HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:58:51 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Eric writes:
>We are wholly and totally dependent on the plant kingdom to surive at
>this time.  Why do you think and I am also a strong enviromentalist.

HEY!  Don't pick that flower! ... oh, my GOD, we're all DOOMED NOW!
Help, suddenly I'm having trouble BREATHING!

>You totally missed the point.  I stated quite clearly that the baby WILL
>DIE is the baby sitter does not save its life it will not "survive days on
>its own."  The baby is totally and wholly depending upon that baby sitter
>for its life.  It you want me to be more specific, then lets say the
>disaster is a fire of some sort.  The baby cannot crawl out on its own.  It
>will die in this fire if the sitter does not remove it from the house.

"Wow, that was a horrible fire!  Good thing you got the baby out
safely, Hank! ... what's that?  The babysitter DIED in there?  Oh, no,
now the BABY's going to die, TOO!  Whatever will we tell its MOTHER?"

     << 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.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Brain dead fetuses?  Shirley, you must be kidding.
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:05:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Gordon

>Kevin, old buddy.  How's it going?  I was wondering when you might nibble
>on one of my posts. ;-)

Well, with about 300 posts a day, you have to be REALLY selective, Gordon.
:-)

><91359@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@WALTZ.SEAS.UPENN.EDU (Kevin Welch) writes:
>>Gordon:

>>>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.  

>Oh, the analogy is ridiculous.  I freely admit that.  I'm just using it
>against a pro-life argument since I've twice been offered this same sort
>of analogy myself by a pro-lifer.

Oh, great.  I thought you might be losing some of that edge, there, Gordon.
;-0

>>                                                         The fetus
>>is not brain dead.  Medically, a brain dead human being exhibits
>>no neural growth (perhaps spiritually, however).  

>Medically speaking, Kevin (and I admit that neither of us are medical
>experts), brain death has little to do with brain *growth* and all to do
>with significant neural activity.  The fetus has insignificant neural
>activity due to insufficient hardware.  The medical term for the
>neuralogical state of the fetus may not be referred to as "brain dead",
>but that is it's present state for all intents and purposes.

For all practical purposes, the fetus's brain has little or no activity
at times - I do not dispute that.  The difference between the two
bodies is that the brain of the fetus is alive and does function.  The
brain of Mr. Car Wreck no longer works, ceases to live.

>>                                                  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.

>The brain of some people injured in accidents continues to put out basic
>signals in some cases, enough to maybe respirate or generate a heart beat.
>But in the these cases the patient is declared brain-dead.

I don't spend much time in the ER, but from my recollection, a patient is
called brain dead when the brain ceases to perform the basic functions
necessary to keep crucial organs operating, even at a minimal level,
such as a minimal heart beat or slight breathing.


>Gordon



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

I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..
From: bs508@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John D Plumitis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Who cares
Date: 3 Oct 1992 02:33:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Who Cares.  Yes, I am pro-life, but are you people really
going to solve this issue on a computer.  If you so much think 
that you actually can solve this problem before the end of this 
worlds life, let me know how.  I am willing to bet you can't!!!!


Good Bye!!!!!!!

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:08:11 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.233158.8917@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>Where do you see this supposed right of theirs to be free?  A desire,
>>perhaps, and a feeling they should be allowed to be free -- but, no,
>>it wasn't a right.
>
>At least you are consistent in recognizing that black slaves don't
>necessarily have the right to be free and human beings don't necessarily
>have the right to life.  So, in a sense, both slavery and abortion can
>easily be justifiable with that position.

You're equivocating here.  We began this discussion talking about
legal rights, and in that sense what I said is true -- slaves have not
always had a right to be free.  But now you're using 'rights' in a
moral sense, and in this light, my words don't at all mean what I
meant them to.

-- 
_/_/_/  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
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:03:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.020302.7897@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.005723.18401@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:
>
>>>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>>>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
>>>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>>> of income in our relationship..  
>
>>> Boy, you sure got it made in the shade, bub, don't you.   You're
>>> gettin' her money and her sexual favors too, and you ain't even signed 
>>> on the dotted line yet.  Let me guess, Mr. Sleeze Bucket.  You ain't
>>> even set a date yet, right?   
>
>> Why are you accusing HIM of being a sleaze? You have no reason
>> to think that he is putting in any less money than she is. Why not
>> say that SHE is getting HIS money and HIS sexual favors and SHE hasn't
>> even signed on the dotted line, eh? 
>
>I would expect a pro-"choicer" to blast the original 
>poster for insinuating that he would exercise some 
>control over his fiance's decision to abort. Is that
>expectation not applicable when the man's financial
>situation is at stake?  
I don't get that insinuation. 
Where do you see that? I have dated women of whom I think I could
safely say "If she got pregnant she would definitely get an abortion"
because they have expressed that opinion. What makes you think he
has any say?
-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,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Summary: So what's your point?  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:15:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.201600.5463@ncsu.edu>, bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS)  writes...
> 
>Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
>spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
>no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
>plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 
> 
I assume this is a theoretical question?
> 
>Brian
>Tetsu Yama
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:28:41 GMT

In article <nyikos.717888109@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>This borders on inconsistency, which is why I place the beginning of
>personhood where there is some consciousness, no matter how fragmentary,
>because then we can speak of there being "somebody home," in the apt
>words of Elizabeth Bartley. [I just think she is way off-base in thinking
>this only can occur at mylenation.]

Actually, I don't think it necessarily occurs at myelination; I just
don't think it can occur before myelination.  (In other words, imo
myelination is a necessary condition for personhood, but I don't know
whether or not it's a sufficient condition.)

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Most Americans Support Rape And Incest?  Huh?
Summary: Methinks BorgieBoy Needs To Take A Core Dump... 
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 11:54:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.181714.12006@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.055938.96821@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Sep29.001959.19878@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>
>>> That would amount to the fact that America holds a compromise
>>> position: legal for rape/incest/deformity, illegal for birth control.
>>
>>This is bullshit.  More people think that it should be always legal
>>or legal in most circumstances than think it should be legal in only a few
>>circumstances.
>
>Okay, bud. Do you want a war on the statistics? 
>
>I'll come back with poll stats showing that the majority of Americans
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>do support rape & incest, and you'll bring the poll data showing that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>when asked about these issues, Americans support all of it. 

Excuse me?  Just *WHAT* are you talking about here, Stupidius Maximus?

>
>What do you want on your Tombstone, Tweedledum? And I ain't talkin'
>pepperoni & sausage, either.  

Of course not.  You're a salesdroid, not a Pizzadroid.
--
=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: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:52:56 GMT

In <7vgzsph@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
   (rocker) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <mcbzh9q@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
   (rocker) writes: >>>

>> I suspect (and this is consistent with the advice
>> I received) it will end only when Keegan is allowed
>> to have the last word, however non-substantive that 
>> is.  
> 
> Perhaps this is true, perhaps not.  It seems evident that if the
> discussion ends, then one of you must, of necessity, have the
> last word.  You are posting from different places, or I assume
> you are, as I've never seen you in keegan's office.
> 
> Hence, when one of you has the last word, then the discussion
> ends.  This is trivially obvious.
> 
> Do you continue the discussion out of a desire to have the last
> word for your very own self?

No, I knew early on that I would have to be the one to "walk 
off the dance floor".  So I will.

>>> Are _you_ now diagnosing keegan as "a bunny"? 
>
>> I'm simply noting that someone else successfully
>> predicted his behavior.
>
> Could you please point out the behaviors that you have noted which
> are common to both keegan and the bunny?   

One incessantly beats a little toy drum - the other incessantly
beats a contentless rhetorical drum.  Both exhibit predictable 
behaviors that seem qualitatively similar i.e. produce meaning-
less noise.  I thought this also was "trivially obvious". :-)

> Could you give evidence
> that these behaviors constitute a significant pattern, a pattern
> whose significance is high enough to warrant the comparison between
> keegan and the bunny?  

Hmm.  Well, I *could* simply wax Keeganesque and and note that 
such evidence has already been provided and that you're being
dishonest by not acknowledging it and blah blah blah ad infinitum 
ad nauseum...  But that would be meaningless noise, so let me
just say that my observation was purely subjective based on my
perception of Jim's tiresome rhetoric and implicit unwillingness
to admit that he can't defend his contention. 

> After all, we can't have people expressing opinions here without
> producing clinically significant evidence for them. 

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask him to provide a 
*basis* for his opinion, "clinical significance" notwithstanding.
But he hasn't done that and I don't expect that he'll try to at
this point.

Bill
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:50:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>I suppose here is where we are coming from.  You weigh the mother's
>right to be free from "unwelcome objects" to be greater than the child's
>because you don't think the unborn is 'a' human life.  I weigh the lives
>of the mother and the unborn equally.  Each life is equally important.  So
>when either one's life is about to be destroyed, I want to find a way
>to protect it.  If abortion is done to provide a better life for other
>children, or as a means of birth control, or something like that, then the
>right of the unborn to life will prevail.  

You should say that you value the unborn's "right to life" as being equal
to that of the mother's, as I really doubt that you think that even a
toddler should get the same rights as an adult.

And if you're willing to eleiminate some of the rights of a two year old,
why not some more of the rights of an embryo?

[...]
>Whether the woman thought it was wrong or right to have the child doesn't
>change the child.  The unborn child has a right to life just as the mother
>has a right to live.

And the "unborn child" has a right to vote just as the mother has a right
to vote?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:56:06 GMT

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.225014.1507@nwnexus.WA.COM>, jbrindle@halcyon.com
>(Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Sep24.005929.6031@nntp.uoregon.edu> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> >> 
>> >> Sure there is.  Birth.
>> >
>> >Why?  Please defend as best you can.
>> >
>>  2 Absoluteness. The moment of birth is known and it is absolute.  There is
>>       no question as to when a person is born.  One second it is within the
>>       woman, the next is is not.
>> ---now, why do you think birth is absolute and not conception?  All one has
>>    to do to know the moment of birth is to look at a clock.  To know the
>>    exact moment of conception is extremely difficult AND, one isn't quite

>This is bogus.  Birth has got to be the most arbitrary thing on the face of
>the earth.  Not only can it happen naturally at almost anytime, but other
>persons are able to also pick, unnaturally, when the baby is to be "born." 
>Comments?

The same is true of conception.  What is your point?


Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions....

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 04:23:08 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Sep29.033302.27751@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>I am upset at the fact that there are instances where an abortion takes
>place simply because a child would be an inconvienience to the parents.

It's disturbing, yes, but I think a woman can frequently justify her
reasoning more completely than just saying "it'd be an inconvenience."

Besides, say a woman says she can't deal with a baby right now; who
are you to tell her she's wrong?

And can you come up with a law that would (a) give a valid definition
of 'inconvenience', (b) be able to distinguish when a woman sought
abortion because of 'inconvenience' versus when she sought it for more
important matters, (c) prevent women having abortions for no good
reason, and (d) allow women who had good reason to get abortions
quickly and easily?  I think this is asking too much of our legal system!

It's all well and good to say that you don't want fetuses dying for no
good reason, but there's no way at all for anybody except the woman
involved to decide just what a "good reason" is.  That's why I feel
that the woman has to be allowed to use her own judgement.

In another post, you ask:
>At the very least shouldn't a fetus be considered a potential life??

No; we're considering it a life, as much as you and I are alive, as
much as your cat is alive, and as much as that fish is alive.  The
debate here centers around whether or not it deserves all the rights
the rest of us have.  Read up on some of the other threads around here
to get your feet wet before you make a decision one way or the other.

     << 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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40928 talk.politics.guns:21785 alt.conspiracy:11011 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4987 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6358 talk.bizarre:33038
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:45:55 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Rich Lund) writes:
>: = (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>: I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
>: my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
>: and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....

>What the hell are you ragging on Dan and Rush for and including 
>your mindless liberal crap in talk.politics.guns?

"Dan"?  "Rush"?  HAHAHAhahahahahaha.   

Pathetic.  

I'll bet Limbaugh laughs his ass off at all the STUPID people making him
rich.  He's the New Televangelist, since all those religious fakes have
been discredited.

>Conservatives are way out in front on the RKBA issue and there
>is no way some turn the other cheek-love the criminal more than
>their self-involve government in every aspect of our life Liberal
>son's a bitches like Clinton and Gore are going to fight to protect
>our rights.  

(I can ALMOST understand what Rich is squeezing out through clenched
teeth...)

Boy, did you blow it.  Have fun in the imminent discussions of ordnance
between you and drieux.  Heh heh.

And geez, calm down.  I can almost feel your spittle spraying in that
last paragraph of yours.

>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.

Gads, what a liar, in addition to being civically incompetent.

Get this: Quayle is a fucking joke who has *no business* being a
heartbeat away from the presidency.  Combined with that pit bull he
calls a wife, I pray every day for Georgie's health.  And I'm an
atheist.  Bush should be slapped silly for insulting the people in this
manner.

And, I believe, he soon *will* be.

>: So I will work on typing slower, and using only 
>: big block letters, so as not to intellectually 
>: stress their Over Workded little Minds....

>Maybe the folks with those "Over Workded little Minds" will be
>the ones to save you from Clinton's gestapo police.  

You're plain stupid.  Buchanan and his right-wing religiously-fogged ilk
are so blatantly near fascist...fuck it.  It's not worth arguing with
someone as thick as you.

Go ahead and vote for a jerk whose party's platform was written TOTALLY
by crazed "christian" fundamentalists.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

>These folks
>with "Over Workded little Minds" might be the ones that don't 
>hand their weapons over to government.  They may become the 
>'Freedom Fighters' during the next decade or provide security
>and stability to a country brought to it's knees by economic 
>collapse.

I'll shoot crazed gun fanatics like you myself if you come around my
door, Cowboy.

It *is* a kick seeing your frustration over the Bush-Quayle buffoonery
they're trying to pass off as a campaign. :-D

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: apology to overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:29:14 GMT

In <+pjzwyh@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >

> p.s. bill - how are you coming with that problem you're
>			having? you know, the one where you deny the
>			existance of an answer from me which you even
>			replied to?

I think this is probably what someone meant when suggesting that 
he (Keegan) will "never, ever stop".  

Keegan, you are dishonest.  I'm sure you know that.  It apparently
doesn't bother you.  But I'm sure that no one with any intellectual 
integrity is fooled by your nonsense.  Go away.  

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38894 talk.religion.misc:17288 alt.atheism:18122
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:04:15 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

Couldn't be bothered to work out who this was

>>> Jesus from Nazareth.  (Yes, I mean all those quotation marks).
So who was Jesus from Nazareth if Nazareth didn't exist until after
his death?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion