HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcbryde@navier.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:12:04 GMT

In article <BvAnLI.AvL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.045401.16061@menudo.uh.edu> mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde) writes:
>>In article <Bv4x9H.Crz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>[lotsa stuff deleted]
>>
>>>I don't know about Peter Nyikos, but I believe the proposition can
>>>be "exported into Law" in a consistent and meaningful manner.
>>>Rape/incest/unhealth changes the balance of rights between woman 
>>>and fetus, permitting her to remove the fetus from her body.
>>
>>This sounds suspiciously like you are advocating murdering the fetus
>>for something for which it wasn't responsible. (The fetus didn't
>>rape anyone.) Hardly seems consistent with "Abortion is Murder".
>
>Your suspicions may arise from not having followed/seen all the arguments.

No, I've read them.

>Even though it *seems* that way on the face of it, my point is that
>this objection is incorrect.
>
>The essence is this:  rape/incest may alter the balance of rights
>between woman and fetus, because it nullifies a "voluntary" acceptance
>of obligations and because it may represent an extra burden to the woman
>not present in the case of voluntary sex.
>
>The "responsibility" of the fetus is irrelevant.  It is not being
>punished or killed for any action of its own.  Its right to life via 
>life support from the woman, however, may depend on whether the woman 
>entered into any obligation to the fetus voluntarily, and whether such 
>an obligation threatens her life or her other rights.
>
>AGAIN:  I am arguing whether this is *consistent* or not.

It's not consistent. Killing someone (It's a someone by your stipulation.)
is (to the best of my knowledge) only permitted as punishment or in
self-defense in current laws. Trying to justify killing someone for
"[representing] an extra burden to the woman" seems a bit excessive.

>Please avoid "you are advocating" responses, thanks.

Okay. Your argument is advocating killing someone for representing "an extra
burden to the woman". Does this mean I will get to go out and kill people
on food stamps since they are a (non-voluntary) burden on me?

jack
--
jack      mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu    * All I ask of Thee, Lord
* Christ died for our sins.  Dare we    * Is to be a drinker and fornicator
* make his martyrdom meaningless by     * An unbeliever and a sodomite
* not committing them? - Jules Feiffer  * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39639 alt.abortion.inequity:4159 alt.birthright:487
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:47:22 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep25.224506.26902@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned, AKA Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.003312.4297@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>Actually, Naziism was the first place where abortion was legal. 
>>Historically, Rush's opponents are closer to Naziism than he is. 
>
>Actually, your forgot the early Soviet Union. Then the Nazis 'legalized'
>it - but only for 'non-Aryan' women.

Okay, I forgot the USSR.

It only proves that legal abortion is utterly anti-American in principle,
historically. In addition to it being logically discriminatory.


>Rush is closer to the Nazis. They liked to tell others what to do with
>their bodies, too. The Nazis even mandated abortion, as well as non-abortion,
>under various circumstances. Like Rush, the Nazis didn't believe that the
>woman should have the chance to make her own reproductive choices.

NOT. The Nazi's ALLOWED it. There were a few cases of coercion, like we
have here now.

And like Jim Crow and the Nazi's, pro-choicers seem to think someone's
choices can run rampant over another human's right to continue living,
whether the aggressor likes it or not.

If it destroys your version of women's reproductive choices, too bad:
discrimination is still discrimination and it should be outlawed, whether
it be racism or legalized abortion.


>--
>The Earth Pig Bourne....

Yeah you are an earth-born pig, that's for sure.



=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: i represent myself
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:06:37 GMT

In article <2927195477.0.p00056@psilink.com>, "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com> writes:
> 
> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will experience
> doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford an unwanted child..
> Your smug all-knowing attitude turns my stomach..I WANT TO SPEW!  But I
> digress.. If you believe life is so sacred why arent you in africa aiding
> the starving? If you are such a moral "another joke word" person why are
> you so selfishly studying in school, your efforts would be of better use
> preaching to the handicapped. They are unable to run away..
> Actually.. I like to modify the offending statement..
> 
>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
> 
> Thats much better, seems to be the 20th century political feeling.
> BTW: Since I spent so many years in the study of physics I've noticed
> a few major camps.. Those who rejected the notice of god, became over-religous
> and those who were relaxed with their faith.. The major jerks were the preachy
> self-serving asses, who hardly could function.. 
> 
> Anyway.. Ted just stuff it.. Though I doubt you have been doing that.. Eh?
> 
> 
> Faustus
> 
> 	In a nice warm place...

I appreciate surrealism, but it usually has a point.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:28:53 GMT

The following are extracted from the decisions in Planned Parenthood vs.
Casey (91-744). The full texts can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from
ftp.cwru.edu in directory hermes/ascii.

From the opinion of Justice Stevens, concurring in part and dissenting in
part: "I also accept what is implicit in the Court's analysis, namely, a
reaffirmation of Roe's explanation of why the State's obligation to protect
the life or health of the mother must take precedence over any duty to the
unborn.  The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's
argument -that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of
the Fourteenth Amendment.-  410 U. S., at 156.  After analyzing the usage of
-person- in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word -has
application only postnatally.-  Id., at 157.  Commenting on the contingent
property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians
ad litem, the Court noted:  -Perfection of the interests involved, again,
has generally been contingent upon live birth.  In short, the unborn have
never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.-  Id., at
162.  Accordingly, an abortion is not -the termination of life entitled to
Fourteenth Amendment protection.-  Id., at 159.  From this holding, there
was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever
questioned this fundamental proposition.  Thus, as a matter of federal
constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a -person- does
not have what is sometimes described as a -right to life.-  This has been
and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our
constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy."

From the opinion of Justice Blackmun, concurring in part, concurring in the
judgment in part, and dissenting in part: "The final, and more genuine,
criticism of the trimester framework is that it fails to find the State's
interest in potential human life compelling throughout pregnancy.  No member
of this Court -- nor for that matter, the Solicitor General, Tr. of Oral
Arg. 42 -- has ever questioned our holding in Roe that an abortion is not
-the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.-  410
U.S., at 159.  Accordingly, a State's interest in protecting fetal life is
not grounded in the Constitution.  Nor, consistent with our Establishment
Clause, can it be a theological or sectarian interest.  See Thornburgh, 476
U.S., at 778 (Stevens, J., concurring).  It is, instead, a legitimate
interest grounded in humanitarian or pragmatic concerns.  See ante, at 4-5
(opinion of Stevens, J.)."

Note that the exchange with the Solicitor General can be found in the Apr.
23, 1992 NEW YORK TIMES.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39582 talk.religion.misc:17469 alt.consciousness:541
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:27:03 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
|In article <1992Sep25.061216.6633@trl.oz.au>, jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques
|Guy) wrote:
|> Now *I* would sooner have a 4-month old fetus aborted, all right, let's 
|> not be squeamish: I'd sooner KILL a 4-month old fetus than a 10-year old
|> cat, or a 3-month old kitten, or puppy, or crow, for that matter. Because
|> a cat, a dog, a crow of those ages display a higher consciousness than 
|> a human fetus in the womb.         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

|Ah, but you don't really _know_ that.  Your metrics are obtuse.

Apparently, his metrics show a higher consciousness than a
human fetus in the womb, if they are capable of being obtuse.

Could you discuss this topic in talk.abortion, please?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
shameless-vocabulary-flames-R-us
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:46:39 GMT

>I would like to check Mx. Rink's references.  However, some of them
>are not noted.  I am posting my request rather than mailing it to
>him/her personally because I'd like help checking them.  When Mx. Rink
>provides me with references to check I will distribute them to any
>other volunteers to choose among for the purposes of helping me check
>them.

I have seen two postings thus far that provide the references for most if
not all of the statistics I posted.  Therefore, I won't bother reposting them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, however, and if something is as yet unconfirmed, I'll
go dig up the references.  Anyway, there was one question that was left
unanswered, and that was which translation did the quote from Deuteronomy
30:19 come from.  To be perfectly honest, I can't remember, but here's the
King James, and it says the same thing:

DEU 30:19  I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
              that I have set before you life and death, blessing
              and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and
              thy seed may live:
-- 
//================================================================\\
||  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:  ||
||      no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  John 14:6      ||
\\================================================================//
           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
//================================================================\\
||         ss1@kepler.unh.edu       ss_cs611@unhh.unh.edu         ||
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:23:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.033623.131789@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> In  <1992Sep25.164717.18973@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep24.235939.51539@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > >
> > > In  <1992Sep24.011944.8732@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.e
> > > > In article <1992Sep23.040334.27394@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > > > > I think it's rather ridiculous to
> > > > > consider a uni-cellular organism to be a person, but since you choose
> > > > > to define it that way arbitrarily, and don't seem interested in
> > > > > discussing it, I see no point in going around in circles again.
> > > >
> > > > I am willing to discuss it.  Ask me questions, demonstrate how my
> > > > definitions don't make any sense, etc...no meaningful attempt has yet been
> > > > made...
> > >
> > > See the first part of what I quoted.  I think it's ridiculous to consider
> > > a fertilized egg to be a person.
> >
> > It is not arbitrary - is the start of human life.  Do you disagree?  Why?
> 
> But not the start of personhood.  Do you disagree?  Why?

Yes.  [you probably will not like this answer very well, but oh well...]

In the years I've discussed this issue with lots of other people, I have
never
come across any other point that some could argue that made any consistant
sense, violate basic facts of biology or which did not lead to irrational
behavior in other related cases.

If you can come up with another point I am willing to listen AND attempt to
show at least
one of the things listed
above.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Date: 26 Sep 92 04:03:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep26.021808.2115@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1992Sep26.001407.7131@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#[Concerning the death of Becky Bell]
## Um, I believe it was "septic pneumonia with abortion", but I'm still
## looking for my copy of the coroner's report, which I DID POST about
## 2 years ago.
#
#I am confused.  Is there such a thing as "anti-septic pneumonia?"
#Does not "pneumonia with septic abortion" make more sense than
#the version presented above?  

It was "septic abortion with pneumonia" - I'm looking
at a copy of the death certificate as I type.  

(Of course your version makes more sense.)  

#Or was this one of Ms Forgach's
#little "jokes?"  If so, is a joke about the death of Becky Bell
#from a septic abortion, oh, with pneumonia, terribly entertaining
#to Ms Forgach?

I'll wait to see her answer.

#Dean Kaflowitz

What a guy.

Susan
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: what's in a nom? (was Re: The fundamental question of abortion)
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:17:52 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.210853.19318@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717270316@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>\In <19kokoINNgaq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Doofus) writes:
>
>\>I wonder how many women are forcibly held to the table while the doctor
>\>performs a live delivery, too.  After all, I've been there.  I've heard
>\>women yelling at the doctors, telling them to stop.....
>
>\I'm calling your bluff.  What would these women have done if the doctor
>\had stopped?  
>
>Bluff, Peter?   Like in poker, when you are trying to fool someone?
>Somehow I don't think "bluff" applies...

Doofus was bluffing that she has intelligence. Peter was trying to call her
bluff. Anything too hard to understand about that?


=============================================================================
           Professor at the MIR-V Brown School of Flame Warfare.
            (MIR-V as in Multiple Independent Reentry-Vehicle.)
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                    The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40845 alt.politics.clinton:8678 alt.politics.bush:7882
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:23:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Oct6.165716.22162@cs.wm.edu> jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:

>Thats wonderful for your sister and her husband...too bad it doesn't
>do a damn bit of good for the thousands of minority/poor/disadvantaged/
>AIDS/crack babies, or even the thousands of kids over 2 years of age
>that nobody will adopt because the majority of people able to  adopt 
>want white healthy newborns. 

	God am I sick of this. Your above statement is AN ABSOLUTE
LIE (with the exception of the > 2 year olds). I have known several
couples who have tried to adopt, and specified that they would take
ANY newborn - there was still a 3 year waiting list. One couple
decided to adopt a little girl that lived in South America somewhere
(I don't remember where now) so they didn't have to wait. There
just is NOT this overabundance of unwanted babies as you claim.

>I'm glad Catholic Social Services is doing its thing, but just a few 
>questions... last I checked, it cost between $5000 and $10000 for 
>"proper" medical care of a woman during pregnancy through delivery
>(doctor visits, lab tests, delivery room, etc). In general a couple's
>health insurance will NOT pay those bills for someone else. So, *who*
>can afford such a service, and what type of child do *they* want...

	Generally - for a poor mother, the government will pick
up some portion of the tab. As well, some charitable organizations
will help with the bills.
> 
>I doubt if this is a solution for the majority of unwanted
>pregnancies...

	But killing an innocent child is eh?
			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Why pro-lifers should continue to insist on fetal personhood, not doggiehood...
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:48:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.195910.17820@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>I know you are coming from a "bodily autonomy" poin t of view, but...
>
>   Abortion is direct action destroying a member of homo sapiens.
>   Someone dying of natural causes is not directly linked to someone's
>      will or wish.
>
>Note that I am not necessarily advocating NOT giving necessary partys
>to save someone else's life.  I'm just trying to point out an important 
>difference.
>

Let me try to understand this.  Abortion is wrong because (and other reasons)
it is a "direct action" which destroys a "member of homo sapiens".  Doing
nothing to help save a live is not wrong because it is "not directly likned
to someone's will or wish"?

What if the person who would die would desperately want to live?  Isn't
that "someone's will or wish"?  Would that thinking extend to giving
them medical care at all--we can't cure cancer, so why not just put those
people in a corner somewhere and let them die?  We can't cure aids so why
not just ignore them too and let them die?  Is that right?  By doing nothing,
are we not directly destroying them?

Is it not my wish to keep my organs to myself?  Does it matter that the
possible donor wants desperately to live?  To my knowledge, the fetus
isn't capable of wanting to live, but I could be wrong.

I guess the point is this, if you believe that abortion is wrong, then
by all means, don't have one.  If you believe that it could be a good
solution to a bad situation, then support abortion rights. 

Jennifer
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:54:17 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
|This is my second posting of this message, 'cause I forgot to check
|to see you'd set followups to 'misc.test'. Does this make me stupid 
|enough to be worth knowing? 

Uh, oh.  Eric Rescorla is going to yell at me again.
Sorry, CDH.  Watch that newsgroups line in future.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Humans are nearly panmictic (randomly breeding) -- there is a certain 
amount of assortative mating [...] " --Chris Colby, in talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:32:09 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  <nyikos.717802175@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep24.160401.18867@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) wr
>
> >Did you know, Peter, that federal guidelines presently prohibit the
> >use of fetal tissue from elective abortions?
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong!  Federal guidelines only apply to FEDERALLY
> FUNDED research.

Why would that make Chris' statement wrong?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:33:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.190925.119410@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <nyikos.718168127@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Sep29.004310.110764@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>>
>> >In  <1992Sep28.223941.23600@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
>> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> >> In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> >> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> >> There is a difference between that which exists and has been terminated
>> >> and that which has never existed and as a result, can never
>> >> be terminated.
>>
>> >Does this mean you'll stop referring to the fetus as an "unborn child"?
>> >:-)
>>
>> Could you please explain this apparent *non sequitur* of yours, Larry?
>
>Since "child", to me, implies "born", the "unborn child" has never
>existed.  The fetus was terminated, but, according to Martin's logic,
>the "unborn child" can never be terminated.
>
Wrong.  The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
right?  

Also, the unborn child exists as an unborn child.  Since the unborn
child exists as an unborn child, then the life of that unborn child, can,
in fact, be taken away via abortion.  A real life exists, and a real
life is taken away.