HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:17:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

(NOTE:  as classes have started up again, I've found that I am having
less time to respond to messages...and some have cycled out already and
I was unable to reply.  If there is anything anyone has written that
I haven't responded to, pleast post it again - thanx...)

In article <nyikos.717888109@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep27.205914.6734@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>>In article <p90nwq+.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>>Kendig) writes:
>>Eric writes:
>>> Brian writes:
>>> Eric writes:
>>> >Brian writes:
>>> >>Eric writes:
>
>{I thought this dialogue could use a third opinion.}
>
>>> >> Ah, okay, then.  So you're saying that if a fertilized egg divides
>>> >> into three individual developing humans, then only one of them is a
>>> >> 'person'.  After all, there was only one 'person' to start with, and
>>> >> since there was only one conception between one egg and one sperm,
>>> >> there was never the opportunity to bring more 'people' into the
>>> >> situation.
>>> >
>>> >No.  You would have three persons...but unless and until it splits, you
>>> >only have one.
>>> 
>>> Huh?  Okay, so where do the other two 'persons' come from?  
>
>>They came as a result of the split.
>
>This borders on inconsistency, which is why I place the beginning of

How does it boarder in inconsistency?  I don't understand...

>
>>>  You said
>>> 'personhood' starts at conception, so obviously there's only one
>>> 'person' involved here.  
>
>>Another way one may be able to think about it would be that if the split
>>did in fact occur, there there in reality two people involved from the
>>start.  Just because we didn't detect that, doesn't mean that they both
>>weren't there.
>
>This is an interesting possibility, calling to mind "The Three Faces of
>Eve," "Sybil," etc. -- multiple persons in the same body, if that is
>really what was occurring, and not just one person undergoing radically
>altered states of consciousness.

But it really wouldn't be the same body....ever heard of twins being born,
fused in the middle, requiring a doctor to surgically seperate them?

Were there one or two persons?  Same thing as a split except that a doctor
wasn't necessary.

>>But at the moment of the split, there are now two persons involved.
>
>>> Or are you adding more qualifications on when
>>> 'personhood' begins? 
>
>>If you think I am being silly, please explain in a rational, logical
>>fashion, why this is so.  I'll be
>>waiting...
>
>Well, you are leaving out at least one possibility, which is that 
>(in at least many cases) personhood comes after it splits and not 
>immediately after, nor before.

But this doesn't make any sense....what happens if it never splits?

What I am saying is that it should be possible to determine if it
will split.  And if it will, then you have two persons involved.
If it won't, you only have one...
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:56:49 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep21.165312.2835@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Tweedledee again) writes:
>
>>> Did you know that using the saline method these days
>>> includes the risk of a malpractice suit? (Thanks, Russ Anderson!)
>
>> How high of a risk?  ANY abortion carries SOME risk of a malpractice
>> suit.
>
>Any medical procedure carries some risk of a malpractice suit.  The 
>saline solution carries a much higher risk because there are much
>safer methods available.

Yeah, and the last time a woman was able to sue over the damages of this
was probably before the pro-aborts got around to legislating AGAINST
recordkeeping by abortion clinics.


>>> To turn it around, what if our edifice of human destiny depended on 
>>> the slow, painful death of only one teenage girl from septic abortion?
>
>> There is strong evidence that the cause of Becky Bell's death was
>> pneumonia, and that the abortion was spontaneous, not induced.
>
>'Strong evidence' presented by someone who was in no position to
>determine first-hand the cause of death.

Versus NON-EVIDENCE from the folks who said she died of an illegal
abortion.
The last time anyone asked if they had an autopsy which showed damage in
any part of the reproductive system, these witch doctors had nothing.
ZILCH.


>>> I.e., Becky Bell?  Remember, I don't even say "one in a million,"
>>> I say "only one."
>
>> And more than one woman dies NEEDLESSLY each year from LEGAL abortion.
>
>And more than one woman dies needlessly each year from childbirth.

