HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:16:25 GMT

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.174606.22838@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (craig sivils) writes:
>>
>>>Tit for Tat,
>>>
>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>>private or public of their choice.
>>
>>Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
>>dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
>>PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.
>>
>>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
>>should pay for religious instruction...
>> 
>So do you believe in "Free Abortion on Demand?"  Why is it that public money
>should be used to pay for abortion, but people are stuck with public schools
>that teach their children what to think rather that how to think?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!  As opposed to public money to pay for *private* schools that
teach their children what to think rather than how to think?

By the way, who said public money had to be used for private-doctor abortions?
To be consistent we'd better insist that any public funding for abortions
only be used in public clinics.

>                                                                   The truth
>is that anyone who doesn't like the way their kids are being taught, but don't
>have the money for a private school basically get told, "Tough Shit.  We'll
>teach your kids the way we see fit."  From seeing the changes in public
>education, a public school is the last place I would want my children taught. 

Perhaps you realize that we could no more afford to send *everyone* to a
"good" private school (without raising taxes) than we could afford to provide
better public schools than we now do.  Making a child's educational
opportunity strongly dependant upon their *parents'* finnancial situation
would destroy the whole *point* of public education and perpetuate the cycle
of poverty.  (See an earlier response of mine for a longer explanation of why
this would occur.)

>Douglas C. Meier

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:47:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.211348.18894@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>: The pope, 
>>...
>:  continues
>: to treat women of the church like second-class citizens.
>
>>   How?
>
>	By not allowing women to have the opportunity to have
>leadership positions. Will a woman ever be a priest? Bishop?
>Archbishop? Cardinal? Pope?

   Could you please tell me what you know about the above positions,
then?  I'll give you a hint in that all are priests.  But please tell
us what you know about the nature of the priesthood.  Not some
sarcastic answer, but according to how the Catholic Church defines the
priesthood.  My guess is that you don't know anything about it.  Your
comment implying that the priesthood is merely a "leadership position"
seems to confirm that.

   Perhaps there is some reason, due to the nature of the priesthood,
that women cannot be priests.  And if you really know nothing about
the priesthood, then are you really qualified to comment on it?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Smart drugs
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:22:38 GMT

In article 25JAN199311031373@pavo.concordia.ca, a_weitz@pavo.concordia.ca (WEITZMAN, ANDREW) writes:
>In article <1993Jan14.161238.10974@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, mgross@server.cs.jhu.edu (Matthew B. Gross) writes...
>>Um, does anyone know of any smart drugs that produce lasting effects such as
>>an increase in the brain's production of neurotransmitters?
>>I take phenylalanine about every day, and it really sharpens my awareness,
>>but I'd like to find something which could help me in the long-term.
>> 
>Try something called a "book".     

I did, but it wouldn't fit under my tongue.

gak

---
Richard Stueven       AHA# 22584 |----------|
Internet:            gak@wrs.com |----GO----| Did ye spill wor pint?!?
ATTMAIL: ...!attmail!gakhaus!gak |---SHARX--|
Cow Palace:            107/H/3-4 |----------|

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57887 misc.legal:23278
From: cmackin@bu.edu (Carl Mackin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Thurgood Marshall Dies
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:36:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

He was a great inspiration to many, and a good man.
Many regret and mourn the passing of what I would call
a HERO.

He will be missed.

Carl F. Mackin

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57668 talk.politics.misc:69515 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13686 alt.rush-limbaugh:15024 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:206 talk.religion.misc:27431
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:22:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>Tit for Tat,
>
>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>private or public of their choice.
>
>                                Craig

Oh come on!  This quiz is too easy.  The answer is because when they 
say choice, they don't mean choice...they mean abortion.

You can tell that this is true by the was "pro-choicers" react any 
time anyone tries to do anything that might decrease the number of 
abortions that occur.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Two people and two cats, at Town Park & Ranchester
	<1993Jan25.143139.21172@cdf.toronto.edu> <C1F7pv.HJt@ecf.toronto.edu>
	<LABACH.93Jan26084000@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:09:49 GMT

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:40:00 GMT, labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) said:

>In article <C1F7pv.HJt@ecf.toronto.edu> pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON
>MATTHEW ALAN) writes: 
>> 
>> In article <1993Jan25.143139.21172@cdf.toronto.edu>
>> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes: 
>> >You are neglecting the impact on the woman's life of having to go through
>> >an entire unwanted pregnancy.
>> 
>> Oh, boo-hoo.  Better to go through with what many would consider murder?
>> Unless the woman was raped, she is partially responsible for being pregnant.
>> Eventually, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions.

>Yes, and by seeking an abortion, the woman IS taking responsibility for
>her actions, and life too.  No woman I've known who has had an abortion
>did it lightly or frivolously - the seriousness of the matter was very
>much in their minds.

Same here -- those I've known have taken their choice anything *but* lightly.
It's always been a bit of a mystery to me how the pro-forced-birth folks, who 
so blithely assume they know precisely why any female would make any
reproductive choice they wouldn't approve of, can't seem to find any of the
women we know.  (I believe it has something to do with trying to hide data that
would tend to undermine their assertion. :-)

>When you write "accept responsibility for your own actions" you seem to
>really mean "be punished by my simplistic moral standards".

That's basically the impression I get, too...

--PLH (next time, send some *Russian* postcards...)

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Originator: jjprice@c00076-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:04:43 GMT


In article <v77tln8@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan21.204923.16528@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
|>|God has warned us of many things but we still ingnore him. What makes
|>|you so sure that he has not warned us against abortion?(not saying that
|>|he has its just that I haven't read to much of the Bible yet but I feel
|>|that abortion is something he would not support).
|>
|>I've read more of the Bible than you have, apparently.  I am "so
|>sure" that the god of the bible hasn't warned us against
|>abortion because the few mentions of abortion in the bible are
|>remarkably vague, and consistent with the idea that the god of
|>the Israelites thought that abortion was okay.  
|>
|>One passage seems to assess monetary fines for accidental injury
|>to a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage or premature birth.
|>(Exodus 21:22-25)  The other passage seems to require an induced
|>miscarriage (aka abortion) in a woman suspected of carrying a
|>child not her husband's.  (Numbers 5:12-31)  The NT seems to have
|>nothing to say about abortion, even vaguely.
|>
|>There's some controversy about the Numbers passage, but it
|>certainly isn't an explicit "warning against abortion".  No such
|>warning exists, unlike, say, the clear warnings against eating
|>certain foods or wearing fringes on your garments or having sex
|>with a menstruating woman.
|>
All the quotes you have are from the Old Testament and as I have stated 
earlier that the Old Testament is Old history and no longer valid....
Although it is useful for studying history all the laws are not valid...
Before Jesus came the OT was what counted and If I am correct still counts
taoday for Jews but Christian follow the NT as the Law....
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
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: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:44:50 GMT

In article <C1Fon5.8rA@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
[...]
>Sue - 
>
>I share your anxiety.  If you think about though, all Regan-Bush managed to do
>was alienate everyone but those from the religious right.  I realize this is an
>overstatement, but can you honestly say that Regan-Bush acutally saved one
>unborn child?
>
	To say nothing of the many born ones their lackeys snuffed down in
Nicaragua and El Salvador.  Neither Reagan nor Bush are pro-life, only anti-
abortion.  I'm glad you recognize the difference.

>Its ironic that the Democrats and main-stream feminists have taken up the
>pro-abortion banner.  The Democrats are the self-defined party of 'compassion'.
>Many of the pivotal early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, were ardently
>anti-abortion.  So what's going on?!
>
	One possibility: deliberate distortion of the historical record by
one Mr. Lebow.  And the historical fact that abortion was a hell of a lot
more dangerous *for women* in Anthony's time than it is now.  But I'll bet
you knew that.

>If you pay attention to the language used here you'll find that many of the
>pro-abortion crowd feel compelled to insult and dehumanize the few pro-lifers
>on the net.  To me, this defensive behavior sounds a lot like people who, deep
>down, have unconcious nagging doubts surrounding the belief system they've
>constructed.  
>
	Amazing.  You post insulting, sanctimonious tripe like this and then
you're simply *amazed* when the targets of your insults take offense at them.
It's really impossible for you to comprehend that people of good will can
disagree on this issue, isn't it?  It would never even cross your mind, would
it, that pro-choice folks are as convinced of the rightness of thier cause
as you are of yours?
	There's nothing wrong with being "defensive" when one is under attack,
Lebow.  Try this experiment: take that last paragraph, substitute "anti-
abortion" for "pro-abortion", and "pro-choice" for "pro-life".  
	Now tell me how you'd feel if I wrote something like that about the
group you seem to identify with.  For that matter, think about how the
re-worded version synchs with the stuff posted here by the likes of Forgach,
ChaneyHall, Nyikos, Kellmeyer, and others of that ilk.
	Better get that beam out of your eye, sport.
The_Doge
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:33:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.164519.12254@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <CORWIN+.93Jan23214534@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
>corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>"Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
>>> language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
>>> Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
>>> a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
>>> a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
>>> not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
>>> that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
>>> was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
>>> Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."
>
>> A lawyer is an Officer of the Court.  As an Officer of the Court, they
>> are bound by the rules of judicial conduct, which includes obeying a
>> judge's order.  If a lawyer disagrees with a ruling, they have the option
>> of appeal.  To ignore a ruling and usurp the system is contempt.  
>
>You're missing the point.  The judge on the case *ordered* the
>lawyer not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''.
>Do you think the judge's order was appropriate? 
>

Making false accusations of criminal activity is known as slander, doug.
I would say that there is a definite interest in preventing officers of
the court from engaging in such illegal activities.

Robert Johnston


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57519 news.config:521 alt.config:8571
From: brad@slammer.UUCP (Brad Isley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.config,alt.config
Subject: Re: Want to adopt
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:38:50 GMT
Organization: Just me & my computers

In article <1993Jan22.043120.9730@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer resources
>being used for non-company purposes?

Hmmm...  Another good reason to NOT work for kodak.

-- 
brad@slammer.atl.ga.us   (Brad Isley)
+1 404 841-5018 Work			 Nopottopeein: "Howzit Goink?"
+1 404 925-9663 Home			  The gang: "Fine, just fine."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:31:18 GMT

<1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> (Sue Hasselbring) writes:
>>> How can Clinton say that he thinks aboritons should be rare when his 
>>> actions will make abortions more common?

<1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>> Perhaps because (being a rational man) he realizes tha tthe way to
>> reduce the number of abortions is to address the causes of abortion.

<1993Jan26.120500.2137@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> (Sue Hasselbring) writes:
> But his actions in no way addressed the causes of abortion.

Sue has a good point here.  From Clinton's campaign rhetoric of
being "a different kind of Democrat" and his middling tone on
abortion (not abortion rights), I had hope that he might bring
forward a balanced abortion policy.  Last Friday, he gave
abortion advocacy groups everything they expected and more.
Pro-lifers got only two courtesy gestures:  Clinton waited until 
after their march to make his announcement, and Clinton made use
of his "abortion should be rare" rhetoric.

As many have mentioned, they expect Clinton's administration
to come forward with policies aimed at reducing the abortion
rate.  Why didn't Clinton include some announcements about
these plans at the same press conference?  Had he done so,
he would have presented himself as having a much more balanced
position on abortion, and I'd be more receptive to his claims
of being a different kind of Democrat.  Right now, he looks
like the same old thing.

In fairness, it's possible he did so and the "sound bite"
media didn't cover his other statements.  I didn't get
a chance to see C-SPAN coverage of this event.  If he
did, I'd like to know about it.

Frankly, I can't understand why Clinton is using up his
political capital and honeymoon period attacking the most
controversial issues like abortion policy and homosexuals
in the military.  I thought it was the economy, stupid!
Will Clinton have any friends left in Congress when he
finally has his economic plan in order?

-- 
|   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._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 03:16:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.222503.1633@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.182938.1062@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>
>>>>> 'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows 
>>>>> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
>
>>>> But what a titillating offer!
>
>>> Does the thought of injecting a deadly poison into the heart 
>>> of a late-term fetus sound 'titillating' to you? 
>
>> Learn the difference between a fatal dose of a theraputic drug and
>> a 'deadly poison' 
>
>The difference is that the phrase 'therapeutic drug' conveys the 
>false impression that the abortionist is doing the child a favor by 
>killing them, while a 'deadly poison' conveys the truth of the
>matter. 
>
Nonsense. An overdose of any drug is fatal. It does not make it a
poison. Your ignorance is showing again. As is your penchant towards
emotionalism when you lack factual arguments.

>And learn how to spell 'therapeutic'. 
>
Ill spel anyhow I pleze. So fuck off.

>> Show some evidence that these late term abortions (of which
>> perhaps 100 occur in any given year) 
>
>Incorrect.  There are several thousand abortions performed annually 
>after the 21st week of pregnancy (Source: CDC Surveilance on Abortion).
>
21 weeks is well before the period of viability. Try again DODie.

>> are done for any reasons other
>> than massive deformation and/or serious threats to the womans life.
>
>Many children are killed in the womb at a late-stage because 
>they're mentally retarded.  Here's one woman suggesting that
>she should have the right to have a mentally retarded child
>executed in her womb: 
>
Proof of 'many' please....
Further, note that she had the abortion before viability. Doesn't fit
the argument you were trying to make DODie.
Butwe're used to that.

>  "I'm suggesting we lift the veil of privacy and professionalism
>   to explore issues of heath care, abortion, and the right to
>   choose death, as well as life, for our genetically disabled
>   fetuses."
>
>   -- Rayna Rapp, in _The Choices We Made_, discussing her
>      abortion of a Down's syndrome child in the 21st week 
>      of pregnancy. 
> 
>---
>Doug Holtsinger
>'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
>DODie is incapable of contacting reality.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chris Lyman's failed reading comprehension (Was: Statistics)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:04:40 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.727993556@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
I wrote:
>>Did you or did you not create the following heading?:

>>Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
>>Distribution: world
>>References: <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <nyikos.719283669@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1c197pINN2ve@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>

>A bit later than your publicly naming me ignorant of attributions, as a 
>result of which thousands of lines of bandwidth have been wasted. 

Which is a little reminiscent of a toddler saying "Mommy, Jeffy *made* me
hit him!"

You made the mistake, bub. and thousands of lines of backpedalling won't
get you squat.  

> I told
>you, I am waiting for you to apologize for that.  If you do not, I will
>apologize after a fashion for linking your name with forgery, but you will
>like it a lot less than what I'd come up with if you do apologize.

Ahh.  So your honor, your integrity, and your character all hinge on what
Jeffy made you do, huh?  You want *me* to apologize to you because YOU
couldn't understand the attributions.

Yeah, right.

You, sir, aren't worth the paper that none of this is written on.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has 
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:44:53 GMT

In article <C1DzJx.FLt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
(Mike Cobb) writes:

[deletia]

>P.S. Anyone hear anything about a group of pro-life and pro-choice
>(tried to
>give them both the most positive names) people getting together to work
>for
>children's rights?  If so, please send info.  Thanks!

I've heard of a group called Common Cause, made of pro-life and
pro-choice advocates who focus what they have in common on
related issues (contraception, sex ed, and so forth). Sound like
it might be worth checking out?


-- 
David A. Tepper '94
datepper@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion