HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: I *am* presumptuous enough! (was Re: The fundamental question...)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 00:37:21 GMT

In <1992Sep29.193540.14161@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>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'm curious to know just how Brian does this.  Also why, and why he feels
the unborn do not need protection from those nasty abortionists.

>: I will protect you from 
>: your own nasty, evil brain...

Against whom does Brian think this evil is directed?

>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

No, Brian, to all abortionists.  Stop trying to mislead a poor Irishman
about what USA laws were all about in what NARAL calls "the dark ages."

BTW it is also a NARAL party line to say that what pro-lifers "really" want to
do is to "limit women's reproductive choices" and that "fetus-worship" is 
just for public consumption.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:02:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.005721.19819@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep26.225425.25128@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu 
> writes:
> }In article <-50nk1h.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> }>Myelenation is the point where myelin forms around the nerves.  Without
> }>myelin, nerves don't work.  MS (or is it ALS?) is a disease involving the 
> }>deterioration of this sheath.  Invariably fatal.
> 
> Multiple sclerosis (ms), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (als) and primary
> lateral sclerosis (pls) all involve deterioration of the myelin sheath.
> Neither the cause nor a cure is known.  While sometimes fatal, they
> are not invariably so.  Most often, someone with such a diagnosis finds
> that their condition is not life threatening, but the quality of life is 
> certainly affected.  Perhaps the most famous example of als is Stephen
> F. Hawking.

Interesting.  Just curious...how much myelin sheath is necessary for a
human
to reach a state of human-ness?

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

> }>Before this stage in the development of a fetus, it is clearly incapable
> }>of thought or sensation.  Thus, it becomes a useful measure of human-ness.
> 
> }Many adults in a coma are like this also.  
> 
> Not at all.  Most patients in a coma have nothing whatever wrong with 
> their myelin.   Mri scans can prove that this is not the case.

It was being argued though that to be able to think or feel was a necessary
condition for human-ness.  I was merely pointing out a case where this was
not possible to demonstrate.  

If you still don't like that example, ever heard of people becomming "brain
dead" for a few moments, but then comming "back to life?"  In the time
between, was it ok to hack them to
pieces?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:06:53 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <1992Oct6.061730.13587@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>For starters, read the Constitution.
>
>I did, I didn't find anything to do with abortion in there.

Bingo!  Remember that the Constitution specifically lays out what
government MAY do, and what rights or freedoms the people have ceded to it
so that it may carry out its duties.

All rights of the people are NOT listed in the document.  Heck, the
founders were a bit afraid of a 'bill of rights' because they feared those
would be the only rights protected.

Look at the 9th and 10th ammendments...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:02:55 GMT

In <1a7911INNdlg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.051014.10293@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>>>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>>I have !  I have!  And I've seen a rat embryo (lots of em too)
>>and a fish embryo and a buncha others that I just can't remember!
>>Do I get a prize, Peter?  (sorry I don't know what the point is here)

>Brian, have you seen a human fetus?  

A picture of one will do just as well, and I was assuming (it's baseless
speculation, I know) that everyone who is on this net has seen quite a
few pictures of human fetuses.

>Comparisons don't work if people haven't two things to compare.  I notice
>that Mr. Nyikos asks how many people have seen fetal pigs, but not how many
>people have seen fetal humans....

After 7 years on this net, I should hope YOU have seen plenty of 
pictures of fetal humans.  Just curious: have you seen them "live"
(or dead, but still in the flesh)?  

>Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 01:13:49 GMT

In <1992Sep22.022532.20340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:


>Say what you want, but Suzanne Forgash does have a heart.  A bigger heart
>than a lot of folks.  Granted, I feel she's often talk.abortion's own
>Harpie from Hell and I don't make much of a secret about that.  I also 
>feel that she might have some pretty looney ideas most of the time.
>You gotta give her credit though.  She can sit and say that if she
>were raped the father would be at fault, not the child.  That takes a lot,
>an awful lot, of being able to disassociate the act with the physical result.
>I am rather impressed.  (I'm not easily impressed, either.)

>Lest this go unnoticed in the flamefest that t.a often becomes, I just
>thought I'd point this out.  

I noticed it.  Even this left-handed compliment is a refreshing change
from what the pro-choicers have been slinging at Suzanne.

Still, that "Harpie from Hell" bit saddens me, and I hope Galen will
come to see Suzanne in a better light than this.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: War of words.
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:40:29 GMT

   Let's create a new weapon in the war on words, shall we?

   The quote file.

   "The pro-life movement is not anti-sex."

<> "I think contraception is disgusting.  Allowing people to use each
<> other for pleasure.  It should be outlawed." - Terry Randall, 1987

<> "I tend to believe sex needs a deterrent, and pregnancy seems to be
<> a good one." - our own Douglas Meier, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

   "The pro-life movement is not facist."

<> "Almost all abortion doctors are Jews.  Abortion makes money for
<> Jews.  Almost all abortion nurses are lesbians.  When abortion is
<> declared to be illegal, they will be hung by piano wire from the
<> tallest trees." - Tom Metzger, The White American Resistance, 1985.

   Come on, that's just two!  Send in your best (worst) quotes from the
anti-abortion movement and we'll see what we can make if it.

         Elf !!!
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:42:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Sep29.182606.8078@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.155924.18093@cs.yale.edu>,
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> >If I am within 1 cm of ground-zero of a h-bomb explosion and have absolutly
>> >
>> >nothing to protect me, I will die.
>> Not only is this not KNOWN to be true, it's not even true at all.
>> There is a nonzero though vanishingly small probability that every
>> single particle of matter will tunnel through your body and that not
>> a single photon will be absorbed by your body. I.e. that you will
>> be completely unaffected by the blast. This is not a likely occurrence,
>> but it is also explicitly permitted by Quantum Mechanics. Care to
>> try again?
>
>Sure.  Thanx for the info.  Interesting theory.  Anyone care to test it?
>I am sure you're aware of that the math involved in showing this, could
>be at fault in any of a million or so places.  But since this is getting
>off the subject, I will stop here.
Sure, the math COULD be faulty.
But the same math that predicts that you are likely to expire
also predicts that there is some finite probability that you will
not expire. To my knowledge, there is no mathematical theory which
correctly predicts the probability that you will expire that does
not also predict that you might not. E.g. the math that predicts that
thermonuclear explosions occur "believes in" the uncertainty principle.

>Ok, I am willing to try again.  Cut my body into a million pieces. 
>Distribute
>those pieces to a million different cities.  Cremate those pieces and wait
>for the ashes to disolve into the earth.  I will be dead at the end of this
>process.
Nope. Nonzero probability that those molecules might spontaneously
reassemble into you. Agreed, it's not high, but certainty is generally
not available in physics.

I pointed this out to you in Email, Mr. Gorr. Physical properties
are predicted by QM to at least appear to be nondeterministic.
Therefore any method of death you choose has some nonzero probability
of you not dying. These probabilities are so close to zero as to be
uninteresting practically, but you claimed certainty and that is
unavailable.

Once again, I recommend you check out a decent QM textbook before
trying again.
-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: I'd walk a mile for a Camel...
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.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 03:05:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.717794611@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>

[About Adrienne, and "bestowing" yet another title on her...]

>I've got other ideas, but I'd like to hear her reaction to this one.

Adrienne, if I were you I'd be concerned. Peter seems to have two obsessions:

1) You.
2) Women being tied to tables and forcibly given abortions.

--
=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???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:35:19 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <25717@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
>>Regard) writes:

>>>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.

Come off your high horse, Adrienne.

>>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.

>Not dehumanizing. You're "humanizing" a fetus. (actually personifying,
>but hey, it's a free world, right!) A fetus is not really more than
>an amoeba, man-o-war, or squid for a good portion of its development.
>After that time, until birth, it is not much more than any other young
>mammal, and in truth, many mammals are capable of considerably more
>at birth than any infant. You attempt to personify a fetus as a person,
>which I contend it is not.

I've addressed these issues already in posts with you, Bense.  Are
you simply trying to ascertain where Martin is coming from, and
how knowledgeable HE is?

> You wouldn't be attempting emotionalism with
>"unborn child" now, would you?

I think not.  See "Adrienne's use of `asshole' is unwarranted," where
I cite an 1872 Colorado State Supreme Court decision using this very
term.  Even in our changed climate, the term can VERY arguably be
applied to fetuses past the point of viability.

>>>Our main difference is that you cannot see PAST the fetus/unborn.

>>I don't think so.  I do see past the fetus/unborn.  And it is precisely
>>because I see "past the fetus/unborn" do I see the horrors of abortion.

>Nice of you to use a different meaning of the word past, as a time variant,
>instead of a physical variant. Nice word-play!

I can't speak in the name of Martin, but if I had said the same thing,
it would NOT be a word-play.  See THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR
MOTHERS, Case 1, where I place the most emphasis on the mother in the
original post, and the young woman in a follow-up.

[Karen, if you are still listening, the foregoing is my humble excuse
for not taking *this* follow-up off this thread.]

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Summary: Still *MORE* unsubstantiated accusations from "Dr Nyikos"... 
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.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:25:49 GMT

In article <nyikos.718153289@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.194134.14241@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>: > Peter Nyikos writes:
>
>>: >[The fetus has a right to]
>>: >be spared a death perhaps more agonizing than most of us will suffer.
>
>>: How can abortion be agonizing pain for the fetus if it doesn't have
>>: fully-developed and connected nerves yet, nor a brain to register
>>: pain?  And even if it does, why can't the abortion just include the
>>: injection of a nerve-deadening drug into the amniotic sac to keep the
>>: fetus from feeling anything?
>
>I'd like to know why this is not already being done.

The net is awaiting your proof that in the rare instances where a viable
fetus is aborted, the fetus is not given anesthia.

I'm not holding my breath.
--
=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=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:03:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 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  <1992Sep30.192300.18227@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>
> Fair point.  I do not mean 'blame' in the sense of 'punish', but
> in the sense of 'responsible'.   Some people have posted that they
> think abortion is a responsible solution to this.   And they are entitled
> to their opinion.
>
> However I find it hard to see how any responsibility to the fetus is
> fulfilled

Note that you're jumping from "responsible for" to "responsible to".
Many people don't feel that there is any responsibility to a fetus.

> when people offer shabby apologies like ...
> "Silence gives consent".

I think that's a sarcastic rejoinder to comments like, "the fetus didn't
give its consent to be aborted".  Obviously something without a mind is
not *capable* of giving consent (or of objecting).

> But in your view, should a reluctant father be compelled to give
> blood to his child, if by his own actions he caused that child to be
> in need of a transfusion, and he was the only compatible donor?
>
> If you can answer 'no' to that, this is consistent with the pro-choice
> view on abortion.  And if you do answer 'no', is it O.K. with you if I
> choose to say that father is being somewhat selfish?

Absolutely.  And I'd agree with you.  But the question at hand is, should
the law *compel* someone to not be selfish.  At the present time, the
answer is No.  Some people want to change the law so that the answer is
Yes for a fetus, but still No for a child.  This is inconsistant.  But
of course, in this case, it's not the father who would be compelled, but
the mother.  Which is why some people say it's also misogynistic.

> You know, it would save a lot of bandwidth, a lot of keyboards, and a
> lot of my time, if people like you could just take somebody's word about
> what it is they "want" to do.  I want to afford a fetus the dignity and
> respect that should be afforded any human being.  _That_ is what I want to
> do, O.K.?

And what I want to do is afford the woman the rights that should be
afforded any other person.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:45:18 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Before Roe v. Wade, there was never any Constitutional right for 
>an individual to kill a human being.

Self defense.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: achmadsn@dhhalden.no (ACHMAD SUBHAN NASIR)
Subject: Re: So You agree Women are Still Functionally Second Class...
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 07:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.201113.8638@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
>Subject: So You agree Women are Still Functionally Second Class...
>Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 20:11:13 GMT
>rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
>] 
>] Wait a second this cannot be a "well, if I want to and it is good for me
>] then I'll be in a combat situation (get paid more)"  It has to 
>] be an all or nothing.  Either women sign up for then selective service
>] like all men do or they cannot fight.  Why should women choose when
>] men cannot??   This would promote women into first class citzenship
>
>
>thank you for clarifying one of the minor pressing problems
>in the american way of doing things....
>
>
>Maybe when folks can understand that women are as good with
>an M-16 as males are with them... perchance we might actually
>think of them as real Persons deserving of Real Rights just
>like all the rest of the DraftBait out there....
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>
>-- 
>Modern Day Problems
>
>I just restructured my mail queue hierarchy and 
>I can't do a thing with it.....
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39153 talk.politics.misc:48446 alt.sex:31240 alt.rush-limbaugh:6126 alt.politics.elections:14566 alt.politics.clinton:7673 alt.politics.bush:7072
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:02:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

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.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:42:36 GMT


I never said that sex was a crime, but if both parents excercised a little
preparation they might not have to face the prospect of an unplanned pregnancy.


Simon
From: marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans)
Subject: Re: This is getting so funny that I had to cross post it to alt.pagan (Was: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?)
Organization: Cicely Public Access UNIX, Cicely, AK
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:59:41 GMT

This is one of the things I hate about net.arguments. Sometimes I just want
to scream, "Please -- cut to the chase!!!"

Marty

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Another beer, and then he eyes                 marty@world.std.com
The barmaid's legs and waist and thighs.        Marty Hale-Evans
'Needs to lose some weight,' he grunts,         89 Mass. Ave., Suite 199
'But just the same, I'd fuck her once.'         Boston, MA  02115
He orders pizza, buys a round,              M    @    *    O    %    8    U
Gains an appetizing pound."                \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/  \|/

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40932 talk.politics.misc:49860 alt.rush-limbaugh:6676 alt.politics.elections:15379 alt.politics.clinton:8738 alt.politics.bush:7931 talk.politics.guns:21786