HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Enough of these lies (was Re: Creating Real Choices
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: uscar
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:05:38 GMT

In <1992Aug10.145944.24187@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:

>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>] HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) said:
>] >[attr. lines deleted for space.  But I'll provide a scorecard...]


>] >           I really can't figure out what you find so damn objectionable
>] >about this.  There's precious little to infer, it's pretty clear.  Pro-choicers
>] >don't like abortions.  Pro-abortioners do.  That's the statement.
>] 
>] That's the stupidity.  Pro-abortioners do not *like* abortion, ("Gee
>] honey, why don't I knock you up today so we can go to the clinic so you
>] can get an abortion.  Doesn't it sound like fun!")

>What seems to be the problem here is that folks are trying
>to insert a word between "pro" and "abortion".  Folks - there
>is NO implied "forced" in the title.

Which is not to say that force, even aggravated force, is not used
sometimes, as in my post COERCED ABORTION of last month.

>  We are not running 
>around telling women they HAVE to have an abortion[1].  What we
>are saying is that if the woman is unsure enough about the 
>pregnancy to question what her options are, we will suggest,
>maybe even STRONGLY suggest, that abortion is a good option
>for that woman.

That's still within the bounds of "pro-choice".  It's when you start
browbeating the woman for how "selfish" she is for wanting to keep
the baby [as in my COERCED ABORTION post], or how "irresponsible" she
is for adding another child to the welfare rolls, that you step over
the boundary and become pro-abortion.

>[1] Unlike the "pro-life" folks who ARE advocating forcing
>a woman who is not prepared to handle a pregnancy

Who decides whether the woman is prepared or not?  You are skating
dangerously close to the boundary.

> to carry
>the pregnancy to term - or as far as it can be carried, 
>considering how many miscarriages there are...

I'd like to know what the percentages are.  There's been a lot of
loose talk about this in the popular press.  Any respected medical
journals?


>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:26:43 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Aug 92 14:09:28 GMT

In <1992Aug7.123733.22339@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.023624.16364@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> If a developing child should not possess rights because the child 
>> is not sentient, then shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?  

>Fetuses that occupy a woman's womb against her wishes are a
>different matter, and sentience is not the issue.  For many of
>us, sentience is not and never has been the issue.

It IS the issue where laws against cruelty to animals are concerned.
These do not cover cruelty to fire ants, for example, which are
assumed not to possess sentience, or at least to feel pain.

I'll have a lot more to say on this subject, hopefully as soon as 
later this week.


>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:27:16 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: uscar
Date: 10 Aug 92 14:14:11 GMT

In <28182@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.023624.16364@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>>If a developing child should not possess rights because the child 
>>is not sentient, then shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?  

>The argument seems to Rights = f(human, sentient).  Question answered.

>Next.

>SJM

Sorry, these three lines went by too fast for me.  Could you explain
that "Question answered" bit?  Please say something about laws against
cruelty to animals, while you are at it.

Peter Ny.

>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:27:38 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: uscar
Date: 10 Aug 92 14:17:06 GMT

In <1992Aug7.163655.12712@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>In <23306@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil writes:

>> In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> >If a developing child should not possess rights because the child
>> >is not sentient, then shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
>> 
>> Name *one* please.
>> Ron

>  Umm, got to go with Ron here (and others, judging from my article listing).
>A sentient being should, I suppose, have rights.  But what definition of
>sentience are you using?

>  And this is goofy, anyway.  A sentient being (as I use the term) would not
>be an "animal" as we tend think think of such things (after all, human beings 
>ARE technically animals, though most restrict the term animal to meaning
>something like non-intelligent/self-aware).  It might not be "human",
>species-wise, but "sentient animal" is rather a contradiction in terms.

Not to the people who framed laws against cruelty to animals.

>  Try
>"sentient species".  Less confusion.

You've got to be kidding!  Judging from the posts I have read so far,
many pro-choicers deny that fetuses are sentient, and even most pro-lifers
don't think human embryos are sentient before about 6 weeks, and almost 
no one thinks sentience comes before implantation.  Yet all of these
z/e/f's [barring such abnormalities as hydatiform moles and choriocarcinomas]
are members of the sentient species Homo Sapiens [subspecies Sapiens].

>semper fi,

>Jammer Jim Miller 

Peter Ny.


>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:28:08 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: uscar
Date: 10 Aug 92 14:24:14 GMT

In <1992Aug8.130152.2078@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.023624.16364@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> If a developing child should not possess rights because the child 
>> is not sentient, then shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?  

>1.  Developing children are sentient, and they do possess rights.

>2.  Lets pretend you were talking of non-sentient stages of the z/e/f:

>      a)  Sentient adults/children possess rights.
>      b)  Sentient animals at any stage possess few rights.
>      c)  What difference does sentience of the animal really
>          make in the real world?

See my replies to posts by Kaflovitz and "Jammer Jim" Miller along
this thread.  Recently South Carolina passed a law making cruelty
to animals subject to a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment and a 
maximum fine of (at least, I'm not sure of exact figures) $3,000. 
Lots of difference in the real world, you see.

>See, the humans have a sort of promise to the rights in the first place,
>whereas animals don't.  I guess if you aren't sentient, some people
>don't consider you to be human enough to posess human rights.

Unfortunately, many people don't consider even some sentient members
of Homo Sapiens to possess any rights at all.

>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 

Peter Ny.

>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:38:16 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: I'm back, sort of
Summary: I may still be having problems communicating
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Aug 92 18:33:14 GMT

I'm back at the University of South Carolina from my visit to
Wollongong, and I've been posting a lot of replies, but not
seeing any responses to mine.  Have my replies been getting 
through?  My suspicions were aroused when I tried posting an
original message (using :post) and saw the notation:

Distribution? (default uscar)

I asked a colleague about this and he said whenever he saw that,
he assumed it was local (because of the usc, as in University of
South Carolina) and always put "world" in its place.  

So, have I just been communicating with next to nobody before
this message?   

Peter Nyikos

>From talk.abortion Tue Aug 11 19:38:41 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Fetal experimentation (Misdemeanor, eh?)
Summary: State laws against experimentation on live fetuses
Keywords: fetal, experimentation, misdemeanor, felony
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 11 Aug 92 22:17:42 GMT

Back in Wollongong I inquired about whether there were any state/local
laws prohibiting fetal research, especially research on live fetuses.
One response I got was from Don Porter, quoting Scott Goehring in a
message dated 91 Nov 25, describing an Indiana abortion law:

>IC 35-1-58.5-6 forbids fetal experimentation, making it a Class A
>Misdemeanor.

What are the penalties, and do they differ for a second, third, etc.
offense?  Does the law make a distinction between experimenting
on live or dead fetuses? fetuses of different gestational ages?

Consider the $30,000 figure NBC news was giving for
the amount a certain patient had to come up with to get a fetal
tissue transplant: that would pay for a lot of misdemeanor fines, I
should think!   

Any other examples of state laws?  Today I did some digging of my own,
and found an old column in the Feb. 6, 1975 _New England Journal of
Medicine_ in which William J. Curran groused mightily about a 
Massachusetts law making research on live fetuses a felony (unless
they are still in utero, and the procedures don't "substantially
jeopardize" the fetus, and the fetus is not the subject of "planned
abortion; there are a few other minor exceptions along these lines):

"It was signed by Governor Sargent on June 26, 1974.  Violation of this 
law is a crime, a felony, carrying a penalty of up to five years in a
state prison."  

Is this law still on the books?  Has it ever been enforced?  Has anyone
been given anything more than probation, or a suspended sentence, as a
result of it?

Peter Ny.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:28:21 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
@> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

@>Patrick, an apology for an insult to everyone BUT the one whom you've actually
@>insulted, does not count as a real apology in my book.

>Suzanne, how can you post this crap with a straight face?  Have you EVER
>taken Steve Chaney to task for his innumerable lies, his "Jews in New
>York" tripe, his weak attempts to post as "Dennis Hall"?

>Where's your consistency?  Where's your honesty?

Probably the same place as her reality???

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Some effects of Pregnancy
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:12:22 GMT

From article by HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.):
> 
>   Well, as promised (but a little late, sorry) here's what I found on the
> effects of pregnancy.  It is mostly physical.  The primary source is *Under-
> standing Pregnancy and Childbirth* by Sheldon Cherry, M.D., copyright 1973,
> revised editions 1983 and 1992.  My own comments will be enclosed in brackets,
> [like so].  Pardon the occasional misspelling.  Let us begin:

Very to the point and factual, Jimmers, but you left out the ONE most important
"effect" of pregnancy.   A child is born.   Your son or daughter.  Who exhibits
a very definite preference for his/her mother, over all other people, as soon
as he/she is born.   The ensuing relationship between parents and child, if
allowed to flower as the child grows to adulthood, will be probably _the_
most fulfilling activity parents will undertake in their entire lives.

SF.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Keywords: lies, Dennis, Chaney
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:23:23 GMT

<Bsz6qn.1yo.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) said:
><yd6mlza.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>#<1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney):
>##<1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>###Kinda like a barnacle.  Seriously, has someone *really* tried to get your
>###net access removed?  Do you have proof of this accusation?  Isn't true
>###that you think it was wonderful that Dan Bredy lost his net access?  And
>###now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.
>##
>##Susan Garvin? 
>#
>#I see a name.  I don't see any *proof*.
>
>And you won't, since Dennis is lying again.

Heck, I never see any responses from Chaney to my questions.  I asked him
to explain his signiture, the 'adult/child sex' one.  He still hasn't
explained that one.  I've asked him to explain his comments about honor
being very relevent to him, while at the same time boasting that he could
be scummier than any pro-choicer.  I've asked him other questions about
his claim to research everything thoroughly, yet he comntinues to claim to
be a Catholic ( fact vs. belief ).


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:49:58 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:
-> But take Kaufman's ravings away, whether or not you
-> take away yours -- please!  I'm embarrassed that
-> he's on my side.

i don't believe he is on your side, ms. bartley.

i believe mr. kaufman opposes legislation to restrict
abortion.  you support such legislation.

i don't believe mr. kaufman has ever posted that he
would punish women who have abortions. you have.

i don't believe that mr. kaufman has ever suggested
that there should be fewer abortion rights for stupid
woman than for other women. you have.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:04:53 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>NOT! AMERICANS SUPPORT LIFE.

Yes, it was so heartening to see the American people rise up in
anger and prevent the Gulf War and the Panama Invasion.

>When it comes to an issue of life versus choice, Cough Man, go check
>your law books and show me where choice > life. That's why legal
>abortion is so badly endangered, Cough Man.  

Lethal self-defense against rape.  Get a real argument.

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:30:04 GMT

From article <1992Aug15.194628.2118@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
> (Suzanne Forgach):
> 
>> She will be going to an NFP class at the first sign of her first cycle,
>> and she will know exactly how her body works, how boys' bodies work,
>> and where babies come from.
> 
> Excuse my ignorance (I don't read all articles on ta), but what is NFP, and
> why do you have to wait til her first cycle?  

Natural Family Planning.   Certainly she will know about it, but she cannot
possibly observe her own body's cyclic fertility changes (much less chart
them) if she doesn't even have cycles yet.


> Why not educate her before
> and spare her the fear and ignorance, even if it only lasts a day or so?

Oh puleez.   She will have neither ignorance nor fear.  It's just physically
impossible for a female with no cycles to chart cycles.


> Also, just wondering if this education includes info about contraception
> because if she were provided with that in the first place, then maybe she
> wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, and none of your
> grandchildren will have been killed.

Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.  
Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.


> Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:31:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.151557.28696@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Bsz84u.36A.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
## choose.  
#
#And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
#_want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
#pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
#many women are pro-life.  By failing to recognize women as individuals
#who have a variety of opinions on abortion, he assumes that all women
#think alike on the issue of abortion, which is a sexist attitude. 

You know, DOD, you really should wait to do your compulsive 
editing until after you read the words.  I was speaking of
a woman's right to choose.  Choice implies alternatives.  
I know that you are motivated by a desire to control people,
so it must be beyond you to understand the concept of choice.
Here's a hint:  people with brains do not believe that
"choose" is a synonym for abortion.  Idiots like you do,
but it is ridiculous for you to expect the rest of the world
to write in your bizarre code.


Susan

#All people 
#would actually _want_ to discriminate against homosexuals.
-DOD






Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:52:19 GMT

In <28582@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <oioee3o@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes
>in response to John Moses idiotic statement about suffering the
>consequences of driving and pregnancy: 

>>Ayup, dammit.  We all know that drivers who get into car
>>accidents have NO RIGHT to seek medical treatment for their
>>injuries.  Only wimp liberals would attempt to treat their
>>lacerations, broken bones, etc., and try to weasel out of
>>their GOD-imposed responsibility to take care of the injuries
>>they CHOSE to create, through their WILLFUL, CONSENSUAL driving.
>>Amen, brother.

>And, if you do hit someone when you drive and injure them, you will be
>forced to donate tissue, blood, and/or organs for up to 9 months to
>save their lives.  And, don't forget it!

>SJM

Which tissue and organs does a pregnant woman donate to her offspring?
Hell, she does not even donate blood corpuscles.  Plasma, yes.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:00:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug19.011112.23588@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> I've never quoted you or anyone else out of context. 

An egregious lie.  An egregious counterexample: Bill Clinton.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:43:46 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Aug15.142040.13003@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>> The polls show that the majority of Republicans favor choice.  

>Do you have a source for this claim, or is this just more of your bullshit?

Recent polls have shown that a great majority of Republicans support the
idea of abortion rights, although many of them want parental notification
and informed consent laws.  CNN has conducted such polls recently.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: cook@sunloan.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Red Button Scenario
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:37:05 GMT
Reply-To: cook@sunloan.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <Aug12.053357.59846@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug07.170906.23210@watson.ibm.com>,
|>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|>> In  <Aug07.043718.29553@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
|>sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
|>> >

|>> > I further maintain that if I, or anyone else, by our
|>> > own voluntary behavior endangers the life of someone else, we incur an
|>> > obligation to protect the person we have endangered.
|>> 
|>> Perhaps a moral obligation, but certainly no legal obligation.  (Did you
|>> miss all the discussion pointing out that you *can't* be forced to donate
|>> blood, organs, etc.?)
|>
|>	I mean a LEGAL obligation.  If I injure someone, I must do everything I
|>feel is reasonable to save that person -- but if my idea of "reasonable"
|>doesn't do the job, I can be in big trouble.

Please, please, point to one law that requires you, the average guy, to render 
any sort of medical assistance to someone you have injured in an accident, much
less a law that obligates you to donate some portion of your body to them.

|>If, for example, I hit a
|>pedestrian, and if I think that saying a quick prayer as I drive away is
|>"reasonable," most juries would probably differ.

Only in that the law states that you can't drive away from an accident.
Whether you give vigorous CPR (assuming you're qualified to do so), perform
a tracheotomy, or just sit in your car and wait til the police show up makes
little legal difference.  

NOTHING requires you to take any action to help the victim.  You can't be
charged if you don't.  In fact, I imagine that if you attempted to render
"assistance" that you were unqualified to give, you might be charged with
endangering the person's life further.

You're out there on this one, Arnold.

|>	Let's just say it all set itself up by random chance, as atheists seem
|>to believe the infinitely more complex universe came into being.

Don't tell me.  You're a Creationist, aren't you?
|>
|>Steve
                                                                        
                                    -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32698 alt.abortion.inequity:3182