HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: OR conviction overturned
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:26:16 GMT

bdsuba@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider) writes:

>                       Judge nulls conviction
>                       of abortion protester

>                                      WICHITA, Kan

>      A state district judge ruled yesterday that life begins at 
>      conception and overturned the sentence of an abortion protester 
>      convicted of criminal trespassing at an abortion clinic.

>      Sedgwick County District Judge Paul W. Clark said Ann Tilson's 
>      "wrongful act is forgiven in the eyes of the law under the doctrine 
>      of justification by necessity."

What an incredibly stupid ruling.  If a higher court doesn't strike down
this ruling, look for district courts to be avalanched with appeals of
this nature.

>      Tilson was arrested during protests last summer at Wichita Family 
>      Planning Inc.  She was convicted in municipal court of criminal 
>      trespassing, fined $1,000 and ordered to serve six months in jail.  
>      She appealed to district court.

>      Tilson had contended she should be acquitted because the harm she 
>      sought to prevent, abortion, was of greater community concern than 
>      the crime she committed, criminal trespassing.

I guess that anyone convicted of a civil-disobedience related crime should
have their convictions appealed now.  All those civil rights sit-ins, Viet
Nam war protests, etc., etc.  Should make for an interesting (and very full)
court docket.

>      Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for the ProChoice Action League, said she 
>      needed to have lawyers review the ruling.  But she said she is 
>      concerned it might set up a revolving door that would allow 
>      protesters to appeal their convictions to district court and be 
>      acquitted.

I _think_ that lets Ann Tilson off the hook; but that loophole should be
closed fast.  Imagine that: judicially endorsed anarchy.

> This article is from the July 22nd edition of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 
> Ohio.  Just in case you all haven't heard, yet.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

-- 
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: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:54:56 CDT

[LONG]
In article <1992Jul28.011013.17839@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.095627.27259@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> Are you offering a new definition of "autonomous"?  
>> I have done so in another thread.  
>I haven't seen your definition of "autonomous", can you repeat it?

<sigh.> How quickly they forget!
Here's my follow-up to your followup of that posting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:33:13 GMT

<1992Jul27.221249.11640@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Jul22.194417.26891@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>How do YOU describe justice?  Special favors for your friends or group?
>>
>>Justice is that which is seen to be applied equally in similar situations.
>
>Exactly my point.  Thank you.

You're welcome.

>>>You are the brutal one.  You advocate the unrestrained killing of
>>>millions of babies.
>>
>>Babies?  Who's advocating the killing of babies?  I've never seen a post
>>where Tim or any pro-choicer/pro-abortioner advocated killing babies.
>
>Pro-abortion means pro the choice to kill a baby.  

No it doesn't.  Where did you get this tripe?  *I'm* pro-abortion and I am
telling you inequivecably (sp?) that being pro-abortion in *no way*
endorses the choice to kill a baby.

>                                                   I would appreciate it
>if you people would just admit that.  

I'd appreciate it if you would admit to killing Kennedy, and being 
Saddam Hussien's transexual lover, and to being the anti-christ.

Get the point?

>                                      Saying that killing the fetus is
>not killing a baby is exactly the same as saying that murder shouldn't
>be illegal.  

No it isn't.

>             If it isn't illegal to steal the probable future of a
>baby, why is it illegal to steal the probable future of a child, or
>adult?

I give up, Why?

>>>>And I will work to stop you until my dying breath.
>>>
>>>Feel free.  I will do the same.
>>
>>Why not just mind your own business and allow women to make their own
>>choices?
>
>I am minding my business.  Because it isn't just 'their own choice' to make.
>It is OURS.

"OURS"?  How many women have you slept with anyway?  You should really use
a condom or perhaps get a vasectomy if you are goinmg to continue this
irresponsible promiscuity.


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 a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The world according to propeller-boy - part 2
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:09:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>Precisely because the z/e/f dies, we are aiming to pass a Human Life
>Amendment which will grant them their right to live (which was a right
>of theirs since science first knew of their existence, in the
>1860's-1870's).  

Science first discovered the existence of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses
in the womb in the late 19th century?!?  Well, I suppose if Margaret 
Sanger can get an abortion when she was in her 80's, anything is possible.
Still, one does wonder about those biblical references to pregnant women
being with child.

Or maybe borg-for-brains is just practicing that trick again where he
blows smoke out his ass?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:47:14 GMT

<1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>>} Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

>><1992Jul21.004136.9063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>> I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions, 
>>> there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.  

<1992Jul21.163226.12832@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes ...
>> My sources say different.  Rather than argue the point directly, I'll 
>> simply ask you:  When does the human heartbeat begin?

<_4fmc=m.ray@netcom.com> (Ray Fischer) writes:
> What's the relevence, anyway?  

It depends what the question is.  If the question is "Is abortion
right or wrong?"  then as you suggest, the relevance is pretty
small.

If the question is a pregnant woman's "Is abortion the right
choice for me?", and that woman has also expressed that she
doesn't think life begins until the heart begins beating,
implying she thinks the heartbeat is important to her decision,
and then her counselor doesn't tell her that the fetus she is
carrying does indeed possess a beating heart.  (All this as described
in a newspaper article summarized here recently.)  I think this
information is relevant to the choice the woman must make
and she should be aware of it.

Finally, if the question is "Is Gregory Clausen ignorant or a liar?",
as suggested by Galen's article, the facts are necessary to answer
the question.

If some folks here can't get the "liar" label to stick to Mr.
Clausen, look for them next to start complaining that his
slogan is "emotionalizing" the issue.  This, too, is nonsense.
Clausen's slogan is a simple statement of fact.  Any emotional
reaction provoked by it is a reaction to the truth of abortion
itself, not to Clausen's phrasing.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29230 alt.birthright:124 alt.abortion.inequity:2691
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:48:56 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet


Why is it that the typical pro-choicer: 

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? 

10) Opposes animal testing? 
11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  

12) Opposes the choice to control one's own body with whatever
pleasure-inducing drugs they want to put into themselves, because
drugs are dangerous? 
13) Then turns around and opposes regulations on breast implants
despite that some implants may be dangerous?  
14) And then shoots the 24 year old man who screws their 14 year old
daughter? (Which is why they turn and oppose the death penalty...) 


I just wanted to know about these inconsistencies of the pro-choice
movement... 


===============================================================================
		  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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 17:46:50 GMT

<adams.711639765@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <adams.711319578@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>
>>>>Still, I don't understand how you can worship a mass-killer of children.
>>>His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not are thoughts.  I can't know
>>>everything in the mind of God...I can't possibly justify it, except to say
>>>that what God does is up to God.  It's not my place to question Him.
>
>>Er, aren't you supposed to believe in Him with all your heart, all your soul,
>>and all your _mind_, Steve? How do you propose to live up to that whilst
>>conveniently refusing to address glaring doctrinal inconsistencies when 
>>they're pointed out to you?
>
>I don't see how there is a glaring doctrinal inconsistancy here.  Any 'god'
>who is sufficiently powerful to create the world, is certainly powerful
>enough to do as he/she pleases and sees fit.  How the heck is a person
>supposed to be able to completely understand a superrior being?

You're dodging the question/statement:  How can you justify the worship of
a being that commits mass-murder of children, while at the same time
denouncing abortion?  If you argue that your god can kill what he creates
then I assert that a woman can kill what she creates.  If you assert that
your god can do what he wants to because he has the power to do so, then I
assert that a woman can get an abortion because she has the power to.

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*.

Do you worship a mass-killer just because he has the power to kill you
too?


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: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:48:11 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <42hm!x+.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>> dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes ...
>>>What about the much more simple solution to the entire problem?
>>>What ever happened to abstinence?  That is a fool-proof solution 
>>>after all.
>> 
>> For the same reason people drive cars, eat steak, ride bicycles, 
>> ride in airplanes, swim, live in California, live in the midwest,
>> live in the south, have children, and walk outdoors.
>> 
>> All these endeavors (and many others, besides) have an element of
>> risk.  Do you propose making all of them illegal?

>In all of these cases it is _your_ risk to take.  In the case of having sex
>when you intend to abort if you do get pregnant, it is _not_ your risk to
>take, but that of the child's, whom you might be conceiving and aborting.


>Suzanne Forgach


errr....actually several of those activities (driving cars, riding in
airplanes, living in California, etc) are risks you are taking for your
children as well.  If you as a parent decide to pile the kids in a car
and go to grandma's house, you are taking a risk with their lives as
well.   

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

*can someone tell me if this actually gets posted, I seem to be having
a problem getting stuff to appear anywhere but here.*
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:27:57 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Jul27.100141.27631@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.190121.20155@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>
>>> [some self-righteous nonsense]
>>
>>Please leave this discussion in alt.flame where I originally posted it, 
>>Ms. Garvin. Do you wish me to dredge up your old quote about "flames belong
>>in alt.flame" as a painful reminder, hmmmm??
>>
>Kevin, grow up.  You've already caused more than your lifetime
>allotment of pain for Susan, by ridiculing and trivializing the
>painful experiences of someone she loves.  

If it's broadcast on the Net, it's fair game. That's the rule in alt.flame.
She made her choice long ago when she started mindlessly parroting Keegan's 
"liar" and "hypocrite" bullshit, not to mention her net.cop initiation rite
over the child-support stuff.

If you don't want to see this stuff, may I suggest

	a) a killfile

	b) asking Garvin, Keegan et al. to stop reposting from alt.flame
	   to talk.abortion

Oh, and have a nice day, Muriel...

								- Kevin
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:23:14 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul30.203923.25625@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Jul28.173409.15808@hemlock.cray.com> 
> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> >
> > A newborn can also make choices _very_ early on about
> > how she will relate to those around her--something a
> > fetus can't do.
> 
> Put a newborn infant in an enclosed box, and it won't be able to 
> relate to anyone either.

Put a newborn infant in an enclosed box for any length of time, and you
will quite possibly be arrested for child abuse.  Do you suppose that we
should arrest women late in their pregnancy?  If not, why not?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:10:53 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


Another totally brainwashed dweeb. Why bother?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:37:35 GMT
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

In <1992Jul27.165146.7915> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>
>>"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous
>>to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a
>>child you cannot have it."
>>
>>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.
>
>These two assumptions concerning health are wrong today, with safe, legal 
>abortions (so far) still available.

Would you care to define "safe"?

>The third assumption meant to say "fetus", instead of the erroneous "baby".
>Obviously, Planned Parenthood has learned.  I suggest you do the same.

Planned Parenthood has learned that they can make millions in the
abortion industry.  All those stupid obstetricians who continue to tell
pregnant mothers that they are carrying "babies," it's just shameful.

As to your suggestion, thanks, but no thanks.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

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 15:07:24 GMT

In article <92211.092717ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.190121.20155@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>In article <1992Jul26.071248.25612@cs.cmu.edu> Susan Garvin writes:
>
>> [some self-righteous nonsense]
>
>"Self righteous nonsense".  Darcy you've stooped to low levels
>in the past but nothing like this.  This response proves once
>and for all that you are completely devoid of integrity, empathy
>and consideration.  Its a wonder you managed to survive into
>adulthood without someone justifiably throttling you.

"Justifiably"? Are you advocating violence as a solution to interpersonal
problems, Ms. Birmingham? Isn't violence, or the threat of it, EXACTLY 
what appalls us about child abuse??? I think your hypocrisy is now obvious.

>Your personal grudge against Ms. Garvin is apparent.  

I have some unresolved issues with her, yes. I would hesitate to call
these "grudges"...

>Your attack on someone you know nothing about is appalling,

I "attacked" Susie Garvin. Not her S.O. Read the article in question, 
taking careful note of who is being addressed.

>Grow up you pathetic little cretin or go back to alt.flame

Heh. You just stepped in it. My article *WAS* posted to alt.flame.
EXCLUSIVELY.

You can quietly slink off now, Ms. Birmingham...

<snicker>

								- Kevin
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An abortion decision?
Summary: Okay, who's got the button?!?
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:09:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Jul23.170444.1976@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.063033.14767@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, catapjcm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Joshua Christopher Marshall) writes:
>> 
>> Abortion should be mandatory.
>
>Wouldn't nuclear devastation of the earth be a lot faster and efficient?

It would, but it'd also lay waste to most other species as well...if nothing
else, at least Josh's approach would leave an environment for anyone who
came along later.  (Not that I think abortion, or ionizing radiation, will
be our undoing -- but the environment may well be...)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:36:41 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Enough of these lies (was Re: Creating Real Choices
	<1992Jul30.005027.23920@coopsol.com>
Distribution: usa

Excerpts From Captions of netnews.talk.abortion:
30-Jul-92  Enough of these lies (was R..  Gordon Storga@coopsol.co (4197)   
><1992Jul23.184638.19161@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance 
>Heath) said:
>...
>>	First, both sides ignore one important question : Why do so
>>many women believe abortion is the only viable option when facing a
>>crisis pregnancy? And what can be done to make other options more
>>attractive and more viable. Nobody likes the idea of abortion (there's
>>a difference between being Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortions, and almost no
>>one is pro-abortion). 
> 
>How dare you imply that the pro-abortion movement *likes* abortion!  Just
>who the h*ll do you think you are?  All of us pro-abortioners on this net
>have stated at one time or another that we would categorically *prefer*
>that abortion wasn't necessary, but as long as it is necessary it should
>be legally available.

Mr. Storga should be careful about making absolute statements.  I view
global overpopulation a very real problem and I very glad that many
women find abortion a necessary action.  I, like Mr. Storga, do not
think society is required to help women raise children they cannot
afford.

Beyond the issue of human populations which abortion and infanticide
have been traditional means of control, there will always be
post-pubescent children and others who will have unprotected sex.  I
would not wish to live in a world where there never were such mistakes,
the untidiness that makes us human.  These children may very well not
wish to bear children, and will find abortion necessary.

As I type in this message, I begin to wonder if the "necessary" has any
meaning here.  Unless, the life of the woman is in danger, how can we
really call abortion "necessary".  A woman has abortions to improve the
quality of her life not from necessity.  Perhaps, I should say that I am
glad many women find abortion economically advantageous, that I am glad
that people make "mistakes" that may cause a woman to want to unpregnant
herself, and that there would abortions in my Utopia (located nowhere
near Los Angeles).

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion