HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:17:31 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Eric writes:
>Galen writes:
>> Multiple sclerosis (ms), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (als) and primary
>> lateral sclerosis (pls) all involve deterioration of the myelin sheath. ...
>
>Interesting.  Just curious...how much myelin sheath is necessary for a
>human
>to reach a state of human-ness?

I don't know if myelin is an "either you have it or you don't" sort of
thing, or a thing which can be measured.  If there are varying degrees
of myelin sheath, then I'd say enough of it is required that nerve
impulses don't propagate randomly through the brain and instead travel
along distinct routes.

>By the way, what exactly do you mean by human-ness anyways?  (I may be
>falsly
>assuming that you using it in the same way I use person)

It's taken this long for you to figure this out?  'Person' is not the
same thing as 'human'.  'Human' is a physical thing; 'person' is a
philosophical thing.

>> }>Before this stage in the development of a fetus, it is clearly incapable
>> }>of thought or sensation.  Thus, it becomes a useful measure of human-ness.
>> 
>> }Many adults in a coma are like this also.  
>> 
>> Not at all.  Most patients in a coma have nothing whatever wrong with 
>> their myelin.   Mri scans can prove that this is not the case.
>
>It was being argued though that to be able to think or feel was a necessary
>condition for human-ness.  I was merely pointing out a case where this was
>not possible to demonstrate.  

It is still possible to demonstrate that the brain of someone in a
coma is still capable of functioning normally -- it just _isn't_ for
some reason.  This differs from a brain-dead person, defined as
someone whose brain has been damaged to the point where it can no
longer function at all.

>If you still don't like that example, ever heard of people becomming "brain
>dead" for a few moments, but then comming "back to life?"

No, I've never heard of this.  It isn't possible, because it would
mean destroying someone's brain so that it could no longer function,
then expecting it to function again.  If the person comes "back to
life", then he was never brain-dead to begin with.

>In the time
>between, was it ok to hack them to
>pieces?

Mu.  ;)  Your original supposition is impossible, so this question
makes no sense.

     << 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: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:02:03 GMT



Jeepers, Dean, thanks.  I missed that word "major" the first
time I read CJ's flame.  I guess I was silly enough to think
that she was flaming me, since she included my text in her reply.
(I'll admit that my reply to Overpeck wasn't my best effort,
but, frankly, the man makes me ill.)  I still can't understand
how only one participant in the thread can look foolish, but
I'll let you really smart people decide those things.

You're no twittering fool, though, that's for sure.  

I think this discussion is even more boring than the
original thread, though.  (And who knows - maybe soon
Overpeck will use the "I'll let you have the last word
as soon as I say this" method and drop the damn thing.)
Of course, DOD is back and telling the same old lies,
knowing that he'll get caught again.  There is a real
possibility that Keegan will tell him to see his
therapist, and then we'll have to see it all over
again.

On the other hand, maybe Overpeck is DOD's therapist.  That
would explain a lot.  


When I think of herds, I think of cattle, anyway.  I don't
know where all these sheep came from.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt you for a little while" - "Prince"
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:22:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.185959.5750@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>Only in some states.
>>Please post the name of a state which has a law forbidding the use of lethal
>>force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.
>
>>>Only as a recent innovation.
>>Please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder for
>>using lethal force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.
>
>(Somewhat) relevent case happened recently in this part of California.
>Man breaks into house, rapes woman.  She gets away and runs to kitchen
>while the guy trips over the pants around his knees.  By time he
>catches up to her she has a large knife.  Result: if the police hadn't
>found him unconcious in his car, he would have bled to death.  He's
>facing many years in prison, she isn't.

Well, he didn't die, so they couldn't charge her with murder.  Do you
happen to know if she is facing any charges at all?  Maybe assault with
a deadly weapon?  Anything?

--
=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=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40778 talk.politics.misc:49722 alt.rush-limbaugh:6615
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:37:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct6.061730.13587@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><9441@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) :
>>This only works if you do not consider the fetus to be a person.

>And by all accepted and legal definitions the fetus is not a person.

This may be true, but it is not an immutable law.  It can and will be
changed.

>>I do, and so do a lot of others.  

>Really?  Gosh, I'm so surprised.  Seriously though, you're going to have
>to convince me if you want me to support your position.

That's what I am trying to do.

>>                                  You are going to have to convince me
>>otherwise if you want me to support your position.

>For starters, read the Constitution.

I did, I didn't find anything to do with abortion in there.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39907 alt.politics.bush:7438
From: kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Brain dead fetuses?  Shirley, you must be kidding.
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:18:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Gordon:
>Bruce Varney

>>	Yes, but medical redress in the case of a car injury does not
>>involve killing another human being. Don't you see that your analogy
>>is ridiculously false??

>Since some pro-lifers seem to like the "magic button that inserts one
>person into another" scenario...  What if the car accident resulted in one
>person ending up inside of another?  What if that one person was, for all
>intents and purposes, brain-dead?  Should the injured party be allowed to
>remove that brain-dead person from their body?

I think that the analogy fails a crucial point, Gordon.  The fetus
is not brain dead.  Medically, a brain dead human being exhibits
no neural growth (perhaps spiritually, however).  The brain of the
fetus from week 5 onward is constantly growing and transmitting signal.
Be it true that the mental process isn't that complicated or even
developed enough to suggest thought or what we would call emotion.



>Gordon




--
Kevin C. Welch
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:48:39 GMT

In <1992Sep28.164605.15462@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <ptgzx_h@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->>>>>> you've already replied to my answer to it, bill. 
->>
->>>>> Untrue.  You've never answered it.
->>
->>>> again, denial isn't healthy bill. 
->>
->>> That only partly true, Jim.  Can you tell the listening
->>> audience why?
->>
->> sure. the other part is you lying. and i'm pleased
->> that you seem to recegnize that.

->It's partly true that denial isn't healthy because I'm lying?  

no bill, you've demonstrated denial and you've lied.

->In your effort to avoid my question, you've succeeded in making
->absolutely no sense.

what are you going to do about your behavior, bill?
you can't be too pleased with yourself having been exposed
as denying the existance of posts you've replied to.

->>>>>> why bill, what a silly question! haven't i told you how
->>>>>> often i've defended you from attacks based on your
->>>>>> condescending manner towards women? 
->>
->>>>>> Oh, I don't condescend to women.  
->>
->>>> you've certainly fooled a lot of them into thinking
->>>> otherwise.
->>
->>> Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?
->>
->> who cares? no one claimed that i was?

->Really?  Let me refresh your memory:

->   Newsgroups: alt.flame
->   From: robinson@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu (John G. Robinson)
->   Subject: Re: Tales From the Crypt
->   Message-ID: <robinson-090992081411@psy7.psy.utexas.edu>

->   In article <1992Sep8.210920.21098@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->   (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

->   > -> Allow me to clue you in on a little secret: Trish is
->   > -> _not_ going to make a road trip to jump your bones
->   > -> simply because you come in on her behalf in a
->   > -> side-thread in alt.flame.
->   > 
->   > of course she wouldn't. were she to do that, she'd have
->   > much more substantial reasons.  

->   "Blaaat!  I am the Raaaam of the Herd!"  You are about as 
->   readable as a book, Jimmy-boy.

->I guess you must have forgotten about this recent exchange.  It
->happens.

no, i didn't forget it. nor did i edit what you posted
since it doesn't support your claim. i'll grant you,
you did make a creative effort at covering up.

->> now that i think of it, this remark of yours seems to
->> me indicative of your disdain for females though. 

->I've never indicated that I have any disdain for females, Jim.
->Your inference is typically incorrect.

you haven't been reading posts by females about your
attitude towards females? that can't be so; you're commented
on some of them. so we both know you've seen female persons
comment on your misogyny. do you know better how they feel
than they do, bill? or were you just denying the obvious?
this isn't just a recent problem for you, is it bill?
From: kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:26:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <6649@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I'm hoping to go hear Weddington's talk, myself.  I greatly
>admire the woman.  
>
>I would imagine that there will plenty of people present who
>are not only willing but anxious to demonstrate their naivete
>and ignorance.  I'll let everyone know how well they did.
>
>Susan


Sarah is also coming to UPenn on October 8 at the School of Nursing.

It is open to all who may be in the area.  Usually these things are.
Come by.

Hey!  You can visit me.  We'll talk.

kcw


--
Kevin C. Welch
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:54:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Sep29.180408.6438@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric
Gorr) writes:

}Please also note:
}
}Matt 22:21:  
}
}"...Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to
}God what belongs to God."
}
}Granted, Jesus was specifically speaking about Taxes in this passage, but
}Jesus is noted for speaking in symbolic terms also.  As is the case here. 
}
}Jesus says here (and in other places) that we are to obey the laws of the
}state where they do not conflict with what he preaches.  Murder laws are
}still valid. 

Uh, Mr. Gorr, that seems more like an argument about secular law vis-a-vis
those who follow the teachings of Jesus.  Unless you would like to argue
that murder belongs to the "Emperor" and not to "God."

}Sorry.

That's ok, you can try again...

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:54:14 GMT

In article <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}Bullshit.  There is an enormous support network, of which I am a member,
}to help make it easy for women to report rapes.  

I don't think your membership is especially comforting to women...

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 00:34:13 GMT


I have added talk.religion.misc because I think more Christians should
see the bizarre "proof-by-analogy" below. {No, this does NOT refer to
the proof of 0 < 1 that follows it; that one is almost complete, but
not quite.}

In <1992Sep26.224638.24714@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.213302.16675@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.211330.15342@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu
>(Eric Gorr) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.175213.14117@cs.yale.edu>,
>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:


>Oh, read:  (There is to much for me to type it all)

>MATT 7:1-6
>MATT 23:1-12
>MARK 7:1-15
>LUKE 6:37-42
>     11:37-54
>     16:16-17
>John 8:1-11

>I will summarize briefly.  Basically, in each of these passages Jesus was
>speaking
>about or to the pharisees.  If you are unfamiliar with the pharisees, they were
>the ones responsible for creating and enforcing (?) the laws which were
>primiarly
>designed to make people lead artifically "moral" lives.  

There is nothing artificially moral about protecting innocent human life.

>Making abortion illegal is very similiar (if not equivalent) to what the
>pharisees were doing, which Jesus hated so much.

To steal a line from _Ms._ Magazine:

No Comment.

>Oh, as an aside, the proof for 0<1 is:  (sorry it took so long)

The above demonstration of Jesus's attitude towards abortion reminds
me more of a proof that 0=1.

>(Given by prof. Koch at the University of Oregon)

There is a hole in the proof.  See if you can spot it.

>(a) If x is any Real number, then one of the follow is true:

>x = 0
>x is containted with in the positive numbers
>-x is contained within the positive numbers

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

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

>Now that that is set,

>By (a), either 1=0 or 1 is positive or -1 is positive.

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

>done.
> 
 Not done.  Can any readers spot the hole? 

Hint 1: (a) is carelessly worded.

More hints will follow if people don't find the hole.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 02:01:43 GMT

<1992Sep30.172542.28189@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
><44991@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
...
>>>You're free to live your life as you choose and make your own choices
>>>for how you're going to live it.  
>>
>>No I am not.  I'm not allowed to restrict women's choice to abort their
>>pregnanices.  That is not freedom.  *I* am restricted by *your* views.

Waaah!  The mean old Constitution won't allow me to oppress 51% of the
USA!!  Waaah!


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:56:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.003321.1463@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.182959.3979@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>> >MARK 7:1-15
>>The healing of the centurion. No relevance as far as I can tell.
>
>I think you read the wrong passage here...in my bible at least, it does
>not talk about the heading of the centurion.  Please go back and check again.
Yah. I was reading Mt. 7.1-15. This is just the good old inside vs. outside
crud. You note it somewhere else.

>Look at the indirect relevance to abortion...
There is no more indirect relevance to abortion than to murder laws.

>What Jesus was warning us about is that when things are made "law" and
>are handled in the courts, or in general, by specific persons, things
>such as love, compassion, etc. tend to go "out the window."  
There are two problems with this argument: It's a general argument against
laws. It applies equally well to murder as to abortion. If you're not
prepared to argue that the Bible is anti-murder-law, you cannot
use this argument that the Bible is pro-choice.
Second, it shows absolutely no understanding of the context in which
Jesus was saying what he said. The criticisms of the pharisees
are criticisms of a legalism based mainly on ritual purity.
It is certainly not an invitation to act in ways which would have been
substantively rather than ritually bad under Mosaic law.
(Remember the two great commandments). There is some hostility towards
courts,(cf. the woman who was being stoned for adultery) but it
would apply to laws against abortion no more than to laws against
murder which presumably you support. Also, Jesus DOES say that the
whole of the Law is still in force.


-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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:12:50 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep28.185424.11474@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>You still haven't proven that PP clinics do not offer anesthesia. 

>Note, I said, *as a matter of course*.  They do make it an option, BUT
>I would be surprised if there was anywhere near the range of options
>one gets with childbirth: general, epidural, cervical, pudendal. 

Options, Nyikos?  OPTIONS?????  Options for WHO, Nyikos??

Again you show your ignorance of childbirth.  Go ahead, go into
a hospital in the US in the early stages of a normal labor and
politely inform the nurse that you would like general anesthesia
now, thank you.

What do you suppose happens, Nyikos?  In most cases the nurse would
smile, make some jokes or something, and walk away.  The bottom line
is, in most cases, THE WOMAN WOULD NOT GET IT. Most women I've spoken
to said they had very little say in how things went once labor
commenced.  Many women felt that they were treated like stupid
children once they were in labor.  Giving birth in a hospital can
be an exteremely dehumanizing experience.  

I know women who were refused painkillers throughout the _entire_
labor and birth.  ("PLEASE give me something for the pain!!!!" is
often met with "Oh no, you don't want any painkiller, dear.  It
might make the baby sleepy!")  Women who _were_ given painkillers
were given medication to "cancel" the painkillers once the pushing
stage commenced.  The only women I know (with a single exception,
a women giving birth to her fifth child - I guess the doctors
figured by then she knew what to do) who had any pain medication
at all during birth were those women undergoing C-sections.

But this ignorance is the kind of thing I've come to expect from
Peter the Arrogant - the one who finds it impossible to comprehend
that a woman undergoing the absolute most painful experience of
her life might actually ask the doctor to stop.  He found the
notion humorous...I can't imagine taking such joy in the misery
of others.

>Peter Nyikos

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:53:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
>an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
>responsibility???
This begs the question that abortion is irresponsible.

>And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.
Irrelevant. I do not and I do not want to.

-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