HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Minor Problem here herr Knapp
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:59:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.013349.6490@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>] 
>] Kevin Welch, Here are some of the things that (I think at least) need to b
>] ironed out before we can go on.
>] 
>] -What exactly about abortion is "wrong". Is it "immoral","unethical"?
>] 
>] -Where do the ethical or moral standards come from to decide the above?
>] 
>] -What property of the fetus, if abortion is murder, makes it thus? Because
>]  it is "human", a "human being", a "person", has "potential" to be one of these?
>] 
>] -What are the poperties of the fetus that justify its being termed one of the
>]  above? Fingers, rational thought, language, myelination, potential etc.
>
>I will grant that resolving these basi problems would apparently
>move the discussion forward, but there is BIG HUGE GAP missing
>in your above call for clarification:
>
>"where is the WOMAN?"
>
>you know, the Gestator of the z/e/f.....

Well, since according (i think) to the pro-life group, any 'rights' of the
fetus completely outweigh the 'rights' of the petri-dish, uh, I mean, woman.
Clearly, we must discuss this issue without discussing the 'rights' of the 
woman since, in regard to 'slaughtering' the 'unborn' a woman is interpreted
to have no 'rights'. I hope I am interpreting this correctly.

Now, since the pro-life group has these ideals, it is pointless to 
have a debate assuming things that our debate partners disagrees with from
the outset, hence, I ignored it until we make some progress in other areas.

Otherwise, excellent question.

>
>some folks who debate the abortion issue seem to be of
>the general opinion that when discussing these things it
>would also be very useful to discuss the Gestator as well,
>at least a a Z/E/F support system.

Yes, indeed, some are.
-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:944 talk.abortion:15715
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A Small Dose of The Real
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:25:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Apr14.082917.5801@cco.caltech.edu> shane@cco.caltech.edu (Shane Sauby) writes:
>Who or what is the "General Social Survey?"  
>
	My question also.  If this had come from a series of recognized,
established polling organizations like Gallup, Harris, or NORC reliability
wouldn't be an issue but as it is...well....some background would be useful.

>Also, with around a thousand responses, how can you generalize this to a natio
>of about 250 million?
>
	That's sort of contingent on the answer to the first question.  If the
sampling was done in a way that minimized systematic bias and/or otherwise
assured a more-or-less representative sample, then sample size would be
adequate.  What he *didn't* include was any indication of error variance.
Harris and other organizations usually report this as part of the results,
based (usually) on 90% or 95% confidence intervals.
	Not all surveys are created equal.  And at least some of the variance
in polls on abortion relate to the way questions are phrased.

>A definition of who the respondents were, and what "desegregation" was done
>would be helpful also.
>
>Shane Sauby
>"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are."   -BB

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:11:28 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President) writes:
>Ron
>>Kevin B.
>>>Judi

>>BTW, unprovoked or not, it is still a deliberate emotional stab. How
>>is Anti-Abortion an emotioanl stab?

>Hey, call me Anti-Abortion if you want.  Call me Pro-Life if you want.
>I'm both.  You're Pro-Abortion.  You are for the existence of abortion;
>you're pro-abortion.

The emotional stab was pro-death, or did you neglect that little part?

Pro-choice means that we are for the existance of choice between having
a child, adoption, or abortion. Whatever the woman decides. Not a third
party. It's kind of a live-let-live viewpoint. (and Kevin will attempt
to twist this)

Pro-abortion connotes that one wishes to force abortion on unwilling
women, whereas your stance is definitely pro-forced-birth. Only one
person so far makes the claim that they are pro-abortion, but I have
the feeling he may be joined soon....

>>>If it walks, talks, acts like a duck ...

>>Gee, you've seen a fetus walk, talk, act????????

>I've seen one act.  I've seen one move about.  Seen a new baby walk?
>Seen a new baby talk?  I haven't.  But hey, they're not persons either;
>let's legalize infanticide now....there NOT persons...

Ahhh, but they're not parasitic lifeforms in the sense of a fetus, now
are they?

Infanticide and euthanasia are not what this group is for, I believe.

>>At 8 weeks, it's not much more than a blob.

>No, at about 10 days it's pretty much a blob.  At 8 weeks, it looks pretty
>human...maybe that's...because it IS human.  I dunno, Judi.  What do you
>think?  Is the fetus human?

OK, it has a tail, an extremely oversized head, and is generally similar
in appearance to a melted wax figure, a sort of blob. It is human (so 
is your blood) and is parasitic, does that make it a person? Not to 
me.

Not to dehumanize the fetus completely, since it really doesn't matter.
I personally long for that day that science enables men to carry children,
because then ignorant oafs like you would have to line up and be impregnated.
(Yeah, we wwould force you to, it is only fair, it's what you want to
do to women, whom I notice that you repeatedly leave out of your arguments).

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Hah hah! Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:52:22 GMT

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.165913.2501@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>
>>As you've probably heard this before, I'll be brief.  Pro-Choice cannot
>>be Pro-Family.

>Why?

>Sounds the same as "Pro-life cannot be Pro-family".

Because the term "family" would inherently include all members the group
it describes.  If you're killing your children that is "anti-family".
But wait!  I'm assuming a "fetus" is a "child"!  Because that is the ONLY
real issue and all arguments/debates will (if progressing logically) lead
back to this as I stated "weeks ago".  The Socratic method is quite
enlightening.

>>  "Choice" is hinged upon misinformation, deceit and 
>>ultimatly, murder of children.

>Ok, list the areas of misinformation and deceit and then, support you assertion
>that 1) abortion is murder, 2) an 8 week fetus is a child.

1)  If the fetus is a child, abortion is murder.
2)  Since it is the child that is dying (not the mother) we should default
    to assuming the fetus is a child until proven otherwise.  BTW  when do
    you think a fetus "becomes" a child.  Do the new sugical procedures
    which involve bringing the child partially from the womb grant him/
    her temporary personhood, only to be taken away when stuffed back in?

>I've been asking you to do this for weeks now, still no support.

You've only been listening to the parts you can argure with.

>So far, this has only been attempted with saying things like "a person who
>does one thing that Catholics are against cannot be Catholic." and the like.

You are a liar.  The only statements I made regarding Catholics are that I
was not one (to divert that stupid arguement from the start).

>>  When a man loves a woman, he would do his
>>best to insure both she and their child survived pregnancy.

>"Insure" (ensure) or force?  

I would ENSURE (oh tragedy, a mithspelling), Pro-Choice forces death.

>"I love you so much, honey, your going to have that child no matter what you
>want." 
>Doesn't really have the flavor of love in it does it?

"I love you lots, honey, but I'm still going to kill your child".
Obviously I win that one.

BTW your point seems to say that you will doing anything (including 
murder) in the name of love.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Unplanned Parenthood Quote
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:47:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.122123.19337@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.224944.8676@polari.com> peterd@polari.com writes:
>
>>"No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone
>>or a Porsche.  She wants an abortion as an animal, caught
>>in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.  She must be met
>>by our willingness to help her if our assertions that we
>>value life, or that we support her choices, are to have
>>any menaing at all."
>
>   Yes, and the solution with the animal is : remove the traps
>that force the animal to have to gnaw off its own leg. Well,
>in society, we must remove the stigmas and concepts of the unwanted
>child so that a mother doesn't feel pressured into an abortion. 

Ah, so this is the universe of reasons why women have abortions?
"stigmas and concepts of the unwanted child."?

I don't think so.

Certainly, getting rid of the stigmas and concepts of unwanted child would
affect some women's decisions: please go ahead and work on it.

But I'd vote for more research in the area of auto-mamas myself, since
I think the majority of women who have abortions are women who don't want
to be pregnant.

For them, abortion isn't about CHILDREN, it is about PREGNANCY.

Adrienne Regard
From: kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET)
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Organization: NCSU Project Eos
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:57:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.011837.6584@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit
>of happiness.
>
>Now the real question is:
>
>are these 3 words in this order because they sound real SPIFFY together
>or is that the order of priority???
>
>Is the Constitution guarantees life, then isn't potential human life
>guaranteed?
>
>just a thought

	Well, it is important to look at who (to whom?) the constitution
guarantees life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness to.  If you look
at Ammendment XIV, it says

	"Section 1.  All persons BORN [emphasis mine] or naturalized
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

	The ammendment then goes on to say that no state shall make
laws infringing on the rights of citizens of the United States.  Since
someone has to be born to be a citizen, it seems that fetuses are not
guaranteed these rights.

>"Show me a worthwile cause to embrace and I'll show you a lost cause." - me
>
>It applies to all "isms."
>
>-- 
>MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
>Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
>mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
>                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV


Kevin Jaget
kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu					
-- 

--

  Kevin Jaget                              Mail: kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: wasting money on propaganda (was Hello?)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 06:52:19 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  <1992Apr5.165603.14049@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:
> >Excuse me, I am not aware of any pro-abortion political group.  As far as
> >I know I am the only pro-abortion person on the net.
> >
> >Gordon
> >Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
> >Muriel, and Cathi, and darn proud of it.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, Gordon.  I think there are lots of other
> pro-choice people on the net, many of whom post to this board regularly.

You seem to have missed the point.  Some moron was babbling about
"pro-abortion" people, and Gordon was pointing out that Gordon is
the only one who claims to be pro-abortion.  There are lots of us
pro-*choice* people posting.  But if someone talks about pro-abortion
rather than pro-choice, they're talking about Gordon.  (Not having
met him, I don't know if he could be considered a group.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Moral Absolutes
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:21:08 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>If I'm right on this, BioJerk is a GenericJerk.

>If I'm wrong, he's still a GenericJerk.

I think you may have hit upon it... he didn't answer the last mail I
sent him, either. But he does appear to consistantly hold that he is pro-life.
Maybe we'll ferret out his true stance completely with real exceptions,
or maybe that's just too time consuming. :)

Ron
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: SO.....it's not a child.....
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 01:33:57 GMT



OK....let's take a moment and assume that it isn't a child.

Well then, is it living at all??????
It has a heart, brain waves, and for a certain time before birth,
it could survive without its host (remember, we assume it's a parasite)
To me, that means living.

Sure, it is dependent upon the woman to live.

But so was my brother when he was born 2 months early. He needed
life support. HE COULDN'T SURVIVE BY HIMSELF!

Now.......does that make him not living??????

The way I see it, theoretically the fetus is a living animal with
certain restrictions due to life support systems. So, if we
get rid of it.....and the heart stops beating....the brain waves cease...
something living dies. Murder? perhaps not. But something does die.

After all, the fertilized egg could be removed IMMEDIATLEY after
fertilization and be brought to term. Surrogate parents have proved
this.

just something to think about

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:14:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Larry
>Kevin
>> Larry

>> >I think I'll stick with the dictionary definitions unless you can come up
>> >with something better than an inference you made from a letter (or whatever)
>> >that was quoted in a "Bioethics" textbook.

>> What's wrong with bioethics?

>Did I say anything was?  I said that *your* interpretation of someone else's
>letter that was quoted in a textbook does not constitute an authoritative
>definition.

I didn't really do that much interpreting, Larry.  I thought that her words
were pretty straight forward.  Most of the people in that book tend to 
agree.

>> >They do have the *capacity* (at least, the first two do; I don't know enough
>> >about severe retardation to say anything about that).  The hardware is
>> >there.  Contrast this with a (first or second trimester) fetus, which
>> >lacks the capacity to think or reason.  The hardware's not there yet - it
>> >just doesn't have enough axons, dendrites, and synapses to sustain the
>> >process of thought.  This is what the *neuroscientists* say.

>> An infant does not have full capcity, just like a fetus.

>It has the capacity, it just has to learn how to use it.

Not a FULL capacity...its brain is still developing.  It begins to use
it as it develops.

>> Larry, the fetus has plenty of axons and dentrites and synapses.

>It has some, but not enough (during the first two trimesters).

Just like the baby doesn't have enough...

>> But it isn't these which allow the transmission for thought.
>> It is myelination that allows for this wonder...something a fetus
>> has around 24 weeks.

>Myelination is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Correct...but it is nonetheless necessary.

>Originally posted by R. Cage, the following is an excerpt from:
>"Documentary challenges claim of fetal pain", in the
>Ann Arbor News, 31 August 1985:

>     "Does the brain even exist at conception?" narrator
>     Jaworski asks early in the broadcast.

>     "NO!!!" shoots back Dr. Michael Bennett, chairman
>     of the neuroscience department at New York's Albert
>     Einstein School of Medicine.

I agree as well.  It exists at about 4 weeks when it begins to
develop.

>     "Can there be a person without a brain?" Jaworski inquires.

>     "No, no way," replies Bennett.  "You can't be a person
>     without a brain, you can't be a dog without a brain,
>     you can't be a cat without a brain or a chicken without
>     a brain."

Bennett has just admitted that at 4 weeks, when a brain is present
in the fetus, that it is a person.  At five weeks when the brain
is more developed, it is a person.  At 8 weeks, when the brain shows
electrical activity, the fetus is a person.


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

kcw

--
FORCE IS MACHINE					-=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
VISIONS OF ORDER			     -=(kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)=-
MUSCLE AND  HATE
JOIN IN THE CHANT						   - NitzerEbb
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: next
Summary: Slam! 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:05:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.042652.11306@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr15.000215.13002@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Apr12.184042.15620@liebe.uucp>, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>>|> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question...an answer) writes:
>>>>|> 
>>>>|> >I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
>>>>|> >people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
>>>>|> >it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.
>>>>|> 
>>>>|> Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
>>>>|> she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
>>>>|> question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?
>>>
>>>>...and ultimately, the answer should be:  that's between her and her 
>>>>conscience.  It sure as hell ain't YOUR concern.
>>>
>>>Interesting, if inane, response.  It would then also follow that it
>>>would be nobodies business what Jeffrey Dahmer decided to do with his
>>>spare time.
>
>>In case you didn't notice, Dahmer was killing *born persons* -- that's a
>>crime under our legal system.  I guess little details like that don't matter
>>to a truly dedicated pro-forced-birther, though...
>
>Guess what Patty?  "Legal" does NOT equate to "Right" much as your silly
>position hinges upon it.  I guess a little logic like that don't matter to
>a truly dedicated Pro-Elitist-Nazi-like-Death-merchants-Whom-Only-Murder-
>Innocent-Unborn-Children, though...
>
When you want to discuss something, let me know.  Until then, zip it.  I'm
not going to try to argue anything with a rabid chihuahua...


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Brawley thumps Bible! (Film at 11)
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:56:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.175642.12890
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Kevin, we've been over this before.  There is nothing in the Bible that
>> indicates the God is pro-life.  In fact, for every passage that you can
>> "interpret" to mean "pro-life," I can produce a passage showing God taking
>> bloody vengance against innocent people.  Read II Kings 2:24 for openers.

> "nothing in the Bible that indicates the God is pro-life."  You are wrong.
> You presume "God" is taking "bloody vengance against innocent people".  I 
> will supply the Pro-Life scripture.  YOU supply the BVAIP scripture.

Have you read II Kings 2:24 yet?  It's a charming story about how God
summoned two she-bears out of the forest to maul 42 children who were
making fun of a prophet's bald head.

Got yer "pro-life" scripture ready?  Btw, I'm going on vacation for two weeks,
so make it snappy, ok?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity