HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Anti-stalking laws?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:58:31 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

I have to admit that I've stayed away from talk.abortion because of
the high Jesus freak to Rational person ratio, but I salute all you
Rational people for continuing to try and reason with these people.

Now, my question: Many states are passing Anti-stalking laws, which are
primarily designed to stop/discourage boyfriends/husbands from harrassing
their former SOs.

My big concern about the Pro-fetus people is not their trying to block
clinics (that's important, of course, but the Pro-Choice movement has
that situation pretty well in hand) but rather their going to doctor's
homes and harrassing them when the doctor is off-duty.

Can someone familiar with these anti-stalking laws tell me if it would
be possible to prosecute Pro-fetusers under this law, if they harrass
doctors at their homes?

You hear about Pro-Choice activists who protect and escort women who
are going to clinics, but is there a similar program to protect
doctors? I feel *SO* sorry for them, and it's this tactic, more than
any other, that has made me despise the Pro-fetus movement.

Vickie
Anti-abortion, Pro-Adoption, Pro-Birth Control, Pro-Sex Education

                    *****PRO-CHOICE****

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Divided... With Remainder
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:14:30 GMT

From article by darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> 
>>Your numbers are wrong Katy.  55 million unborn babies worldwide die by 
>>abortion every year.  That is 55,000,000/365 deaths every day.   The world
>>is not losing 55,000,000 lives a year to ordinary war.  It _is_ losing
>>55,000,000 lives a year to the war on the unborn.
> 
> OK, Suzanne, supposing that you did manage to "save" these 55M people. 
> Can they all come stay at your house until they get their lives in gear?

Of course, and whoever doesn't fit, I will help find another place for.

> Alden 

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choicers  Are Really Pro-Death
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:57:20 GMT

First we see the classic newbie hit-and-run attack on the pro-choice 
position:
In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:

> I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
> Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  
> [..] 
> If this country is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, 
> and it will not be pretty.


And then we see Sheir do a complete reversal to the classic newbie 
attack on the pro-life position:
In article <1992Jul23.234906.936@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:

> I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
> "Pro-Life" can do so.  


A complete reversal of his position in less than a day! 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:16:09 GMT

> = (Russ Anderson) writes:

>Which leads me to wonder if George, in his second term, will 
>do another flip-flop on abortion.  He won't have to worry
>about keeping the right wing happy.  He'll be free to do
>what he really believes.
>
>What do you think?

I've had similar thoughts, though I hope to hell we don't need to take that
chance to find out.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:40:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.234126.4841@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <BrwyvJ.BuM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>
>
>> Induced abortion is the subject of this group, not spontaneous abortion.
>
>When did they rename it to "talk.abortion.induced"?

Larry, put a sock in it. You _know_ how much I hate to agree with Kellmeyer,
but he's absolutely right here -- in LEGAL terms, "abortion" always means an 
intentional, deliberate act. Since we discuss the legal and somewhat-related 
aspects of abortion here, "induced" would be redundant in the newsgroup name.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 20 Jul 92 22:45:32 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul20.202431.13636@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dhanson@nyx.cs.du.edu (David L. Hanson) writes:
> Killing babies, born or unborn, is a sin against the God that made
> everything and everyone.  Children are a heritage from the Lord to be
> trained and nurtured to worship and glorify Him.

Did God mention the unborn as being babies?  
 
> Woe unto the butchers and the ones that support them.
> 
> "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
> whormongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
> their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
> the second death"  Rev 21:8

No mention of abortionists.
 
> "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
> cometh unto the Father, but by me"  John 14:6

Sure...  (relevance?)
 
> "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in
> flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
> not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with
> everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory 
> of his power;"  2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

as above...
 
> I will answer no flames or mockers. 

I imagine you won't need to answer to too many posters here, but I hope you
consider this:

      Why is a fetus a baby?  If you can't abort because the unborn are babies
then you also can't use contraception.  Wet dreams become sinful (not to 
mention masturbation, eh?) and what about the unfertilized ovum that
is disposed of anyway?   Vasectomies become evil because you are forcing all
the sperm to die without fulfilling their purpose to create a child.  What
about all those other sperm that don't get to fertilize the ovum anyway since
only one has the honour?  See, there's a slippery slope here, do you know
where to draw the line?  Why do you draw it where you do?
 
> =========================================================================
> David L. Hanson

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- with the steel sieve mind)
Subject: Two! <clap> Two! <clap> Two responses in one!
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:11:24 GMT

What: <1992Jul23.234906.936@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Who:  jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir)
Subject: "Pro-Lifers"  Are Really Pro-Death

>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.
>A lot of these people are also against the use of fetal tissue for
>experimentation to save people's lives.  And many of these people are
>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>spread.  These people are obviously Pro-Death.

What: <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Who:  jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir)
Subject: Abortion is Murder!!!

%I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
%Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  These supposed 
%"Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.  To me, the
%ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of abortion are the ones
%that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights are more important 
%than human's.  I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and
%spender Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this
%country's last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.
%If this country is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God,
%and it will not be pretty.

Just to make it even more obvious than it already was, I put these two
articles together for everyone's reading pleasure.  Note that they came
from the same source on the same day.

I have to admit that I got a chuckle out of it... :)
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Summary: one-handed
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:18:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul28.175638.1997@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
#<1992Jul27.211358.5944@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
### FACT: In Florida, the right to privacy which abortion is founded on,
### has been expanded to the right of adults to screw little girls. FACT,
#
#<1992Jul27.224733.24594@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> (susan garvin) writes:
## No, the case gave the right to consent to 15 year olds. 
## It said nothing about little girls.  Your church, on the
## other hand, seems to impose no age limits as long as
## the perpetrator wears a collar.
#
#Susan, I understand your anger, but please, please confine
#your counterattack to Chaney himself.  There really is no need
#to demean every member of the Catholic clergy here.

I had no intention of demeaning every member of the Catholic clergy.
I know (or have known) many priests who I am as sure as is
possible would never molest children.  I was speaking of the
extreme reluctance of the RCC hierarchy to stop the priests
who are criminals.  If you can point me towards a recent move
by the church which changes their policy of re-assigning
known child abusers to new parishes without warning parents,
I will gladly apologize.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Willing to discuss with Novak, off-line only
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 24 Jul 1992 09:42 EST  

Mr. Novak has criticisms of the info I posted to this newsgroup yesterday.
I will discuss them with him one-on-one.  He must provide a valid e-mail
address.  It serves no purpose to holler and scream that I am not listening
and then dodge a response.  I dodge no-one, and even Mr. Novak should know
that by now.  -  RG 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:17:54 GMT

---
btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
|Does being pro-choice extend to choosing what substances one
|puts in their bodies?  According to Mike Polen, its should and I
|am glad to hear it.
|
|But do pro-choicers (with respect to abortion), act
|pro-choice when it comes to other issues of self-determination,
|especially illegal drugs?

I think this would depend on why a particular person holds
his/her pro-choice views.  A pro-choicer whose stance depends
on a bodily autonomy principle would probably also take a 
strong civil liberties position on drugs.  I feel this way,
for example.  I want the government out of my life on all
"morality" issues:  sex, reproduction, drugs, religion, etc.

But even if someone were to convince me tomorrow that my
civil liberties position on drugs was wrong, I would still
be pro-choice.  My opinion depends on some additional factors:  
I don't think the fetus is a person worthy of protection (until 
the 3rd trimester).  The woman & her wishes & wellbeing are 
more valuable to me than a lump of tissue.  I can understand 
the position of pro-choicers who think this way, whose 
position does not depend on a civil liberties argument.  
These people might not be pro-choice on drugs.

There are as many possibilities as people with opinions.
People don't often seem to follow through rigidly on the
consequences of principles they believe in.  This holds
for pro-lifers, too, for all that they state their principles
so dogmatically.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:02:06 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul30.004703.9157@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>> #If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
>> #his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child 
>> #sex, what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!
>> 
>> Suzanne, my SO asked me to tell you that he finds you disgusting,
> 
> 
> Too bad he doesn't find that all too frequent classroom scene itself disgusting.

Consider this:  A boy is not given the terrible cucumber demonstration.
The boy is kinda dense.  The boy meets this girl and they want to have
sex together, but she won't do it unless he wears a condom.  The boy gets
a condom (maybe he just gets the finger of a rubber glove if he's really
dense).  the boy rolls it on only to cover the glans of his penis, thinking
that's far enough.  Later, the boy wonders wear the condom went after
having intercourse.  He thinks "aw shucks, it's likely like those stitches
the dentists put in your mouth that dissolve over time."  The boy goes
on with his life with a big happy smile.  Nine months later he wonders
who the father of his girlfriend's child is (it couldn't possibly be him,
he used a condom!).  The boy's happy smile ain't there no more.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:02:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Jul22.185228.4446@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
>tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>> Hello there, Bible scholars!

>Hello there, I'd like to ask your opinion of the following quote:
>  <quote from Gloria Feldt, chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central 
>   and Northern Arizona, deleted.>

I don't agree with her.  I don't have to.  In contrast, if you are a 
fundamentalist Christian, you *must* agree with and follow every portion of the
Bible as The message from God to man.  So if you are, I'd like biblical 
justification for the statement, "God says Abortion is murder."

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)--------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Frankly admits opressive stance (was: IS COMPROMISE POSSIBLE... YES?)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:03:46 GMT

> = (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>> = (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>> = Earlier edification:

[to Sue Garvin...]
>>>Sue, you frighten me. Truly. You see, you are obviously a bitter woman
>>>who is trying to lash out against her oppressors, yet you do not
>>                                   ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
>>>have the tools to do so. 

>>So there you have it folks. Steve Franklyn admits that his stance is one
>>that opresses women.

>Not at all Eric. From Susan's perspective I may appear to be oppressive,
>but that could be from her interpretation, not my actions. You see,
>I could find your articles stupid, but others may find them intelligent.
>From Susan's interpretation, I am oppressive and dictatorial, solely...

And ON and ON and ON, like a goddamned needle stuck in a groove.  

Franklin, can you say:  "I fucked up"?  What you said is referred to as a
Freudian slip.  Oops!  

You sound like a wormy idiot trying to obfuscate what you plainly wrote.

Instead of lying your ass off, you should have corrected your original
inanity:

  "...who is trying to lash out against her PERCEIVED oppressors".

Now, apologize to Eric for your dishonesty here and then ask your god for
forgiveness.  Sounds like your edification has disintegrated.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sprice@eng.auburn.edu (Shannon W. Price)
Subject: Arthur S. Demoss
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:49:52 GMT

I don't normally read this group, but was wondering what I could find out
about the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation who is currently running commercials
on network television using the slogan - "Life what a beautiful choice".

-shannon price
 auburn university

 sprice@humsci.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:20:55


In article <1992Jul24.193459.15342@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
(Bill Overpeck) writes:

> Thanks for the thoughtful reply, John.  My only real difficulty with
> your explanation involves the notion of rights.  Given that the
> objective existence of human rights cannot be substantiated by any
> empirical method, why are they (as an article of faith) compelling
> as a secular concept?  By your definition, they seem every bit as
> religious as a belief in the sanctity of life.

In this country, rights arise from the axiom "All men are created
equal." This idea, while not clearly true, seems to be mutually
agreeable to all but the KKK and their like.

From this axiom, we built the Constitution and the framework of our
system of rights.

Unfortunately, the axiom has not proven to be entirely useful, due
to its very ambiguity. How is "man" defined? Well, nowadays it seems
to include women and blacks. When is "created" defined? Well, nowadays 
it seems to imply birth, or maybe three months beforehand. And "equal".
Well. That's sure a hard one to support. Maybe it's time to consider 
redefining our axiom.

Personally, I use an "original position" method to determine justice
and fairness. Close your eyes, and assume that you are not you. In
fact, you have no idea who you are, what you do, or what your life
is like. Now consider the issue which you are trying to resolve.
Can you provide a solution which you feel will be fair, no matter
who you might be? If you didn't know that you were a white male; if
it were possible that you might be, say, a fifteen year old black
prenant female in Harlem, would you say that outlawing abortion was
fair? How about if you were a seventy year old Southern woman? If
you didn't know where you were going to open your eyes, how would
you "cover your bases"?

Note that, as I do not have any belief in souls, per se, I do not
consider a zygote, an embryo, or a pre-myelinated fetus as a part
of the set I could be. The development of the brain in such instances
is clearly insufficient to support sentience; and I see no reason
to consider non-sentients as possible 'me's.

But anyway, I think I've strayed quite a ways away from your question.
Rights are based on a belief system, and as such could be considered
a religion. They are also highly subjective, and I've sometimes heard
Locke's ideas touted as "the religion of the common man". The Constitution,
however, seems to serve as a useful set of axioms, for the most part.

> Bill

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:47:32 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  <Bs112E.Izr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> >It would also be incorrect, since it would rule out other discussion which
> >is appropriate for this group.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I
> >agree that *generally* when we talk about abortion, we're referring to
> >induced abortion.  However, it's important to remember that when many of
> >the Fanatic Fundies refer to banning abortion, they're including banning
> >the use of abortifacients - e.g., the birth control pill.  So although
>
> Wow, *I* didn't know the birth control pill was an abortifacient.

I'm not surprised; you seem to be particularly ignorant.

> And Larry, of course, is never WRONG.  Say, Larry, what color IS the
> sky on your planet?  Better yet, which galaxy is it in?
>
> Just when I thought the 'choicer's couldn't say anything more stupid
> than they already have, Larry comes to the rescue.

Rather than point out what an idiot you're being, I'll stick with the
facts regarding the topic at hand.  The birth control pill works two
ways.  The primary effect is to prevent fertilization of the egg.  A
"backup" if that fails is to prevent implantation.  (I.e., act as an
abortifacient.)  Since it's called the "birth control pill", most people
don't realize that when someone like Suzanne Forgach says that she'd
allow birth control but ban abortifacients, "the Pill" would be included
in the ban.  Perhaps you didn't notice Suzanne's extreme reluctance to
answer this the last time it came up.

> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >"We are totally opposed to abortion under any circumstances. We are also
> >opposed to abortifacient drugs and chemicals like the Pill and IUD, and
> >we are also opposed to all forms of birth control with the exception of
> >natural family planning." -- Judie Brown, President, American Life League
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Note that Judie knows the difference between "abortifacient drugs" ,
> "chemicals like the Pill" and the "IUD".   That's why she mentioned all
> three types of things she opposes,

Actually, she only mentioned two categories, and gave examples for both:
abortifacient drugs (like the Pill) and chemicals (like the IUD (one would
assume she's referring to the "copper-top")).

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