HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:54:04 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.184923.4189@ncar.ucar.edu# kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
#>  = parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker):
#>> = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
#>>Here's a thought:  Recall the film "Awakenings".  Does this sort of
#>>situation create intolerable problems with defining personhood?
#>>Shall those whose brain function appears to be indefinitely suspended
#>>be stripped of their rights as humans?  Do they regain their rights
#>>the day they regain "consciousness"?  BTW, in the preceding sentence,
#>>should the '?' be inside or outside the ""? :-)
#> 
#> Well, I haven't seen that film, but to answer your question(s)...
#> A person whose brain function *is* indefinitely suspended is not
#> a "person" at that time.
#
#An observation: this is an interesting subject, and certainly reasonable
#persons will disagree.  But even without resolving the issue, clearly 
#this discussion illustrates that mere physical resemblance to persons, 
#"human life", and "beating hearts" do not imply "personhood".

You left out "brains".  That's a mere physical resemblance too.  By the way,
Brian, if we leave out every physical resemblance, we must now confine
ourselves to mystic truths.  I can live with that, but I doubt if you can.

P.S. Your observation about personhood contains a circular argument.  Mystics
don't get those problems, you really should try it.

#-Brian

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: To Lost Boy...Re  The thoughts of a fetus
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:04:33 GMT

<Nov.19.12.27.06.1992.15494@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
...
>Did you know that the human fetus can dream?  Recent studies have found that
>the human fetus can actually dream!  

I'd like to see the studies you are quoting and what age fetus they were
conducted upon.  Also, my cat can dream too.  Does that make her a human?
Does that make it murder to kill cats?  If so, many more "murders" are
committed on cats than on fetuses.

BTW, on your "silent holocaust" thread.  I just heard a news report that
said that 100,000 people die every day from smoking cigarettes (I'm sure
they meant the effects - cancer).  That means "baby" deaths from abortion
are miniscule in comparison.  Why is it I don't see pro-lifers actively
marching to get rid of tobacco?

>"Think" about it.

Heed that advice.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48850 talk.religion.misc:21661 alt.atheism:21748
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Date: 20 Nov 1992 12:43:19 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: choice question

In article <1992Nov20.131714.10234@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>I wouldn't go off claiming that the constitution says things it doesn't.
>The constitution and its 27 amendments never mention the word
>abortion or make any references to it

The constitution likewise doesn't make any claims or mention one word about
a 1992 novel called "Sex" ostensibly authored by Madonna, either.  But I'll
bet that ol' foolish old supreme court would probably uphold the right of
the publisher to publish it.  Gee, those old people sure are idiots, aren't
they.
>the supreme court from making a fool of itself in the 60's, when ...

>People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
>the end all.  

Actually, usually the constitution is brought up within the question of
does-thus-and-such-state-legislation-contain-prohibitions-that-our-
foundation-law-prohibits-a-state-from-enacting?  i.e., usually IN REACTION
to the incorrectly made state laws you suggest we resort to.  And,
therefore, the issue in question is recognised and not having squat to do
with either the state or the federal jurisdiction, and everybody in your
state should really butt out of your business.

Oooopssss.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:09:40 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Nov22.185501.10645@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>>    I'm sure as hell glad you aren't a judge in a rape case.  A woman who
>>drinks with a man is, by that act, giving consent to sexual acts later?
>>Are you really this stupid, or do you post stuff like this to see how many
>>flames you can attract?
>
>>    Idiot.
>
>Fuck you, loser.  And YES I do believe this.  It's her own fault.
>Maybe if I was a judge in a rape case......oh, never mind.....

    Eloquently stated.  If you live by this mind-blowingly neanderthal
belief, I feel sorry for any women you encounter.
    Somehow, I don't think we have to worry about you attaining a judgeship
anywhere.

>-Doc

    "Doc?!"  That'll be the day.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:04:33 GMT

From article <1992Nov15.035941.20377@rotag.mi.org>, by kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy):
> In article <1d85iaINNate@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>
>>I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
>>more important than an animal.  
> 
> Does it demean YOU, Frank? Do you consider yourself a fertilized egg? If not
> demeaning to you, then to whom? I see it potentially demeaning only to
> fertilized eggs. It could hurt their "feelings", maybe.

Kevin, every single one of us is a fertilized egg.  Some of us are just older
than others.


Suzanne.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48847 alt.abortion.inequity:5207 soc.women:20041 soc.men:19677 alt.feminism:4780
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:04:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted


This one was funnier - Nyikos reposted his reply, ignoring the
fact that Jim Keegan had reposted both Nyikos' reply and my
original article.  He'll ignore this, too, since he enjoys
making a fool out of himself.

In article  <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu>, I wrote:

#["quote" from Tushnet deleted]
#
#The following included text is from article
#<1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu> written by
#greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield).  
#
#/begin included text/
#
#
#With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
#Holtsinger writes:

Starting with the same line, here is Nyikos' reply.

In article <nyikos.721692137@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
In <BxDM9o.178.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

##["quote" from Tushnet deleted]
#
#Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
#not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.  I move that networkers
#disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked deletions" by Ms. Garvin
#until she shows where these were made and what they were [or at least
#a sample].
#
##With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
##Holtsinger writes:	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
###First I'd like to present my sources, and then I will address
###the points that you raised. My claim is that Roe v. Wade
###essentially constitutes abortion on demand throughout the term 
###of pregnancy due to the broad definition of "health" given
###by the Supreme Court. 
###
###Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton must be read together: 
#
##As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two 
##cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot 
##assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the 
##"life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.
#
#As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
#by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
#above.


Susan
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 18 Nov 1992 08:47:57 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov17.215527.23123@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

,People should be responsible for their sexual activity, as they are
,for their other activity.  That responsibility includes the
,responsibility to foster and support rather than destroy the life that
,results from sexual activity.  


Why?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: That Butthead [tm] Nyikos lied about me, too!
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:07:39 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov20.070443.114270@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes in response to Susan Garvin:

>>I think that he's lied about a lot more people than just
>>Adrienne, Dean and I.  (And I really hope that Dean will
>>write a song about the three of us - I like the way that
>>sounded.)  I think that it's time for everyone else in
>>the group to step forward.  We can form one of the most
>>non-exclusive clubs in the world.
>
>I'm proud to be a member of this club.

I too am compelled to join.  Petie misattributed the trademark insult
of Brian McBean to me, i.e. butthead, and then started using it to
characterize my views and arguing that I had started the name calling.

Sniff, sob.

I've never felt so publicly abused.

Thank you all for the support this club offers me.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: compromise
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: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:22:56 GMT

In article <BxvG5p.6r6@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1eb9g4INNj4c@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.133648.25175@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>>But I didn't bother getting into that thread
>>>because I figured Adrienne could take care of herself. 
>>>I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet, so I move
>>>we nominate Dr Giggles Nyikos for the net.council of idiots.
>>
>>Second.
>>
>>As you see.
>
>Okay, the motion has been made and seconded -- all in favor say (well, type)
>"AYE".  All opposed, say "NO"...shut up, Petey Honey.  :-)

Aye.
--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:15:11 GMT

In <1992Nov20.150930.374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
>because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?

Whah?  I'm sure I'm not the only person who pursues free sex, safe sex,
abortion rights, etc. on this net who's a little confused here.  I can keep
my zipper up; in fact, I usually do unless I'm urinating, undressing for
bed, or having sex.  The latter happens much less often than the other two.
I don't imagine you have problems with your zipper, Ted.  Could you slow
down a little for the rest of us and restate your question?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:10:57 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.184434.1068@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>  What massive egotistical brainwave led you to assume that a
>non-sentient human fetus is more important than a suffering animal?

Probably a similar one to that which led you to assume that a human foetus is
non-sentient.

>                                                             MP

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:26:34 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>->An excuse for what, Mr. Keegan?
->>do your own homework eric. you're responsible for your
->>ignorance. you can't expect me to tutor you all of the
->>time.
->I don't expect you to tutor me, Mr. Keegan.

good. i see this a positive sign; a step forward if you
will.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:55:53 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <+wt1!x-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>Heard on CNN this evening:
>
>"About three dozen anti-abortion protestors tried to shut down a Boston
>clinic yesterday, but they were met by over 500 abortion rights
>supporters..."
>
>CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
>of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
>Clinton directly.

Oh, goodie!  Clinic defenders have to promise to be non-violent.  The
Secret Service doesn't have those constraints, and is rather better armed.
:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:22:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov19.003915.23933@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> 
> So. That is a matter of national defense.  It is not a case
> of murder, but rather self defense. Do you not know that killing
> in self defense is not murder?

A few brief points to show how the parallel cited was correct,
and you are in error in disagreeing with it.

The United States was not defending itself against Iraq or North
Viet Nam.  There is an argument to be made that some United
States' citizens were being defended in Granada, but there is
some question as to whether they were truly endangered.  I agree
that they felt they were endangered.

Finally, just as you see the killing you cite as justified, so
do people make the same argument for abortion.  There are
underlying principles here that make it more than a matter of
"I'm right and you're wrong," so that while you can argue that
abortion is murder, your argument must stand in the face of
people who argue legitimately that it is not.  Just as some
might argue that the liberation of Kuwait and the attendant
loss of life was a poor exercise of military judgement.  We
are on all sides weighing values, utility, and judgement.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:28:49 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1ebg8lINN3rh@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>[...]
>>When you rape, you involve the body of another person.
>>That person, just like you, has control over what happens
>>to his/her body.  The consent of the other person is
>>what makes the difference between consensual sex & rape.
>>
>>When a woman obtains an abortion, she affects her own body.
>>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
>>you have to prove your case.)
>
>The second statement is incorrect.  And it is trivially easy to prove that
>someone else's body is involved during some abortions,

Clue time:  *Saying* it's trivially easy to prove is *not* proving it.

Hint:  There's some*thing* else's body involved; what you're being asked to
prove is that that the fetus is some*one*.  The vast majority of abortions
are performed in the first trimester, when there's undoubtedly not a person
there.  In fact, neuroscientists place the minimum point for personhood at
28 weeks (7 months).  There are about 100 abortions performed *per year*
in this country after the 24th week, and those are only done for serious
health reasons.

To repeat what cj said:
>>Nobody else's body is involved.  (Hint: if you think otherwise,
>>you have to prove your case.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Sweety Petey Honey Nyikos lied about me, too!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:28:42 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >Dr. Nyikos has yet to lie about me, and isn't for lack of trying on my
# >part.  He simply ignores me.  <pout>
# 
# Let's experiment.
# 
# Tell him your name is Janice.
# 
# Adrienne Regard
# 
# PS, no really, maybe you just aren't good looking enough.  He has such rude
# crushes on all of us, but that's because none of us are blonde (-:.

I've got great heaving waves of silky golden hair that falls to where
my bra-strap would be -- if I regularly wore a brassiere, which I
don't -- but I doubt he'd pay any attention to *ME*.  I think I'm in
his DeFactoKillfile.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:31:20 GMT

In article <lefty-161192123613@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <BxKA1t.BM6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
>(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
>> 
>> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <Bx3I9x.G8y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
>> >(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> In the case of a pregnancy it is perfectly natural for the baby to be 
>> >> inside the mother to grow.  Human beings cannot grow normally in any 
>> >> other enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The mothers body 
>> >> accomodates the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  Women are 
>> >> designed to be able to be pregnant.
>> 
>> >Hmm.  Let's see what we can do with this, through the magic of "search and
>> >replace"...
>> 
>> >> In the case of cancer it is perfectly natural for the tumor to be inside 
>> >> the host to grow.  Tumors cannot grow normally in any other 
>> >> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The host's body accomodates
>> >> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  People are designed to be 
>> >> able to develop cancer.
>> 
>> >Do we have an accurate analogy to your reasoning here, Bernard?  Should we
>> >outlaw surgery removing tumors anytime soon?
>> 
>> Do you really think that there is anything substantive in your 'analogy'?
>> And if there is, could you explain it?
>
>In point of fact, my observation is of equal substance to your original
>one.  The cases, as far as I can see are 100 per cent parallel.  If you
>disagree, please feel free to explain why.
>
>As an alternative, please consider the following: I have a good friend who
>has been diagnosed as having an internal "growth" of some sort.  The cells
>comprising this "growth" have different DNA than my friend; the cells,
>moreover, are differentiating as it grows; it is growing at a somewhat
>alarming, and potentially health-threatening rate.
>
>Should my friend have this growth removed?  Should my friend be _permitted_
>to have this growth removed?

A z/e/f is a living human organism, just like us. A cancerous growth, on the 
other hand, is not an "organism" -- it's just a bunch of cells growing out of 
control.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion