HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: DNA inhibition (was: Re: Stranded on an Island)
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:17:26 EDT

In message-ID: <1992Jul16.214957.1957@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust 
(John Stevens) writes:

>In article <1992Jul13.164700.20205@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> 
>perez@mgr.uucp (Charles Perez) writes:
>>>Obviously, after conception, the result has a complete set of genes.
>>>Human genes.  If you feel that more is necessary to make a human, then
>>>I would humbly request that you list the necessary attributes of a
>>>human being.
>
CP>>Hmmm... The above definition of "[individual] human" applies to every
CP>>diploid cell in my body with a nucleus... I must be a mass-murderer!!!!

JS>A common misconception is that a fertilized egg is no different than
JS>any other cell in the human body.  Please refer to any good text on
JS>reproductive biology, and one on genetics.

So give your suggestions for good texts on reproductive bio. and 
genetics,  so we can be talking about the same thing.

JS>The difference is (to simplify it to absurdity) that in a fertilized
JS>egg, the DNA is not inhibited in the same way as any other cell.

True; it is inhibited in a DIFFERENT way from cells in the adult body.
In the early stages of an animal embryo,  tissue can be moved from
one part to another, but it eventually develops into the correct organ.
At later stages, this ability is lost and misplaced body parts are the 
result.  ( I hope I am correctly remembering the biology I learned)
However as is often the case by pro-lifers, you speak as if the 
zygote was able to develop for nine months and form into a human
baby ALL BY ITSELF without any need for all the support systems of the
woman's body.

>In other words, all of the information is in both cells, but only a
>sub-set of the information contained in the DNA is allowed to express
>itself.  Different cells have their DNA inhibited in different ways,
>which is how you get different types of cells from the same DNA.

So what is so sacrosanct about the particular manner in which inhibitory
molecules are bonded to the zygote DNA?  According to your logic,
I could walk up to you and surgically remove one of you kidneys.  It
would be legal (even though I am imposing a health risk on your body 
that you do not want),  because those kidney cells have some of their 
DNA inhibited and so when they divide can never produce a non-kidney
variety of cell.

If you are saying that there are no genes inhibited whatsoever in a
newly fertilized egg, please give a reference.  And how long does that 
condition last?  If it really does exist, it does not remain so for
nine months.   So then why wouldn't it be not-murder to abort at
say for example, three months after conception (according to your logic?)
And please explain why you think the exact amount of DNA inhibition
is the best criterion for deciding when human life begins.  Most
pro-lifers have a different definition. They just say it begins at 
conception; details of DNA regulation never come into the picture.

>John
>stevens@uswest.com
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:27:54 GMT

---
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
|In article <1992Jul23.014836.233362@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|>who hopes you enjoyed debating CJ in misc.test
|
|CJ does not debate.  He flames.  It seems that is all he is capable of.

Ghod I love Usenet.  Where else can I find so many specimens
like John Stevens?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Easily observed crite
X-To: GALEN J. HEKHUIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:40:00 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
GJH> In article <1992Jul3.234218.21918@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
GJH> <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
GJH> }eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes...
GJH> }EEB> Pro-Choice        Anti-Roe                          - E. Elizabeth Ba
GJH> }     ^^^^^^^^^^ BUT... ^^^^^^^^
GJH> }
GJH> }How?  What I mean is ... in what regard are you "pro-choice" but "anti-Roe
GJH> }I'm curious...

GJH> I suppose you feel it is also contradictory to be "anti-communist" but to
GJH> allow people to choose to join the communist party.

As surprising as it sounds, the concept does not in fact, escape me.  However,
this is not a valid analogy, IMHO.  I was asking why she was "pro choice" but
opposes the law that enshrines the choice.


GJH> Perhaps the concept
GJH> that one might support the right to choose but not necessairly support the
GJH> choice is fairly difficult for you.

I was not asking whether she was "pro-choice" but would not support someone's
decision to abort - I was asking why she opposes the law that guarantees that
choice.


GJH> I get the feeling that in Elizabeth's case specifically she may not find
GJH> legal basis for Roe Vs Wade, but believes in the right to choose regardless

That is ALL that I was looking for, Galen.  Thank you for answering my question.
Mind you, I could have done without the sarcasm, but it seems to be an
occupational hazard on talk.abortion and alt.abortion.inequity.  I had been
TEMPTED to make some offensive remark about your hang-gliding hobby, but I
thought better of it.  :-)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * I CAN'T go to Hell, they won't take me!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Organization: Not bloody likely.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:45:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.210151.52562@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
>ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
>problems might be inherited.
>
>Susan

Good.  If you can't respond to the argument, attack the man.  Typical.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Sex only for procreation 
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:40:22 GMT

I began thinking about the assertion by some posters that sex (human)
is solely for procreation. Living in the country with foxes and deer
more or less co-resident, there has been ample time to observe pro-
creation in the animal kingdom (well, at least among the deer, our
foxes seem more reticent).

Out of season, both doe and buck graze quite amiably across the lower
part of the cleared area where I only mow the weeds (haven't gotten
around to spreading grass seed there as yet). In spring, the does
have their young with them - a sight to see. Once the young get to
the yearling state the doe will go into heat again and then the fun
starts in earnest.

The point of all this, since we are members of the fauna in a sense,
is that if the subject line were correct, why would we be any different?
If the subject line is correct, women would go into heat at some
appropriate time. The strongest males would round up as many as
they could defend, and have at it.

Once impregnated, life would resume its quiet grazing time, nature
would take its course, and the young would be born. With the deer,
it seems that the doe do not go into heat again until the young
are pretty much self-supporting. If this were the case with we
humans, that would mean about 5 years at a minimum. While not
self-supporting at 5 years, neither are young fox kits, but the
parents feed them and teach them how to hunt, much like wolves do.

Now since none of the above seems to apply to we silly humans,
it just might be possible that human sex has some alternative
functionality besides mere population of the planet.

Just a thought. :-/

REB


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:02:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.014836.233362@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.200354.26116@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>#In article <1992Jul22.020303.239422@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>##In article <Jul.21.14.45.46.1992.3784@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>###stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>####In article <1992Jul20.210151.52562@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>If attempting to gain equal rights is an act 'too disgusting
>to be believed', then I am happy and proud to be disgusting.  Your
>negative judegement is a compliment to me.

Forgive me for being slow on the uptake, but it has just occured to me that 
may not understand what the term "equal rights" means.  Please define if
for us again, so that I can make sure.

>If both of you had signed your postings at the bottom with both first AND
>last name every time, I would have been less likely to confuse you.

There is a .sig at the bottom of all my posts, which should make it
easy to pick me out.  Also, I don't know what newsreader your are
using, but so far, the three that I'm familiar with all state the name
of the poster, not only at the top of the post, but in the references
at the beginning of the text as well.

Those newsreaders are, vnews, rn, and nn.

>Typical.  No email address, no last name.  And she flames me for mixing
>her up with all the other knee jerk reactionaries who unfortunately share
>the same name.

If I were simply a knee-jerk reactionary, I would have told you to
f*** off a long time ago.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:34:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa



Here you go, Stevens, no flames.  

My full name and e-mail address are readily available in
the header of my articles, by the way.  I see no need to
repeat the information in the body.

We cannot agree on this subject.  I think that a woman's
right to bodily integrity supercedes a man's right to
reproduce.  You seem to believe the opposite.  There is
no common ground.

Susan
(CJ is not a man, by the way.)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
X-To: SUSAN GARVIN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:30:00 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes...
SG> In article <1992Jul3.234503.22168@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.
SG> d.org> writes:
SG> #sgast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes...
SG> #SG# As you see, I said that I support a woman's right to choose
SG> #SG# to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason she might have.
SG> #SG# I do.  I've never been afraid to state my position.  I
SG> #SG# believe that a woman has an absolute right to remove anything
SG> #SG# from her body that she chooses, be it a fetus, a tumor,
SG> #SG# or a leech.                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SG> #    ^^^^^^^^^^
SG> #
SG> #That's a wonderful comparison, Susan.

SG> I made no comparison.  I purposefully chose three things I consider
SG> to be quite different.

Good to see that you consider them different...




SG> #Strange though, I suddenly recall
SG> #my ex-girlfiend (heh) using the words "tumour" and "cancer" to "describe"
SG> #our (more like MY) baby ("products of conception") while she was pregnant..
SG> #I don't think I NEED to tell you how "it" ended up...

SG> Interesting choice of words, there, "MY) baby"

I said "more like MY baby," because she didn't even consider it hers.  In
fact, she didn't even consider it as a baby.  In fact, I do not even think
that she believed that it was a foetus.


SG> I don't believe that any man should be allowed to force a woman to
SG> breed with him.

I made no such assertion.  I was only saying that she should have been a
little bit more sensitive and less self-centred.  A little bit of kindness
goes a LONG way.  You may not have thought that she was being self-centred,
but you don't know the whole story, either.  And I usually give you the
credit of the doubt when you say things which cannot be explicitly confirmed.
I only wish the same respect from you, nothing more, if you are unwilling
to concede anything else.


SG> #Okay, flame off...  (Sorry, I lost it there...)

SG> It sounds as if you lost it quite a while ago.

Look, I said that because I was apologising that I lost my temper.  Also,
it seemed that you had resolved your (self-admitted) hostilities towards
a lot of other net users, so I was admitting that I was guilty of the same
thing.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                        "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We all live in a yellow subroutine.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:01:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul22.203147.26584@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
[much deleted]



#How can her personal views (based on her physical limitations [do you
#know the whole story, here?] ) be a basis for laws which she has no
#interest in?


I'll be interested in seeing your article attacking the Roman
Catholic Church leaders for inserting themselves into the
abortion debate, Stevens.

Unlike you, I have had an abortion.  I am interested in seeing
this option remain for women in the future.  I am very
grateful that I had the choice at the time.  I would not
be able to look myself in the mirror if I advocated forcing
women to carry every pregnancy to term simply because I
myself am not capable of getting pregnant.  I know that
this doesn't bother some people, but it does bother me.

I'll satisfy your curiosity about my infertility, too, 
Stevens.  I had ovarian cancer seven years ago.  I had
a bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy and hysterectomy
during my treatment.  I'm 34 now, and I intend to continue
to have sex for a very long time, whether you approve or not.

Susan


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: exubern@exu.ericsson.se (Bernie Meier)
Subject: Inequity of unborn murder
Keywords: abortion
Reply-To: exubern@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:21:25 GMT

In article 712187288@exu.ericsson.se, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> [ stuff omitted ]
>
>My own feeling is that abortion can be potentially a murder (that is, an 
>unjustified taking of a human life), and actually a killing of a life. Even 
>if you don't think that a fetus is a 'person' (which many think is a very 
>plausible claim), you are still obliged to view it as a living thing. Now, 
>nobody thinks it is OK to kill a dog just for the fun of it. That isn't 
>morally justifiable treatment of animal life, but by what logic could one 
>reason that it is, nevertheless, OK, to kill the life inside a womb? It is, 
>then, just as wrong (I'm not talking about legality here now, though it may 
>be illegal to kill dogs in some states) to kill a dog as to kill a fetus, if 
>the circumstances are the same (I.e. killing a unwanted dog=killing an 
>unwanted or misbegotten child). 

It would be interesting to find out just how many communities (towns, cities,
municipalities, states) have laws or statutes on the books that prohibit, 
or identify as a punishable offense, the killing of an animal, such as a dog
or horse. I'll bet there are a bunch...

In fact, it just comes to mind that PrimeTime (or 60min or 20-20 or one
of these other shows) recently did a piece on Race-track-greyhounds.
Apparently these dogs (thousands of them) are being raised for racing,
then discarded when no longer able to win a race, "net a purse". And it
appeared that the reporter (and the show's host) was extremely outraged
at the thought! of "using" dogs to this end: greed and
self-gratification without regard for consequences. 

Guess where else we see that attitude in society today?

---
=================================================================
|| Bernie Meier              || "Do they speak swedish in      ||
|| exubern@exu.ericsson.se   ||  Switzerland?"   - R.U.Serious ||
=================================================================
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Easily observed crite
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:24:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.020604.2049@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves 
<goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

}That is ALL that I was looking for, Galen.  Thank you for answering my 
}question.

}Mind you, I could have done without the sarcasm, but it seems to be an
}occupational hazard on talk.abortion and alt.abortion.inequity.  I had been
}TEMPTED to make some offensive remark about your hang-gliding hobby, but I
}thought better of it.  :-)

We had just been through a pretty thorough discussion about "pro-choice"
and especially how Ms.  Bartley was involved.  Perhaps this helps
explain my sarcasm, but I'll agree, it doesn't excuse it.  As for 
offensive remarks about hang gliding, bring it on.  We often refer to
our own gliders as "divers" (some of the early ones sure did).  We 
can take insulting and offensive remarks, and often chuckle.  
Anyway, hang gliding is next to g[G}(h)od(d)[ess]liness and I'm
sure anything you can throw at it will roll off it just like
a straw on the back of a camel.  Or something like that...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: jegm@cody.esd.sgi.com (Jim Morris)
Subject: Tree cutting policy in San Jose?
Reply-To: jegm@esd.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 17:11:07 GMT

Does anyone know what the tree cutting policy in San Jose is?

The problem is that the Day Care center behind my house is on City Property,
and yesterday they cut down an 80' tree which was not dying or sick. This
has been devastating to my neighbours and me, as it was a beautiful tree
and provided plenty of shade for our gardens.

If anyone can point me at the right place to go, or if anyone has any
experience in what my recourses are, I would appreciate it.

-- 
Jim Morris, Email: jegm@esd.sgi.com  Voice: (415) 390-5136
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: dtasman@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (Dan Tasman)
Subject: Planning FAQ?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:31:34 GMT

Hmm ... though this newsgroup is geting little traffic (for now, at least), it  
seems lie there are some recuring questions.  Maybe we should get together a  
frequently asked questions list for alt.planning?  What would go in there?   
Maybe ...

- Locations of "new towns" in the US and elsewhere
- Creating a sense of place
- Neotraditional planning concepts
- Planning software information
- Land use regulation (zoning, sign, landscape ordinances, etc)
- Boards, commissions and so on
- Addresses of planning organizations
- Sample zoning ordinance


--
   Dan Tasman                                       dtasman@dante.nmsu.edu
                                                     molson@rever.nmsu.edu
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   "I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree
    Indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."
                                                                Ogden Nash
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: sod@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Sean M O Donnell)
Subject: Re: Planning FAQ?
Originator: sod@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: sod@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:36:49 GMT

From article <1992Jul30.203134.7714@nmsu.edu>, by dtasman@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (Dan Tasman):
> Hmm ... though this newsgroup is geting little traffic (for now, at least), it  
> seems lie there are some recuring questions.  Maybe we should get together a  
> frequently asked questions list for alt.planning?  What would go in there?   
> Maybe ...

A listing of books and assorted other publications with short synopses.

A listing of resources for planning subjects -- this could range from
something that is specific to a single source or site, such as "hey, you'd
never believe what I found at the State Historical Society...", to what
sort of information can I find at the local building dept.?

A planning dictionary -- e.g. what's a quad map?

A GIF Database  (I'm learning Dan).  This could have al sorts of images, 
ranging from renderings and plans to photos, I think.

This is a great idea (with or without my suggestions).  Let's do it.

Sean

C
D
A GIF database (I'm learning Dan)
> 
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban,alt.suburbs
From: dogden@moose.uvm.edu.UUCP (To be born again first you have to die.)
Subject: Re: Yards of Yards
Originator: dogden@moose.uvm.edu
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:29:23 GMT

heather 
*smile*
From: dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Roman (Latin) term for city block?  Origin of 'manzana'?
Date: 26 Jul 92 03:42:26 GMT
Organization: UB

[sorry if this turns up twice, but I tried to post it about 8 hours ago and
 it has not appeared.]

The Roman town plan typically had a gridded road system with two principle
roads dividing the city into quarters.  Does anyone out there know what
the latin term was for the small areas bounded on all sides by streets, the
things that we call 'blocks' in American English today?  If possible, I would
like a good literature source to confirm this, but of course vague
memories would be appreciated if no more authoritative answers come back.

And I may as well add a long-shot request:  does anyone reading this group
know why the Spanish term for these things is 'manzana', which more
normally is the name of the fruit called 'apple' in English.

Thanks!

David Mark
dmark@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: rkay@ausom.oz.au (Richard Kay)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Neotraditional Planning Techniques?
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:04:03 GMT
Organization: AUSOM - The Apple Users Society of Melbourne

dtasman@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (Dan Tasman) writes in part:

DT> Anyone want to talk about neotraditional planning techniques?

Okay Dan, I'll bite! ;-)

I'm interested in planning techniques - it was my favourite
subject at University. What do you mean by the term "neotraditional
planning techniques"?

Once you define the term I'll be in a better position to respond.
I am conscious of the fact that as an Australian I may not speak
the same "lingo" as you (lingo is Australian for
language, by the way).

Richard.
-- 
Richard Kay
E-Mail: rkay%ausom.oz@sol.cc.deakin.oz.au
Snail Mail: PO Box 1567,Launceston 7250,Tasmania,AUSTRALIA
PLEASE DO NOT USE AUTO-REPLY,IT WON'T GET TO MY SITE - WE'RE WORKING ON IT!
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban