HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Silliest sign carried by a pro-forcer
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:48:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> Last Saturday, one of them had a piece of posterboard on his
>>> back.  On the posterboard, he'd glued a wooden Celtic cross.
>>> To the cross, he'd glued a rubber rat.

>>> The rat, I am told, represents the tiny sex animals that
>>> tempt us and result in our being sent to burn in eternal
>>> hellfire.

>> Funny thing.  I'd always thought of _my_ 'tiny sex animal' as
>> a big, friendly Labrador retriever.  It would be pretty hard
>> to get one of those on a posterboard!

> Now wait a minute, Chris.  Are you telling me that your Lab
> tempts you?

Whoa!  Maybe I should say that my 'tiny sex animal' ("that's the
libido, right?" he asked nervously) is _like_ a big, friendly
Lab.

Btw, thank you for not setting the follow-up to alt.sex.bestiality.

> I sure hope that this isn't the beginning of a trend.  Next
> thing you know, we'll have some idiot collapse on the street
> because he's trying to carry a donkey on his back, claiming
> that the Democrats tempt us into sin.

If that happens, call a veterinarian.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Extra!  Suzanne goes against Church teachings! (was Re: Homophobics 
Summary: Tsk, tsk, she doesn't get the Vatican Gazette I guess.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 19:06:54 GMT

<1992Jul8.181832.408@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) said:
><1992Jul7.002611.27893@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article <1992Jul6.151622.4060@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
>>> Hmmm, interesting question -- are the vast majority of pro-lifers
>>> opposed to homosexuality?  Well, as this is the only forum in which I
>>> for one ever get into rational discussion with pro-lifers, how
>>> about a poll? And to make sure no one misses it, how about a directa
>>> appeal on the lines of "Are there any pro-lifers on the net who are not
>>> opposed to homosexuality?" Suzanne? Bill? Steves? Kevin? Tom? Well...I'm
>>> waiting.
>
>>I certainly am not opposed to it.
>>As long as the militant elements of it refrain from trying to recruit my kids.
>>Then I'll meet them head on.
>
>     Please, please let us all know--what have militant homosexuals been
>doing to your children?  And are you afraid that a homosexual lifestyle
>will be so appealing to them that they fall for these blandishments?

She must have missed the announcement this weekend.  The Mercury News
reported that the Vatican has announced that it is perfectly okey dokey to
discriminate against gays in every facet of life.  And it should be every
Catholics duty to reject and discriminate against gays.

My wife recycled the paper before I could quote it verbatim :-(


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:17:07 GMT

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!

I'd try to charge admission and go bankrupt I guess.  Suzanne, you have
REALLY warped ideas about what makes a porno movie, even if it is as you
say, which it ain't.  That's right, just bury your head in the sand and
get the Pope to issue an edict, and you too can turn back time.  

Alden 

FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus. 

"On my dental office admission form they asked if I was a virgin, and I
checked the 'yes' box."
_______________________________________________________________________
The opinions stated here are Not those of the University of Washington.

I vent my spleen upon the multinational chemical company that removed Dan
Bredy's posting priviliges.  And their restriction endonucleases don't cut
worth a damn.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29034 alt.politics.homosexuality:5196 talk.religion.misc:12714
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: where is a copy of 'evidence that demands a verdict'
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:38:21 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

] In article <nkmv8q8@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
] >>>fusco is not part of the real world.  He is living in the world of
] >>>his bible, which is about 1500 years ago.
] >>More like 1900 for the New Testament, and as much as 3000 or more for
] >>the Old.
] >First off, fusco is clearly a new testament kind of guy.
] >Though I am no biblical scholar, I do know that Jesus theoretically
] >died in like 35AD.  I was under the impression that most of the new
] >testament was written several hundred years later...
] 
] Er, no.

to expand upon this:

presuming that you take the AD to mean the actual birth year....
there is some 'slush' in that date by as much as a few years
fore and aft....

Also worth noting you will need to get along to resolving
whether or not to include the 'apocraphal' texts as actually
being a part of the 'new testament' and thus to establish the
date of 'closure' upon the matter of the 'whole' of the new testament.

One of the problems with the notion of parking the 'new testament'
as being written a couple hundred years after christs death is
that it requires that his contemporaries live a couple of hundred
years after his death.... Not a strong suit to play....

So Unless you are seeking to make 'closure' based upon
when the texts go canonical, its prudent to accept them
as essentially valid texts. { granted there is some debate
in regards to certain of the texts as being 'forgeries' in
particular the epistles to timothy.... }

its a scary day when I find Steve Dyer in the Old IVP corner....

ciao
drieux

ps: the real fun, if one wishes to have same, is that many of
those who play at the 'first century christian' game, are actually
dealing with a theology less than a hundred years old.... but of
course, that way leads to dealing with what to do with the whole of
the 'Christ and Culture' issue, and whether or not allowing the
perversions of SeXularHumanism to taint the hermenutical tools is a
debate worth the candle....


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:38:48 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak):
>>> = (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>>>	Getting oneself neutered would be an even better solution. No
>>>willpower necessary. Jesus Christ himself recommended it -- read
>>>Matthew 19:12 on how there are eunuchs who have made themselves
>>>eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

>> Given this bible passage, why are Catholics like Forgach so against
>> vasectomies and similar stuff?

>You ain't doin' it for God, Novak.

I haven`t done it at all, Forgach.  You may answer without projecting.

Now, in the past you flip out at the suggestion anyone do ANYthing to
restrict their fertility.                        
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:19:15 GMT



Menstrual extraction, an early abortion technique (prior to
8 weeks since LMP), is practiced in Bangladesh and other 
countries.  These abortions may not "stop a beating heart."

I counted three different claims on when the fetal heart
beat begins at the clinic on Saturday.  (14 days, 4 weeks,
and 2 months)  The sidewalk harassers seem to have as much
trouble with this as t.a. does.


Susan
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 23:31:13 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research, Nathanson, etc.
 <1992Jul25.234703.18393@rotag.mi.org> <Bs14Ln.Jqz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
 <1992Jul27.161111.8205@pwcs.stpaul.gov> <Bs2zLn.3rx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

In article <Bs2zLn.3rx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Steven L. Kellmeyer says:
>
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>
>Oh, you're right, Chris.  What am *I* thinking, posting per capita abortion
>rates for Germany and the US?  It's not like per capita abortion rates
>have ANYTHING to do with abortion.  I should only discuss such figures
>when the subject of Belgian waffles come up.  I'm terribly sorry.
>
>>[--number crunching deleted--]
>
>Number crunching re-inserted.
>500,000 abortions in Nazi Germany, with a population of 35 to 37 million.
>1.6 million abortions in 1980's US, with a pop. of 255 million.
>
>"Illegal" abortion in Germany was occurring at *TWICE* the rate of LEGAL
>abortion in present-day America.

"In the 1890s doctors were estimating 2 million abortions a
 year (in the US).  In 1921, when statistics on these matters
 were more reliable, a Stanford University study estimated that
 one out of every 1.7 to 2.3 pregnancies ended in abortion of
 which at least 50 per cent were criminal"

Woman's Body, Woman's Right, Linda Gordon
 sources for this quote:
 Jefferis and Nichols, Light on Dark Corners, p. 138;
   A.Lapthorn Smith, "Higher Education of Women and Race
   Suicide," Popular Science Monthly, March 1905, p. 470.
Arthur William Meyers, "The Frequency and Cause of Abortion",
   American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2, no. 2.
   (August 1921).


Linda
--
"If you teach a man, you teach one person; if you teach a woman,
 you teach a whole family" Keralan saying
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Catholics: Is the Fetus Ensouled?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:16:27 GMT

From article by steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>
> Do Catholics on t.a. agree that the fetus is not ensouled?  

Not at all, especially since Catholics believe that Mary was the 
Immaculate Conception, that is, from the moment of her conception she
had no sin on her soul.   Now how could her soul have been spotless
if she didn't have one?


> This was the
> position staked out by Pope Pius IX.  

Many church fathers used to speculate on the nature of life before birth,
but all of them made it clear that _none_ of those speculations were to be
abused by _anyone_ in an to attempt to justify abortion at _any_ stage.


> I've seen several Catholics say
> otherwise in t.a.

You bet.

 
> Now, The Pius IV proclamation that said this was a change to the C.C.'s
> abortion position; I'm not aware of a further "ruling".

There was never a change on the Church's abortion position.
There was only an end to the speculation by some Church fathers on
the full nature of prenatal life.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:41:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.114925.3395@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.223011.20865@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <3728@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul25.045504.15172@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>#In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>##It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
>>>##remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
>>>##kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
>>>##woman.
>>>#
>>>#I assume by "necessary" you mean medically indicated, right, in order to save 
>>>#the life of the mother? 
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>>By "necessary", I meant "unable to accomplish without."
>>
>>That definition is **USELESS**, Susie, since it is _never_ strictly 
>>"necessary" to kill a viable fetus -- we could just rip the thing right out, 
>>and who cares about the effect on the pregnant woman's health or life, right?
>>
>Kevin, I think it's incredibly offensive to stoop to this
>kind of linguistic brutality, just because you want to get
>sarcastic with Susan.  

Sorry, I quickly lose patience with people who completely disregard the 
effects of such procedures on the woman, and only concentrate on the 
"accomplishment" of removing the Holy Fetus from its supposedly passive 
container.

And deleted of course were Susie's accompanying remarks -- some patronizing 
crap about using a dictionary and a gratuitous insult about how I allegedly 
redefine common words. Maybe the tone of my response SEEMED to be stronger
than called-for, but actually it seemed about right at the time.

You know, another thing strikes me: here we have Susie Garvin defining the
key term in this thread -- "necessary" -- without giving so much as a passing 
mention of the effects on the pregnant woman, and yet there are no
thunderbolts from Adrienne (or anyone else) about how Susie is making the 
woman "invisible" yet again (?)

Very odd. Very odd indeed. Has the infamous "invisible woman" charge finally
been put out of its misery, I wonder?

								- Kevin
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:34:33 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul23.154510.12385@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.150016.3608@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
>mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>> And secondly, DOD was not making a slippery slope argument
>> when he said he hoped that women who have abortions don't have parents
>> in nursing homes--he was saying that abortion and involuntary euthanasia
>> involve the same kind of moral decision. 

>Sorry "DearOldPrice" (DOP), but that was Steven Kellmeyer that you
>were responding to, not me.

     Oops! But one bigot is so much like another in these years around
the seatown corner now (sorry Dylan).
.
 I'd have to disagree with Mr. Kellmeyer
>on this, because I think abortion is closer to "nonvoluntary" 
>euthanasia in which the patient is unable to give consent.

     Actually, I think involuntary euthanasia might have been my term.
Could be wrong though.

>"Involuntary" euthanasia implies that the patient can give 
>consent, but refuses. Still, I think he's correct to say that 
>abortion and (nonvoluntary) euthanasia often involve the same 
>kind of moral decision. 


     Think away. Neither one of you can make a logial argument for this,
based on any kind of reliable source.


>> MP


>Doug Holtsinger

                                                         DOP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Summary: Am I your TYPICAL pro-choicer?
Keywords: abortion waiting period
Organization: You see...  Burke Lee
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:32:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.205942.5385@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <veal.114@utkvm1.utk.edu> (David L. Veal) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.214214.29127@adobe.com>  (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul21.184349.19291@...edu> (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>>In some unknown article, someone wrote:
>>>>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
>>>>
>>>>It remains to be seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>>>>platform above work.
>>
>>>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>>>before a woman could get an abortion?
>>
>>     I have seen people jump through the most amazing hoops in order to 
>>justify opposing waiting periods on abortions, but not on guns.
>
>	And I have seen people jump through the most amazing hoops in
>order to justify waiting periods for guns, and then vehemently oppose
>them for abortions. 
>
>	What else is new? 

The longer you wait, the more risky the procedure.  (What--another day gonna
make the gun more volatile?)

>The typical pro-choicer: 

Oooh, stereotypes!

>1) Opposes war because it is killing.

No way!  I wanna go to a foreign country and blow someones head off because
my government told me to!  (BTW:  I'm prime draft-age!)

>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill.

Not exactly.  (Massive?)  You get a permit that says that you've taken some
kind of course in firearms use/care and then you can go ahead and buy what
you want.

>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings.

So another species goes extinct...  Humans will nuke the planet anyway.

>4) Wants to save the dolphins.

Why do you think I'm such a big tuna eater?

>5) And the whales. 
>6) And the eagles' eggs.

Don't forget saving the Eagles too!

>7) All because it is killing.

Killing in the name of modern progress!

>8) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing. 

Look, what it boils down to, for me, is that I really resent it when other
people, or groups, tell me what I can and can't do with my life.  From
the "don't eat the dolphin-unfriendly tuna" messages in Leathal Weapon 2
(gee, guys, ever heard of police brutality, or is it a non-issue for them?),
to the "don't wear a fur" to "don't eat meat" to "don't do drugs."  It's
ok for everyone to care about their own particular issue, but I wouldn't
force people to take one side or another.  You CAN be pro-life and
pro-choice...  What's the deal?  Oh my, we're letting someone have a little
say in what goes on with their bodies!  Oh no!  How could this be!  The
state should tell them what to do!  Politicians know what's best in all
cases!


-Richard
Everyone:  Live your life however the hell you want to, do whatever you
want to do, as long as you don't get in anyone else's way...
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:22:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.161054.11759@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

[the same little speech I've already seen about six times in a
row]

That's nice, Clausen.  You read a whole paragraph in a book.  Now,
go try and read some more things, like the period of time in
which RU-486 is effective, the medical meaning of the word
abortion, and the description of the "heart" to which you
refer.  

We'll see you in six months.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29334 alt.flame:11446
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: how a little boy with a propeller on his cap speaks with adults (Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?))
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:20:03 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.dirty.words.for.kids
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

when asked to support one of his imaginary claims, the
chaney/hall person posting as chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
(Stephen A Chaney) replies:
-> >No, Chaney, I called you a liar.
-> >
-> >We have no evidence that PP said anything of the sort,
-> >other than your claim that they did.  Your credibility, like
-> >Holtsinger's, is nonexistent.  (Your anti-Semitic version
-> >of a NYT article comes immediately to mind.)
-> 
-> It was in the Sacramento News & Review's Women's Issue last
-> year. 

ask one of the older kids to tell you how to read the date
and issue number of that publication. then post that data.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:43:26 GMT

In article <lefty-300792153949@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.162418.4713@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <1992Jul28.134132.2620@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>> >In article <1992Jul27.232757.8187@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >>In article <1992Jul27.100141.27631@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>> >
>
>> >In case you are wondering how many other people you may
>> >have hurt or offended, one in four females is molested
>> >before her fourteenth birthday.  
>> 
>> All the more reason for Susie to have not reposted this whole mess into
>> t.a. Does she ENJOY making people suffer like this? At least in alt.flame,
>> people know they read at their own risk. In t.a, there was a real 
>> possibility that people may have been "hurt or offended" totally without
>> warning. Is Susie and her S.O. so GODAMMNED SELFISH that their hurt is worth 
>> more than that of hundreds or thousands of other readers? 
>> 
>> They both make me sick.
>
>Oh, "they" make you sick, do they?
>
>Here is spectacular evidence that I wasn't simply engaging in hyperbole
>when I called you a sociopath, Darcy.  "_I_ didn't hurt anyone!  Susan's
>the one who hurt people by reposting what I wrote!"  

Damn right. My article was posted to alt.flame exclusively. If any child-
abuse victims were hurt there, it was their own damn fault -- that's an
"enter at your own risk" newsgroup.

Susie, on the other hand, decided to spread the misery to talk.abortion.
That kind of behavior makes me sick. Given Muriel's numbers, and the 
projected readership of talk.abortion, it is almost STATISTICALLY CERTAIN
that Susie has hurt at least one child-abuse victim in this newsgroup, if
not dozens or hundreds.

ON BEHALF OF THAT PERSON OR THOSE PEOPLE HURT BY SUSIE GARVIN, I >>DEMAND<<
AN IMMEDIATE APOLOGY!!!!

>> I didn't bring up the subject, Muriel. I didn't post a braggy article 
>> amounting to essentially "Nyah! Nyah! My S.O. knows more about child 
>> molestation than you do, Suzanne!".
>> 
>> Talk to the folks who did.
>
>Ms. Forgach trivialized the subject.  Susan, quite properly, corrected her.

Why then did she not simply "correct" me also? Why did she CHOOSE to go 
careening off into fits of righteous indignation and cross-posting???

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion