HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:32:31 GMT

In article <44_pkl.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>Ray writes:
>>>  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?
>>
>>An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.
>
>That wasn't the question.  Is it a PERSON, in your opinion?
>

See a previous posted response for a response.

>>BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.
>
>Oh, really?  You remember back that far, do you?  ;-)
>
>Here's a small tidbit for you: the unborn at nine weeks has a nervous
>system less sophisticated than that of a squid.  Its nerves aren't
>sufficiently developed at that age to relay coherent signals to the
>brain.  For that matter, there isn't even a brain to receive the
>signals.  That's why you can't possibly remember back that far. ;)
>
>I disagree with your assertion.  Can you provide a reference to back it up?
>
My source is the
  U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control.

They also mention that 772,800 abortions are done each year in America
after this point in pregnancy.

This point, of course, refers to the period when the unborn is able
to feel pain.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Organization: The Tragically Hip
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:04:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.005334.20257@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In  <6703@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>> I'm wondering when Suzanne will tell us what "black facial
>> features" are.  Does she mean that the baby had white skin
>> everywhere other than its nose, ears, and mouth, or does she
>> imagine that all black people look alike?
>
>What *I* want to know is, did it have a black ass?
>
>:-)

Yow.  Well, at least you have an idea of what'll happen...:-)

--PLH, who doesn't own anything that could be mistaken for a robe
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:31:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <ld1pc0INNqg2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
>>the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
>>you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
>>right?  
>
>So a sperm/egg isn't human? If not, what is it?

Sperm/eggs are specialized human cells which acts as messengers.
>
>So a sperm/egg isn't alive? If not, what is it?
>
N/A

>If a sperm/egg is human and it is life, then does that not mean
>that _by_definition_ it is human life?

Certainly, you wouldn't start calling sperm/eggs human life would you?

You do know that you cannot call a sperm/egg members of homo sapiens.  Doing
so would be a very big leap.  By human life, I do not mean that which is
alive and is merely a messenger cell from a human.  Messenger cells are
not members of homo sapiens and therefore, cannot be called human life,
for the umpteenth time.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Chaney sucking up to Nyikos
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Sep29.155632.17407@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Sep22.160307.12159@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedlede
> >kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> >> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >
> >>> And condescending, and pretending to be literal-minded.
> >>> I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting.
> >                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> This sentence gets my vote for "most hypocritical" for the month of
> >> September, 1992.
> >
> >Mine too.  I'm beginning to wonder if that's really Professor Nyikos
> >behind that keyboard at math.scarolina.edu, or some Graduate Student
> >From Hell using Nyikos' account.  He's doing the same sort of parallel
> >behavior I noticed with DearOldDoug:  using a dishonest tactic and
> >accusing his opponents of the same thing at the same time.
>
> Oh hardy har har, you two. Two 50-gallon pots are now calling the kettle
> black. Nyikos exudes more intelligence when he signs his name than anything
> that's ever come from either of you.

That might be, but it's all the twaddle that appears *before* his .sig
that we're laughing at.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 00:09:39 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  <1992Oct6.185035.21338@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <ld3bm7INN2um@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric
> >In article <1992Oct6.023143.20915@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu
> >>In article <ld1pc0INNqg2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Er
> >>>In article <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu
> >
> >>>>The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
> >>>>the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
> >>>>you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
> >>>>right?
> >
> >>>So a sperm/egg isn't human? If not, what is it?
> >
> >>Sperm/eggs are specialized human cells which acts as messengers.
> >
> >>>So a sperm/egg isn't alive? If not, what is it?
> >
> >>N/A
> >
> >What do you mean, N/A? This is a very simple question: is the
> >sperm/egg alive or not? If it is not alive, then what is it?
> >
> It is alive.
>
> >>>If a sperm/egg is human and it is life, then does that not mean
> >>>that _by_definition_ it is human life?
> >
> >>Certainly, you wouldn't start calling sperm/eggs human life would you?
> >
> >Your darned right I would, because it _is_ by definition human life.
>
> My definition involves being a member of homo sapiens.
> In and of themselves, the sperm/egg, can
> not be called members of homo sapiens.

Sure they can.  Perhaps you should give your definition of "member".
Maybe the problem here is similar to where we didn't know that by
"human life" you meant something other than "human life".

> Your definition of human life you are trying to tag on me involves merely
> being alive and being a PART of a human being.  I do not hold that.  One
> cannot be merely part of a human being, like a skin cell or a sperm/egg,

Note that the sperm and egg are different than the skin cell, in that they
are separate individuals with a life of their own.  They are also genetically
different than the person's skin cells.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:40:50 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <6803@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:

>	WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
>		BY LIMB
 
Actually that sounds kind of cool.  Are you making an offer Michael?
 
>Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
 
Dan King
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:05:36 GMT

In article <25756@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> 
> In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

> 
> >This is in essence the crux of the problem.  Implicit in an anti-abortion
> >position is that women have different responsibilities than men because
> >of their biology.  To the 'old guard' women's movement this is heresy.
> 
> "Old guard"?!? There's a "new guard"? When did this happen?

Ron - all movements go through cycles, even the women's movement.  If
the term "old guard" was too loaded for you, I apologize for using a
counterproductive term.  If you were around during the sixties, the
difference between feminism then and now should be apparent.  For instance,
bra burning is no longer used to make statements.  Neither is the word
'different' taken as such a hot button as it was back then.

> 
> BTW, Paul, thanks for showing us your misogynist side. Nice of you to
> wish women to be barefoot and pregnant, forever enslaved to the wants
> of men. (This is in essence what your paragraph, taken in context with
> the rest of the post, says, whether you meant it or not.)

Wow!  You know my inner sole Ron!  Name calling only detracts from your
position, not mine.  The 'rest of my post' referred to my view on the fetus.
"Barefoot and pregnant"????? To use and "old guard" abreviation, you
must really take me for an MCP.  

> 
> Oh! And as a last statement regarding your suggestion to go witness
> a third-tri abortion, I'll do so as soon as you needlessly go witness
> open-heart bypass surgery on a heavy, overweight smoker. Be sure to 
> let me know what you think of cigarettes and fatty foods after that.
> I know my opinion won't change a bit, because unlike the pro-enslavement
> crowd, I don't think anyone lightly gets a third-tri abortion.

Yuck!  What are you trying to say?  I was only responding to what I felt was a
matter-of-fact way in which the original poster referred to third trimenter 
abortions.




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.174846.6741@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <BvpnLC.CMJ@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>
>Have YOU been enjoying sex, Cynthia?
>If so, please report yourself to the nearest church for reprogramming.
>
>-Ekr

I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)

CRS



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
X-To: DAN KING
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:12:00 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
DK> Don Beaver writes...
DK> db>But I still don't know whether he was illustrating a point (and/or ventin
DK> db>anger) or being literal.  I do hope the former was the case (in which
DK> db>case I'd say it was a matter of very poor judgement but not deserving of
DK> db>exile), and I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt until I hear more.

DK> I will not give Will the benifit of the doubt.  Will Steeves has threatened
DK> to kill women that do not show him the proper respect.


For the third or fourth (or ...) time, I did *not* threaten *anyone*, Dan.  I
believe that I have made this point abundantly clear.  Also, I was referring
to my *thoughts* about *ONE* woman, NOT "women" in general.  I repeat again,
that even though we have all had violent *THOUGHTS* of one sort or another,
as a result of highly stressful situations, very few such thoughts result in
actual violence.  Why are you reading the disclosure of my private thoughts
as a declaration that I had threatened her?

In fact, *she* threatened *me* three times, *twice* while we were still
together.  If you want details, I will provide them upon request.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Politically incorrect and proud of it.
From: "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Inferno@Eight.Bolgia.Malebolge
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:19:04 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.01)

>Try this on for size.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>
>-- 
>Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Clearly, you dont have the slight idea of what you are talking about..
I've watched family die slow agonizing deaths in nursing homes.. I would
allow a dog to die like my grandfather did.. so take your petty values
and insert them.. Why dont you go to a terminal ward or a hospice and
do some helpfull work.. maybe by the slightest of chances you could
learn something 

Faustus
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More Useful Facts
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:54:56 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] 

thank you for pointing out that doing a survey 
of memebers of a Veterans Support Group for
Delaysed Stress syndrome MIGHT lead one to 
conclude that all Vets are victims there of....


Or that a Study of a Group of Sailors  who
recieve sea pay would reveal that most of 
them Work on Ships, and tryig to extrapolate 
from this that the Military Deals, 
in the Main on Ships.... [1]

And that Most College Students are Young....

That the Vast Majority of Members of
Womens Organizations are Female....

That Few Dead Persons Reply to surveys.....


Oh boy....

this could be a Great Place to get Funding
for Essential Social Science Projects.....


ciao
drieux


[1] for the slow reader, this is called flame bait....
Watch some MudCrawler Get Emotionally Traumatized by
the fact that they were Slighted.....



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38955 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4672 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5991
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Casey 1996! (Was Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:26:30 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Mike Swartz says:

>There are actually a few governors I like.  Tommy Thompson is one.  There
>was a lot of talk about Ex-Governor Jim Thompson of Illinois becoming a
>VP candidate, but I haven't heard much about him in the last 8 years or
>so...  California is not known for having very good politicians.  Reagan
>was a rare GREAT one.  But there isn't a single candidate for any office
>in this whole state that is worth a damn.

Wait a second, what about Bruce Hirschinshorn?  I don't know a great deal
about the fellow, but I saw his debate with B.Boxer on C-Span and wow was he
impressive.  He demands such respect when he speaks.  Mature, Candid, deep
voice, seems to be sharply sincere, and his flat tax rate is a bag of gold.


>I want to see taxes go down, not up.  Not particularly for the rich, but
>for everyone.  With Clinton's economic plan, we will have an additional
>$70 Billion defecit and that money really does have to come from somewhere.
>I submit that it can only come from the middle and lower classes after the
>tax on the rich doesn't raise enough.  I am a firm believer that social
>programs administered at the state level will be much better at solving
>our woes.

Sounds a lot like Hirschinshorn to me.  I think he comes across even better
than Kemp.  Much better.  And the flat tax rate is something I believe
Amercians will finally want.  


>So WHO would I like to be voting for for president?  Believe it or not,
>.....vote for Jack Kemp, first and foremost.  If not Kemp, I'd want to vote
>for Phil Gramm.  Then James Baker would be a good vote, too.  Kemp and
>Gramm are the top two economic minds in government today.  Kemp is the
>best problem solver we have, also. 

Kemp would take Clinton with no problem.  Unfortunately, he's not running. I
certainly hope Gramm is not in the running in 96.  I plan to begin work on
Kemp's campaign right after the election in november.  Hopefully I can
finish my Doctorate by the spring of 96 to jump along for the ride.

>--
>Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
>Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
>Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
>1124 Fremont Ave.
>Los Altos, CA 94024


======================================================
 Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
     Inst.of Higher Education, UGA, Athens, Georgia               
=====================================================                                                                          
	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
				        (Goya, Caprichos)
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:54:06 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <rv+p5yr.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Giving birth has the possibility of causing women to die.  So?
>What's your point?  That abortion is better because one only risks
>a slight change of infertitlity?   :-)

	Certainly in cases where the mother's life is in immediate
danger (note that the childs is also in almost all of these cases),
abortion is a viable option so that at least one life might be saved.
But this is a rare occurance. The vast majority of pregnancies do not
cause death to the mother. On the other hand, someone ALWAYS dies in
an abortion.

			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:58:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.220924.6990@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>
>... such as what?  Does this 98% include only things like "Gee, if I
>get pregnant, I won't be able to fit into this nice dress," or does it
>include "I got raped and if I have to take maternity leave from work,
>then I won't have enough money to buy food or pay the rent"?
>
98% definitely EXCLUDES rape.

>
>>The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
>>out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
>>whatever.  
>
>That's your opinion; I disagree.  I'd like to think that I am
>something more than a fertilized egg is.  I've grown and learned, and
>become something more than I was even just five years ago.  To say
>that I am the same stuff as a single cell is, is to insult me and to
>deny what I am.
>
I am not insulted.  I'm sure there are people who are not insulted.  
Personally, I think it is quite humbling to think just exactly where
we all came from.

>>In whatever way you put it,the one year old newborn, the
>>ten year old boy/girl, and the present day you is essentially the same 
>>individual.
>
>I think I understand what you're saying, but I disagree here, too.  I
>am an entirely different person from the person I was at ten years of
>age.  I have different hopes and dreams, different beliefs, and
>different values.  I have become something better.

The circumstances affecting you may change as time progresses
but that doesn't really change the fact that the unborn child you
were and you are essentially one and the same.
>
>>You, are one with yourself.
>
>(What did the Zen master say to the hot-dog vendor?
> "Make me one with everything.")
>
>Life is just the process of taking bare existence and hanging
>different events and memories on it that will make me distinct from
>every other person who has ever lived.  (Read my .sig.)  An unborn
>fetus hasn't added anything to its existence, so by killing it, we're
>not taking anything away that can't be created again at a better time.

But certainly, that is taking away a definite human life, right?  By the way,
that which was destroyed (whether it be Sarah, Mark, or Vladimir) can
NEVER come back.  Humans, contrary to some of our notions, are not renewable.
Let us not treat our fellow brothers and sisters like old newspapers, bottles
or cans to be recycled in the hope that it will show up again.
>
>I think the primary difference between our arguments is your emphasis
>on 'potential' and my emphasis on 'actual'.
>
An actual human life exists at conception.  An actual human life exists
at five years of age.  You are an actual human life.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:20:29 GMT

In <1992Sep25.141839.708@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <y5czbd_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->> by "non-substantive," i think bill means posts with
->> content along the lines of "Energizer bunny" and "Pee
->> Wee." i wonder if he's ever considered the meaning of
->> "physician heal thyself."

->By non-substantive, I mean your consistent refusal to 
->answer direct questions pertaining to your "opinion" 
->that Doug Holtsinger needs to "see [his] therapist". 

you're lying, bill. i answered your question(s)
several times. you responded to my answers. why
are you lying, bill?

here's one such answer of mine, bill. do you
remember replying to it?

	Message-ID: <1992Sep18.234833.12160@crd.ge.com>

	since dean expressed this with such clarity and flair,
	he can speak for me in response to this specific
	question (sorry galen).

        dean> Yes, here we come to the nub, the rub,
        dean> the pith, the inner core, the leafless
        dean> artichoke of the matter.  My powers of
        dean> inference are, in fact, greater than
        dean> yours, dear William.  Unhampered by
        dean> training that tells me I must refuse to
        dean> believe what I see and hear unless
        dean> textbook that permits me to do so, my
        dean> powers of inference have grown far beyond
        dean> the average.  Reminds me of a time when
        dean> some birdpwatcher told me I couldn't have
        dean> seen a Lapland Longspur on a bird-feeder
        dean> in my yard, a mere half mile from the
        dean> beach, because Lapland Longspurs don't go
        dean> to bird-feeders a half mile from the
        dean> beach.  Well, I have pictures of the bird
        dean> and it's a Lapland Longspur all right.
        dean> Unhampered by knowing better than to know
        dean> what is right in fron tof my eyes is
        dean> real, I accept what I see as real.

are your misrepresentations about me an element of a
professional plan of action you're conducting, bill;
perhaps net-therapy? what are the ethical considerations
for one in your profession in regard to doing something like
this?

->The substance of my "Energizer bunny" remark related
->to your behavior in that regard.  

are you suggesting that the "Energizer bunny" made
you do it?