HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: .
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:18:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.230934.26108@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.
>> 
>> We eat other people??? How nauseating! :) (depending on what other people:)
>
>
>Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
>a form of cannibalism.

So are organ transplants.  In my more humorous moments, I sometimes
refer to them as "technological cannibalism".  Sick huh?  But not
as sick as making cannibalism the center piece of a religion, even
if it is only symbolic cannibalism.

Oh, the cannibal king,
with the big brass ring,
fell in love with the dusky maid.
And every night,
by the pale moonlight,
across the bay he came.
Oh, he hugged and he kissed,
his pretty little miss,
by the shade of the banyon tree.
And every night,
by the pale moonlight,
it sounded like this to me:
"Ah room pah pah,
ah room pah pah,
ah room dee ah dee aye hey hey!
Ah room pah pah,
ah room pah pah,
ah room dee ah dee aye!"


-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:20:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <25028@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
|> In talk.abortion, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
|> >>Ron
|> 
|> >>Mighty big of you to unilaterally decide what goes on in t.a. I take
|> >>person and human being to mean one and the same thing, unless one starts
|> >>to use them in a fashion to describe things as one of the two for mostly
|> >>emotional reasons, with little validity.
|> 
|> >A human being can be a person, but a person is not necessarily a human being.
|> >Person is term describing an entity with certain traits.  It just so happens
|> >to be that certain human beings (moral sense) happen to be persons.
|> 
|> I'm glad to see you coming round. In effect, you're saying that not
|> all human beings are persons, and all persons are not human beings.
|> In general discussions, I acquiesce to what I perceive to be the general
|> mood on the subject, and that human beings and persons mean the same
|> thing. I do hold that just because it looks human, talks/walks like
|> a human, and may even think, that it not necessarily is a person. Take
|> Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahlmer for instance, they are more animal than
|> human (regarding civilized behavior). Take an intelligent chimp or gorilla,
|> they appear more human than animal. Which would you rather have in your
|> house?

	Come now, Ron, this is nonsense.  Are you saying that the
definition of who is a person ought to be based on who you'd let
in your house?  Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer both have a right to
a fair trial and a right for their fate to be governed by law. 
They were conceived with the rights to life, liberty and property;
they misused those rights severly and in so doing waived them.
	No ape or other animal was conceived with these rights,
nor does any animal have them unless it belongs to a person who
elects to grant it those rights.  In that case, they are not
rights really, but privileges. 

Steve
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:27:52 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep14.163457.5500@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep11.114947.8188@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> >>> why do you think DODie is different?
-> >
-> >> I don't.  I didn't indicate that I did.
-> >
-> > then you agree that therapy for DODie might be a
-> > good idea?
-> 
-> As I've indicated, his posts don't contain enough
-> information to make such a determination.

what "determination" is that, bill, that therapy for
DODie might be a good idea? don't you want to see
people that need help get it, bill?

-> Interesting that you continue to insist on your
-> assessment despite the absence of any real data to
-> the contrary.

it's even more interesting that you continue to
misrepresent my position. i haven't seen you scramble
so wildly since eileen retired and left the net.

-> >>> now, to answer your question even though you
-> >>> avoided mine, concern does not generate pleasure
-> >>> nor does all pleasure result from concern. the
-> >>> two are not necessarily related. why would you
-> >>> think they were?
-> > 
-> >> Seems reasonable to assume that your sentiment is
-> >> based on some rationale.  Concern seemed to be the
-> >> most likely candidate, though there are undoubtedly
-> >> other possibilities.  
-> >
-> > it was pretty presumptous of you, then, to state
-> > my motivations, wasn't it? one could almost assume
-> > that you were plying your trade on the net.
-> 
-> One might assume that, if one knew very little about
-> my profession, which you continue to aptly
-> demonstrate.

as do you, in exactly the same way. the difference, of
course, is that i don't practice your profession so i
can't damage anyone.

-> > what has you confused. i suggested DODie see his
-> > therapist. is that not sufficiently
-> > straightforward?  what part don't you understand?
-> 
-> Two parts really.  One, do you know for a fact that
-> Doug has a therapist?  And two, please tell me about
-> the "denial" that you inferred.  How were you able
-> to determine that Doug suffers from a clinically
-> sig- nificant pattern of self-justification?

there you go again, misrepresenting what i said again,
perhaps worse. can you support your statement that i
determined that DODie "suffers from a clinically
significant pattern of self-justification?"

pull yourself together bill, really.





-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:55:53 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>>Ron

>>Mighty big of you to unilaterally decide what goes on in t.a. I take
>>person and human being to mean one and the same thing, unless one starts
>>to use them in a fashion to describe things as one of the two for mostly
>>emotional reasons, with little validity.

>A human being can be a person, but a person is not necessarily a human being.
>Person is term describing an entity with certain traits.  It just so happens
>to be that certain human beings (moral sense) happen to be persons.

I'm glad to see you coming round. In effect, you're saying that not
all human beings are persons, and all persons are not human beings.
In general discussions, I acquiesce to what I perceive to be the general
mood on the subject, and that human beings and persons mean the same
thing. I do hold that just because it looks human, talks/walks like
a human, and may even think, that it not necessarily is a person. Take
Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahlmer for instance, they are more animal than
human (regarding civilized behavior). Take an intelligent chimp or gorilla,
they appear more human than animal. Which would you rather have in your
house?

>>You think so. You've yet to show any reason for this except that there
>>is a good chance that they will meet the criteria given time. Baby Theresa
>>never made it to this stage, and was merely human, not really a human
>>being, although a being that was human. Semantic play.

>Not correct.  Once a human sperm and a human egg unite to form a zygote, that
>zygote is classified as a human being.  Simple biology, not semantic play.

Depending on how it is classified, etc, literally, yes. In the context
of the previous discussion, no. Hence the semantic play.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 19:17:55 GMT

In <Bu70vG.Ax3.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>[talk.religion.misc deleted from newsgroups]

>In article <1992Sep6.231834.17478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>#In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>## ... But you see, I feel discriminated against
>## by not having the possibility of being pregnant.
>## 
>## 	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
>## 				--Pro-abortion slogan
>## 	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
>## 				--Peter Nyikos
>#
>#I think I'm seeing a case of uterus envy that defies belief.  Someone
>#pour cold water on me.

>Okay.  Here.

>You mean, you *don't* feel discriminated against because you
>can't get pregnant?   Gosh, I look at pregnant women and 
>think to myself, "I sure wish I could be nauseated and
>have backaches and look forward to going through labor
>by and by."  I thought everyone did.

Ah, now we know who has been brainwashing poor bard@cutter (sorry, I forget
his name).  She even offers to continue the treatment ("Okay. Here")

Not all women think the way Susan Garvin does.  Here are the words
of Frederica Mathewes-Green, president of Feminists for Life of America:

  "A ... disparaging of pregnancy itself also has an unhealthy ring.
Harping on the discomforts of pregnancy treats woman as weak, incompetent;
yet we are uniquely equipped for this role and strong enough to do much
harder things than this.  Every woman need not bear a child, but
every woman should feel proud kinship in the earthy, elemental beauty
of birth.  To hold it in contempt is to reject our distinctive power,
our bodies, ourselves."

{Satire, but with a grain of truth: Now do you see why I have such a
bad case of womb envy?}

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:09:11 GMT

In article <nyikos.715650825@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep1.011343.29500@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>Elizabeth, your sincerity in what you write below is beyond reproach.
>I disagree with some of your premises, but they too were sincerely arrived
>at. 

Thank you.

>What troubles me is something you do not write about below.  You wrote
>preserve a woman's life OR HEALTH.  I asked you what the word "health"
>meant to you specifically, but that may have been one of the early SC
>posts which defaulted to the local net, so I never saw your answer, if any,
>so I am asking you again.

I don't recall an earlier post.

I would allow an abortion past twenty-four weeks if the mother's
physical health would be permanently and significantly impaired by the
pregnancy.  I would not allow an abortion past twenty-four weeks for
the mother's mental or emotional helath because while I think they are
actually more important than physical health, they are too "fuzzy".

>If your answer is that you agree with the broad Doe v. Bolton definition,
>well, I won't go so far as to say you are lying to yourself about what
>abortion is, but on the other hand I can also see why Suzanne might not
>wish to apologize to you.

Well, my definition does not even faintly resemble the Doe v. Bolton
definition.  Suzanne just doesn't want to apologize to me because she
doesn't want to admit she was wrong.

>>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of
>>2 evils.

>By the way, who or what is Cthulhu?

Thoughest and nastiest of the gods (all of whom are thoroughly evil)
in H. P. Lovecraft's horror stories.

-- 
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: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for B
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:31:54 GMT

In article <Sep14.175120.69767@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

>	This is a factual error.  Medically, a human being begins at conception
>and ends at death.  If you require sources I will post a few.  BTW, even informed
>pro-legal-abortionists on this net (like Gordon Stoga, and, I believe, E.
>Elizabeth Bartley) will acknowledge that we are dealing with a living human being
>from conception till birth.  They just think that in some cases (Bartley) or in
>every case (Stoga), that the human being in question is not one of those with
>human rights.

Hm.  I thought Gordon was of the opinion that *no* human being had the
right to inhabit another human being's body against that human's will.

Saying that I think that some human beings don't have human rights is
inaccurate, as I don't think that one's rights or lack of them have
anything do to with whether or not one is a member of homo sapiens
except insofar as one's "humanness" correlates with one's
"personhood".  That is to sau. I think that rights derive from being a
person, not from being a human.

-- 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:07:53 GMT

In article <Bu369F.J8s@rice.edu> kossack@qvi.com writes:
>|>      It is, however, generally the kiss of death to try and argue for
>|> something on Ninth Amendment grounds.  You will be summarily ignored.
>|> It's been a long time since anybody took Amendments Nine and Ten 
>|> seriously.

>	Wait a cotton-pickin minute, pardner.  I thought that the 
>   Roe vs. Wade decision and the Federal mandate for legal abortions 
>   was based on those very amendments, specifically the so-called 
>   right-to-privacy, a right that the FFs forgot to ennumerate.  

No, unfortunately, Roe v. Wade wasn't based on the Ninth Amendment.
The entire basis of the ruling stands on much less substantial
grounds than that. As I understand is, the logic was as follows:

An earlier ruling, Griswald v. Conneticut, ruled that a basic right
to privacy exists. The majority opinion (the one that really counts)
argued that this was an implicit part of the Fourth Amendment (E.g.
the requirement for police to get warants to search your home, was
included in the Constitution because of an unwritten assumption that
one has a right to privacy.) There was a concuring opinion (that is,
a Justice who thought the Court was right but for the wrong reasons)
who mentioned the Ninth Amendment. But, in terms of case law, I don't
think concuring opinions have much weight.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court cited this right to privacy as implying
a right to extremely personal medical treatments (abortions) without
state regulation. (E.g. state regulation of abortions is an invasion
of privacy.)

This logic is fairly weak on at two key points: The right to privacy 
is not obviously part of the Fourth Amendment. If the Fourth Amendment
is the only protection of that right, then a fairly strong case
could be made for governemnt restrictions (technically, all the Amendment
says is that the government can not invade your privacy with unreasonable
searches and seizures, there are _lots_ of ways to invade privacy without
doing either.)

Second, the leap from a right to privacy to a right to certain medical
treatments isn't crystal clear either.

Essentially, Roe v. Wade is two very questionable steps away from any
real part of the Constitution. It would have been better is the
Court had simply ruled on Ninth Amendment grounds (The Ninth Amendment
basically says that there are alot of individual rights that are 
not listed in the Bill of Rights, and they are just as important as
the listed ones.) Not only would a Ninth Amendment ruling have made
Roe v. Wade much harder to overturn, but it also would have established
a strong precedent for the protection of other improtant rights that
are unmentioned in the Bill of Rights.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Arrogant Indians and Susan Forgach
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:01:49 CDT

In article <1992Sep15.170259.7465@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>If anyone still has Chaney's use of the N.Y. times article to
>show "The Hostility of the Jews of Manhattan", could they repost
>it.  I'm real curious how Nyikos would justify that.
> 
Here's a fragment of that article.  There may be others who
would still have the whole thing.

In article <1992Jan31.171845.18862@csusac.csus.edu> chaneys@athena.ecs.csus.edu
(The Insurgent (Steve Chaney) ) writes:
[deletions]
>
>In Manhattan, recently, pro-lifers were told to get out and stop the
>Life Chain (a Free Speech right) because they were trespassing (in a
>public area!) on a land dominated by "The Star of David." (New York
>Times, Sept. 30, 1991.) FACT: The Jews said: "We don't want your cross
>in our city." The pro-lifers formed a human cross with the signs
>"Abortion Kills Children." The Jews added: "This is also a city of the
>Star of David and the Crescent of ISlam, and we like it that way." Now,
>why can't a cross be in their city, too?
>
>Don't hand me that "Christian morality" crap, Conway. The Jews are known
>for being hostile JUST LIKE THEY WERE WHEN THE NEW YORK TIMES SAW THEM.
>You might flame all you want, Jews on this net, but the FACTS and the
>NEWS ACCOUNTS can be found in 9/30/91 edition of the NY Times, and they
>show concretely the hostility the non-Christians show against - gasp! -
>QUIET, PEACEFUL protestors. Yes - they did not say anything to start
>that shouting festival - and that is also said right there in the New
>York Times, in black and white.
>

Look it up for yourself, Peter.  The word 'Jews" doesn't even appear
in that article.  The actual quote, from Barbara Ehrenreich, whose
nationality and religion were not disclosed in the _Times_ article:

       "Wake up!" she cried. "You're not in Kansas now. We don't want your
cross in our city. This is also the city of the Star of David and the Crescent
of Islam, and we like it that way."

To his credit, I believe Chaney did issue an apology of sorts
after being caught in an obvious misquote.  The woman in question 
was addressing a group of pro-choicers, and speaking as if to the
pro-life demonstrators, who were marching a few blocks away.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Hey, Susan Garvin!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:28:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.030252.24526@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Well, Steve Chaney's comments about Susan Garvin really take
>the cake. Calling her a "feminazi" and insinuating that she likes to
>burn bras proves one thing -- Steve Chaney is not a feminist at all,
>but a feminist-basher, despite his self-proclaimed membership in the
>"Feminists for Life".

Is this Easy Days or is this person attacking me with a really major
lack of common sense? 

My bashing the Molly Yard crowd is no worse than the NAACP blacks
bashing the Republican / Clarence Thomas blacks. 

Does the word "Oreo," a constantly-used word, strike a chord in your
memory? 

Well, "bra-burners" is the equivalent, especially since these
so-called feminist women have nothing in common with the roots they
claim to call on. 

>	I think he needs to be deborged. :-)

I think you need to get on to pre-school. 

>	"Propeller Boy" is a hint that he likes wearing propeller
>beanies, which would not be surprising for a space cadet who has
>called himself the "Insurgent" and the "Interceptor".

You know, I'd feel a lot better if you'd stop calling me by your
family nicknames, like "Propeller Boy." 


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why the 5 week sentience point?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:44:13 GMT

In <1992Sep12.001151.13966@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>>Peter:

>>> The first is sheer speculation.  Which part of the plant is the seat
>>> of sentience?  With humans, you will hear it asserted that sentience
>>> is only associated with the neocortex, which is lacking in most
>>> animals.   

>>> I was safe-siding with my 5 week figure.  Somewhere in the 6th week, 
>>> simple reflexes can be elicited.  Whether that is enough for sentience
>>> is a deep and abiding mystery, but again, I am giving the embryo the
>>> benefit of the doubt.

>My biology books are in Chicago and I'm in New York (telnetting to my
>U of Chicago account), but if I recall correctly, reflexes are handled
>by the medula, which is sometimes considered the most "primitive" part
>of the brain and sometimes considered a part of the spinal cord.
>Certainly they are not handled by the parts of the brain considered
>the seats of sentient/sapient thought.

Descartes thought the pineal gland was the seat of the "somebody home".
Subsequent philosophers generally have been of the opinion
 that it was a mistake to 
locate that "somebody" in too small a place.  I wonder how
many so-called neuroscientists are really aware of what these
old debates were all about.  

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity