HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 23:11:00 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
 <Bs112E.Izr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

In article <Bs112E.Izr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Steven L. Kellmeyer says:
>
>Wow, *I* didn't know the birth control pill was an abortifacient.

I take it you don't read Ms. Forgach's post, Mr. Kellmeyer.

>And Larry, of course, is never WRONG.  Say, Larry, what color IS the
>sky on your planet?  Better yet, which galaxy is it in?

Perhaps you should direct these questions to Ms. Forgach,
since she is the resident "The Pill must be Banned because
it is an Abortifacient" believer.

>Just when I thought the 'choicer's couldn't say anything more stupid
>than they already have, Larry comes to the rescue.

You really haven't read Ms. Forgach have you.



Linda
--
"If you teach a man, you teach one person; if you teach a woman,
 you teach a whole family" Keralan saying
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:47:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox


Hello there, Bible scholars!

A couple of weeks ago when I was defending the local PP clinic, a protestor
and I were having a nice discussion about God's opinion of abortion (he had
a sign that said "God says abortion is murder").

Now, as far as I know, the only biblical reference to it is Exodus 21:22
(I think it's that-- I just moved and my bible is still packed) where the
penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is monetary compensation.  Doesn't
sound like murder to me.

My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..." but that 
shouldn't play for fundamentalists.  Where's the biblical precedent?  Oft
times John leaping in Elizabeth's womb is cited, but even the Church claimed
personhood only at quickening for centuries.  And "Before I formed thee in
the womb I knew thee" is an argument for personhood *before* conception, which
most pro-lifers would disavow (I hope!)

So, quote to me, quote to me.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Are lightning rods wrong? (was Re: why the schools need to teach about sex: a sad example of ignorance)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:48:56 GMT

In article <tgreen.712431740@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>In <nti74do@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
::So now you've learned something about sex.  Maybe you should
::think about your statement above in the light of all this new
::information.  Maybe you should rephrase, and say something like,
::"If you can't live with [pregnancy], don't have intercourse
::without using birth control.  period."

:I'll accept that.  The point I was attempting to make remains the
:same.  If you have sex, you have made your "choice" already.
:Grow up and be responsible for your own actions.  All this 
:individual rights crap gets people to think that they don't
:have responsibilities, only rights.  Buzzt.  wrong answer.

	And it is wrong to put up lightning rods, because that will
help you escape the consequences of your sins -- God's sending down a
lightning bolt.

	So said a leading clergyman when Ben Franklin invented the
lightning rod. He claimed that an earthquake which struck Boston was
caused by God being frustrated at not being able to punish sinners
with lightning strikes.

	And if you disagree with this reasoning, then what are your
reasons?

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers"  Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:37:15 GMT

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.  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.

Jonathan:
Please wake up and smell the coffee.  I haven't seen or heard a significant
number of pro-life persons on this newsgroup argue for what you say.  It 
certainly doesn't represent my beliefs.  I believe in quality sex education
programs, AIDS education and free contraceptives to adults who want it.
Also, I can see the merit of community centers giving out condoms to 
young teenagers who request them.  I don't, however, support the use of fetal
tissue from abortions.  Being that fetal tissue by definition is from the 
"fetus" I believe it is a human child that was killed.  I no more support that
than using parts of an adults body who was murdered without his/her prior 
consent.  Even if abortion were completely outlawed it would not force women
to do anything.  The choice to do anything is under a persons own control.
If I choose to speed then I may pay the consequences.  If I am a woman and I
choose to abort illegally I can still do it and may pay the consequences.
If abortion were ever made completely illegal I would be out doing all I could
to make sure persons were educated regarding safe sex and given the opportunity
to use contraception.  When the human race was created it gave the role of
motherhood to the woman.  For those who don't want to exercise that role that
is their choice.  It would be nice if a sterilization procedure could be 
made safe, effective and completely reversible for those who wanted to give
birth.  I would support sterilization, ONLY IF THE PERSON WANTED IT, and 
the provision of this procedure for those who would choose it.

I believe both the man and the woman are responsible for procreation.  If 
either one of them chooses to not use contraception when they don't want a
child they are both responsible for the resulting creation of another human.
As much as I dislike that outcome I dislike even more the killing of a 
newly created human being because of its unwantedness.  I especially abhorr
the killing of a human fetus.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: I'm new
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 07:35:06 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul26.171224.1991@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
><1992Jul24.185518.17160@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> <1992Jul8.163343.1909@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca said:
>>>In article <90504@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Jul6.163633.1901@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> ...
>>>IMO abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
>>>Call me silly if you like.
>> 
>> OK -- silly.
>
>Gee you're the first to take the opportunity.  Let me now expand
>my statement to IMO, abortion should not be used as a form of birth
>control until all other methods have failed.  Still call me silly?

How about, not quite as silly. ;-)

>(I still don't think abortion should be used as bc, but I'm just
>asking if the last staement is silly)

Technically speaking, abortion is the only form of _birth_ control.  The
rest is _conception_ control.  I understand what you are saying, I just
disagree.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
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,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Garvin does anyone (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:38:40 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <3691@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <p2hm#g_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>#chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>##Your intellegence has devolved to the level of a paramecium, not to
>##mention your blatant, in-your-face lies. 
>#
>##		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>#
>#Anyone _else_ notice any inconsistencies here?
>
>I think that I know the source of Chaney's new .sig lie.
>I think that some adult who supports legal abortion said
>"fuck you" to him.

No, it reflects the rumor I heard that as a kid, you offered to every
man who said "Fuck you," to help them take it literally. 

>Susan


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: seth@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Seth Buffington)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:19:11 GMT

>>>As for inconsistency, many Christians believe that the bible implicitly
>>>prohibits abortion, while at the same time it glorifies their god's
>>>killing of thousands or millions of children.  He even *orders* his people
>>>to kill children *explicitly*.
>>Yes, it does, and He does.  I won't at all object to that.  But I am not
>>God.  I do not have the power God has.  
>
>Ah, we're back to "if you have the power to do something then your actions
>are just".

Not so. Hitler had power for a time to kill millions, but
certainly many would argue this was not just. (FYI:I am not a
Jew, just an example). God is righteous because that is part of
his character.  Just as you do things that are part of your
person, whatever that may be, God does things because it is part
of his person or character. Other characteristics of God are
Truth, Love, Judgement, and so on. The amazing thing about a
person, is that the display of one characteristic at one time
does not necessarily negate the display of another
characteristic at another time nor does it negate the
possibility that two seemingly opposing characteristics are
working together. In other words, ever heard of tough love? This
would be judgement working in parallel with love and mercy. So
can God destroy a city and still be a God of love? Yes because
he is also a God of Judgement and a God of Righteousness, not to
mention a God of Reason. The bottom line here is God has a
defined balanced character. To attempt to pull out 1/2 of His
character and argue about it is like putting together a puzzle
with half the pieces missing: you will never get the picture!


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:54:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world  

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>The typical pro-choicer: 

Oh boy!  Let's _all_ play this game.

>1) Opposes war because it is killing. 
>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill. 
>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings. 
>4) Opposes the death penalty because it is killing. 
>5) Wants to save the dolphins. 
>6) And the whales. 
>7) And the eagles' eggs. 
>8) All because it is killing. 
>9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing. 

The typical pro-lifer:
1) Lies
2) Opposes birth control because it's wrong.
3) Opposes abortion because it's killing.
4) Considers the death of women as just punishment for sex.
5) Considers the death of born children irrelevent.
6) Considers the death of women irrelevent.
7) Encourages the worldwide use of abortion.
8) Favors the death penalty as being just punishment.
9) Favors war as being just punishment.
10) Favors the fetus over the welfare of all other human beings.

>Mark Kaufman has been deleted from the KILLfile. It's about time I
>came back and slammed him. 

Oh boy.  Another childish insult to look forward to.

>===============================================================================
>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
>B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
>BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
>BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
>BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 
 ------       ---     ---------   ----
 Better       Off     Shoveling   Shit.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:15:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.211400.61702@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>> Which only shows that the ancient Jews (like many, many, other cultures)
>> held a lower regard for life than MOST of us today.
>> 
>> Laws change.  Once upon a time, it was legal in many countries (let alone 
>> the southern US) to own slaves.  Olde laws and customs are not NECESSARILY 
>> valid today.  Try another tack.

> I believe that the laws of Mark Kaufman's religion have not 
> changed over time.

I saw nothing in Mr. Miller's post which suggested that he was
referring to Mr. Kaufman's religion. In fact, he specifically
referred to "cultures" and "customs". 

> Might I suggest that you find another religion as well?
> If you feel free to tell Mark that his religion is wrong,
> and outdated, surely you won't object when I tell you
> the same thing.  

Might I suggest that you refrain from blatantly misrepresenting
other posters Ms. Garvin?  It doesn't help your credibility much.


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: 26 Jul 92 03:20:48 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> #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.
-> 
-> Prove it, Darcy.  
-> 
-> Show us some laws that refer to abortion alone, without
-> speaking of "procuring" or "inducing" or without using an
-> adjective such as "criminal" or "induced."  Show us where the
-> legal definition of abortion differs from the medical
-> definition.

i predict that kebbie will not provide the evidence you request.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29439 talk.religion.misc:12956
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Scriptural Food for Thought
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:17:48 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>The following should not be construed as support or opposition to
>either pro-life or pro-choice positions. The author merely wishes
>to provoke debate about the use of scriptural authority in arguments
>in favor of or against abortion:

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Numbers 5:12-31.

>This passage describes the ritual which suspected adulteresses must
>undergo as commanded by God. If she is guilty of adultery, then the
>priest must give the woman an infusion which is supposed to induce
>an abortion.

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm.  Well, the NIV notes EXPLICITLY agree with this statement, though they
avoide the term 'abortion.'  This is most interesting!  Anyhow, here's what
the NIV notes say:

  5:21 The figurative language here (and in vv. 22,27) speaks of the loss
       of the capacity for childbearing (AND, IF PREGNANT, THE MISCARRIAGE
       OF THE CHILD).  This is demonstrated by the determination of the
       fate of a woman wrongly charged (v 28).  For a woman in the Near
       East to be denied the ability to bear children was a personal loss
       of inestimable proportions.  Since it was in the bearing of children
       that the woman's worth was realized in the ancient world, this was
       a grievous punishment indeed.

[Emphesis mine]

>We may laugh at the naivete of this ritual, but can we not conclude
>that the intent of abortion is there, and it is ascribed to God?

Well, considering that the text says nothing about what exactly was in the
concoction of 'bitter water', we don't know if this is laughable or not.
There are substances that cause abortion (RU-486 being a chemical example),
so it's possible that the Hebrews had some sort of potion that could do
this, under the right circumstances.  God would protect an innocent woman.

So, at least in this case, God DEMANDS miscarrieag (euphamism for abortion!)
of a child conceived in adultery, if charges are brought against the woman.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Frankly admits opressive stance (was: IS COMPROMISE POSSIBLE... YES?)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:02:49 GMT

<BrpnBo.8K7@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) said:
>In <l6ggpgINNf77@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>>>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
>because I request the removal of her right to abortion. However, 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>there are many that argue that I am being supportive and defensive
>to the rights of the unborn, male OR female. 

Well, at least you agree that she does have a *right* to abortion, and
that you want to remove her right to abortion.  Now what do we call
someone who wants to remove rights from others...


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Notable "Pro-life"/Anti-Choice Quotes
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:29:05 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <adams.712529741@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>csulaima@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Cynthia Renee Sulaiman) writes:

>>"Sex education in our schools are promoting incest."
>>                                                    --Rev. Jimmy Swaggart

>This from a man caught with a prostitute....defrocked, too.

No, I don tink defrocked her, de jus jacked off while she played wid herself.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hanson is a Frantic Fundie! (WAS Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!)
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:22:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul21.163414.14315@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> I enjoyed watching the Dream Team in the Olympic qualifying rounds, but I
> do wonder whether continual blowouts will interest the Olympic crowds.

Well I'll surely enjoy it if I get a chance to see it.  Baseball
and football blowouts aren't very interesting, but basketball
blowouts can be extremely entertaining.  Mostly the artistry of
people like Michael Jordan will be sufficient to sustain interest.
Also, I love fancy passing, and if one team dominates another to
the extent I expect we'll see in Barcelona, we may get to see
some of that behind-the-back-over-the-shoulder-through-the-legs-
and-in-your-face stuff.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:08:07 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul25.015423.3464@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

Hey!  Eric's back.

Welcome back, Eric.

Susan
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:33:28 GMT
Distribution: misc.test
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



Poor little Orr.  

You failed to note where I lied about you or misrepresented
what you said.  I can't stop you from claiming this, but I
can make you look like a fool for doing it.  Keep it up.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity