodily autonomy should prevail, EXCEPT in the case of consentual 
   sex, wherein the woman has consentually nullified her right to bodily 
   autonomy, and hence fetal right to life prevails.

I guess this is a workable position (ie. I see no logical contradictions), 
although (with no surprise) all three points seem like subjective opinions.

Would any other except-in-case-of-rape-or-incest pro-lifer's care to 
confirm or deny this rationale?

-Brian
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:11:51 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
-rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
->we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
->do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control, 
->perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.
-
-Well, well, well...
-
-I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
-a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
-hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
-Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
-  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
-  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
-  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
-
-There.  Is it sinking in yet?
-
-(nod your little head.)

Bear with me. A hard-core pro-lifer would respond...
I think I need to write this about 1.5 million times.
[Significance (to put gasoline on the fire): that's the number of
abortions performed in the United States every year.]

Okay, to make it "fair," take 93% of 1.5M, removing the instances of
rape, incest, mother's health, or even fetal health.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Dr. Mildred Hanson Wins Lawsuit
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:53:47 GMT

Peter Nyikos has twice brought up the issue of lawsuits pending against Dr.
Mildred Hanson of Minneapolis, MN.  I spoke to one of her associates over
the phone about two weeks ago, who assured me that Dr. Hanson hasn't lost
any of these lawsuits.  It seems unfortunate that the news about someone
being served with a lawsuit gets more exposure than the news that that person
was exonerated, but that's business as usual at the propoganda mills.

In the case of Kathleen Maki Vs. Dr. Mildred Hanson, a jury found for the
defendent (Hanson).   The plaintiff was unable to show that Hanson deviated
from commonly accepted medical practice or inflicted any physical or
emotional harm at all.  An appeal from Maki for a new trial was denied,
and she was assessed over $500 for court costs.

It's important to remember that there is a presumption of innocence for the
defendent in a civil trial as well as in a criminal trial.  Propogandizing
about lawsuits against doctors who perform abortions without publicizing the
verdict is attempting to short-circuit that presumption of innocence, imo.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Onus of Proof Question....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:31:07 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
] In <1992Sep30.183947.28189@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] 
] >That's kind of silly.  Abortion solves the problem for the only person
] >involved: the woman.  Since it solves the problem, and it only effects the
] >person choosing to use this solution, it appears to be very responsible.
] 
] This only works if you do not consider the fetus to be a person.
] I do, and so do a lot of others.  You are going to have to convince me
] otherwise if you want me to support your position.


Maybe I am missing your point,
but I thought that onus of proof 
was upon those who were seeking to
change the status quo ante.

I present to you the alternative:

The bible has clear and unambiguous guidelines on slavery,
and hence is clearly NOT an abolitionists tract as many
of the Liberals would wish to read it.

Therefore it is clear that Slavery is Allowed.

And unless you can show otherwise, it is the Law of the Land....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:50:21 GMT

In <1992Sep27.212604.10261@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <nvgz6jh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
   (rocker) writes: >>
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>

>>>Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?
> 
>> Freud would have a field day.
>
> Having spent the better part of this morning at the Home of
> the Herd, and having spent many hours with the Herd, I can
> say with some veracity that there is no "Ram of the Herd."

Whew!  Good.  Would you mind telling Susan Garvin who was
there?  She's a little peeved thinking that I was calling
someone a "herd".  

I'd appreciate it...

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:29:32 GMT

In article <drjzwlj@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>->You know, I've often felt Overpeck to be a twit.  But I'm 
>->suprised to find he's the only major participant in this 
>->thread who doesn't look like a twittering fool.
>
>unless you lied about putting me in your killfile, you
>must be calling susan garvin, cathi cook, and dean
>twittering fools.  apparently, your judgement has
>continued to fail.
Uh, Jim...
While CJ has killfiled YOU, I don't think she's killfiled Overpeck,
so she sees your posts secondhand if he followups to you.
So, not to worry, she still could be calling you a twittering fool.

-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."
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:13:59 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1aaa0gINNq5a@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>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.
>
>Yeah?  So what?  If I'm brain-dead, I'd certainly want my
>survivors to pull the plug.  If I'm ill with cancer, and have
>one month of excruciating pain left to me, I will certainly
>want the option of euthanizing myself (with some help if I
>need it).

BUT THAT IS YOUR CHOICE!  No one is asking the baby.

>Did you have some kind of point?  You really ought to, if
>you're going to broadcast your posting to this many newsgroups.
>
>---
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
>There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
>man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice. 


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

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:57:57 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:
|>(a) If x is any Real number, then one of the follow is true:
|>x = 0
|>x is containted with in the positive numbers
|>-x is contained within the positive numbers

|>(b)Also:  If x & y are Real numbers, we say x<y if y-x is contained within
|>the postivie numbers

|>(c)Also, if x & y are positive, then x*y is positive.

|>Now that that is set,
|>By (a), either 1=0 or 1 is positive or -1 is positive.

|>By the laws of algebra, 1 != .  If -1 is positive, then by (c), (-1)(-1) is
|>postive, so 1 is positive.  So in all cases 1=1-0 is positive, or 0<1.

|Hmmm...CJ, whatcha think about this?

|I, for starters, will need to see proofs of the fact that x*y is positive
|if x,y are positive. A proof that doesn't make use of the fact that 0<1,
|naturally.

The trouble is that he hasn't understood the nature of the
question.  He hasn't defined his symbols.  I don't think he
realizes the enormous amount of work it took to establish those
"laws of algebra" he cites so glibly... and he probably doesn't
know enough math to know the shakiness of their foundation.  
He hasn't stated his axioms.  He hasn't asked himself any 
questions about the nature of "axiom", and what effect it
has on his claim that we can know things absolutely & without
doubt.

Ray Fischer made some valid points.

Mathematics is the last place I'd go to look for "absolute
truths", but that's because I studied math.  Gorr is making
a layman's error.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get 
used to them."   --John von Neumann
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Summary: Steve can't count, evidently.
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:01:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Beat the *&^%$#@! outta t.u.!

In article <1992Sep30.213314.11283@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <-jczw6m@rpi.edu> Rejectus posing as
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>the hall chaney thing posting as
>>(Stephen A Chaney) writes of steve novak:
>>
>>-> I say we should boycott this dolt. 
>>
>>i can't wait to see how many net.readers jump to
>>your support on this one.
>
>No more, probably, than the ones who supported a boycott on me. Two calls
>for a boycott, that is.
>ZILCH.

Wrong.  I was the first one to join your boycott movement -- and I've
followed up to it more faithfully than anyone else, including you.  When was
the last time you saw me answer one of my own articles?

Might as well face it, Ineptus.  I'm your biggest fan around here.  :-)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:45:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.160534.16019@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>...I thought, and
>I may be wrong, she was refering to all those in the thread
>who had been in military service and attained a rank greater
>than captain but less than colonel.  That lets me out right
>off and, I suspect, lets you out as well.  Now Jim Keegan
>may have been a major.  

A major asshole, perhaps. Or general stupidity. Or a private embarrassment...

								- Kevin