HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Have you herd about the ram?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:26:50 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep28.163816.15163@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <Bv5s9r.3nn.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>   (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
>In article <1992Sep23.201837.21608@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>
>[text deleted, before and after]
>
>>> I think your egocentrism justifies current speculation 
>>> that you're the "ram of the herd"!  You obviously think 
>>> so!

>> Would you care to elaborate on this comment, Overpeck?
>> I'd like to know who you are calling a herd, for one
>> thing.  

Hmmm... who is bragging about being the biggest sheep?

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:50:51 GMT

In article <5638@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>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.)
>
>Bare 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.

Remove also the instances of contraceptive failure. Remove also the
instances of lack of knowledge, or lack of access to, birth control.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:04:51 GMT

<10467@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
><1992Sep30.072730.14377@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>You know, I threw a couple of pieces of bacon in a hot frying pan once.
>>They sizzled and popped, writhed and curled up, they even changed color.
>>
>>I never thought at any time that they were aware and feeling pain.  Do you?
>
>  All the abortion rhetoric aside, do you really intend to imply
>  that a human fetus doesn't have the capability to feel pain?  What
>  gestational age are we talking about?

~8 weeks.  That's about the average age of an aborted fetus.  The ability
of the nervous system to carry significant electrical impulse doesn't
occur until about the 20 to 22 week.  Until then you might get reaction to
stimuli, but you get that out of a Venus Fly Trap too.


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
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:36:11 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  <1992Sep29.083231.1550@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <44_pkl.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) write
> >Martin writes:
>
> >>BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.
> >
> >Oh, really?  You remember back that far, do you?  ;-)
> >
> >Here's a small tidbit for you: the unborn at nine weeks has a nervous
> >system less sophisticated than that of a squid.  Its nerves aren't
> >sufficiently developed at that age to relay coherent signals to the
> >brain.  For that matter, there isn't even a brain to receive the
> >signals.  That's why you can't possibly remember back that far. ;)
> >
> >I disagree with your assertion.  Can you provide a reference to back it up?
> >
> My source is the
>   U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control.

Do you think you could be just a *wee* bit more specific?  Like, what
document this appears in?  (Quoting the section would be even more helpful.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: This ain't my first rodeo... (Was: Christian Perspective...)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:44:58 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Keith writes:
>Eric writes:
>>See someone fall off a cliff and they just happen to catch hold of
>>something, which saves their life temporarly...they will no be able to hold
>>on forever.  You are able to save this persons life with absolutly no risk
>>to yourself in any way, shape or form.  Is it permissable to allow this
>>person to die?
>
>Yes.

In fact (and I know this is getting off the subject), sometimes it's
even not desirable to help the person.  There have been numerous
situations where an off-duty doctor has saved someone's life, and then
been sued by the very same person whose life he just saved, because
the doctor might have made some mistake during his treatment that
causes permanent damage to the person or puts him through undue pain
or humiliation.

In this case, if you save the person but break his leg in the process,
he might try to sue you.  That's America.  (Too many lawyers.)

(Speaking of too many lawyers, did you know that every time a drug
company releases a new drug in America, they're sued for copyright
infringement automatically?  The lawyers doing the suing present the
options: let's either go to court and drag this out, in which case the
drug company would probably win, or else just pay some small
settlement now.  The drug company has no real choice but to pay the
settlement, because if it went to court every time this happened, it'd
quickly get bogged down in legal issues...)

     << 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
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:11:14 GMT

In article <adams.718291469@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>While every murder law I know of makes an exception for self defense,
>>I know of no case law which suggests that this is a Constitutional right.
>
>Under the 9th and 10th Amendments....whether or not the Supremes think so.
>(Limited powers & retained rights)
Don't be inane.

There is nothing in the 9th and 10th amendments that requires a
constitutional right to kill in self defense that cannot be interpreted
to also provide a constitutional right to kill in case of say
personal offensiveness or threat to property.

-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: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 00:53:28 GMT

In <23SEP92.16072828@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) wrote:
>>[Note:  There's lots and lots of deletions, which I haven't marked.]

And I've made some more of the same.

>>In article <nyikos.716934353@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <16SEP92.17080297@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 	- Under reformed Judaism, if a woman already has a family and a 
>>>>	pregnancy would threaten her life, she has an obligation to abort.  
>>>>	Anti-abortion laws violate the right to religious freedom.
>>>
>>>Which ones?  Even the Guam law allows abortion in life-threatening situations.
>> 
>>Some people want to pass laws that would prohibit abortion even in life-
>>threatening situations.  Kevin Welch springs to mind as one of those people.

I think the context had to do with existing laws.

>Also, I think the definitions of "threat" would be different.  Under 
>anti-abortion laws, would a woman have to prove she would definately die if the 
>pregnancy is continued? 

I leave that up to the experts.  I should think the testimony of two doctors,
neither of whom does or benefits from abortions, that there is a
"significant" risk to the woman's life, would be MORE than enough.  I don't
think doctors quantify risks by % s.

 Reformed Jewish law doesn't take these kinds of risks 
>with women's lives.  There's a big difference between allowing abortions if 
>there is a 5% chance of death and allowing abortions only when there is a 100% 
>chance of death. 

>>Unfortunatly, there are some "pro-lifers" who would like to enact legislation
>>which would prohibit a woman from obtaining an abortion in the cases of rape
>>and incest.

>And even if these exceptions remain, plenty of rape/incest victims would be 
>denied abortions because they couldn't prove that was how they got pregnant.

Welcome to the real world.  Do you seriously think every woman who
says she got pregnant as a result of rape is telling the truth?

Why, the defendant in _To Kill a Mockingbird_ was found guilty of rape
on much flimsier grounds.

Peter Ny.

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 18:20:22 GMT

In article <25986@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <25717@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>
>>>mammal, and in truth, many mammals are capable of considerably more
>>>at birth than any infant. You attempt to personify a fetus as a person,
>>>which I contend it is not.
>
>>I've addressed these issues already in posts with you, Bense.  Are
>>you simply trying to ascertain where Martin is coming from, and
>>how knowledgeable HE is?
>
>Would you care to indicate where you have proven anything wrt this? You might
>have brought them up, but you certainly have not brought any of them
>to a conclusion. 

>Martin has come across as a pompous ignorant oaf. 

Please specify specific instances as well as reasons why you say this.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 23:53:00 GMT

<1992Sep22.012523.25142@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) said:
>
>Dan Quayle said that he will "call a truce" with Murphy Brown and
>watch the show tonight like a sportsman... 
>
>To Dan Quayle: 
>
>Murphy Brown is just a frigging TELEVISION SHOW.  
>Since when have we started going to war against a FICTIONAL character?
>If you've got to declare a truce with a FICTIONAL character, what will
>you end up doing against a REAL person? DON'T answer that: I can
>hardly bear to hear it. 
>
>           For heaven's sake, Dan, it's only a TELEVISION SHOW... 

Steve, Dan Quayle is a fictional character.  Even sitcom characters rarely
say the stupid things his writers have him say.  I don't know, maybe Bush
is going for the sympathy vote... again.


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
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Personhood and interference
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:26:06 GMT

egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Oct3.005504.3293@nntp.uoregon.edu>):
>Bascially, the problem here is that you are denying the medical advances
>that would eliminate the problem for the women. 

Lemme see if I got this straight.  You say that someday medical
technology will make abortions completely unnecessary, presumably by
"beaming" the fetus out of the mother into an incubation chamber or by
modifying the DNA of a human female so that she can ovulate at will,
so therefore all abortions are wrong today?

If this isn't what you're saying, then what ARE you saying?  I'm confused.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Rich Lee is an idiot
Summary: And Kenny isn't far behind... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:17:20 GMT

In article <exukjb.282.718222974@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.152344.1261@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_williams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>In article <Bv49L3.FtD@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:K> 
>
>>> I'm a baby worshiper.  That may be but look.  We are talking about a
>>> life that will be born if we no NOTHING.  If the mother continues and
>>> has no abortion the baby will be born.  When you RIP it from her womb
>>> that is murder.  You are cutting it's throat for all intensive purposes. 
>>> So how can you justify 9 months of inconvience for the mother with a 
>>> humans life?
>
>>Nine months of inconvience [sic]?  Let me tell you about my "nine months
>>of inconvenience."  I was 25, had a challenging and enjoyable job, and
>>had just received a big promotion.  The baby was a surprise, albeit a
>>pleasant one (she was certainly not unwanted).  My first clue that I was
>>pregnant?  Overwhelming nausea.  BTW, I was practicing birth control.
>>The nausea continued and worsened over the next three months, by which 
>>time I had lost 15 pounds and my job.  Not unexpected, since I was almost
>>completely bedridden by the second month.  I literally crawled from my
>>bed to the bathroom every morning.  The sickness continued throughout 
>>the pregnancy, though fortunately it was far less debilitating after the
>>fourth month.  

[Rest of story showing why men are the weaker sex deleted.]
>
>>Wise up, Lee.  You've thoroughly alienated every woman in this discussion
>>group.
>
>But my question is, is the implication or suggestion here that *if* you 
>hadn't wanted the baby, then you would have been justified in aborting it?  
>[Is it just fortunate thing for your ten-year old that you did want it,
>the suggestion being that if you hadn't, it would have been OK not to
>carry her to term?]

No, the implication is that while the majority of pregnancies are fairly
"normal" (in the sense that the woman doesn't suffer any severe and 
permanent physical damage), for some women the very act of being pregnant
should be banned by the geneva convention for being "torture beyond the
most sadistic person's ability to comphrend".

>
>That's what I seem to be hearing from some of the women posting here.  I hope
>I'm wrong. Please advise.

You're wrong.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:06:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <25709@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>>Her point, if I may be so bold, Jennifer, was to indicate that abortion

>Are you talking to me?  I'm the one who made the statement in the first place.
>You got the credit lines correct, so I assume you just inserted the wrong
>name.  No problem, I just wanted to make sure that no one confuses me with
>the other person.

Umm, I apologize profusely for writing a statement in such a way that
it could be construed that you said a pro-life statement. I was attempting
to indicate that I was taking liberty with your statement by defining
your point, and asking you if I might be so bold. Guess I should read
some of this stuff before I post it. :)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:59:14 GMT

In article <p90nwq+.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> Eric writes:
> >Brian writes:
> >>Eric writes:
>
> >> Ah, okay, then.  So you're saying that if a fertilized egg divides
> >> into three individual developing humans, then only one of them is a
> >> 'person'.  After all, there was only one 'person' to start with, and
> >> since there was only one conception between one egg and one sperm,
> >> there was never the opportunity to bring more 'people' into the
> >> situation.
> >
> >No.  You would have three persons...but unless and until it splits, you
> >only have one.
> 
> Huh?  Okay, so where do the other two 'persons' come from?  

They came as a result of the split.

>  You said
> 'personhood' starts at conception, so obviously there's only one
> 'person' involved here.  

Another way one may be able to think about it would be that if the split
did in fact occur, there there in reality two people involved from the
start.  Just because we didn't detect that, doesn't mean that they both
weren't there.

But at the moment of the split, there are now two persons involved.

> Or are you adding more qualifications on when
> 'personhood' begins? 

If you think I am being silly, please explain in a rational, logical
fashion, why this is so.  I'll be
waiting...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:23:56 GMT

In article <dvlzw4q@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Then your support is useless. 
>
>Why thank you, Mr. Rescorla.  I suppose I will just have to live 
>with that, as I was not one of the principals in the incident.
Your support would be fine if you were willing to post it publicly.
It is your refusl to do so that makes it worthless.

>>Mr Keegan made the accusation publicly, he should support it publicly. 
>

>He already has, Mr. Rescorla.  That you did not read or do not
>remember the thread is not really my problem.
I remember the thread.
I don't remember it the same way that he does. Specifically, I do
not remember CJ lying. Curiously, neither does she.
If Mr. Keegan is going to accuse her of it, he should substantiate it.

>>but that your willingness to support him via Email does
>>nothing to absolve him of his burden of proof.
>
>Oh nonsense.  The only one crying for "proof" in this thread is you.
On the contrary. Larry Margolis has just requested proof.
In any case, one challenge is sufficient to place the burden on
Mr. Keegan.

>Or do you merely wish to add gasoline to the fire with your repeated
>demands that this be made public again?
I merely wish that Mr. Keegan publicly substantiate a publicly
made accusation.

-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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Adrienne Regard, RIP (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:41:04 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu  writes ...
> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Doofus) writes:
>> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>We assume too much when we think that abortion would save that child
>>>from suffering and misery.
>>
>>Who's "we", white man?
>
>WOOOOOOOAAAAAAHHHH !!!
>
>A little RACISM and a little SEXISM here! YOU make PatricKKK Humphrey look
>good!

Chaney, you're a clueless idiot (so what else is new, right?)

You wouldn't know a bigot if he walked up to you and kissed your butt.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion