HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:08:29 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep27.211356.8173@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.033029.124744@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
> (Larry Margolis) writes:
> >
> > In  <1992Sep24.224638.22235@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Go
> > > In article <1992Sep23.040913.29268@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
> > > <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > In  <1992Sep22.232133.29152@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eri
> > > > > In article <1992Sep19.164114.2317@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <1992Sep17.211955.9280@nntp.uoregon.edu>, egorr@hebb.uorego
> >
> > > Please note and as others have pointed out, I am not using the strict
> > > dictionary meaning.  I am in fact free to define terms any way I wish, so
> > > long as they are understandable, clear and useful.
> > >
> > > Any other comments?
> >
> > Why, yes.  Making up your own definitions and using them instead of the
> > standard definitions of words is neither understandable, clear, nor useful.
>
> Then please let me know what those definitions are that you don't
> understand and I will explain further.

I'm not interested in having you explain your definitions further.
I'm interested in using English, not Gorr.  If you can explain your
unique definition for, e.g., "interference", in clear terms, then use
*those* terms for the concept you're attempting to get across, instead
of trying to redefine a perfectly good existing word.

> > > > > A sperm or an egg, seperated, does not constitute human life.
> > > >
> > > > Are they human sperm and eggs?  Are they alive?
> > > >
> > > > They're *just* as much "human life" before conception as they are after.
> > >
> > > No, they are not - not at least the way I define them.  Left seperated,
> > > they will *NEVER* be "born."
> > >
> > > Clear?
> >
> > I believe so.  You choose to define some forms of human life as human life,
> > and other forms of human life as not human life.  Not only is it clear, but
> > it's irrefutable - if one accepts your axioms.
>
> correct.  Why do you not accept my axioms...how does it lead me to believe
> something irrational?

If you don't understand why I consider declaring human life to be not human
life, then I don't think I can explain it to you.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:55:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <25717@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>mammal, and in truth, many mammals are capable of considerably more
>>at birth than any infant. You attempt to personify a fetus as a person,
>>which I contend it is not.

>I've addressed these issues already in posts with you, Bense.  Are
>you simply trying to ascertain where Martin is coming from, and
>how knowledgeable HE is?

Would you care to indicate where you have proven anything wrt this? You might
have brought them up, but you certainly have not brought any of them
to a conclusion. Martin has come across as a pompous ignorant oaf. Why
do you defend him, or have you failed to read his earlier posts?

>> You wouldn't be attempting emotionalism with
>>"unborn child" now, would you?

>I think not.  See "Adrienne's use of `asshole' is unwarranted," where
>I cite an 1872 Colorado State Supreme Court decision using this very
>term.  Even in our changed climate, the term can VERY arguably be
>applied to fetuses past the point of viability.

Please check any dictionary before 1970 or so, when the pro-life movement
apparently brought that meaning to the word. EE Bartley has written
an article about that.

>>Nice of you to use a different meaning of the word past, as a time variant,
>>instead of a physical variant. Nice word-play!

>I can't speak in the name of Martin, but if I had said the same thing,
>it would NOT be a word-play.

Was I talking to you or about you? I think not. Placing yourself in
other's shoes here for practice at being a target is not good practice
for debating. I was only talking about the *specific* statement made.
No where was it indicated it was a general statement, but maybe you
have a beef with me and wish to try to make me look foolish at the slightest
opportunity. Keep trying, as I enjoy the attempts.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Date: 2 Oct 1992 08:21:42 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I think pro-choicers are MORE likely not to trust women to make decisions
>than pro-lifers.  Why are they so afraid of laws that give women the 
>OPTION to view information on fetal development.

You will be happy to explain this odd comment for us, won't you?

Pro-choicers are not 'afraid of laws tha tfivfe women the option...', rather
they are OPPOSED to laws that REQUIRE the presentation of a set curriculum
determined by the government.

Ya know, if you are going to argue by innuendo, don't you think you should
get *better* at it?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:25:44 GMT

In <zgmz#8#@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Oct1.142920.1767@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep29.230649.4628@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
   (Nadja Adolf) writes: >>>

>>> I am so happy that your aunt and uncle wish misery 
>>> on someone else so that they can attain their version 
>>> of happy. Personally, such an attitude doesn't strike 
>>> me as one desirable in parental units.
>
>> How is it that you're able to infer the attitudes of people you've 
>> never met or spoken with?  Such presumption seems incredibly judge-
>> mental.
>
> why couldn't she do it the same way you do bill?
>
> did you not just wind down a month-long thread where
> you posted several inferences about my attitudes?

Yes indeed.  However, David's aunt and uncle don't (to the best of 
my knowledge) post to the net, so Nadja's inference was second-hand.

Your attitude is there for all the net-world to see and enjoy.

> perhaps you think you possess some superior attributes?

Perhaps you should consider the difference between 'first-hand' 
and 'second-hand' information.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:05:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.123224.29446@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.234208.28188@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> 
>> Prove 
>...
>> 3) That I am Dennis Hall. 
>
>For those who do not know, last spring Stephen Chaney, in an attempt
>to discredit the pro-choice position, used an account he held
>at his university under the name "Dennis Hall" to post some
>exceptionally mean-spirited and misleading "pro-choice"
>articles.  Scott Roby, a participant on the net, contacted
>Chaney's system administrator and found out that, as Scott
>had suspected, the Dennis Hall account belonged to Chaney.
>The causes for the suspicion were numerous, and, beyond the
>fact that the writing styles were the same, "Dennis" had
>a habit of misspelling the same words as Chaney, and of
>refering to Usenet as "Unix."

Just popping in to confirm what Dean said.  Chaney's sysadmin 
told me on the phone that the "Dennis Hall" account was issued 
to Steve Chaney.  That's proof enough for me.

Two other tidbits not mentioned in Dean's excellent recounting:

1) Aside from constantly "putting his foot in his mouth", one of 
the things that made me suspicious that "Dennis Hall" was really 
Steve Chaney was my conversations with "Dennis" in email.  "Dennis" 
spent most of his time telling me about Chaney and not himself -- 
I found that curious.  He also claimed to greatly hate Chaney 
while at the same time greatly admiring his debating skills -- 
that set off serious alarms on my bogus-detector.  :-)

2) Although "Dennis" was supposedly staunchly pro-choice and Chaney 
is clearly pro-life, NOT ONCE did they ever post follow-ups 
to each other in talk.abortion.  I would have loved to have seen Chaney 
talking to himself, but it never did happen.  sigh...


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:43:48 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <1aaa0gINNq5a@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>>---
>>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>|Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

>I'm sorry if you thought that I was confining euthanasia to just those
>with terminal medical problems.  I was also thinking of those with
>terminal economic problems.

>The first person posted that she felt that abortion was a viable
>method for getting rid of a problem.

...that is residing within her body.  Gosh, this whole debate is
so easy if you just ignore the pregnant woman.

>My response was intended to show that I felt that if it was alright
>for her to kill those she felt would be a burden to her, I also wanted
>the priveledge of killing those who had become a burden to me.

Are these welfare folk you disdainfully refer to currently residing
within your body?

Twit.

>Mark

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:09:23 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Sep29.041532.26362@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
>You know, I've always felt that someone who spends weeks and
>thousands of lines of typing flaming someone else for 
>one sentence looks like a twittering fool, particularly
>when that is their only contribution to the newsgroup.

How many "weeks and thousands of lines of typing flaming [sic] someone else"
was expended on my smattering of words posted in alt.flame re: child
molestation, Susie?

Look in the mirror.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:19:00 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote (in article <1992Sep28.030129.10236@ncsu.edu>):
>Many animals possess more "intellectual ability" than newborn 
>infants.  Would you assign personhood status to these animals, 
>or would you deny personhood status to newborn infants, or
>would you do both?  

I don't agree that animals possess more intellectual capability than
infants.  They have more *experience*, and the primitive motor control
parts of their brains might be a considerably more developed, but they
don't have the same parts of the brain for thinking that an infant has.

Hence I don't think personhood applies to animals, but I think it does
apply to infants.

     << 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,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politcs.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Challenging thoughts about Arguments of Potential
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:01:58 GMT

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
] In article <1af1tqINNcvn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] |> 
] |> Message-ID: <1992Sep3.025255.4014@zooid.guild.org>
] |> []And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say
] |> []that in my own situation, if the woman had *not* been so
] |> []respecting as to tell me before, but in fact had not only told
] |> []me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!) or more, I
] |> []probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
] |> []stood.
] 
] In all the hoopla around this quote it has gotten lost that this is a
] very human reaction to betrayal.
] 
] Betrayal, however, is not a sufficient reason for murder.

1. Excuse please, but as a Professional WarMongerBabyKiller[tm]
I take umbrage at the idea that one should consider throwing
around the notion of 'killing' lightly.

If there is anything that offends me in the american culture
it is the willingness of amatuers to do 'pro bono' work in
this field, and thus watering down our efforts to 'professinalize'
the trade with 'standards and practices' and a 'professional ethic.'

{ stop, go back, and read that again, Slowly, NOW!}

2. Given all the 'argument of potential' gambits layed
down by AntiAbortionists, is it not reasonable to
procede from within their LogicSpace, and wonder what:
"A thing is that which is Potentially Can Become" would
really mean in this context.

{ stop, go back, and read that again, Slowly, NOW!}


ciao
drieux

ps: and now for a Few Choruses of Aretha Franklin singing:

R - E - S - P - E - C - T




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due...
Date: 28 Sep 1992 09:16:22 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep28.132628.6863@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>: >gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) wrote (in article <1992Sep22.022532.20340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>):
>: I don't get it.  What is this *respect* for a woman who would bear a 
>: child she didn't want and didn't plan, and conceivably cannot raise?
>: Because women *can*, you admire that they *do*?  As long as it's bearing
>: children.  The other things women *can* do somehow doesn't merit the same
>: levels of respect or admiration.  Womb envy at it's finest.
>What we admire, respect, and even envy is not the woman's womb, Adrienne, 
>but the woman's selflessness.  I hate to spoil a good story, but although
>the production of a human child from a woman's womb is quite a trick, especially
>in these enlightened times, we have seen it done before.  We are not amazed that 
>the woman can, nor are we amazed that the woman does.  What does amaze us, what 
>makes us stop and stare, the same thing that prompted Galen to Say "hey, did _you_ 
>see that?" is a woman's _selflessness_.   

Yep, I thought this smacked of pedestals and all that.

>Selflessness, like the Dodo,  we are amazed to see because we thought it was 
>extinct.   That you cannot see what Galen and I see, is perhaps not too surprising, 
>since you respect only the politics of self-interest.

Oh, I think that's your politics speaking, Frank.  I don't get putting
people up on pedestals and admiring that which you are not willing to do
yourself -- you bet.   I happen to think that's a very *convenient* form
of virtue, and very dishonest.  Admiration for something that one is not
willing to do oneself, and doesn't even *try* to do seems pretty cheap.
(granted, you fellows might have a hard time doing that which Suzanne claimed
she would do.  I get that part.)

Now, if Suzanne (or someone else, for that
matter) were to do some selfless act, I'd find it interesting and perhaps
admirable, too.  But it would depend entirely upon what the selfless act
was.  I do have to say that I don't find birthing babies willy nilly to be
a 'selfless' and/or honorable act.  If one cannot support it, it is an
irresponsible act.  A shortsighted and economically unsound act.  I cannot.
think of any instance in which bearing a child one cannot afford is a 
'good' thing.

You *will* note, in the quote above, that I specifically referred to her
ability to bear children, and pointed out that *other* acts of selflessness
are frequently disregarded.  

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 16:47:49 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

dblack@seas.gwu.edu (David K. Black) wrote (in article <1992Sep25.213643.8970@seas.gwu.edu>):
>Abortionists  impose their own arbitrary black and white distinctions
>on others when they implicitly say, "I don't believe that this unborn
>entity is a person deserving civil rights, therefore I believe I can kill
>it without moral repercussions."  Of course, I've used the term "others" to
>imply the unborn.  If they are *not* people, then there are no "others" to
>be imposed upon.  But if they are, then a horrendous holocaust is taking
>place under our noses, and all in the name of "rights".

Forced-birthers impose their own arbitrary black and white
distinctions on others when they implicitly say, "I believe that this
unborn entity is a person deserving civil rights, therefore I believe
I am prohibited from killing it because of the moral repercussions."
If the unborn are people, then we're making a decision between the
rights and reponsibilities of a woman on whom the fetus is completely
dependent, and a fetus who is using her body against her will.  But if
they are *not* people, then the pro-life movement becomes a horrible
abusal of the rights of women, and all in the name of 'rights'.

You see, it goes both ways.

     << 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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:35:18 GMT

This post is a flame at Stephen Spencer for quoting me out of context
and distorting the meaning of what I was posting.  The original
context is at the end.

grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer) writes ...
>In article <!y+pwv=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>[...]
>>And, by the way, a zygote doesn't exist in the same form for very long
>>either.  Neither does a newborn.
>
>Hmmm... physiologists will tell you that you don't exit this life with 
>many of the cells you started out with... good grounds for euthenasia...

No, you stupid dumbshit.  And if you actually had the intelligence to
follow the discussion instead of making up your own and attributing it
to me you would have known better than to make such a ridiculous
statement.  Here is the meaning of that statement.

Form is irrelevent (sorry, too big a word for you.  I'll use "Form
doesn't matter") to personhood.  If there is a measure for personhood,
then form cannot be used because it changes throughout life, both
before _and_ after conception.

Here's the original context.
----------------------------

From ray Tue Oct  6 13:25:54 PDT 1992
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>In article <c6_pr7k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Besides, an egg exists before _and_ after fertilization, as does the
>>sperm.  Both are alive before _and_ after fertilization.
>
>I am, of course, talking about the existence of a human life.  Before
>conception, it does not exist.  Afterwards, even if it is a product of two
>non humans (but it is a human cell), human life exists.  The egg and the
>sperms, as individual objects, do not exist in the same form after conception.

Well of course.  If you define a human life to start at conception, then
of course anything after conception is a human life.  I don't accept your
definition.

And, by the way, a zygote doesn't exist in the same form for very long
either.  Neither does a newborn.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:15:15 GMT

In article <ykkzl#-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->BTW, would you mind proving that CJ has lied about people who considered
>->her a friend?
>
>bingo! i was hoping you'd be the one to answer this.
>
>ask suzanne lucia. she was cj's victim, or one of them. ask
>me if you need her current email address. if you want some
>details from me, send me email at keegan@crd.ge.com.
Please POST the details, Mr. Keegan. You made the assertion publicly,
I believe it to be appropriate that you support it publicly.

>->BTW2: Followups to misc.test? Pretty low.
>
>so you noticed that cj did that to susan garvin earlier
>today!
No, I didn't. I think it's pretty low that she did it too.

> you should really express your criticism of cj
>to cj and not to me eric.
Why? You did it too. 

>unless you have different standards for different people.
Not in this case. I simply didn't notice that she had done it.
-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
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:27:34 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Sep28.045702.14711@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[silly stuff deleted]

>That's why bank robbery should be made safe and legal,
>just like abortion. 

George Bush agrees with you!

George Bush said that if his daughter had an abortion he would stand behind
her decision.   I guess he's already proven that he would stand behind
his son, Neil Bush, when he robbed a S&L.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion