HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Siamese Twins: How Many People?
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:51:27 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
: Lets take a case where a single torso is shared by two heads, each of
: these heads having its own personality. Is this a single person, or is
: it two people? If this is a single person, then do we have the right to
: arbitrarly lop off one of those heads, providing that it does not
: kill the rest of the being?
: 

Or, Let's take the case where a single torso is shared by two arms.
Is this a single torso, or is it two arms? Do we then have the right 
to arbitrarily lop off one of those arms, provided it does not kill 
the rest of the being.

Or, two cars spot the same parking place.  Is this my parking place,
or is it his?  Do I have the right to abitrarily lop off the other
driver's head or not?

What has this got to do with abortion?

: Just a little food for thought.

Is this two foods, or is it one thought? Do I have the right....

: 
: Eric 

Lop.

--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pardon the interruption.... re: DJR?
Summary: I'd rather he be gone *and* forgotten.
Date: 24 Aug 1992 02:54:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Man With Only Two Cats (and thankful of it)

In article <1992Aug23.051329.6548@wolves.uucp> wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us writes:
>Pardon the interruption...please.
>
>I was digging through some old news files and came upon some old
>articles I had saved against the day the ol' Davey J Rassmusen ever did
>make his threats about various lawsuits real.

Welcome to the club -- I have quite a few of 'em archived myself, just in
case.  

>As it stands, it is obvious that he never filed anything against me,
>nor, I suspect, did he ever do any of the various silly things he
>threatened to do.

Well, he tried to get a number of us silenced, or fired, or both -- but he
failed miserably, though he was a minor annoyance to some.  At least he can
say he was consistent...:-)

>Does anyone know whatever happened to the poor old sod?  Is he still
>haunting the net occasionally?  Did they kick him off?

It appears that his posting privileges were removed at State early this
year, but he could still read news -- thus, he showed up here in Houston on
May 27, evidently under the impression that the RUPD would come over to Mudd
Lab and arrest me just because he said they should.  They didn't see it that
way (I wasn't even on campus at the time, anyway, since I worked nights and
he showed up in the afternoon), and he tucked his tail between his legs and
oozed out of town.
Since then, one of his two accounts at NCSU has vanished, and he (or
someone) logged into the other one a week ago today -- but from
cie.uoregon.edu.  Could it be he's decided to defraud the taxpayers of
Oregon, rather than North Carolina?  We'll have to wait and see, I guess...



-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                    I've fallen -- and I can't reach my beer!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Mr. Woodyatt is sloppy with his quotes again
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:39:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.172055.19830@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

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

>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

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

>>>> The following analysis of Roe v. Wade, written before the Court's 
>>>> decision in Colautti v. Franklin, suggests that Roe v. Wade permits 
>>>> a woman to have the physician purposely kill a viable fetus during
>>>> an abortion procedure.  

>>> ...when the health of the mother is endangered by the prospect of
>>> giving birth, as the deleted analysis by some lawyer type admits.

>> No, you didn't read the analysis carefully.  The author suggests
>> that Roe v. Wade allows the woman to have a viable fetus purposely
>> killed, even if her physical health is not threatened:

> No, the author did not.  He didn't even *suggest* that.

Yes, he did suggest that Roe v. Wade allows the woman to have a
viable fetus purposely killed during the abortion.  Look here:

>>   "In some cases, however, the risks posed to the mother may be the
>>    same whether the fetus is saved or destroyed[97]. In this setting,
>>    the physician's choice will not be dictated by a judgement as to
>>    the safest medical procedure. Even under such conditions, it can
>>    be argued that Roe bars the state from restricting the physician's
>>    option to deliberately destroy the viable fetus. "

> You deliberately left out the last two sentences of the paragraph, and
> the following paragraph where the idea is completed:

The author goes on to suggest that Roe v. Wade might not allow a woman
to have a fetus purposely killed because that would be akin to infanticide.
His suggestion that the states could require the physician to employ
the abortion technique which would most likely result in the abortion
of a live fetus appears to be the only state regulation which could
protect viable fetuses.  But that type of regulation was struck down
by the Supreme Court in Colautti v. Franklin.

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33849 alt.flame:12393
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Another Stephen Chaney Gem
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:23:52 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.sex.carasso,alt.atheist.posers.slink.slink.slink
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <1992Aug27.235045.23494@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# ...and the wish of the woman to kill the fetus, should be ignored
# and literally laughed at. 

This quote is taken somewhat out of context -- you are invited to
check the reference line for the article in question to get the full
point he was trying to drive toward, but...

	...it was the `and literally laughed at' part that struck me
	as particularly indicative of Mr. Chaney's misogynistic bent.

So. The next time I call Mr. Chaney a savage misogynistic mutant
raving psycho tool of the bloodthirsty Patriarchy who ought to be
raped, battered and left to die like the dog that he is by the hoard
of violent crazed jackals in the religious right he so fervently
apologizes for, I hope the reader will remember what is currently
sticking in my mind as provocation.

Followup directed appropriately.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 03:15:43 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<66592@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward) writes:
><1992Aug21.051959.12440@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In  <1992Aug20.224746.5259@oakhill.sps.mot.com>  pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>> <1992Aug18.222436.21732@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) w
> >> >    PRO-CHOICE IS _NOT_ THE SAME AS PRO-ABORTION
> >>
> >> This is true.  But since the Democratic platform calls for
> >> public funding of abortions in Medicare, isn't it fair to call
> >> that a pro-abortion stance, since they are using tax dollars
> >> to support that act?

This is like saying that, since you can get a Medicare funded amputation
the federal government is PRO-AMPUTATION.


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.
-- 
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: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 14:24:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.030216.3111@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> 
|> Sarcasm is cheap. Try looking up the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 
|> especially the part about not depriving citizens of life without Due Process.
					   ^^^^^^^^
|> Try reading some legal literature to discover that the term "Due Process"
|> has both a procedural aspect (right to trial, etc.) and a substantive aspect.
|> Read further to discover that substantive Due Process protects fundamental
|> rights, such as the right to life, from deprivations unless the state can
|> demonstrate a "compelling interest" in doing so.
|> 


The key word is citizens, and citizens are defined as
those individuals born in the US or who have been
naturalized.

Also, these ammendments prevent the state from
taking life or other property from an individual
without first showing compelling interest, they
don't establish an absolute right to life, they
simply require that some process be performed
prior to removing life or other property from
an individual.

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: pro causa non causa
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:37:56 GMT

ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:
] 
] I`m a Christian, thus pro-life.  

This is the line for which the Subject Line declares the logical fallacy.

As has been shown time and again, there are those who are
Fetal Idolators who have turned against the Bible, and
the True Word of God, and wish to be AntiAboritionists.

But that should NOT be construed as being a consequence of Christianity...

] But I don't think I have the right
] to force my beliefs on anyone by saying that they CAN'T have an abortion. 
] (Incidently, it was partly due to email with a few people from this group that I 
] thought more about my views, and softened from thinking that outlawing 
] abortion was part of the solution).


Let me get this straight.... You really are ProChoice....

] Christians, please read and think about this...
] ...  Only God can help us out of this mess!  

Yes, and by Following the Bible you will NOT
fall Victim to the Sins of the ModernSeXularHumanists
and thus succum to SeXularHumanism....

] If we put as much effort into prayer as we do "fighting
] the enemy pro-choicers", I believe God would work wonders.

trivia question here: but in terms of 'fighting the enemy pro-choicers'
do you have any specific preference for tactics and strategy?

Or were you planning on copping the biblical approach
and slaying all before you.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:29:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.031233.23455@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>
cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:

>Not as clueless as you think.

Mi'lady, for all I can prove you're right about the abortion *issue*.
You've clearly shown yourself clueless about a) what has come before
in the abortion *debate*, and b) how to communicate on a Newsgroup.

(Hint: be obvious and/or literal.  All we have are your written words
-- there's no tone of voice, let alone posture or facial expression,
to tell your readers if what you meant is anything other than the most
basic, literal-minded interpreation of your words.)

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 27 Aug 1992 11:22:39 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <exukjb.98.714932009@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <176sg0INN27n@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>What did you want to know about marriage?
>
>How about: Would marriage exist at all without the sex urge?  


Yes.

Marriage is basically an economic contract.  It only recently became the 
'approved' environment for sex.

Adrienne Regard
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:44:51 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Nyikos
>> Mark Kaufman

>>   Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
>>against her will, to bear young?

>Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, who had
>no say-so in where he/she is, like a condemned prisoner awaiting 
>execution for the crime of being where he/she is not wanted?

Considering that virtually all fetuses have the mental capacity of a
garden slug at the time of the abortion, a condition that you can
readily relate to, I'd say, yes, any form of slavery whatsoever would
be worse than the "slavery" your deluded "mind" "thinks" a fetus endures.

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Observations
Summary: Stevens, as usual, put no thought at all into his tirade.
Organization: Boye, Dewey, Cheetham and Howe, Atty's.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:14:22 GMT

In <1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>Of course, the difference in opinion is based on differing beliefs in
>what the phrase 'accepting responsibility' means.  Some people do not
>consider abortion to be a responsible course of action.

So let them *not* have one if they *don't* want one.

Somehow, I don't see why you think that this requires
making a woman who *does* consider it responsible and
*does* want one, not have one.  The existence of bacon
in stores doesn't trash Orthodox Judaism, Southern
Baptists co-exist fine with beer, why should the
existence of abortion be a problem for people who
consider it irresponsible?

Riddle me that.

>>#                    Abortion is NOT a valid method of birth control.
>>Sez you, bub.
>Yup.  This is an expression of personal beliefs.  And you are about to
>do the same thing.

Express beliefs?  Sure, why not.  But you're on the side that
wants to make laws that *rule out* other people being able to
practice their beliefs, and has already invaded expression.

Since you've traded the moral high ground for a swamp, do you
want to re-think your position and try again?

>Who hands out rights?

Isn't that a matter of religion -- a PRIVATE matter?

How can you even consider legislating that people don't
have certain rights, when you can't even agree where rights
come from?

>Abortion is not considered a responsible choice.

By whom?

And why should their conclusion have force over all others?

>Also, if a choice must be made between the child's and the mothers life,
>the mother should be saved at the expense of the child.  It is still
>killing a human being, but in most cases, the choice is both dead, or
>only one dead.

Isn't that another one of these private moral judgements?
I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church disagrees;
evidence has been posted here indicating such.
-- 
	Arrogant?  Of course I'm arrogant; the best usually are.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:17:08 GMT

In article <siyemop@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>> 
>> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
>> 
>> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ray Fischer
>> ray@netcom.com
>
>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>- and my wife has said the same thing...
>
>

Weeellll.

I see you are all for the pregnancy police.  Let's see, if you had your
way, I would have delivered my sedond (and probably my first) from jail.
You see, I didn't stay at home on the sofa for either pregnancy.  I did
things like rode in a car (hell, I even _drove_ a car) and the fetus
wasn't strapped in a car seat!  (If a fetus is aperson, then wouldn't
the same laws that apply to infants also apply to it?)  I also went
skiing while pregnant (heavens!) so the pregnancy police would have 
tossed me in for that.  I drank while pregnant (sinful, sinful)!  That's
another offence the pregnancy police would have caught me for.  I ate
chocolate!  (very bad for you!)  I ate lots of chocolate!  (very very bad
for you!)  I rode Space Mountain!!!!  I moved furniture!  I stained and
finished not one but three large peices of furniture!

All these thinge could be considered as child endangerment if fetuses
are persons.  I and many other women (practically all, in fact) would
be in jail and our children removed (ripped?) from us after birth because
after all, we can't be fit parents, could we, if we endanger our child?

Take your I-know-better-than-you dogma and stuff it.  I'm not for it.


Jennifer

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35011 alt.abortion.inequity:3515
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Do liars need therapists?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:11:57 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <Bu25r5.B0w.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
writes in response to Overpeck:

>## I think Holtsinger should see a therapist.  
>#
>#Why?  
>
>I think he has problems.  He has repeatedly set himself
>up on talk.abortion by quoting (or rather misquoting)
>text from easily accessible texts.  He has to know that
>people will look up his quotations and correct them.
>This is not rational behavior in my opinion.

I agree that it is not rational but we are talking about a political
rather than rational discourse anyway.  Now, some of us, in pursuing
our political agendas may believe that standards of honesty enhance
our credibility, thus, are worthwhile.  DOD apparently does not
believe this.  However, to suggest that every person who lies in
pursuing a political goal needs therapy seems a bit unjustified.  It
wouldn't be practical for one thing to treat all the politicians and
politician wannabes.  Nonetheless, if pointing out that DOD does seem
to be a pathological liar when it comes to abortion and suggesting
that he needs therapy damages his credibility, then it may be an
argument worth making.  I certainly think that suggesting that the
religious loonies on the net (Hi, Suzanne!) seek therapy is
worthwhile, not to mention fun, even if one honestly believes that
therapy would be useless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not today, thanks.  I gave at the office.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:41:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.194547.36143@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>Actually, no.  I was disagreeing with "on the basis of 'because I say so'".
>The only reason the FOCA was written was to thwart the efforts of those
>trying to remove the protections of Roe v. Wade.

Support that.  As far as I can see, it IS 'because I say so'.

>> And this is exactly the reason I'm here.  Because it isn't an individual
>> decision.  It is the decision of TWO people, father and mother.
>
>And what if the two people disagree?

Covered repeatedly in other posts (to other people).  I will not repost
here.  If you wish to discuss beliefs in detail, lets take it to email.

>> I have no problem with allowing other COUPLES to make their own decision
>> about abortion.  But what you are pushing for, is to cut out the father
>> entirely
>
>No, what I'm pushing for is to keep abortion safe and legal.

So long as abortion is a unilateral choice, you are cutting out the father.

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

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:02:56 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  <1992Aug27.215753.8063@rigel.econ.uga.edu>  mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
> Are you ashamed that
> you have a "black" ass, as opposed to some other color of ass?

It doesn't fit in with his Republikkkan image, so he doesn't like to
be reminded of it.

> "A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33522 alt.flame:12345
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:44:56 GMT
 <1992Aug14.022417.15272@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1992Aug15.224854.14033@csus.edu> <2a9ac9b7.crud@crud.mn.org>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz) writes:

>In article <1992Aug15.224854.14033@csus.edu>
>        chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>]===============================================================================
>]Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
>]	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
>]	  nation into giving in to your demands?
>]
>]Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
>]	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
>]===============================================================================

>It is a shame to lose one's mind.

Or to not have a mind. [Dan Quayle's quote FITS here!]

 -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
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34331 alt.abortion.inequity:3379