HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Something about a college centre?/death penalty
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:31:55 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)

-"If there has turned up any solid evidence that a partially
-developed fetus (like 12 weeks or less) is conscious and aware, then I
-would
-agree that it is indeed a child.  Otherwise, my fine friend, your
-posting is a prime example of fascist bullshit."
-
-Allow me to take this from another perspective -- has anyone ever
-proven that a partially developed fetus is NOT alive? Allow me answer
-that -- no, nobody ever has. Therefore, it is entirely POSSIBLE -- not
-certain, mind you -- that aborting a fetus MAY be taking a life. Is
-society not supposed to err on the side of caution? If there is a
-possibility we are commiting genocide, shouldn't society listen to the
-better angels of their nature and put a stop to it? Just a thought.

Who ever said feti weren't alive?  What does this have to do with 
genocide anyway?

-"I feel that the legalized killing of aware, thinking human beings is
-far more atrocious than abortion, byseveral orders of magnitude."
-
-Excuse me, but are you NUTS? Are you saying that the execution of
-individuals who (most would say) DESERVE to be put to death for
-committing crimes unimaginably heinous is more atrocious than the
-killing of an unborn child, who is the quintessence of innocence? I see
-a problem with your logic, my friend.

There is no problem.  Why do so many people think criminals should be
killed?  Two wrongs makes a right?  I don't think so.  I don't
believe Charles Manson should be killed, even if he is an evil
scum-sucking slime bastard from Hell.  You also seemed to have missed
the "aware, thinking" part describing the human beings.  I still
tihnk "unborn child" is an emotionally overloaded term inappropriate
for constructive discussion, no matter whose dictionary may disagree.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 01:58:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In article <850nlnk.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>>Abortion doesn't kill people.
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Keep this in mind for a while.
>>>
>>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 
>>>
>>>  This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>>>right?  
>>
>>Well duh.  So's my finger.  Relevence?
>
>Cut off your finger and tell me that that part is indeed a member of homo
>sapiens.  Most people would probably say no.  Sure it is part of a being
>which probably was a human, but is your finger a human life?

Clearly not.  But it does have complete human DNA.

>Now cut off the an unborn baby a few weeks before birth.  Would you consider
>that the unborn baby is a human life?  You might say yes (I have to say
>might because of the amazing rationalizations some people have).  Now

If it's alive, yes.  Now try it 7 months before birth.  Is THAT a person?

>  Now
>look to the mother.  Is that human life?  I'm sure you'll say yes.  Now
>ask, are they one and the same thing?  That the unborn baby is merely an
>object similar to a finger is to a human being?  

>   What exactly do we mean by being born?  Does being born mean that the
>unborn baby becomes separated with his/her mother, and tries to live a life
>outside the mother's womb?  

Bingo.  Pat the boy on the head.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 06:41:32 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  <1992Oct4.215106.6830@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct04.081042.31313@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>
> >I'm stating that sperm, eggs, and zygotes are equivalent in the sense that
> >they are all single-celled human organisms.  (That's human as an adjective,
> >qualifying "organism").  None of them are human in the sense of being a
> >person, and none have any moral obligations due them.
>
> That is the general sense I got from you.
>
> Let me just end it (you may put your closing comments too later)

Consider my closing comments to be the last sentence you quoted above:
   None of them are human in the sense of being a person,
   and none have any moral obligations due them.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39836 talk.religion.misc:17536 alt.atheism:18284
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:32:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <25817@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>>Since when? Do you see it granted or stated anywhere? I see lots of
>>other rights granted, but not the one to life. We are granted other
>>rights (and yes, that is granted, because they can be taken away, and
>>have been throughout history) that we can claim while we are alive.

>No one has to grant anyone else the right to life.  People have it
>from the moment of their existence whether or not some document says so.

Have you heard of TbBA? (Truth by Blatant Assertion) That is exactly
what your statement is. It is meaningless.

>Did the blacks in the early 1800s have the right to be free?  Was it written
>anywhere?  It wasn't stated anywhere in law but they did have a right not
>to be slaves.

I believe that the laws of that time allowed them to be free, but it
wasn't their right, nor was it the right for anyone to be free at that
time. Take a look at the practice of indentured servants which covered
all races, and how it amounted to a situation no beter than slavery.
It is why this practice was outlawed some time ago, also. You seem to
be confusing your morals with what is and is not allowed by law. Rights
are granted by laws, the Constitution grants us all rights enumerated
and not enumerated in that document, thus giving us any rights we wish
to claim that are not abridged through that document. People in other
times also did not have rights, even in the present. We cannot, for
instance, apply our laws to the people of Iran, where women are pretty
much enslaved today. (clue - they have no rights)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:53:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.052949.12333@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct1.213814.25101@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct01.070324.149832@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
>> >In  <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Mart
>> >> In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
>> >> >
>> >> >You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>> >> >a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>> >> >and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>> >>
>> >> Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>> >> at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>> >
>> >I think you're a little confused.  Nothing's being "dehumanized".  We all
>> >know that it's a human fetus.  The point is, it's not a *child* until it's
>> >*born*.
>> >
>>
>> Which allows us to say that abortion, does indeed, destroy and kill
>> human life.
>
>Well, sure.  So does masturbation, ovulation, and surgery.  So?
>

You are still into the sperm/egg are humans (is a sperm a member of
homo sapiens?  Com'on now) aren't you.  Well they aren't.

I have very little else to say because I am tired of arguing this point.
You don't have to bother responding either.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39553 alt.abortion.inequity:4152 alt.birthright:485
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: For Adrienne and Kathi
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Oct 92 13:36:57 GMT

In <1992Sep29.104445.28790@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <nyikos.717640402@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>
>>Adrienne, by the way, did not use a smiley when she came up
>>with that story about hearing women screaming at doctors to
>>stop delivering their children.  Part of her prerogative as
>>Lady High Everything Else, you see, is to leave them off.

>[Adrienne] is a doggedly consistent defender of individual
>choice for women, and a system of values which places the life
>and life plans of a thinking, feeling, living, breathing woman
>above the interests of potential lives in all cases. 
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please read my post, "Adrienne's appalling attitude towards the unborn,"
noting especially her use of the word "kill" ["potential lives" indeed!].
You are out of sync with even her terminology, dedicated pro-choicer
though she is.

I will deal with the rest of your insincere post, and also the
words "doggedly consistent" when I am not so pressed for time.
I'm giving my first two hour tests today, the last date for
students here withdrawing without a failing grade being October 8.

Peter Nyikos







Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39997 alt.abortion.inequity:4202 alt.birthright:509
From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 00:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.185434.11428@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>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."

Huh?  I don't quite understand your point here.  Please expand.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (ISBN 0851125840)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fetus as a member of the human race (Ref: Ray)
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:56:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Larry
>Kevin
>> Larry
>> >Kevin

>> >> There is a grave difference, Larry, between a being that is human and a
>> >> human being.


>> Actually, the last term is incomplete in meaning.  Legally, it refers to a
>> born Homo sapien.  Biologically, it refers to a Homo sapien, the correct
>> designation of the word.

>I wasn't aware that "person" was a biological term; can you point
>me to a reference?

Actually  I was referring to the last thing I said.  Sorry for being vague in
my pointers. 

>> >> To call a sperm a human being is inappropriate because the
>> >> term human being biologically, philosophically and legally connotes that the
>> >> being is a borne human (member of Homo sapien)
>>
>> >Right, that's what human being means.
>>
>> To NOT tell the truth does not mean that one lies.  To NOT lie does not mean
>> one has told the truth.  A being that is human is not a human being.

>OK, so a zygote is not a human being.  Glad we finally cleared that up.

No, that statement indicts a generality.  For example, a sperm is human in its
origin; nonetheless, it is not a human being, only a being that is human in 
origin.

>> >> or is the result of the
>> >> unification of a sperm and an egg, a fertilized ovum.

>> >No, that's a being that is human.

>> A sperm is a being that is human in origin.  Hold the difference to be that
>> the creation of a zygote is a genetic human being...
>
>No, they're both beings that are human, but you just agreed that that does
>*not* imply a human being.

I said that a particle/object/whatever that is a being that is human (ie has
human origins) is not necessarily a human being.  However, a human being is
a being that is human.  It's biological equivalence with a ful grown human
being establishes the z/e/f as a human being.  

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

kcw

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

I died once, but then I renewed my subscription to LIFE . . ..
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 21:16:00 GMT

<1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>> >Father.

Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
apologize for it.

>> I don't think I'm the only one here (I'm posting from alt.atheism) who
>> is tired of this talk about the "agony", "suffering", and "death" of
>> Jesus from Nazareth.  (Yes, I mean all those quotation marks).
>> ...
>> Rightly so.  Go ahead, prove that he suffered.  Only be sure to make
>> it quite clear that he didn't just fake suffering (for whatever purpose).
>
>Oh, yeah, you mean like the way unborn babies "fake" their suffering when
>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.
>
>Get real.

Indeed.  I suggest you take that advice.  The suffering of the mythical
"unborn baby" is on par with the "suffering" of the mythical Mermaid by the
pollution of the oceans, or the "suffering" of mythical Pink Elephants
that die in car crashes with drunk drivers.  Please deal with the real
suffering, of those women who accidently get pregnant when they do not
want to be pregnant.  Those women who are in danger of losing their job,
career, education, or possibly their family's love.

Why is it you're able to "see" the suffering of these "unborn babies" but 
not the real-world suffering of the pregnant woman who does not wish to be
pregnant?


Gordon, Professional Atheist
-- 
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:39199 alt.abortion.inequity:4118
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Clarity is a Dangerous Game
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:57:22 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] 
] AGAIN:  I am arguing whether this is *consistent* or not.
] Please avoid "you are advocating" responses, thanks.
] 
] Don


' mere consistency is the hobgobblin of lesser minds. '

			The Bard

A part of the 'feedback loop' process of clarifying an
ambiguous proposition is to present it as an assertion
that has been made by the person who has made the
assertion. That you may not like the implications, or
the derivable notions of an assertion YOU have made is
not a matter worth dithering about.

either get off the playing at fences, and say what you
mean, or expect that people will take what you say as
something that you have said.

Grand Satire is a Most Difficult artform to deal with,
and bleeding bandwidth trying to avoid that you have
asserted proposition X is not a useful means to any end.

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:59:14 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>>> Yes, and let's not forget the forced-abortions policies of China.
 
>> Policies which are just a repugnant to pro-choicers as forced
>> pregnancy.  Forced-abortion and forced-pregnancy both take away
>> from women control of their bodies.

> Which reminds me--

> I read a news article not long ago that stated that China does not,
> nor did it ever have, a policy of forced abortion.  I have read about
> China's `coerced abortion' policy which amounts to strong government
> incentives for abortion as a population control measure, but searching
> my memory, I can't remember ever reading about China's `forced
> abortion' policy.

I believe you are right, James.  Although (since we're in a terminology-
clarifying mode here), it's probably more accurate to say that China has
some pretty strong _dis_incentives against having more than one child.
I seem to recall reading a story about a Chinese woman being fined $1000
(a LOT of money in the PRC) for having a second child.

> I don't know what to believe.  It seems to be common knowledge that
> China has a `forced abortion' policy, but a source of information I
> usually trust is telling me that it isn't so.  Now, I'm wondering if
> this `forced abortion' policy is really a myth, or if my source is
> deliberately lying.

There's a new book at our public library about this.  It seems well-
researched but the title seems to betray a certain bias: it's called
"The Slaughter of the Innocents" or something like that.

> Would someone please post a description of China's forced abortion
> policy?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri,  2 Oct 1992 21:22:21 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington


 In talk.abortion, eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Elizabeth Cornelia Green) writes:
>Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
  
>Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>the deaths of millions?!


I only got to see the first fifteen minutes of her speach, because of my
job on Friday night, but she is great speaker.  I would recommend seeing
her if you get the chance.

By the way, because of the catholic church's stand on aids education,
the pope will be responsible for the death of millions of real people. 
I'd hate to be him on judgement day.

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:34:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.222140.22720@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>Are you not taking into consideration that the technology would get cheaper
>and cheaper over time?  What happens when it only costs a few thousand
>dollars or about as much as it costs to have a baby in a hospital today?
>

Is that the reason why the presciption drugs to treat my pre-schooler
costs MORE today than they did when I was a pre-schooler?  In case you
haven't heard, medical care costs do not deflate in price, as a rule.
Medical costs have risen, not gone down, over the years.

And as for the cost to have a baby....When I was born, the hospital, ob,
and other related bills were....are you ready?   $50.  Yep.  Fifty dollars.
Whey my first son was born, the total bill was over $10,000.  Yep, that
s four zeros there.  When my second son was born, it was even more than the
first.  So much afor your cost of having a baby going down theory....

And, if some sort of embryonic transfer costs $10000, then how could a
teenage girl possibly afford it?  Even if it costs half that, there's no
way in hell anyone without insurance could afford it.  Hell, it would have
to be as cheap as abortion--free in some cases--for it to be affordable.
I don't see that happening for some time, do you?

Jennifer
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I *am* presumptuous enough! (was Re: The fundamental question...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:35:40 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
: >> = kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
: >  = frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >> I, for one, am not presumptuous enough to think I know what is best for 
: >> every woman in America, or in the world. [...]
: 
: +> What's that?  A man is going to what?  Kill you?   You want us to what?  
: +> Stop him?  Well, we are not presumptuous enough to think we know what is 
: +> best for every man in America, or in the world....
: 
: Just like I protect you from those nasty, evil men, I will protect you from 
: your own nasty, evil brain...

Nice ad hominem, where can I get one?

: 
: What's that?  Some woman I never met, under circumstances I know absolutely 
: nothing about, might choose to have an abortion?   Well, that just won't do.
: We must forbid this choice.  We must have laws that codify *my* opinions.
: These laws must be brainlessly & automatically applied to all women -- the 
: circumstances are irrelevant -- the results are irrelevant.  *I* know what 
: is best for all.   Don't bother your little heads by thinking, just listen 
: to me, your big daddy.  Or else.
: 
: signed - A MAN who is presumptuous enought to think he know's what is best 
: 	 for ever woman in America ... and the world!

See the lines marked with + above.
Repeat ad hominem as necessary, and leave to cool.
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion