HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Is Pitts just plain out of the loop?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:46:00 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <73769@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) writes: 

>Could you give your logic on how you arrived at this conclusion?
>Or is it your bias against my view.  Remember I don't think
>MURDERING THE UNBORN is a noble nor correct thing to do.
>Others, maybe even yourself, think this murdering is ok, but no I.

You want to talk about bias while using the phrase murdering the
unborn.  Isn't that special?  Yoo-hoo, Earth (not Jesus) to Richard:
Abortion is not murder.  I know you'd like to make it murder but it
isn't.  If you want to appear unbiased you might use terminology like
killing or terminating the life of the unborn, but abortion is not
murder.  If you doubt this, then please try to make a citizen's arrest
of a doctor performing an abortion and see what happens.

Deletia

>I think it was someone else who questioned which Christ I pledged
>my allegiance and I responded.  However, I often close with "For
>Christ and His Kingdom".  One's beliefs (world view, be it theist
>or atheist or some where in between) drives their reasoning - this
>is true for me as it is for you.  I recognized my relationship
>to The Lord as the driving force of my life and my actions.

Tears of happiness are streaming down my face for you, but I have one
question: Why is it that you are unwilling to allow pregnant women to
come to their own conclusions about the Lord and how this affects
their decision to abort?  Didn't your Jesus teach you about individual
will or trusting women?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:36:02 GMT

|    = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
|>   = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman):
|>|  = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
|>|> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>|> *Obviously* there will always be some areas of contention wrt to what 
|>|> constitutes a "person", but I think it's useful to narrow down the points 
|>|> of disagreement.  Is anyone interested in doing this?  Or are we only 
|>|> interested in wholesale acceptance/rejection of other people's ideas?
|>|> 
|>|> To that end, I challenge you to provide concise answers to the following:
|>|> 
|>|> Q1: Do you agree that the physical presence of a brain is necessary, 
|>|>     although perhaps not sufficient, for "personhood"?  <yes xor no>
|>|
|>| A very qualified "no" (see response to Brian Kendig's post).
|> 
|> But you did say: "[...] So I would say that no living thing exists 
|> that lacks a brain that I would call a person. [...]"  So apparently, wrt
|> "living things" & abortion, a brain in a prerequisite for "personhood".
|
| I said that after pointing out that there is no *living thing* which
| *completely lacks* a brain.  A brain is a prerequisite for (human) life,
| and hence, trivially, a prerequisite for (living) personhood.  Notice I
| did *not* say a fully functional brain, or a fully developed brain,
| or an intact brain.

You've said some confusing things:
A) you've said a brain is not necessary for "personhood" (qualified)
B) you've said a brain is a prerequisite for any life in general
C) you've said a brain is "trivially, a prerequisite for (living) personhood"

However:
1) There are *many* "living things" which *completely lack* a brain.
   Proof by example #1: A tree *is* a living thing (ie. is a thing & is 
   alive), and yet does not have a brain.
   Proof by example #2: A zygote *is* a living thing (ie. is a thing & is 
   alive), and yet does not have a brain.
2) a brain is *not* a prerequisite for human life.  Proof by example:
   A zygote *is* a human life (ie. is human & is alive), and yet does 
   not have a brain.

Let's focus on the point here: I maintain that in order for X to be labeled
a "person" in any *meaningful* way, X must (at least) bear a reasonably 
strong similarity to what are commonly known as "persons".  So in an effort
to identify things that are clearly not "people", I ask (please) for a 
second effort to provide a concise & complete to:
Q1: Do you agree that the physical presence of a brain is necessary, 
although perhaps not sufficient, for "personhood"?  <yes xor no>

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 02:36:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.161152.27418@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.080322.1006@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>
>> [Doug, Keegan, Doug, Keegan, etc. ad nauseam] 
>>
>>Am I the only one who thinks this infantile bickering could be
>>more efficiently dealt with via email?  Does anyone else resent
>>having to sift through this refuse in search of meaningful
>>debate and discussion?  Do these folks have *anything* better
>>to do than chant, "I know you are, but what am I?"
>
>Trouble is, at least one of the participants *REFUSES* to use email
>for this crap. At least, he has a long history of refusing to do so. 
>
>You're lucky he hasn't started calling you a "net.cop" just for merely
>_suggesting_ email...

So when are you going to bill Lefty for your "archival services", Kevin?

Or are you going to start whining about how I'm trying to control your 
"business practices" again?

--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 20:48:27 GMT

In <qjf187a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>Of course!  Are you getting mad, Keegie-poo? 

>Oh "Dr" Nyikos!  Here's a clear-cut case of sexual harassment of
>keegan.  Will you come rushing to his defense, oh Self-Appointed
>Judge of how Men Sexually Harass Men?

>This wouldn't be somehow "different", would it?

Actually it would, as long as Keegan has not made it clear that
he considers it sexual harassment.

I did not announce that I considered "Petey Honey" to be sexual
harassment until a post in which I exposed the hypocrisy of Keith
Cochran, calling his offer to be "doer" to my body, with a hint
of fisting me, sexual harassment.  Since the "Petey Honey" talk
started immediately afterwards, I connected the two and decided to 
take that to be sexual harassment too.  But that was almost a month
after the use of the term began, and anyone who used it earlier 
could not be accused of sexual harassment of me, unless that was
their intent.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: A POLITICAL SOLUTION
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:32:01 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.002320.8377@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> Vote for the only candidate of change.  Perot.
>> 
>> How can you have change with Politics as usual?
>> 
>> Vote for the only person to leave a great job, a great family, expose his
>> family to press attacks, and ask for no salary.  His heart is in it.
>> 
>> Remember to vote YOUR vote, not the crowds.
>> 
>> Perot for President!!
>
>Wasn't Perot pro-choice??  Confused, Ken!?

I'm not Ken,  but Perot garnered many people on a single issue, which was
one of the following:

  1 - wanted the deficit solved, NOW

  2 - pissed off at the system completely

  3 - decided Bush and Clinton both stunk, and Perot was THE alternative*

*Not to disparage the Libertarians, but Perot was the only one who got
media attention, and the average voter gets his info from the media.

Perot's stand on social issues was basically ignored by most people...at
least from what I see.

BTW, I fit in groups 1 & 3, with reason 1 being my main reason.  His being
pro-choice was a nice benefit.

 -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
Subject: Re: A POLITICAL SOLUTION
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:52:11 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov3.002320.8377@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> Vote for the only candidate of change.  Perot.
> 
> How can you have change with Politics as usual?
> 
> Vote for the only person to leave a great job, a great family, expose his
> family to press attacks, and ask for no salary.  His heart is in it.
> 
> Remember to vote YOUR vote, not the crowds.
> 
> Perot for President!!

Wasn't Perot pro-choice??  Confused, Ken!?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date:  3 Nov 92 16:55:15 GMT

In <bob1.720369116@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>In <nyikos.719895484@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Be honest and give statistics.  1 in 100,000 for vaginal childbirth,
>>which is what you've been talking about.  And forget the religious

>There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics - Benjamin Disraeli

There are statistics, and there are statistics.  These are relevant to
our discussion, which includes some pretty powerful claims by you about
the risk of death childbirth poses for women; claims which you conveniently
deleted above.

There are lies, damned lies, and there are selective deletions - Peter Ny.

>>  You're stuck in the 1930's.

>No Peter, I am stuck in the 1780's when some pretty intelligent people
>wrote the Constitution, the whole concept of which is a free people.

Now you are stuck in 1973, when Justice Blackmun claimed to find 
something in the Constitution that those pretty intelligent people, to
whom he cannot hold a candle, never intended.  

>Not just free men, but free people (which I assume means women too).

On the other hand, by your standards, unborn children, who were 
protected by the British common law (which the colonies inherited)
do not even have the right to life, much less any other freedom.

>You must watch Quantum Leap too much, as it certainly takes a leap
>of such proportions to come up with a pro-abort label based upon
>what I wrote.

Quantum leaps are often of subatomic proportions.

You posted a lot of scary stuff, designed (though not perhaps by you, but
by the people who first came up with the kind of arguments you were giving)
scare women away from childbirth, with no counterbalancing statements 
about the risks of abortion.

> If you are seeking labels, save yourself the time
>since you would never know how to label me.

Well, if you don't put your foot in your mouth again the way you
did in your propagandistic post, you won't get labeled by me.  I 
only said you were a prime candidate for the label, but like so many
talk.abortion pro-choicers, you have problems with reading comprehension.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Originator: jjprice@c00367-247dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:42:30 GMT


In article <1992Nov8.124719.2740@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
|
Some absolute worthless drivel I wrote about our friend Bill Clinton Deleted

|>Your statement was never completed, and you left one opening bracket
|>without closing it.  I really don't think it was your intention to
|>say "All you Anti-Lifer's think," but that's the best translation I
|>can make out.
|>
Glad you figured it out it was an intelligence test. ((())) :-)

|>Sorry for nit-picking (but I love to use parentheses (or brackets (if
|>you'd rather call them that (doesn't matter (I know this is not the
|>grammatically (is that a proper spelling of the word (how would I know?)?)
|>correct usage of parentheses (but at least people can decipher them
|>(if they try hard enough)), but it's how I like to use'm) to me)))
|>(one more, just for fun! (WHEW!)) and I hate to see other people (like
|>you) abuse them), it just looked as though you needed some help.
|>
Not bad Brian That actually makes sense (unlike my post) and thanx for
staightening me out on the proper use of parentheses but shouldn't these
post go on talk.gramatics instead :-)

BTW I accidentally missed your AUTI posts if you wouldn't mind E-Mailing
them to me I would Appreciate it. Yes all of them

|>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
|>
Jeff Price   jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu

       Picard/Riker '92  Now that would have been the ticket.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:58:59 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>->You might
>->be interested to know that the Western ethic against infanticide
>->gained its roots from early Judeo-Christian thought.  

>  "First of all, the phrase "Judeo-Christian" 
>  *anything* is offensive to Jews, who consider 
>  the two religions opposed at their most basic
>  points, no matter what their origins may have 
>  been [...]"
>     rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
>     <1992May17.053331.8741@midway.uchicago.edu>

At least it puts the "Judeo" first...  ;)

Actually, it *is* reasonable to lump them together since both include belief
in a single God and certain fundamental "commandments".  *shrug*  (just because
it's "reasonable" doesn't mean they *should* be)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: public funds. financing abortions. why not.
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:59:34 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov8.204931.15877@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
> 
> Now Pro-Choicers may be unhappy that funding would not be provided for the
> abortion but if she wants it bad enough pay for it out of her own pocket.

It's not a question of *wanting* an abortion.  It is much more likely to
be *needing* an abortion.  Besides that, what if she just can't pay for
it?  Too bad?

>She can always have the child and be provided for if it is a money issue

What if she can't pay for the birth?  Also, it's more intelligent to
scrounge up cash for a one time operation rather than have to beg
and scour for money for close to 18 years.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:08:27 GMT

<1992Nov12.004539.23879@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@armstrong.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
><nyikos.721342490@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

Excellent vivisection of Peter is deleted.  It was so wonderful it brought
tears to my eyes.  Well done, I say well done.  Of course, Peter's machine
will probably crash any second now (like it did after I responded to him)
so he probably won't see this post.

>Sarah McCabe
>(who typed this whole message in all by herself without the help or
>guidance of any male.  And if you don't believe I could, I am sure one
>of my ex-boyfriends on the net will vouch for my abilities.)

I vouch for her abilities.  She never need any guidance from me.  (Well,
there was that time...)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46560 alt.rush-limbaugh:8950
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Why Do AntiAbortionists Play At GOD!
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 03:08:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.180112.8651@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>Besides, are you a christian?  I know you are not.  If you were you would
>realize that true christianity has no doctrine.  We just go by what we see that
>God tells us.  There is a difference between Religious people and Christians.

So, does she drop by and talk with you often? Sort of 'pop in' to the 
local kaffee klatch, or what?


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: abortions, animals, analogous.
Keywords: abortion and animal rights
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:59:08 GMT

In article <markts.721258550@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:

} i am a pro-creamationist!


Wait!  Wait!  Don't cremate!  I speak for the pre-resurected when I say this.
If we all have to return to our bodies to be judged, what will those who
find themselves in urns do?

"You stupid ash".

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: THANK GOD HE'S SLICK!
Date: 6 Nov 1992 12:34:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   Now that Slick Willie is to be the President, the women in the
nation should be pleased that he was 'slick' enough to win.  I am
pleased that he is slick enough to keep the fundamentalist wackos
out of the wombs of American women.  I am delighted that those of
you who want to legislate against the women in my family are soon
going to be shown that what my sister or mother or wife or cousin
or daughter do with their own bodies is none of your business.  I
am grateful that you clowns who have tried to redifine the way we
view what a person is or is not will not be able to compel others
to knuckle under to your superstitious values.  Because Americans
generally believe that this issue MUST be decided by the woman, a
man has been elected that will insure that my family is safe from
you bastards.  
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
From: vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!
Summary: YAY!
Date: 4 Nov 92 07:42:37 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I haven't been able to read talk.abortion for quite a while, but
I just had to chime in with cries of HOORAYs and YAYs!!!

Anti-choicers, believe what you believe, you have a right, now...

GET OUT OF MY LIFE AND AWAY FROM MY BODY!!!

Hooray for the people of America! (anti-choicers, is it clear now?)
Hooray for the people of Oregon! (gay-bashers, go screw yourselves!)
Hooray for the people of Missouri! (Webster, you're not wanted)      
Hooray for the people of Illinois! (proud to be one of 'em)

And on and on and on and on and on........

What a great day for America!
What a great day for freedom and democracy!
What a great day for abortion rights!

Vickie (from Chicago "home of Carol Moseley Braun" Illinois)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47771 news.admin.misc:326
From: xyzzy@mertwig.UUCP (Daniel Drucker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:19:11 EST
Organization: Odd Parity Hacker's Group

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> The purpose of having a machine in the UUCP maps is so that folks can get
> mail to you via a short name as well as a long one, e.g. "rotag", as well 
> as "rotag.mi.org". If one doesn't give a damn about being reachable via a
> short name, then what incentive is there to be in the maps?

For some people, the purpose is to be reachable at all.

(BTW, how _does_ one register in the .org domain?)
 
  Replys by email, PLEASE!

--
Daniel Max P. Drucker, the network communications wizard.

mertwig!xyzzy@jaflrn.uucp                   amateur radio callsign pending
Disclaimer: It's all my fault!

"Difficulty! It's the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!" -HHGTTG
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46605 talk.religion.misc:20424 talk.politics.misc:58084
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Pitts Out of the Loop During the Persian Gulf War?
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:34:23 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <1992Nov4.182900.15276@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Nothing More stoopid than brining a knife to a pistol shoot....

Is "brining a knife" some sort of bizarre naval baptismal ceremony for cutlery?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion