HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 1992 21:00:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct8.114408.2452@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <ld3bm7INN2um@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>> Again, this is truth by blatant assertion. You have admitted that the
>> sperm/egg is human. Now, is it or is it not alive?

>Well, considering a biological standpoint:  Do you remember the 7 or so
>characteristics of living things?  I don't, but I know one of them
>is being able to reproduce, and a sperm can't get together with another
>sperm to make offspring sperm, so I would assume that sperm/eggs are not
>classified as living things.  Then again, under these constraints, neither
>is a zygote.  Then AGAIN, I bet these characteristics are able to be
>fulfilled at any life stage (otherwise kids would be non-living things too),
>so therefore, the zygote may be termed a living thing, and the gametes
>have potential to be living things (being the chance of any given gamete
>to become a zygote is quite small, I think it's safe to only grant
>gametes potential life).

OK, I've had a vasectomy. Does that mean that I'm dead?

>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Excuse me while I steal My Thread Back...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:10:31 GMT

zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:

] In article <Oct09.001443.71852@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
] 	 sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
] 
] >	Anyway, birth is arbitrary.  If you can set the mark at
] >birth, someone else can set it at "being a member of the Master
] >Race."  There is no difference.
] 
] 	Forgot that pesky pregnant woman, eh?  Is that what a
] 	"useful delimiter of the debate" is all about?  Delete
] 	the pregnant woman from the situation and the pro-choice
] 	position disappears, after all.
] 				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org


Dave, 

Stop Sniffing the AirPlaneGlue....

The Delimiting Tokens are Birth and Death.

After Birth, the woman, irregardless how
cute she may blossom out in all of her
Maternal Pride, She is Irrelevant to the debate.

Once a Person Is Born...

the rest is a long and winding road.

Or are you forgetting all of us Father's who have
made those Oh_Dark_Squat Feedings, inbetween those
Pleasant Compiles of The Absolutely Must Be Operable
Tomorrow Software Products.

That Steven Arnold considers this to be Arbitrary,
is to be expected from a FetalIdolator at war with God.


ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Summary: Druiex is like a gentle breeze in the spring. 
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: Sat, 10 Oct 92 23:04:32 GMT

In article <BvsFow.IyB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>	So, drieux, why do you post?
>Ray Swartz

Becuase, while we mere mortals fail to comphrend the majority of the wisdom
in Druiex's posts, there is an occasional glimmer of awareness.

Because, while we are but earthworms who have not the right to move upon
the same earth as Druiex, he continues to give us the Truth[tm].  He
continues to show us the errors of our ways.

Because he strives to bring us from the SlumScumOfHumanity in which we
are entrenched into a more EnlightenedStateOfBeing.

Because those who understand even a small portion of the greatness that
is Druiex stand by our terminals, waiting for even the smallest scrap
of wisdom, as the beggar stands outside the soup kitchen.


--
=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???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:20:31 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote (in article <1992Oct13.005329.14189@ncsu.edu>):
>In article <1992Oct8.224810.24975@netcom.com> 
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>> Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.
>>
>> Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.
>
>This analogy fails since the "donation" of resources by the woman
>has already commenced in the case of pregnancy. 

You mean that since she's already started donating her resources
against her will, she's not allowed to stop?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41192 alt.politics.bush:8069
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:36:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Oct7.090609.7829@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>Then either you're lying or you have a bad dictionary.  Would you 
>please let us know which dictionary you're using?

	Websters unabridged dictionary.

>The correct definition of the word murder is "the _unlawful_ killing
>of one human being by another."

	That's the one you consider correct, because it agrees with your
point of view. I like the other definition better.

>>Excuse me? When have you seen me advocate killing people?

>Many women who face pregnancy in college are forced to drop out,
>sometimes for a semester, sometimes permanently.  I infer from your
>address that you are a student at Purdue.  Drop out now and give all
>the money you would otherwise spend on your education helping to save
>the lives of people who would otherwise die.  You will be able to
>survive on welfare.


	What does this have to do with you calling me a hypocrite for
wanting people to respect the right of others to live? Absolutely 
nothing.

>>	Again - you are making up your own definition of a person.
>>You are taking "human being" to mean "someone who has been explicitly
>>given rights as a human being". I take it to mean "an individual being with a

>Well duh.  A human being is someone who has the rights of a human
>being?  No shit, Sherlock.

	Then slaves were not human beings? Oh get real.

>You haven't even a clue what "human genetic structure" IS.  If you
>don't know what it is, or how to measure it, how are you going to base
>anything legal on it?

	Why do you say that I haven't even a clue what human genetic
structure is?

>And what dictionary did you refer to?

	Asked and answered

			Bruce

P.S. Really - could you try coming up with some real arguments rather
     than trying (unsuccessfully) to nit-pick on semantics??
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:49:48 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>Possible reasoning process:
>1) Abortion is illegalized
>2) Woman gets pregnant
>3) Woman doesn't want her child
>4) Woman looks to abortion to "solve" her problem
>5) Woman goes to an underground clinic to get an abortion
>6) Woman might die as a result of the abortion.
>
>Let's see, look at step 4.  No one forced her to go there in the first place.
>Perhaps there is something wrong with killing your own human sons and
>daughters?  

Your level of compassion is apparently as dismal as you earlier
indicated.  You don't give a shit if anyone lives or dies, you just
want to protect your notions of right and wrong.

When you start showing some caring for people instead of your ideas
then maybe I'll start to care what your opinions are.  Until then I
suggest a stroll through parts of Oakland might be appropriate as a
lesson in what people have to live with on a daily basis.  You can
tell the signle mothers there that they would be happier supporting 
ten kids on welfare instead of three.

>As for the plight of the woman, perhaps there are lots of ways people
>can help.  I don't know all the alternatives but there are many volunteer
>organizations whose aim is to help those who are in need of comfort, 
>counseling, alternatives, etc.

Pushing the problem onto somebody else _again_?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 02:11:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.193012.24186@noao.edu> lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>: 
>: I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
>: my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
>: and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....
 
>Conservatives are way out in front on the RKBA issue and there
>is no way some turn the other cheek-love the criminal more than
>their self-involve government in every aspect of our life Liberal
>son's a bitches like Clinton and Gore are going to fight to protect
>our rights.  Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.

That's true. They're shoving bibles and a big religious government down
our throats.

Here's something to think about. What Quayle and Bush have proposed in
their family values platform is very much what the Bureau of Indian
Affairs has been doing on reservations for generations. For many years,
the reservations were turned over to churches to run.

Go take a very good look at a reservation. A vote for Bush and Quayle is
a vote to establish a Bureau of White Affairs to shove religion and
family structure down white peoples' throats.

It's sort of funny, really.

	
-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:17:30 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct6.001448.19558@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|> Steve Arnold writes:
|> >Brian Kendig writes:
|> >>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
|> >>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure.  
|> 
|> >By two
|> >months' pregnancy, the unborn child looks remarkably like an
|> >adult; it has a heartbeat, brainwaves, its own blood with a unique
|> >blood type, etc etc.
|> 
|> A pig has a heartbeat and its own blood, too, but we eat pigs for
|> food.  Aside from DNA, what's the difference between you and a pig?
|> Do you think that while a fetus still resembles a pig more than it
|> resembles a human (biologically, not in "looks"), maybe we should give
|> it the same moral consideration we'd give a pig -- which means that we
|> shouldn't let it get in the way of a woman's freedoms and rights?

	Brian, first I just want to see if you're consistent.  Most
pigs are more aware, smarter, etc etc than most newborns.  Do you
think that pigs have more "rights" than newborns?  Or do you think,
perhaps, that neither newborns nor pigs have rights?
	Or do you acknowledge that your apparent "awareness"
criteria just doesn't hold water?

Steve

Why settle for the lesser evil?
	Cthulhu in '92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:12:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

I am finally responding to Peter Nyikos' repeated use of the argument that 
a blasphemy argument can only validly be presented by a Christian:

> And is M. Price really a Christian?  Who are the others who have
> "castigated" Suzanne, and is any of them really a Christian?

and

> What you did was, in response to Suzanne's rejoinder, to say that
> you found this use of "crucifixion" blasphemous and demanded an
> apology.  I have yet to see you say that you are a Christian, or
> why you found HER statement blasphemous and not the one she was
> responding to.

Whether an argument of blasphemy is valid, has nothing to do with the religion
of the person making that argument.  For instance I am an agnostic, but I can
both recognize and validly argue that the statement:  

	"[Jesus | Mohammed | Vishnu | Buddha] suck donkey sexual parts,"

is a blasphemous and disrespectful to a particular religion's god/prophet. 
This is true even though I am not a member of those religion.  To state that
such I can not recognize such statement as being blasphemous because I am
agnostic, is ad hominem and and fallacious argument.  The accusation made by
Ms Price may or may not be correct, but its correctness is not dependent on
either her religion, or Gordon Storga's religion. 

So Mr Nyikos, if you insist that the statement was not blasphemous, then
attack the argument that it is blasphemous, not the person who said that it
was blasphemous.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    To act without clear understanding, to form habits without investigation,
    to follow a path all one's life without knowing where it really leads-
    such is the behavior of the multitudes.
				Meng-tse (372-289 B.C.E.)
				Chinese Philosopher

    PS. Mr Nyikos, from what I have read of Ms Forgach, I truly doubt there 
    was any intent on her part to be blasphemous, that though does not prove
    the case of blasphemy one way or the other.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:40:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a 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  <Ueqjq=S00WB=4siH0U@andrew.cmu.edu>  "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Larry Margolis writes:
>> So if a fetus can survive outside the woman at 7 or 8 months, how can you
>> say it's not born if it's still inside her after this point?
>
>I think you misunderstood my question. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't really
>understand your question.

Actually, it's an answer.  If you use a definition of "child" which
begins at birth, then being born *is* the critical difference.  Ditto for
"person".  To me, both terms imply a born human being.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43091 talk.politics.misc:52519 alt.sex:33217 alt.rush-limbaugh:7660 alt.politics.elections:17367 alt.politics.clinton:11045 alt.politics.bush:9532
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
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
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:36:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Armory

In article <9484@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.085552.7325@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>
>>>	Which could also boil down to:
>>>Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. I certainly
>>>can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
>>>because they have "invaded your privacy". 
>
>>Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
>>is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
>>middle of the night.
>
>That's trespass, breaking and entering and theft, not just invasion of privacy.
>
>In many states it is quite legal to kill someone
>>who is sexually assaulting you.
>
>That add's rape and assualt to the invasion of privacy.
>
>In both cases you have added felonies to the invasion of privacy, the
>presence of the felony raises these cases to a higer level of danger.
>
>BTW, is it trespass if you invite the burglar into your home.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
------------
Two is company. Three is uninvited and if it starts to suck your
blood, it should be killed, unless you are into that at that point.
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:53:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
>
>>Now, Rush and Dan may not be perfect, but at least
>>they aren't shoving socialism and big government down our throats.
>
>Right.  Reagan and Bush have overseen one of the largest increases
>in the size of government in the history of the country, and
>80% of the new jobs created by Bush have been in *government*.
>
>For Christ's sake, think for yourself, man!
>
>Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
>lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
>and *you* talk about big spender liberals?

What is Clinton going to do differently?

>
>Gimme a break.
>
>Clinton/Gore in '92.
>-- 
>   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>                              DoD # 0698


William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one.  You simply live it through, and,
as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
                                                          - Marlon Brando
===============================================================================
"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of 
entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and 
paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
                                      - public relations wizard Marty Winston
===============================================================================
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:39:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <Qep9OTC00WB6BST45s@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 8-Oct-92 Re: No Human Worth in
>Unbor.. by Larry Margolis@watson.ib 
>> > So you think those human creatures who are postconceived but not yet
>> > born have no human worth?

>> Bingo - they're not people, and so are not entitled to the valuation
>> we give to people.  They might be *potential* people, but that doesn't
>> entitle them to anything until they realize that potential.

>I don't understand this argument of potential people. Someone else
>tried to explain it to me. But I just don't get it. 

Try this: "potential" means "does not exist". A potential person is
not a person, because a person does not exist.

Simple, isn't it?

>ag

Eric
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:03:05 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> They wouldn't propose a theory they knew was not correct.

>You don't know very much about science, do you?

If they knew it was incorrect, (if they were ethical, which the afore-
mentioned folks seem to have been) they would have also mentioned why
it was false. They would not, however, proclaim it as TheOneTruth [Tm].
:)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abstinence isn't effective or dirty
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:17:31 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Abstinence is not 100% effective.  Notnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnot.
Even for people other than Lisa and myself.  Even if they try it, and
want it to succeed, it won't necesarily happen.

So there.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:55:37 GMT

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>FFLA believes the inherent rights of both beings are equal.    Once you strip
>away the artificially imposed inequality things aren't so easy.  Start from
>there, then talk about how a feminist should approach this much more imposing
>dilemma.

Supposing, for the moment, that anybody actually believes that the
inherent rights of a pregnant woman and a fetus are equal, just what
might those rights be?  How are the two equal?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche