HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:57:18 CST
 <1992Sep26.040921.19361@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1992Sep27.213321.11207@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep27.213321.11207@nntp.uoregon.edu>, egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.040921.19361@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Sep25.171439.21087@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.e
>> u (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep24.164318.2360@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writ
>> s: 
[...]
>> >> This natural thing happens only 50% of the time...  The other 50%,
>> >> the natural thing to happen is for the zygote *not* to implant.
>> >> How are either of these "interference"?
>> >
>> >What happens when medical technology is capable of preventing the zygote
>> >from not implanting?

[little note: I missed the double negative] 

>> What happens?  Well, I thought that already happened, myself.
>> For one thing, I would consider such an act of science to fit
>> your definition of "interference". 
> 
> Well, do you think there exist such things as good and bad interference?

Sure, why not?
 
> Bad interference is something that should not be done.
> Good interference is something that should be done such as doing everything
> possible to bring a _wanted_ child into this world.

If it's feasible (ie affordable), why not?
 
>> That doesn't change
>> the fact that 50% of the zygotes implant naturally and 50%
>> don't implant (also from natural causes).
> 
> So, are you saying that if a couple wants a child, we should not utilize
> every means available to help them have that child?

That could get really expensive, but what's the point here?
  
> When did I ever say that I wanted to take away a woman's right to control
> her body?  I'm sorry.  But I am getting sick and tired of people making
> assumptions and displaying their ignorance.  Please, get facts - I beg you.
>  Assume nothing about what I may or may not believe!!  

You told me the same thing (only more politely) in email...  Sorry I don't
get the opportunity to read everyone of your lengthy articles.
 
>> As for personhood (which I guess is the basis for these above arguments
>> you make), I don't think a human becomes a person until long after
>> birth.  I don't think personhood should dictate moral rights,
>> I tend to focus upon potential personhood.
> 
> So, what you are saying is that we should be free to kill any born child
> until it passes that line?  By the way, what is that line?  Could you
> please define it clearly...

Why should you kill a born child?  Infanticide is a prima facie nasty
thing to do.  As for defining that line, why should I?  The point at
which personhood is obtained is irrelevant to me.  Besides that,
I imagine it is not readily measurable and would be "reached"
(like there is an actual concrete "line") at different stages in
different lives.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:39:48 GMT

>>	 1.  A woman should have a choice.
>
>Ah.  So you feel you've definitely established that a woman
>_shouldn't_ have a choice.  
>
>I suggest to you that you would be happier living in a country such
>as Saudi Arabia, where women have few choices in anything.

I don't believe a woman should have a choice to kill her child any more than
I believe a man should have a choice to kill his child.

Don't you have anything better to do than go quoting people out of context
and twisting their arguments into crap like that?
-- 
//================================================================\\
||  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:  ||
||      no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  John 14:6      ||
\\================================================================//
           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
//================================================================\\
||         ss1@kepler.unh.edu       ss_cs611@unhh.unh.edu         ||
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:15:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bv6wHK.FnG@rice.edu>  patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> In article <vyfzky@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> >Sorry folks, but I think a lot of you who
> >continue these apology demands are simply looking to give yourself
> >brownie points for "making" Patrick "do the right thing".
> >
> A beautiful summation of it -- though I'd be tempted to say, in the cases of
> Peter and Suzanne, that they're going after those brown-nose points...:-)

Well, I'm glad you didn't succumb to that temptation.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 23:47:20 GMT

In article <nyikos.717889846@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>As long as we have this problem, let me ask two questions.
>
>1. Has anyone seen a fetal pig in a comparative anatomy lab, or a picture
>of one used for dissection in comparative anatomy courses, that looked
>like anything but a pig?

Yes. Mine looked like fetal pigs. Not much different than fetal aardvarks
depending on how early they were. (Aardvarks are neat since the normal
aardvark pregnancy is a set of quadruplets. Sorting out the amnions, the
chorions and such is fun.) 

>2. Has anyone come up where a context where the fetus of a pig was called
>anything but a fetal pig?

No. It was always called a fetal pig unless it was being called something
unprintable and obscene by a frustrated student. I have never seen one called 
a 'pig', an 'unborn pig' or a 'preborn pig.' 



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I'd walk a mile for a Camel...
Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:03:13 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Sep30.030504.5075@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717794611@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>
>Adrienne, if I were you I'd be concerned. Peter seems to have two obsessions:
>
>1) You.
>2) Women being tied to tables and forcibly given abortions.


My personal take on all this is that Peter has an ego about as big as his
folder of magazine articles.  I don't know how many versions of "did you see
this?" I got in my mail before he began posting stupid enough stuff to the
net that he got flame responses.  He just can't stand being ignored. 

So ignore him.

Adrienne Regard

(besides, as most of you know on the net, I'm bigger and stronger than
Peter Nyikos.  He comes my way with funny ideas and he's likely to be the
first man to get an abortion.  I'll bet he could write an inflammatory
pro-life article about it, too!)

.
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Anti-Abortion
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:30:02 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 28-Sep-92 Re: Animal Rights and
Anti-.. by Peter Nyikos@math.scarol 
> In <YekuyC_00WBLA8cFpq@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis
<ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> >Mr. Kolker,
>  
> >    I did have slight quibble with your post.  Though I would be glad if
> >Dworkin and McKinnon were stoned in the streets by their fundamentalist
> >christain allies, I thought calling them "left wing bitch lesbo dyke" a
> >little extreme.  It seems homophobic to use two words to get across Ms.
> >Dworkin's sexual orientation, when you could use just one.  I would
> >suggest merely using "left wing bitch dyke".  Thus, you can get you idea
> >across with unnecessarily alienating gay people who may agree with you. 
> >For instance, I am gay.
  
> I'm confused.  I thought "bitch" was so derogatory that it spilled over
> into words following it, like "dyke".  Would you not suspect a person
> of homophobia if he called you a "bastard gay"?
    My interpretation of Mr. Kolker's post is that he was expressing his
anger at people he views as censors.  My point was that Mr. Kolker's
point may be better received if he did not emphasize Ms. Dworkin's
sexual orientation.  Also, I guessed from Mr. Kolker's letter that Mr.
Kolker did not intend to lesbian bash, and he sent me a note to that
effect.
    Mr. Silverio has questioned whether Ms. Dworkin is actuallly a lesbian.  

  
> BTW what is the proper term for "I would be glad if ... were stoned
> in the streets by their fundamental christian allies?"  A hate
> crime, perhaps?  Would the stoning itself be an example of a hate crime?
The stoned in the streets was meant to match the mood of Mr. Kolker's
message.  I actually would quite displeased about such activity.  I am
firmly a civil libertarain, and support the rights of all groups to
organize:  communists, pederest, anarchist, and pro-censorship groups.  
  
> I've deleted a remark you made about the Pythagorean Theorem.  With
> friends like you, it might not need any enemies.
Mr. Nyikos,  I hope you are friend of the Pythagorean Theorem as I am. 
You don't believe in any heretic geometries?

MichaelLoomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:44:34 GMT

>     Deuteronomy 30:19 reminds us:  "I have set before you life and
>     death, the blessing and the curse.  Choose life then so that
>     you and your descendents may live."
>
>Your biblical quote actually supports a woman being able to choose
>abortion if she wishes, although it indicates that it is not the
>desired choice. Since you offer it as an argument, I ask you
>whether you will directly contradict it and choose for others, in
>effect not letting them choose?

We've got a choice to do *anything*.  Deuteronomy 30:19 is a commandment
from God to choose life, just like He commanded us not to kill or commit
adultery or steal or lie.  Yeah, we've got a choice to all these things.
That doesn't mean I'm pro-choice.  I'm pro-life because I believe choosing
abortion to be wrong.  Deuteronomy 30:19 commands us to choose life.

Understand the distinction, now?
-- 
//================================================================\\
||  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:  ||
||      no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  John 14:6      ||
\\================================================================//
           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
//================================================================\\
||         ss1@kepler.unh.edu       ss_cs611@unhh.unh.edu         ||
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:51:08 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <adams.718394027@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>The NRSV (1980) translates it as "murder" with the text note "this
>           ^^^^
>More like 1989.
>NRSV was STARTED in 80, but finished more like 89.
>
Ok...the version I have was unclear as to the date of start vs completion
and publication.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:26:04 GMT


Now that was an interesting post (I'm still having trouble with the quoting
function) but I enjoyed reading it.

While I disagreed with some of it, I have to commend you for understanding
both sides of the issue.  I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, as long
as they know why, and aren't just "parroting" someone else's ideas.
I do enjoy a good debate, "intelligent disagreement". I confess my initial
flames at the beginning were out of line, but I have backed down from them.My
My experience has been that the debated are more civilized when held face-to-
face than what you usually find onn  the net.  Anyway, thanks again!!!
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 1992 11:24:00 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <oem7OqS00WB5JDRg1H@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>I prefer to think of the abortion films this way. Some people
>(not all or most) think that the child isn't even a living being.
>Showing them something like this shows them their wrong. 


Scuse, please, but can you tell us what you think these people think
they are aborting if it isn't a 'living being'?  

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Female Contraception: Article References
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 07:11:52 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct3.014228.19862@jetsun.weitek.COM>  nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
> In article <Yen_7EW00WB=9_y4sB@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@
> >I recently asked why pro-choicers generally don't include education
> >of the risks of abortion when talking about education. Someone felt
> >that I was using scare tactics and that I should back up my assertions.
>
> >Not remembering who it was, I told him 'fair enough' and that I would
> >try to post some data. I have not yet found what I'm looking for, but
> >I'm only looking in paper articles presently, because that information
> >is more easily posted to the net. Also, there is such a plethera of
> >articles on female contraception, that I could not possibly have the
> >time to post a hundredth of them.
>
> I am sure these articles are interesting. However, you haven't yet
> backed up your assertions about the risks of abortion.

Gee - you want her to back up her assertion with facts actually related
to her assertion?  You're tough.  Sure she couldn't back up her (erroneous)
assertions about the risks of abortion with some really interesting facts
regarding the sex lives of wombats?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:49:50 -0400 
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
by Erik Karl Witte@andrew.c 
> She is only the victim of her own choice to irresponsibly have sex when
> she was not willing to bear the potential consequences.  If she really
> didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it. 

I find this exceptionally cruel and insensitive. She is not a victim
of her own choice. She is a victim of the malpractice or abusiveness
of an insensitive doctor. 

I believe that she made an incorrect choice. But it's wrong to say
she deserves to die for that choice. (BTW, I don't believe in capital
punishment. Different issue. But if abortion were legislated as a
crime of murder, applicable in this situation.)

It's not the right of the doctor to dole out punishment for those
who want an abortion. If he does, he's killing two lives, not just
one. Who should be prosecuted in this case?

ag
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: About Chaney's prank  (was Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:56:52 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Sep29.161538.18424@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Well, yeah, it is unprofitable to play the "Joe is actually Jack" game. But
>hey, at least *you* drop it when it isn't funny anymore - these Dennis Hall
>pranksters are continuing on with their prank on me (and it's gotta be one
>of their pranks if it's going on THIS long).

Au contraire!  Truth lasts much longer than humor.

I and one other person have independently verified that Steve Chaney owned 
two accounts last year and was posting under one of them as the fictitious 
pro-choicer "Dennis Hall".  

It has been argued by some that Chaney, realizing he was doing damage to 
his own side by his presence, decided it would be clever to pose as 
someone on the other side of the debate.

Chaney, being Chaney, has never admitted to his deception in spite of 
the two independent verifications of his owning the "Dennis Hall" account.

For amusement, I tried to get pro-life Steve Chaney to publicly debate 
pro-choice "Dennis Hall", but it never happened.  Sigh.

"Dennis Hall" has been retired.   Chaney has been reasonably quiet this past 
month (til now).  Chaney has never apologized for the hoax or admitted his 
deception.

Just thought the newcomers should know.



ObAbortionComment:
	Does anyone have any statistics on politicians flip-flopping 
on their public abortion stance?  Specifically, I would like to see 
the percentage of male politicians who have flip-flopped versus the 
percentage of female politicians over the last ten years.  My guess 
would be that the males flip-flop more, since they can't get pregnant.
Anybody have any numbers?  Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: That Responsibility Thing, Take 3
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:43:29 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

] In article <1992Sep24.204032.11507@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just  writes...
] >varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
] >] 	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
] >] consent to sex.
] > 
] >Maybe I missed your point,
] >but a couple also consents to
] >a Hurricane wandering over them
] >if they live in areas where 
] >hurricanes have a habit of wandering over folks....
] > 
] >So You obviously Agree, then that the Wimp Liberals
] >in the WhiteHouse are merely supporting Irresponsible
] >behavior with all this 'reconstruction aid' to the
] >victims of Hurricanes.
[ deletions ]
] I missed the discussion about sex, but let's follow your personal 
] responsibility thought out to its logical conclusion. When you step 
] out of the house in the morning you are putting yourself at risk from
] just about anything. So if you are kidnapped, tortured, sodomized, and
] mutilated, you have no reason to bitch becuase you KNEW THE RISK of 
] walking out that door. 
 
Recently at a BarBQueue that we threw at our digs someone asked
me what the Gravel Pit in the Backyard was for and I said:

"The 4.2" Mortar."

And they Looked at me quisically,
and I said:

"Then we string the barbwire out front, and interlace claymore's .... "

If it were NOT for the BleedingHeartWimpLiberals in the White House
God Fearing Americans would Still Be able to defend their Castle
with Sufficient FirePower....

And there would be NO NEED to actually leave one's castle
as one could simply send out one's maidservants, and manservants....

BUT NO! The BleedingHeartWimpLiberals in the White House
still have not restored our God Given Rights to own Slaves
and concubines.... 12 years of the 'Religious Right' being in
power and We have YET to have our Biblical Rights Restored....


ciao
drieux

ps: It is a Shame that the BleedingHeartWimpLiberals in
the White House are SO AGAINST PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
that they wish to leave everything up to the Police and
Court system, and do NOT allow the Patriach of the Family
to Maintain WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues!!!!!

What Head of HouseHold can FIELD an army such as to
rescue say Soddom and Gommorah!!!!!



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Propellerhead crashes!  (was Re: Steve vs. Patrick)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:17:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.211442.10398@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
(Dennis Hall^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HStephen A Chaney) writes:

}Then why don't I just refer to you, Rockbitus, as one of the militant
}bra-burning feminazi's I probably saw turned homeless when one of your
}burning bras caught fire on your curtain and consumed your environmentally
}correct, flower-mural-painted house, and never apologize for it?

Don't ever apologize.  Broadcast this and take credit for it.  It speaks
volumes for itself and the person who wrote it

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Summary: not holding my breath waiting for Suzanne to reply
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:56:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Can you document any of those things that you said about
Adrienne, Suzanne?  I seem to recall you getting rather
indignant about some comments that Gordon made about *you*,
and that you demanded documentation.  (Of course, I
also remember that Gordon documented each one, and you
were strangely silent after that.)  Is this just the
latest installment of pro-force hypocrisy, or will
you be supplying evidence that Adrienne will kill anyone
who gets in her way, that she devalues motherhood, and
that she's the most twisted person on the net?

Susan
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:43:10 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <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 ...
> >> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> >
> >  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?
>
> An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.

But definitely not a person, which is what the question was.

> BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.

Just a small correction.  It can respond to stimuli, but "feel"
implies consciousness or awareness, which is lacking at that point.
Neuroscientists say not before 7 *months*.

> 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"?
:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)