Why is it that your people tried to COVER UP the abortion deaths? Like that
clinic in Maryland that the Maryland pro-abortion committees said, on CBS,
that they tried to cover up?
Or the clinics in Texas who were injuring and killing women, and who called
anyone who tried to regulate them, "anti-choice"?

You people are known for hiding abortion deaths religiously.

All so that no one could ever dispel the myth that abortions are utterly
safe, or nearly utterly safe. (Or even in the ballpark, for that matter.)

=============================================================================
>My God, I can hardly believe what I'm reading! 
						- Jay T Stein 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Euthanasia (was: The christian perspective...?)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:17:05 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes ...
>> Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep19.213216.3332@cs.yale.edu>,
>>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>
>>>>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (eric gorr) writes:
>>>> >I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1+1=2.  Statement false.
>>
>>>> I don't think I agree.
>>>> How do you know it? Please explain.
>>
>>>As I see you have a .edu in your address, please speak with a math
>>>professor.  He will be able to explain it, much better then I could...
>>
>>I think it would be more appropriate to ask a cs/ee prof what 1 + 1 is,
>>it's 10, of course.

>To a CS type maybe, all the EE types I've known would say
>it's 0 with a 1 carry.

Depends on how big your bus is, Ray.  Sometimes it's just 0.

>Ray Fischer

                    -rocker
                     ee type
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: why bill has trouble with medical terms
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:36:53 GMT

In <1992Sep28.164243.15305@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <j_dzk!_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->>>>>>>> projecting again, bill? 
->>>>>>> Diagnosing again, Jim?
->>
->>>>>> now i see why you've had so much trouble with this
->>>>>> thread. at first, i thought it was dishonesty, but
->>>>>> now i see it was just ignorance.
->> 
->>>>> Jim, do you use words without knowing their meaning?
->>>>> If not, please define the word "projecting" (or the
->>>>> concept of "projection") as used in the above
->>>>> context.
->>
->>>> i'll be happy to help you out bill, although i admit
->>>> that i'm surprised that someone in your business could
->>>> actually provide therapy without understanding quite
->>>> basic concepts.
->>
->>> What makes you think that projection is a "basic concept" 
->>> in therapy, Jim?  You seem to be wrong, here.
->>
->> stating that someone is mistaken, without supporting
->> your statement, doesn't carry much weight, bill. would
->> i be incorrect in speculating that you're diverting from
->> the discussion? if so, you don't have to explain why.

->The concept of projection derives from psychoanlytic theory.
->Introductory psychology courses (which always deal with theory
->rather than practice) typically include an overview of Freudian
->psychology and its emphasis on unconscious motivations.  However,
->the inference of such mechanisms and their implications are not 
->detailed until much later (if at all, depending on the orienta-
->tion of the particular school).  The most rigorous treatment of 
->unconscious defense mechanisms is found among schools that train 
->and certify psychoanalysts.  Such training is very specialized, 
->requiring education well beyond the average practitioner's ter-
->minal degree.  While many psychoanalytic concepts make for pop-
->ular dinner conversation, they're not considered "basic" to the
->practice of psychotherapy.

->I've now supported my statement, Jim.  

no, bill, all you did was express your opinion. ordinarily,
that would certainly be sufficient. in this case, however,
you've made it clear that opinions must be supported. and
that you failed to do.

as i asked you earlier, would i be incorrect in
speculating that you're diverting from the discussion?
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:32:35 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.212339.35126@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Tweedledum) writes:
>In  <nyikos.717270316@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> Larry Margolis, a.k.a. Tweedledum.
>
>Gasp!  OK, you're on notice, Peter - if you continue to take my name in
>vain, you're liable to wind up in my killfile.  Or, worse, I might not
>accord you the respect you think you deserve.

Okay, killfile me, too, Tweedledum.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39074 alt.activism:16865 talk.politics.guns:21549
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA has no position on abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:02:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1050@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>-- 
>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce


I would like to remind everyone that the NRA takes no opinion on the 
issue of abortion and confines its efforts to the second amendment.
-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:02:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


I'd like to say something first - I set followups on my
reply to Overpeck to misc.test.  I think that doing this
is a good signal that I pay attention to follow-up lines.

In article <1aa97rINNpuq@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#---
#smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
#|You know, I've always felt that someone who spends weeks and
#|thousands of lines of typing flaming someone else for 
#|one sentence looks like a twittering fool, particularly
#|when that is their only contribution to the newsgroup.
#
#I take it you think Keegan is a twittering fool, then.

Well, no, I was referring to Overpeck.  

Keegan contributes to other threads, and I've seen him use
the word abortion in an article in the last month.  I can't
say the same for Overpeck.

Susan
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:09:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.222735.10080@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

> To me, the issue is not abortion -- it is abortion rights.  The fact
> that my XY chromosome pair specifically dictated that my body not have
> a uterus, pretty much makes any opinion I might have concerning
> when an abortion should be permissible and when it shouldn't into an
> intellectual exercise with no bearing on me personally.

This whole paragraph is circular in that one has to first believe that
the fetus does not qualify as an individual human in the same way that
a born child
 

> By definition, individual legal rights rest on the assumption that
> individual persons can be identified and distinguished from those
> creatures and things that are not persons. 

The ability to be "identified" is certainly up to interpretation and
technology



>																																				 The trouble is that human
> reproduction is a gradual process and there simply isn't an obvious
> event where a new person exists where a second before there wasn't
> one.  

This again is circular in that it a priori excludes the view that life
begins at conception.

> 
> There must be a point at which individual rights are conferred upon a
> new human individual, and because the reproductive process is a
> gradual one, that point cannot be a natural one -- it *must* be
> artificial.  The trick is picking the politically correct artificial
> point.

>From a statistical standpoint the breakpoint, or "phase change" if you
will is very highly localized in time. The reproductive process is only
gradual because you DEFINE it so.

> 
> I think rights should be conveyed upon individuals upon live birth --
>..... simply because the
> state need not abridge the rights of the mother to protect the rights
> of a newborn, but it *must* abridge the rights of the mother to
> protect the `rights' of a fetus.


This is in essence the crux of the problem.  Implicit in an anti-abortion
position is that women have different responsibilities than men because
of their biology.  To the 'old guard' women's movement this is heresy.

> 
> Put simply, I believe that every woman has the right to control what
> happens to her body, and if that means permitting women to have
> abortions at nine months of pregnancy if they choose, then that's what
> it means.

That's easy to say - but I think things would be different if you were
required to witness such a late term abortion.

Paul - 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:46:05 GMT

In <ptgzx_h@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Sep25.142336.861@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <m6cz8m_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >>>

>>>>> you've already replied to my answer to it, bill. 
>
>>>> Untrue.  You've never answered it.
>
>>> again, denial isn't healthy bill. 
>
>> That only partly true, Jim.  Can you tell the listening
>> audience why?
>
> sure. the other part is you lying. and i'm pleased
> that you seem to recegnize that.

It's partly true that denial isn't healthy because I'm lying?  
In your effort to avoid my question, you've succeeded in making
absolutely no sense.

>>>>> why bill, what a silly question! haven't i told you how
>>>>> often i've defended you from attacks based on your
>>>>> condescending manner towards women? 
>
>>>>> Oh, I don't condescend to women.  
>
>>> you've certainly fooled a lot of them into thinking
>>> otherwise.
>
>> Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?
>
> who cares? no one claimed that i was?

Really?  Let me refresh your memory:

   Newsgroups: alt.flame
   From: robinson@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu (John G. Robinson)
   Subject: Re: Tales From the Crypt
   Message-ID: <robinson-090992081411@psy7.psy.utexas.edu>

   In article <1992Sep8.210920.21098@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

   > -> Allow me to clue you in on a little secret: Trish is
   > -> _not_ going to make a road trip to jump your bones
   > -> simply because you come in on her behalf in a
   > -> side-thread in alt.flame.
   > 
   > of course she wouldn't. were she to do that, she'd have
   > much more substantial reasons.  

   "Blaaat!  I am the Raaaam of the Herd!"  You are about as 
   readable as a book, Jimmy-boy.

I guess you must have forgotten about this recent exchange.  It
happens.

> now that i think of it, this remark of yours seems to
> me indicative of your disdain for females though. 

I've never indicated that I have any disdain for females, Jim.
Your inference is typically incorrect.
 
> isn't
> that something you just denied earlier in this post?

Do you think your mention of your "substantial reasons" might
be indicative of any latent misogyny?  Do you hum the theme
from "Shaft" on your way to work every morning?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:11:13 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>You're
>willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?

I'm glad to see that you've finally dropped the charade of being
"pro-choice", Darcy.  It's a step towards being honest.

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:42:55 GMT

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes ...
>   This is the most clangy pile of pseudo-logic that I've read in
>a long time.  Stupid.  Patently assumptive.  But amusing.  I give
>it a 6.2!

Hey, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with
bullshit.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:15:21 GMT

I tried to respond to "The Rink"'s article point-by-point, but there
was just too much to handle.

So I tried to respond to it issue-by-issue, but I still felt inundated
by it.

I give up.  The article is full of blatant assertions, inaccurate
figures, heavily biased opinions, and emotional ploys.  It insults
women by seeming to assume that if we just keep them from having
abortions, they'll thank us someday for it.  It cleverly avoids
bringing up any good reason to want an abortion, instead trying to
reduce the issue to a battle between loving, caring people who want
women to have as many babies as possible and love them all versus the
evil babykilling murderers.

If this is the sort of muleheaded opposition the pro-choice movement
has faced all along, then I'm surprised we've gotten as far as we have.

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt you for a little while" - "Prince"
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 05:33:21 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  <1992Oct4.234737.4932@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.185959.5750@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes
> >kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
> >> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >>>Only in some states.
> >>Please post the name of a state which has a law forbidding the use of lethal
> >>force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

> >>>Only as a recent innovation.
> >>Please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder for
> >>using lethal force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.

> Larry has been appealing to an alleged legal PRINCIPLE that deadly force is
> permitted to prevent or terminate a temporary violation of Bodily Autonomy.

I've been pointing out existing *laws*.

I note that you didn't respond to Keith's queries...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:38:49 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <p_lzg+f@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->>->interesting to see you support a claim that I am not intellectually
>->>->honest. Can you do so?
>->>seems to be that you've supported it quite nicely.
>->That's not an answer, Mr. Keegan. 
>please post your credentials for determining is something
>is or is not an answer. after doing so, please specify
>how these credentials make your opinion more valid than
>anyone else's opinion.
What makes you think that credentials have anything to do with validity,
Mr. Keegan? Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
of he who propounds them.

Your argument falls on it's own.
I repeat:
Using this sort of argument, I could say "You have blue hair." and when
challenged, reply "seems to be that you've supported it quite nicely."

-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: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some people think I got scared off..
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:59:35 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|And this woman complains about me hanging titles on her.  Has
|she never heard of Gilbert & Sullivan's _The Mikado_?

Speaking of which, I don't think Nyikos would be missed.  Nor
would Chaney.  I've got them on my list.  No, they'd none of
them be missed.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com     C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"On an occasion of this kind, it becomes more than a moral duty 
to speak one's mind.  It becomes a pleasure."  Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:52:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.193120.1797@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>>If she really didn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have risked getting it.
>>
>>If you really didn't want to get hit by that car, you shouldn't
>>have risked crossing the street.
>
>Sarcasm intended, truth emitted.  Anybody who doesn't want to risk getting
>hit by a car when crossing the street shouldn't cross the street.
>
>But can you really equate the odds of getting hit by a car crossing the street
>with the odds of getting pregnant by having sex?

No, you don't.  Your chances of getting hit by a car crossing the street are
MUCH GREATER than getting pregnant from having sex.  Especially if you don't
look before crossing or if you use birth control.

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion