HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: If I get organized, does that mean I'm getting old?
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.174457.27650@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>#                  ... Should women who are fertile and sexually active be
># forbidden from high stress jobs, strenuous exercise, poor diet, or heavy
># drinking and drug intake?  There is no way of knowing how many zygote
># needlessly died during the women's events at the recent Olympics. ...
>
>Oh no -- now you've given them Yet Another Excuse to forbid women in
>combat roles in the armed forces.

They don't need any excuses.  Because women do not WANT to be in combat
roles.

Have you EVER seen a march-for-the-right-to-be-drafted-and-put-into-combat-
roles?  If so, how many people participated in that march, vs the retain-
the-inequitable-abortion-rights marches?

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:21:42 GMT

In article <16862EA21.M21164@mwvm.mitre.org> M21164@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

>The point at which it becomes human is not subject to opinion.

Uh, z/e/fs (well, the ones we're discussing here, anyway) don't
"become" human, they're always human.  As are sperm and eggs, as are
brain-dead humans, as are heart-dead corpses....

I think you mean "person".

>                                                                It may
>be beyond the ability of one side of this issue to convince the other side
>when this takes place, but surely it has nothing whatever to do with what
>anybody thinks about it. What I mean is that at some point between
>conception and birth the human fetus becomes what we all commonly
>understand to be a human being who is entitled to life, liberty and
>the pursuit of happiness.  If abortion takes place after that point it
>then a human being is killed.  Lengthy arguments about genetics or
>brain waves from both sides notwithstanding, it is not possible to
>prove or disprove that a fetus is  human because neither genes nor neurology
>can possibly embrace what it means to be human. (although arguing that a
>poost-viable fetus is not human is something of an uphill battle)

>Therefore, in the minds of many, abortion *might* be killing.  (I'll
>eschew the use of the word "murder" just because it is emotionally
>charged and technically overloaded)

Don't be ridiculous.  Abortion is killing.  The question is what is
being killed.

>                                    and since the law of often pro-
>scribes that which *might* be injurious to human safety or life, it
>seems resonable to proscribe abortion, or at least limit its
>practice

I think it makes perfect sense to restrict abortion when the z/e/f is
a possible person....  At 24 weeks, after myelination in the brain has
begun and the "hardware" for thought might exist.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.151445.12033@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.114923.21488@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> >> Well, perhaps some of us would be willing to concede if, say, Susan
> >> Garvin conceded that Gloria Feldt's comment was purely theological and
> >> that if that is her reasoning, it is no better than pro-lifers whose
> >> activism is based on their religion. 
> >> 
> >> Then again, that IS what Gloria Feldt said: it WAS her reasoning. 
> 
> > What the little feller fails to acknowledge is that Gloria
> > Feldt may base her personal views on abortion on her religious
> > perspective, but Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her
> > personal religious views the law of the land.  
> 
> 
> 
> Subject: Catholics for a Free Choice
> Date: 10 Jul 92 15:46:00 GMT
> 
> In article <1482700012@igc.org>
> fkissling@igc.org (Frances Kissling) writes:
> 
> ...
> 
> Gloria Feldt   I do not believe that the fetus, although it has
> value, is entitled to personhood status or to any other
> citizenship guarantee under the Constitution, and therefore due
> process for the fetus is not a legal right but a legal wrong.  
>      My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> we want to be precise) and that the well-being of the woman must
> prevail [and on] the ... information I have gained from looking
> at actual fetal life and at women involved in pregnancies,
> childbearing, miscarriages, and abortion....
>      * * *
> 
> ...

Thank you, Doug.  Now show where what she says is somehow an
attempt to make her religious beliefs a law.

Also, note that the earlier quote of yours, now that you provide
more of the quote, demonstrates nicely how you take quotes
out of context and change their meaning.  When it served your
purpose to represent Ms Feldt's opinion as purely religious,
you removed the bits about how her perspective was religious
AND "based on information gained ..." etc.  Thank you for making
an earlier point of mine and others, that you deliberately
quote out of context for self-serving reasons, for us.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:51:25 GMT

In <BuCypu.MK3.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715893475@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <Bu70vG.Ax3.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#[talk.religion.misc deleted from newsgroups]
>##In article <1992Sep6.231834.17478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>###In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>#### 	"If men could be pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"
>#### 				--Pro-abortion slogan
>#### 	"If men could have abortions, pregnancy would be a sacrament"
>#### 				--Peter Nyikos

>#Not all women think the way Susan Garvin does.  Here are the words
>#of Frederica Mathewes-Green, president of Feminists for Life of America:
>#
>#  "A ... disparaging of pregnancy itself also has an unhealthy ring.
>#Harping on the discomforts of pregnancy treats woman as weak, incompetent;
>#yet we are uniquely equipped for this role and strong enough to do much
>#harder things than this.  Every woman need not bear a child, but
>#every woman should feel proud kinship in the earthy, elemental beauty
>#of birth.  To hold it in contempt is to reject our distinctive power,
>#our bodies, ourselves."

>It makes one wonder why FFL refers to pregnancy as a disability in
>their tract against euthanasia, doesn't it?

I haven't seen the tract.  I'd like to see the context.

>There is, of course, no logic in the above quote.  Recognizing
>the "discomforts" of pregnancy also recognizes the strength of
>the women who endure them.  

>I was not holding pregnancy in contempt, by the way.  I was
>noting that it is not the bed of roses that you believe. 

Even roses have thorns, and I am not denying the thorns.
 
>#{Satire, but with a grain of truth: Now do you see why I have such a
>#bad case of womb envy?}

>Right, Nyikos, it makes as much sense as envying soldiers because
>they get to wear such pretty uniforms while ignoring the dangers
>that they face.

There you go again.  Do you still maintain that you do not hold
pregnancy in contempt?

>Susan

Peter Nyikos
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 19:56:59 GMT

In <1992Sep7.014629.14577@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <29352@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual nonsense:
>>
>>>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>>>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>>>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>>>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>>>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>>>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>>>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]
>>
>>Many of us who are pro-choice believe that the anti-choice position is
>>fundamentally misogynistic because it places restrictions on the
>>rights of women that are not equivalent to any placed on men.  

>Do you honestly think that it's their INTENTION to discriminate against one
>gender, Stephen, or is it maybe just that they value the unborn so much more 
>than the born, that this has an incidental sexist EFFECT?

"Value the unborn so much more than the born"?  Do you regularly
misrepresent the pro-life viewpoint to this extent?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:34:16 GMT

In <1992Sep11.182503.29215@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.070009.6188@noao.edu>
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):

>>> Actually I put the dividing line at the beginning of "myelination" in
>>> the brain, which I see as the last clear-cut step needed before the
>>> brain can come "on-line".  

>>Much as some people would like to remold these little children 
>>into little machines and robots, they are LIVING BEINGS. 

>Yes, Suzanne, of course z/e/fs are alive; that's why the quotations
>marks around "on-line"; unlike "myelination", I figured everyone
>reading a newsgroup was familiar with the term "on-line" and simply
>wanted to signal that my usage was nonstandard.

I've got a more fundamental problem.  I still don't know what you
MEAN by it.  On the other hand, your "somebody home" is beautifully
self-explanatory, although any number of so-called philosophers today
make a career out of claiming such expressions are meaningless, or
redefining them, or deliberately misunderstanding them.

>>> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
>>> coincidentally is the the current viability age.

>>Oh, and did you miss my post about the 22 week preie that just
>>went home from the hospital?

Or my follow-up to the same statement, where I mentioned the case
of the Chicago baby, with name and date of birth and discharge from
the hospital?

>Yes, but I've heard of other cases.  A <5% viability rate with defects
>common does *not* mean "within the viability age range" to me.

It's awfully hard to pinpoint ages, that is why Nathanson and others
emphasize birthweights.  I'd be interested in how that <5% viability
figure was arrived at.

Summarizing an article in the journal _Obstetrics and Gynecology_,
September 1989, vol. 74:528-535, Nathanson writes:

"In the crucial 500-750 gram group (1 pound, 1 ounce to 1 pound, 10 ounces)
which involves those children currently considered to be at the threshold
of viability, very recent data from the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical
Center in New York City indicates that there is now a survival rate
of 25-50% in this group with only 25% of the survivors left with serious
handicaps: 30 years ago there were absolutely *no* survivors in this group.
The authors conclude:

	This review of the literature supports the conclusion that at least
 	for very low birth weight infants neonatal moratality rates
	have continued to decline dramatically through the 1980's.
	Mortality has declined in every very low birth weight subgroup..."

>-- 
>"The fools and the wise are equally harmless; it is the half-wise and the
>half-foolish who are the most to be feared."       - Goethe

Wie wahr!

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:56:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.151619.21451@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
##I said
## I think that Overpeck is caught in the "don't criticize
## another pro-forcer too strongly" trap.  He seems to think
## that it's reasonable for Holtsinger to not expect to have
## his sources checked, even though I had given advance notice 
## that I would do so.  
#
#I didn't say that, nor do think it's "reasonable", but neither
#is it "reasonable" to assume the presence of some psychopathology
#simply because you're unable to predict his behavior. 

Nor did I say that it was "reasonable" to assume the presence of 
some psychopathology simply because I was unable to predict his 
behavior.   Since you're going to complain that I'm misrepresnting
your comments, it would be a bit more convincing if you did not
misrepresent mine in the same sentence.

## He seems to think that it's only a
## sign of immaturity when a 21 year old is convinced that he
## is a fictional entity (or an inanimate object.)
#
#Demonstrate that Chaney is "convinced", please.  If we were
#going to evaluate individuals based on their network personas,
#we could have a field day with "drieux".  

I wasn't basing this strictly on Chaney's network
persona.  

Do you really have that great a need to defend these two?
Were Chaney a supporter of legal abortion, I would have no
problem whatsoever condemning his behavior.   

## Teenage women who want to make decisions for themselves,
## on the other hand, are deemed to be in desperate need of
## couselling.  
#
#Not by me, though.  I can't imagine where you came up with such 
#nonsense, but it's patently untrue.  In the absence of evidence 
#to the contrary, I would appreciate a retraction. 

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you volunteered
as a "counselor" in a Crisis Pregnancy Center, and that you
had stated this publicly.  I must have you confused with
another Bill Overpeck.

<sarcasm off>  At least three times a week I listen to people
tell young women entering a clinic that they *must* visit
the CPC down the street for "real counselling."  (And, yes,
it's a CPC, affiliated with the CAC.)  I will be sure to tell
them next week that Bill Overpeck believes that they're not
in need of counselling at all.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:55:38 GMT

In article <Bu6Axq.Fro@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
#In article <1992Sep6.172004.12634@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
##In article <Bu4swF.37t.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
###In article <nyikos.715735129@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
####In <1992Sep1.175955.24063@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
####
####
#####	For those of you (like Mr. Nyikos) who seem reluctant to accept just
#####how loony Pat Robertson has become, here's the AP report on his charming
#####little letter/plea for $$, lifted from talk.politics.misc:
####
####HOLD IT!  HOLD IT!  I thought this was all about Pat Buchannan.  
###
###Did you?
###
###"Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
###like the one you say he suggested."
### - Peter Nyikos <nyikos.715285141@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
###
###
###"Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves."
###Peter Nyikos - <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
##
##I love you, Susan.  Let's run away and have 2.4 kids together.  I'll bring
##the cat.
#
#Do you want two?  Move fast, because you'll have to take them off my hands
#before Dale Ann gets home from the hospital. :-)  

Watch it, Patrick.  Just because Dale is temporarily incapacitated
doesn't mean that her wrath wouldn't be terrible when she found out.
(And don't think that I wouldn't tell on you, either.)


#(In case y'all are wondering,
#since I haven't had much to say, she's had her surgery Friday night, spent
#the night in SICU, was moved to the Jones NCCU yesterday morning, and was
#moved out and into a regular room in Jones this afternoon -- and she is
#doing fine.  If anyone wants to talk to her -- and she's got a lot to say!
#-- she's at 713 797-2646 for the next few days.)

YAHOO!

I'll try to call, but you know how undependable I am.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:55:06 GMT

In article <18511vINN1ih@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>
mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715471986@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Scientists and doctors were near unanimity about human life beginning
>>at conception until it became politically convenient to claim that
>>it began some other time.

>Can you back this up with references? I want to read it some-
>where besides here.

I think he's exaggerating, but the AMA did lead the charge to outlaw
abortion, way back when.  However, I don't think doctors changed their
minds because it became "politically convenient" to do so; my theory
is that the doctor's minds were changed by an increase of information.
Doctors were pro-life when the AMA wanted to outlaw abortion because
it became clear that the z/e/f's development was a continual process
with no sharp dividing lines from conception to birth.  Now, the
majority of doctors are (I think) pro-choice because the stages in
this development are clearer.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:40:46 GMT

In article <nyikos.715737676@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Bu43C8.6ox.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


##Oh, yeah, right.  DOD uses one of his anti-Semitic slurs as a .sig.
##Are you telling us that you don't read any of DOD's articles now,
##or are you just using the "if I can't defend it, I never saw
##it" excuse?
#
#What's anti-Semitic about disagreeing with one woman's distorted account
#of what Judaism teaches about human life?  

I asked a Reform Rabbi if the view was distorted.  (By the way,
the woman is describing the Reform view of *personhood*, not
human life.)  She said no.

#And even if it were not 
#distorted--would you call someone anti-Islamic if he criticized 
#people who saw nothing wrong with a precept allowing polygamy?

Yes.  I might, for example, think that polygamy is morally wrong.
(Please note that this is hypothetical.)  That doesn't mean that
I would feel that I must criticize people whose religion
advocated or accepted polygamy.  Holtsinger's quote of me was
in response to his request that I condemn the woman for
her opinion.  As I said, I see nothing extreme or reprehensible
about her opinion.  She did not say that she wanted everyone
to accept this viewpoint.  

We're talking about the difference between disagreeing with
someone and being intolerant of that person (and their religion.)
Holtsinger has attacked people for saying anything that 
resembles a criticism of Christianity.  I think that his 
attack on me for not criticizing a religious view indicates
that Holtsinger does not believe that Judaism is worthy of
the same respect that Christianity is.  To me, that is
the form of bigotry known as anti-Semitism.  

(Another example, which occurred before your arrival, 
was a post in which Chaney attributed comments made by a
woman with a Jewish-sounding last name to "the Jews of
New York," and denigrated the entire group.)

Susan
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:34:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep11.151619.21451@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> Demonstrate that Chaney is "convinced", please.  If we were
> going to evaluate individuals based on their network personas,
> we could have a field day with "drieux".  

Bill, Bill, Bill, don't you realize that drieux is a very
sick man?  I guess anyone who could miss on David Rasmussen
or Stedennisphen Chahallney could miss on drieux too, but
really, old brick, you're taking this benefit of the doubt
thing way too far.  Drieux needs help, and lots of it.
I don't think you're the man for the job, though, since you
seem to be far too sympathetic and circumspect.  My own
prescription is about forty hours of non-stop electro-shock
therapy for him, followed by a medication program consisting
of Antabuse, Winstrol V, and Choline Chloride.  That'll make
him strong, sober, and smart.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion