HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:50:46 GMT

In article <usglkrx.717515766@gsusgi1.gsu.edu>, usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
(Lori K. Rothman) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep24.225014.1507@nwnexus.WA.COM>, jbrindle@halcyon.com
> >(Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> >> 
> >> In article <1992Sep24.005929.6031@nntp.uoregon.edu> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
> >This is bogus.  Birth has got to be the most arbitrary thing on the face of
> >the earth.  Not only can it happen naturally at almost anytime, but other
> >persons are able to also pick, unnaturally, when the baby is to be "born." 
> >Comments?
> 
> The same is true of conception.  What is your point?

How is conception arbitrary?  It is the specific point when a sperm and an
egg are joined.

Please explain the point you are attempting to
make.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 18:43:40 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  <1992Oct6.052642.26825@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.035312.9543@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
> >
> >I don't care if you're sick, elderly, deformed, criminal, rich, or
> >poor -- if you try to violate my body against my will, I'll do
> >everything I can to stop you.  If I have to kill you to stop you, then
> >I will.  It's all well and good to say, "well, Martin will die if I
> >don't contribute my body's resources to him," and it would be nice of
> >me to lend my body to you while you need it, but by no means should I
> >be coerced by law to do this.
> >
> >If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?
>
> You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of
> trespassing, battery, and various crimes.

You avoided answering the question.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:02:23 CST
Followup-To: alt.sex
 <168698948.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> <1992Sep22.125553.6070@nsscmail.att.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep22.125553.6070@nsscmail.att.com>, cel@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii) writes:
> I also was not aborted.

Hey, me too!  Go figure.  Look how much we have in common already!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe C
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:46:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep18.132355.29470@hubcap.clemson.edu>
conradv@eng.clemson.edu writes:
>In article 22203@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) writes:
 
>>Anyone open to killfile'ing or boycotting PatricKKK? 
>>If so, just e-mail me or respond to this post with "Aye!"  

>Aye, Boycott that racist.

Hm....  Maybe I was wrong....  Maybe Chaney's only the *second*
greatest hypocrite on the Net; you might beat him out.

I won't repost Cinder's claims "joking" that the Jews deserved the
Holocaust and saying that the Holocaust "removed" Jews (as opposed to
abortion, which is "killing" "innocent children").  However, copies
are available on request via e-mail.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:51:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.162851.15647@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Before Roe v. Wade, there was never any Constitutional right for 
>an individual to kill a human being.
True, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not fetuses were persons
before RvW. The answer to THAT question is no.
-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:27:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
>Well that unborn baby has rights.  

Namely?  Please provide sources, from the current body of United States
legislation, detailing these rights.

>I don't see why it shouldn't it relies
>on the womens body for one thing.  Food.  

Well then, let's pull it on out of there and only put in back in for
feedings.

>A 1 day old also relies on 
>it's mother for that.  

So?  We're talking about fetuses.

>See it's not me trying to tell you what to do with your 
>body.  

Only because I'm not female.

>It's me telling you that murder is bad and if you have an abortion
>you are VERY self centered to not care for your baby born
>or unborn.  

You have no basis for this claim.  It is a reprehensible thing to say
when you have no knowledge of the facts of any given case.

>But that's why we have adoption.

Well, hey then -- that should simplify the mission statements of all 
those adoption services.  Sheesh, what a narrow-minded viewpoint.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                Steve Chaney Memorial Anti-Roman Catholic .sig
        "Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' The Vatican Rag!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Summary: What *DOES* NFP stand for, anyway??? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 00:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.014811.9069@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>These are merely your feeble failed attempts deduction.   I have never made
>the statement that abortion is murder, because obviously, the word "murder"
>means illegal killing, and at the present time abortion is not illegal.
>
>Abortion is not murder now.
>
>BUT IT WILL BE!!!

You know, for some reason I picture Suxanne posting this (and hoarding
resources, BTW), while she's checking her mucus for about the 200th time
in 10 minutes...
--
=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???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 2 Oct 1992 07:41:28 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct1.235005.2911@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <nyikos.717890260@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>I'm really curious to see those pictures.  Please note, I am using the
>>FAQ definition of "fetus" as one past the 8th week of development, so
>>you need not bother sending the pictures if they are really of 
>>pigs in an earlier stage of development, UNLESS they are pictures of
>>fetal pigs used in comparative vertebrate anatomy labs for dissection.
>
>Peter, since people and pigs have different gestation periods, the 8th
>week of development for each is not going to be the same stage. I think
>you want them at the same stage of development, not the same gestational
>age.


Well, I dunno, Nadja.  Peter is a *Scientist*, ya know, capital "s", he's
*published* ya know (he tells us)(he had to tell us), so I'd take a guess
that he was capable of writing what he meant.  He'd like to compare
a fetal pig at 8 weeks of development with a fetal human at 8 weeks of
development and draw conclusions.  Now, he didn't say 'draw honest
conclusions' or 'draw rational conclusions', did he?

Adrienne Regard
 
NB Peter has taken to writing about other folks rather than addressing
other folks, so I thought I'd return the favor a couple times to see what
he thinks of it.  Any bets?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Adrienne's appalling attitude toward the unborn
Keywords: zip nada nothing
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:41:42 GMT

For an extended discussion of the following passage, see the thread,
"Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an
abortion two days ago]"  This post is going to be short and sweet.


# From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
# Newsgroups: talk.abortion
# Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
# Message-ID: <13hpc1INNmss@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
# Date: 9 Jul 92 16:26:41 GMT

# {Deletions}

# One day we will have the technology to remove fetuses intact, and 'allow'
# them to 'continue living' if they can.  Come that day, I'm sure we will do
# that for a awhile.  But the survival of the fetus after the fact has zip
# nada nothing to do with the woman's right to remove it from her body.  We
# currently kill it and remove it because we can't save it anyhow.

What do you mean "We", white woman?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Playing with numbers
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:52:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes ...
>>  margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>> >I'm curious as to where Joe B. got his wacky numbers - did he just make
>> >them up, or were they quoted from a pro-lie newsletter?

>Still curious about this...  Was Joe just a "hit and run" poster, or
>did he not expect anyone to question his erroneous assertions?

You mean he might have been a pro-lifer interested only in pushing
his own world view and completely disinterested in anything other
people might feel or think?

Nah.

:-)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40413 talk.religion.misc:17627
From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:29:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <nyikos.717899653@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>I have added talk.religion.misc because I think more Christians should
>see the bizarre "proof-by-analogy" below. {No, this does NOT refer to
>the proof of 0 < 1 that follows it; that one is almost complete, but
>not quite.}
>
>In <1992Sep26.224638.24714@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep25.213302.16675@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>>(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.211330.15342@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu
>>(Eric Gorr) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep25.175213.14117@cs.yale.edu>,
>>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>
>>Oh, read:  (There is to much for me to type it all)
>
>>MATT 7:1-6
>>MATT 23:1-12
>>MARK 7:1-15
>>LUKE 6:37-42
>>     11:37-54
>>     16:16-17
>>John 8:1-11
>
>>I will summarize briefly.  Basically, in each of these passages Jesus was
>>speaking
>>about or to the pharisees.  If you are unfamiliar with the pharisees, they were
>>the ones responsible for creating and enforcing (?) the laws which were
>>primiarly
>>designed to make people lead artifically "moral" lives.  
>
>There is nothing artificially moral about protecting innocent human life.

Is it safe to infer that you believe I am arguing that it is
artificially moral to protect an innocent human life.  I never
said any such thing.  I don't even agree with it.  My arguement is
that the "protection" should not come about through laws.  

Look back into history.  When was the church its most corrupt?  It was
exactly when it had a strong hold on political power and was able to
pass laws.  Everything that Jesus taught us to believe and do was
thrown out the window in favor of tortureing people until they "believed."

Legislated morality (that the society or culture as a combined whole
does not accept) does not work, nor will it ever.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40817 talk.politics.misc:49773 alt.sex:32059 alt.rush-limbaugh:6631 alt.politics.elections:15315 alt.politics.clinton:8658 alt.politics.bush:7861
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:56:23 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Faustus writes:

>> [...] 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..

>And you will never face being torn to pieces by an abortionist's curette 
>or his vaccum cleaner.  

Neither will an unaware fetus, DODope.  The way some of you pro-lifers
try to commiserate with a fetus being aborted is sorta...weird.  Like
Quayle sending flowers to Murphy Brown.

>But when you get old and senile, and you become a burden to society,
>would you mind if we tore your body to pieces with a giant vaccum 
>cleaner and dumped your body parts into a garbage can? 

Um, that's *murder*, Dougie, plain and simple - like you.  Especially
stupid in the above statement is, "...and dumped your body parts..." - I
mean, ANYthing that dies doesn't give a damn what happens to its "body
parts".

>Surely you wouldn't mind having the same thing done to you which you 
>advocate for others.

Surely, you wouldn't mind research to find a way that a fetus could be
forcibly implanted in and brought to term by pro-"life" men, which you 
advocate for others.

Right?
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39599 talk.politics.misc:48757 alt.rush-limbaugh:6272 alt.politics.clinton:7932 alt.politics.bush:7295
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:48:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Taken from an article by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
?mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
?>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
?>
?>Try this on for size.
?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

How about replacing "responsible" with "convienient"?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
ggod enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Third Trimester Anti-Abortion Laws
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:03:49 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
# Kevin....  Oh, PLEASE!  A significant minority of Americans (though by
# no means all of the pro-life movement) think that abortion is murder
# because to them a z/e/f is a person.  Many of them *can't* compromise
# on this....  And to be truthful, I respect them for that.

I don't.  Here's why:  I have more respect for those who are
inconsistently stupid than for those who compound their stupidity by
being irrationally stubborn about it.

That's right.  I'm saying that holding the opinion that zygotes,
embryos and fetuses are people, and should be enfranchised with a
right to life that overrides their mothers' rights to control their
reproductive systems, is stupid.


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:02:00 GMT

<BvCwLp.47x@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) said:
>In <1a7mr3INNle@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>|If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
>>|are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
>>|protection does not mean they don't face the risk.
>>Acknowledging that a possibility exists does not mean consenting
>>to live with it if it does chance to happen.  I acknowledge that
>>a risk of accident & injury exists every time I drive an
>>automobile.  This acknowledgement does NOT mean that I consent
>>to live with injury without medical redress.
>
>	Yes, but medical redress in the case of a car injury does not
>involve killing another human being. Don't you see that your analogy
>is ridiculously false??

Since some pro-lifers seem to like the "magic button that inserts one
person into another" scenario...  What if the car accident resulted in one
person ending up inside of another?  What if that one person was, for all
intents and purposes, brain-dead?  Should the injured party be allowed to
remove that brain-dead person from their body?

>> However, also by
>>their actions, they are clearly NOT consenting to pregnancy.
>>They are attempting to avoid it, by minimizing the risk.  (To
>>continue the car analogy, by obeying traffic laws & wearing a
>>seatbelt.)
>
>	But should someone who was in a car accident have the right to
>kill someone else so they can be "healed"?

If that person ends up inside their body, yes.


Gordon
-- 
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.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I *am* presumptuous enough! (was Re: The fundamental question...)
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:48:07 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

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

Ok, Dr. Nykios, please respond to this real, true 'dark ages' scenario:

_Chicago Tribune_, Oct. 5, 1992, reproduced without permission:
[typos mine]

"10,000 died in Romania abortion  ban"

  "Washington (AP) - More than 10,000 women died from illegal abortions and
200,000 children were placed in orphanges while an anti-abortion law was in
effect in Romania, a new study shows.

  In a report published Monday in the American Journal of Public Health,
researchers said that a ban on elective abortion and on contraception in
Romania "resulted in the highest maternal mortality rate in Europe and in
thousands of unwanted children in institutions.

  "The study is based on the statistics of births and maternal deaths
during the 23-year period after 1966 when Romanian President Nicolae
Ceaucescu introduced policies that outlaws abortion and contraception, and
actively prosecuted doctors who performed unautherized abortions.

  The purpose of the policy change, the study said, was to increase
population.  It failed.

  'After a brief rise, the crude birth rate fell and continued to fall,'
the study found.  'Romania did not succeed in sustaining desired levesl of
reporduction and natural increase.

  What did increase, the study found, was the number of abortion-related
maternal deaths.  Prior to the law, maternal death rates in ROmania were
consistent with those elsewhere in Europe of less than 20 per 100,000 live
births.

  'For the decade 1980 to 1989, the average Romanian maternal mortality
rate was 150 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births,' the study said.
'Many women obtained abortion illegally and every year approximately 500
otherwise healthy women of childbearing age died from post abortion
hemorhage' or other compilications.

  'The anti-abortion law in Romania resulted in over 10,000 deaths of women
from unsage abortion' the study reported.

  No records where kept of the number of infants placed in institutions
during the Ceaucescu regime, the study said, but after he was overthrown by
revolution in December 1989, the population of orphanages was 150,000 to
200,000.

  'Warehousing of children...overwhelmed the health-care system and reduced
the standard of care,' the study said.

  The anti-abortion law was quickly overturned following the ouster of
Ceaucescu, the study said, and maternal mortality fell 50 percent in the
first year, and has continued to fall.  Children admitted to institutions
also has decreased, the study said."

----
 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:45:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.182615.14598@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.194211.17216@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 
>
>>   This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>>right?  
>
>Only if you consider a malignant tumor a member of homo sapiens.
>

Tumors are mere mutations.  At conception, the unborn is not just a mutation.