HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:29:14 GMT

In article <sexe7jq@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
|> 
|> As for spontaneous miscarriges, etc.  There is no intent of wrong doing, there
|> is no "assistance" as someone mentioned so there is no crime - most crime does
|> come down to _intent_.
|> 

Ah, but given enough medical intervention, most spontanious
abortions not due to genetic abnormalities can be prevented.
If the woman fails to take these precautions, she is either
doing so in order to assist the abortion, or is doing so out
of sheer neglect for the person under her care, thus she
is committing a crime.

Again, you avoid answering the question: would you
prosecute your own wife?


-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: on this 'fat black ass' thing....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:03:12 GMT


I know that the nice white folks from the 'burbs
get all emotionally distraught if someone uses the
phrase ' get you fat black ass over here' as they
are concerned that this might be deemed as racist.

But you Know how white people are.....


ciao
drieux



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Fetus - legal - IRS
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:20:44 GMT

In article <la70taINNqt4@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> 
lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:

> Unless the tax laws have changed again, the IRS considers a fetus a
> person after delivery (whether by birth or abortion).  If a woman aborts
> and the child is alive when it comes out, she may declare it a dependent on
> her income taxes for that tax year.  Of course, the child will not live
> long so she also has it declared legally dead.  I am not sure if a birth
> certificate is needed on this or not, but it is the law.

I believe the law has changed.  Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina 
introduced a bill that would have prevented a person from declaring
a fetus aborted alive as a dependent on their taxes.  I'm pretty sure
that the bill has been passed into law.

>Bryon Lape


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


ar>In article <17s50pINN7b5@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
mg>In article <17qs7eINNqlb@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

mg>Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death

ar>Before sex there is life, after sex there is a puddle in the middle of
ar>the bed.  So what?  All those little unique spermies, just lying there
ar>wasting their uniqueness.  Or do you scoop 'em up to reuse them?

I guess since Tom Lehrer got his day in the sun in this group it is only
fair to give Monty Python a chance to poke fun at them fun lovin' 
Catholics.  

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then
There are those that follow Mohammad, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on,
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came, because

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs,
On the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Morman,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Every sperm is useful,
Every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine, and mine, and mine.

Let the pagans spill theirs,
O'er mountain, hill and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
  --Michael Palin and Terry Jones

ar>PS, now think about this for a minute.  Some people would consider these
ar>comments to be tasteless remarks.  Or maybe even flames.  But what is the
ar>POINT of them?  The point is that arguing 'uniqueness' as a fetal value is 
ar>bankrupt.  Where would we be with a moderated group?  I vote no.  But then,
ar>you all knew I would !  (-: 
 
Would a moderated group allow Monty Python and Tom Lehrer lyrics?

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:32:05 GMT

Sorry about quoting the whole thing, but context is important.

In article <1992Sep3.212938.11145@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# In article <+7jnmyc.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
# >sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes ...
# >>In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
# >>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
# >>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
# >>- and my wife has said the same thing...
# >
# >Just to elaborate on the consequences of such a position, I'll add the 
# >following.
# >
# >Abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal deformity would, of course,
# >be prohibited.
# 
# Not of course.  Exceptions could be made for rape or incest, just as there
# are exceptions in other types of murder.
# 
# >Abortion to preserve the health of the mother would also be prohibited 
# >(it is not currently allowed to kill one person to preserve the health 
# >of another).
# 
# Again, an exception could be made.
# 
# >The mother would not be permitted to do anything that could not also 
# >be done to an infant while pregnant.  No alchohol, no cigarettes, no
# >drugs (legal or otherwise), no medication that might harm the z/e/f.
# 
# Correct.
# 
# >Any miscarriage would be treated as a possible homicide.
# 
# Wrong.  Dead wrong.
# 
# >Is this really the world you want to live in?  Why?
#                                                  ^
# Yes.                                             |
                                                   |
Please allow me to add my voice here. -------------+

And while you're at it, how about explaining wht kinds of miscarriages
*would* make you suspicious that homicide had occured.

This should be good.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Should AntiFederalistStoogesOfAnarchy be allowed to moderate
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:28:17 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] 
] I was one of the people you mentioned as possibilities, and I don't
] believe anybody's objected.  I'm willing *in principle* to moderate 50
] articles a day or thereabouts for a talk.abortion.moderated group
] (though I still think a mailing list would work better).  However, I
] am emphatically unwillling to moderate an abortion group to remove
] flames if flames are defined as any insults, attacks, etc.; the
] definition is too general and I'm not perfectly objective on the
] abortion issue.


The subject Line Says it all.....

ciao
drieux

ps: but I like the clarification that it is some times 
not always easy for those who are FetalIdolators and/or
AntiFederalistStoogesOfAnarchy to accept that they are
Not only WRONG, but a THREAT to NationalSecurity!!!!


This is Not Flaming, It is Merely Clearly OutLining
God's Wonderful Plan.....



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More Bigots! (was Re: Mark Russell (was: Re: Another good reason...)
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:47:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug24.235407.9723@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <5692@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
> >
> >"First you get down on your knees
> > Fiddle with your rosaries
> > Bow your head with great respect, and
> > Genuflect!  Genuflect!  Genuflect!"
> >i-Tom Lehrer "Vatican Rag"
> 
>  The last time someone said something this ugly about Jews, it was
> called Anti Semitism.

That was you, yes? 

>  But if it's said about Catholics, it's called the American way. 

I think you should write a letter to Prof. Lehrer immediately.  He's in the
Math Department at Harvard.  No doubt he and his priest would appreciate
the laugh.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sex, Sacrifice and the U.S.A. (Was: Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 13:21:57 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>ec>Then why are they still having sex if there are things in their lives
>ec>that obviously have a higher priority?
>Hopefully some day in the future you will have the opportunity to
>find this kind if information out on your own.

Can't imagine anybody hiring this person for a job that required
"multi-tasking", can you?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:19:21 GMT

> = (Char Aznabul) writes:
>> = Steve Novak wrote:

>> Mr Aznabul deleted all of Will Steeve's comments explaining that he'd
>> might kill a woman "on the spot" who DARED to tell him of getting an abortion
>> "a year ago".
>
>> Which resulted in my comment.......
>>                                   |
>> > = (Char Aznabul) writes:        |
>> >> = Steve Novak wrote:           |
>>                                   V
>> >> I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
>> >> like you, Will.

>Which implies that he WILL kill. 

Ah...no.  Look at the top of this posting.  See my FIRST sentence? See
the word "might"?  

>You sound very certain. 

You sound very confused.

>A little kindness and sympathy may go a long way.

"Kindness and sympathy"?  For WHAT?  Some guy that wants to control
women, and has expressed the possibility of VIOLENCE (in fact, *death*)
against a woman who doesn't report to him as he wants?

Aznabul, I'd let Steeves defend his own self.  You're doing a pitiful
job.

>INSTEAD, you resort to insults and denigration.

I see.  Steeves can express murderous sentiments, and *I'm* the one to
blame for responding with my honest feelings.

If you want Miss Manners, buy a fucking paper.

>Does this produce any postitive results? Oh, of course, silly me. It gives
>you claim to the moral high ground.

No, it makes me sick that there's pro-lifers that think this way.

If his statement didn't shock YOU, then you have your own problems with
women to deal with.

>I stand by:

>> >My goodness, aren't we the epitomy of sympathy.

I'll stand by:           

My, don't you defend the weirdest part of others' postings.

>I'll leave this for the reader to judge your character, Novak:

I think they've already judged yours.  Twice now, you've deleted that
nasty part of Steeves' posting.  Looks like you're afraid to let it stand
by itself; looks like you're afraid to comment directly on it.

>> I think that was drool, Char.  Now, wipe it up and go back to sucking up
>> to Will.

I'm glad I touched a nerve :).

Next time, attack the part of a post that deserves it.  (Would YOU
kill a woman in the same circumstances?  ...Being that you won't
comment on it.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:49:09 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Sep1.201106.19760@u.washington.edu>, jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu writes:
|In article <1992Aug28.180126.4779@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
|>Actually, it seems that there are many people on the .net (some of
|>whom have applied to your posting) who would like there to be no
|>sex-selection abortions, but realize that there is absolutely no way it
|>could be legislated.

|But are these people pro-choice or not? I would expect that
|pro-life people wouldn't like sex-selection abortions.

The essence of the pro-choice position is letting other people
make their own decisions, even if those decisions aren't the
ones you would make.  I disapprove of abortion for
sex-selection, which means that I personally would never do it.
However, I also disapprove of legislation against it, for the
following reasons:

- Gov't has no business asking women why they seek their
  abortions.  The reason is private.

- Any methods gov't would use to ferret out women seeking
  abortions for sex-selection would tend to discourage
  women from seeking abortions, as a form of harassment.

- A first trimester abortion for sex-selection seems to me
  to be equivalent to a couple using various techniques to
  increase the chances of conceiving a baby of a particular
  sex.  I might personally find the idea silly, but I see
  no persuasive reason to legislate against it.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religous
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.  I do
not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be
called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the
structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Not lately.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:43:34 GMT

In article <ovuh25g@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>stevens@eatdust writes:
>|mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>|>Why is this relevant? What is so damned important about human beings
>|>that people consider the death of a non-sentient (but human) blob of
>|>tissue as a tragedy, but the death of millions of breathing sentient
>|>mammals capable of emotion to be a delicious snack???
>
>|Let me get this straight. . . you consider a cow to me a sentient animal?
>|First time I've ever heard this claim made.
>|I probably misunderstand you, however.
>
>Oh, I don't think so.  Cows sure seem sentient to me:
>
>sen.tient \-ch(e--)*nt\ aj [L sentient-, sentiens, prp. of sentire to 
>   perceive, feel] 1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2: AWARE 
>   3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling - sen.tient.ly av
>
>Well, maybe they're not *finely* sensitive, but they sure are
>aware.  Perhaps you were thinking of "sapient" or some other
>similar word.

Nope.  Sentient was what I meant.  But I was thinking along the lines of
'3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling', not AWARE.  Even
an amoeba could be considered sentient by definition 1.  By the
definitions 1 and 2, even a very early stage embryo is sentient.

We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals.  Not a pretty
picture.

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:50:37 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>But this doesn't change the fact that the Constitution does not
>give anyone the unlimited right to kill other human beings.  The  
>states are free to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force,
>for example.  

The states are also free to pass laws restricting abortion.

Many have.

>Doug Holtsinger

                           -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Keywords: lies, Dennis, Chaney
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.012046.29614@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.003937.28175@cfctech.cfc.com>
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <Bsz6qn.1yo.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>>>I have never written Chaney's sysadmins.  I did report his forgery
>>>to my sysadmins at CMU, as policy here requires.  
>
>>"As policy requires"? Why does this sound faintly reminiscent of "I was only
>>following the Fuehrer's orders" (sorry, Nora)?
>
>Buzz off, Darcy.
>
>Look, there are good, logical reasons (obvious to everyone with a
>picogram of common sense) for a policy requiring forgeries of computer
>articles to be reported to the people who run the site the forgery
>with purportedly from.  

And there are equally good reasons for not bothering busy sysadmins with
reports of every childish prank pulled by every puerile mind on Usenet. 
Moderation, moderation, moderation. I was questioning exactly how much 
discretion and latitude Susie had in the decision to report, and what exactly 
her motives were. We talk a lot about choice around here. I have a strong 
suspicion that Susie had a fairly significant choice in this matter, and 
exercised her choice. I have found over the years that this is the case, 
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, whenever anyone claims to have acted in a certain way 
because "policy" dictated such. Policy forms the pretext, but agenda 
motivates the action. Call me a cynic if you wish.

>Comparing following said policy to complicity
>in genocide is pretty ridiculous, not to mention offensive to people
>besides Nora.

It was an analogy. Besides, who said anything about genocide? The Fuehrer
made lots of orders, only a tiny fraction of which related to genocide.
Aren't you making an unwarranted extrapolation here, Ms. Bartley?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: "Mystic" predicts Virgin Mary appearance in Kentucky!
Summary: Suzanne better get her ticket.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:39:30 GMT


A news report just announced that, according to a St Joseph church in
some little backwater town called Colt Spring in Kentucky, the "Blessed
Virgin Mary" will make an appearance tonight at midnight.  This event has
been predicted by a local "mystic" (sorry but the news report was not very
precise or complete).  The church is apparently taking reservations for
the event and several thousand people have called and are starting to
arrive.  I'm sure the typical diseased and dying will spend their last
pennies to get there.

This is odd since the latest news reports have her still sitting in a 
knothole in Watsonville and a backyard in New Jersey.  For a virgin, she
sure gets around.  I guess what with all the appearances she's scheduled
this year she realized that she has to start pre-announcments now.  What's
real odd is this "mystic" aspect.  Is the BVM now working through the
local Pagans for her gig scheduling?  Is there some sort of "cosmic
kickback" involved here?  What sort of percentage is she cutting?

I wonder if Suzanne and Chaney are buying their tickets.  They should
have gone to the Watsonville sighting, it would have been cheaper air
fare.  Maybe they're waiting for a "private" visitation...

It must seem to a lot of people that I only listen for BVM news (I
assure you I am not interested in thousand year old virgins), but I
just happen to be listening to KCBS (local station) for traffic reports
when these little tidbits come across.  Yeah, lucky me.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion