HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:14:48 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Steve Arnold writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure.  
>
>	Besides, Brian's statement is exaggerated, anyway.  Unborn
>children have one thing in common with every born human being: we
>are both LIVING HUMAN BEINGS.

And unborn pigs are living pig beings, too.  So?  Does the humanity of
a human fetus alone make it more important than a woman?  If not, then
what other feature of a human fetus (not what it WILL become, but what
it IS NOW) makes it so crucial?

>That is a MEDICAL FACT.  If you
>require sources, I'll give you a list the length of your arm; if
>you deny my assertion, I challenge you to provide ONE reputable
>source who will say that the unborn child is NOT a living member
>of the species homo sapiens from conception until death.

I don't question this fact; I just question its relevance.  Just
because it has human DNA, which makes it a human being, doesn't mean
that it necessarily bears any other features that would distinguish it
from animals.

>By two
>months' pregnancy, the unborn child looks remarkably like an
>adult; it has a heartbeat, brainwaves, its own blood with a unique
>blood type, etc etc.

A pig has a heartbeat and its own blood, too, but we eat pigs for
food.  Aside from DNA, what's the difference between you and a pig?
Do you think that while a fetus still resembles a pig more than it
resembles a human (biologically, not in "looks"), maybe we should give
it the same moral consideration we'd give a pig -- which means that we
shouldn't let it get in the way of a woman's freedoms and rights?

You'll disagree, I think.  I understand that opinion, and I have no
problem with your having it, until you try to force it on other people.

The main thing here is the 'brainwaves' -- sure, a two-month fetus
will have feeble, erratic brainwaves, but nowhere nearly as organized
as a pig's, and certainly nowhere nearly organized enough to be called
'thought'.  Sure, it has reflexes, but so do animals.

-- 
_/_/_/  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,alt.politics.bush
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:00:14 GMT

In <1992Oct6.211859.11882@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>Try looking in the dictionary.

	I have - my dictionary give the definition of murder as
"the killing of one human being by another". Given that a fetus is a human
being, and so is the mother, abortion is murder (or not depending on
what dictionary you use, and which definition you prescribe to). 

>>>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>>	It will - someday - some glorious day when all human beings
>>learn to respect each other's right to live.
>Hypocrite.

	Excuse me? When have you seen me advocate killing people?

>>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>>	What a convenient definition - but one that you pulled out of
>>your butt.
>Looks to be pretty close to the dictionary definition.  Consider this
>from The American Heritage Dictionary.
>murder:  The unlawful killing of one human being by another.

	That is one definition from one dictionary - my dictionary 
has a definition that supports what I say. You can stand by your
dictionary's definition, but I can stand by mine. Abortion is murder.

>Since anyone who has not been born is not legally a person, abortion
>is clearly not murder, and murder cannot not involve anyone who has
>not yet been born.

	Again - you are making up your own definition of a person.
You are taking "human being" to mean "someone who has been explicitly
given rights as a human being". I take it to mean "an individual being with a
human genetic structure". I consider that the unjust killing of black
slaves early in our history was murder, even though it was not legally
defined as such.

>Just because you like to make up your own definitions doesn't mean
>anyone else does.

	I did not make up any definition.

>>Now, look closely at definition 1a. See the second word? u-n-b-o-r-n. 
>>Good. Try to think before you post next time. This is about the 10th time
>>I have had to post this definition for IDIOTIC FUCKHEADS WHO LIKE TO 
>>LIE ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD CHILD.
>As opposed to "IDIOTIC FUCKHEADS WHO LIKE TO LIE ABOUT THE DEFINITION
>OF THE WORD" MURDER?

	I never once lied about the definition of murder. See above.

		Bruce
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 6 Oct 1992 20:44:35 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
|gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
||nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
||>1. The original statement of M. Price, which Storga cunningly deleted,

||I would prefer to be called a cunning linguist that a cunning
||deletist.  If you don't get the joke I suggest you grab a
||dictionary and start looking just before 'cunning'.

|I get it, and it all fits in with what I have learned about you.

Yeah-- it's just another piece fitting into the sweet puzzle
that is Gordon.  What a gentleman!  No wonder he has so many
satisfied ex-g.f.'s!  Women prefer cunning linguists.  Just ask
Cynthia Heimel.

Not sure what this has to do with t.r.m & a.a.  I've restricted
followups.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there 
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than of blind 
faith." --Jefferson (letter to his nephew, Peter Carr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:59:33 CST
 <1992Sep30.153159.12590@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992Oct1.122444.28354@spectrum.xerox.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct1.122444.28354@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.153159.12590@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes: 
>>but instead a call for more education.  But if I remember right, Ron
>>would like to see an end to that as well.
> 
> Who sets the criteria?  Whats being 'taught' now isn't working.  

It isn't working because it isn't being taught.  The contents need not
to be changed (yet), just the method of teaching.  Maybe if right-wing
parent groups would stop banning sex ed then students would be
adequately educated (but is that possible in North America?).
 
>>that they are safe only because they are outside their mother's bodies. 
>>
>>I'm confused by this last line ... are you implying that all those premies
>>are there because the woman "wanted" them out of their bodies?  And that
>>they would have *willingly* killed the z/e/f if it had remained?  Otherwise
>>I'm mystified as to what you mean by this in the context of abortion.
>>
> I make a point in reference to your z/e/f usage.  Take a baby 
>who is 26 months old.  It's a 'baby' if it's in the NCU, but a 
>z/e/f in it's mother?  That doesn't make sense.  

It makes plenty of sense.  That's how words work.  Each word has a 
definition.  Why not use those definitions?  Otherwise we may as well
call everybody under the age of 20 a zygote.

>z/e/f/n/i/t/a/t 
>Zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, 
>are all labels which describe a stage in the life of a human being.  
>Some people would call an infant a toddler, or vice-versa.  
>Same person, different age.  I call a z/e/f a baby; same person, different age!

Worng word.  Check out your dictionary under the entry for "baby"...
You might even read a phrase like "child in arms".  Zygotes aren't
people anyway, except in your opinion.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:53:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>That wasn't the question.  It's empirically verifiable that it's
>>human, because it has human DNA.  But is it a PERSON?  If not, why not?
>
>The pro-life movement (I can't speak for it though) and I are concerned
>about HUMAN life BORN and UNBORN.  Human life begins at conception.  A 
>discussion on "PERSON" (a fight over semantics) may not even be that
>relevant.  It's a human life.  Doesn't that count for anything to people?

Which human life are you talking about?  The mother's or the embryo's?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:41:34 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) wrote (in article <1992Sep29.194533.18445@nntp.uoregon.edu>):

[ 42 lines of stuff removed -- why did you include all this, Eric? ]

>> >If you still don't like that example, ever heard of people becomming "brain
>> >dead" for a few moments, but then comming "back to life?"
>> 
>> No, I've never heard of this.  It isn't possible, because it would
>> mean destroying someone's brain so that it could no longer function,
>> then expecting it to function again.  If the person comes "back to
>> life", then he was never brain-dead to begin with.
>
>umm..it has occured...I suppose I could spend the time finding references
>for you.

Yes, please do.  The book or the periodical, and the page number, please.
I don't believe you when you say it's happened before.

>> >In the time
>> >between, was it ok to hack them to
>> >pieces?
>> 
>> Mu.  ;)  Your original supposition is impossible, so this question
>> makes no sense.
>
>Assume it is possible (for the moment), and answer the question.

Okay.  Yes, if someone's brain is destroyed but the body remains
living, then I feel it's okay to cut off life support to the body as
well, even if there was some chance that the brain could be
reconstructed and rejuvenated in the future.

'Brain' is to 'brain-dead' as 'Humpty-Dumpty' is to 'fall': "All the
king's horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty together
again."  There's as much chance of restoring consciousness in a
brain-dead brain as there is of completely restoring the contents of
your hard drive after running it over with a train -- it's too far
damaged to support 'normal' operation ever again.

You already asked me this question a week and a half ago, and my
answer was he same then, and you still didn't tell me what relevance
this has to the question of abortion.  Instead, you began making up
your own definition of 'conscious' and telling me that you were going
to use a different definition of 'brain-dead' than I was using.

Hmm, maybe Humpty-Dumpty does have more relevance here than I thought...? :-)

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Dodo Lurker (Was: Personhood...)
Summary: Oh you could, could you??? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 00:39:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.173207.3115@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <b__pfzr.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> 
>> Why should it matter?!?!  Tell you what.  To show you how much it matters
>> let's perform the following experiment.  You come up with $20,000 or you
>> die.  You have one week.
>
>Oh, btw, and I could come up with $20,000 in a few minutes, if it was
>required.

Please do so, and send the money to the United States Red Cross, New York
City.  I'm sure the children starving there will be very apprecitive of your
generosity.

(And I wonder when Suxanne is gonna come down on you like a tonnabrix for
"hoarding resources"...)
--
=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???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: On the claim that fetuses were "persons" under law prior to Roe v Wade
Date: 2 Oct 1992 19:13:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct2.162851.15647@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Before Roe v. Wade, there was never any Constitutional right for 
>an individual to kill a human being.

You are using too broad a brush here. Certainly, there has always been
a right to kill a human being, if necessary to protect other named rights.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:28:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.192259.24380@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.184253.4103@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>I pointed this out to you in Email, Mr. Gorr. Physical properties
>>are predicted by QM to at least appear to be nondeterministic.
>>Therefore any method of death you choose has some nonzero probability
>>of you not dying. These probabilities are so close to zero as to be
>>uninteresting practically, but you claimed certainty and that is
>>unavailable.
>
>Ok, how about this, you believe that there is a nonzero probability
>that my death will occur.  I think this is wrong.  You disagree.
>I know this absolutly, unless, you are saying that you were lying
>above...
I see, you're saying that you know that I disagree with you.
Sorry, this doesn't work either. As you note, I could have been
lying. Alternately, I could be an AI program and hence not believe
anything whatsoever. Or I could just be Chaney PRETENDING to be
Eric....Or I could be one of Novak's multiple personalities, or
I could just be line noise, or your memory could be faulty.
or...

>(Note, I might agree with you if some outside technology was 
>applied...but without it, there is zero-chance...any theory
>that says there is a chance (without outside technology),
>is wrong...of course, I cannot prove this, but oh well...)
You're just showing your ignorance here, Mr. Gorr. The physical
phenomena I describe have been experimentally observed as well
as theoretically predicted. You are, of course, free to disbelieve
Quantum Mechanics, but that simply places you in the position of
exalting your own personal sense of what SHOULD be over what is.

You sound every bit as silly as the man who asserts that the earth is
flat and that any theory that says it is not is wrong. Of course,
he can't prove it either. 

-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."
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:55:21 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Something else I've never understood is how pro-forcers can
simultaneously claim that abortion causes sterility and
that there are too many repeat abortions.  Perhaps one
of them would care to explain.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Michael Bailey, more info (was Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:40:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.170802.17585@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BvHFGM.484@chinet.chi.il.us> 
>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>
>>              Mother sues to stop anti-aboriton ads
>>
>> A Jeffersonville, Indiana woman has claimed in federal court that
>> her two children could suffer permanent "psychological and
>> emotional injuries" from graphic anti-abortion ads sponsored
>> by GOP congressional candidate Michael Bailey.
>>
>> Copeland, who characterized her family as "pro-life," said the
>> ads constitute "psychological child abuse," and her children
>> aren't ready to deal with the issues raised in the ads.  
>
>What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>hypocrisy?
I've got to say that I agree with Doug on the result if not the
logic. However distressing these ads may be to the children of
the plaintiff, they constitute political speech. Moreover, assuming
that they people making the ads are telling the truth about what
the picture is from, the pictures themselves are then an accurate
depiction of reality. I fail to see what possible justification
there can be for preventing Mr. Bailey from expressing a political
opinion merely because some might be offended. This same sort of
logic could be used to claim that information intended to inform
about AIDS be banned, for instance.

I take it you don't mean to call ME a hypocrite, then, Mr. Holtsinger.
-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: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Summary: Would someone send little Peter a summary of the last 5 years of t.a.?
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:38:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nyikos.717906902@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
#
##In  <1992Sep26.011917.8477@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
###
### But I have news for you both.  If ever a baby of mine needs the
### services of an NICU, and either of you tries pull the plug on him/her,
### I will pull the plug on YOU.
### I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
### Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?
#
#Glad I caught this one at the source.  Margolis, if you try to blow
#this up into a case against Suzanne, I'll be watching carefully.  Even
#if I put you in my de facto killfile, that won't inhibit me from 
#exposing your mendacity in follow-ups to others.

Oh, hell, I'll explain this one to him.  

Mark Kaufman posted at one time that he would hurt anyone
who tried to stop a loved one of his from exercizing her
right to choose a safe, legal abortion.  Little Dennis
Chaney accused Mark of "threatening Suzanne."  

Now, neither what Mark said nor what Suzanne said is a
threat in my book.  I doubt that these are threats in
Larry's book, either.  Your charming little Borg protege,
on the other hand, is on record as believing that 
they are.  Larry's just asking if the airplane boy
will be consistent (for the first time), or if he'll
invoke his ususal double standard.

You know, Nyikos, it's kind of like seeing if the only
woman you deem in need of your paternalistic protection
is Suzanne, or if you'll also decide to take Chaney/Hall
to task for comments about what female posters use to douche
and their sex lives.  I never really expect to see any
consistency from you, or the Borg, or DOD, but it's
always entertaining to watch you try to justify your
double standards.  DODie has said publicly that he won't
criticze another pro-forcer on the net - he'll only
do it in e-mail.  You've said no such thing, so we 
don't know if your tacit support of the more hateful
things that some of your fellows post is actually
support or not.  

By the way, Nyikos, these constant trips down memory
lane to catch you up are getting boring.  Why don't
you borrow some archives from someone and read them?

Susan
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:07:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Oct1.070033.29228@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

}The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
}a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
}be dead?)

Then why do you suppose so many American soldiers have died for freedom?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: shrieking at his reflection in a mirror (Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey))
Followup-To: i.wanna.be.like.kebbin
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:49:10 GMT

shrieking at his reflection in a mirror,
the chaneyhall creature posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

->WHY CAN'T YOU STOP  L Y I N G ?! 

.... and no one hears his empty answer.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion