HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:52:00 GMT

<adams.712206449@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><adams.710692270@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>>Not at all...God created everything...whether or not it's literally as
>>>Genesis says, or simply over the course of time is immaterial to the
>>>concept...
>
>>If your god is 'uncreated' meaning he wasn't created, then that means the
>>your god didn't create himself.  Therefore he didn't create everything.
>>Now if you are claiming that he did create himself then what was he before
>>he created himself.
>
>God has created all that has been created.  He has always been, always will
>be...He is an uncreated, eternal being.

Ah, the age old question...  What was he the day before he became an 
uncreated eternal being?


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: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Keywords: Caesarian, C-section, hysterotomy
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:44:07 GMT

In <1992Jul20.194420.2196@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Jul20.162809.17212@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <1992Jul20.075157.29185@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
>>>	CORRECTION: As one leading pro-choice feminist told the leader
>>>of Libertarians for Life (also a woman and also a feminist):"You don't
>>>understand.  The whole point of abortion is to have a dead fetus."

>>However, it also seems plausible to me that a woman should have the right
>>not to become a parent if she doesn't want to (even if she were "only" to
>>give the child up for adoption after its birth).  I can see where this would
>>weigh heavily on someone's mind.  Thus, in some circumstances for some
>>women, abortion after the point of viability would seem a necessary action.

[...]

>Well, first of all, I want to point out that Mr. Rawdon doesn't agree
>with the argument in the paragraph I quoted. He argued against it in 
>the surrounding paragraphs, which I've deleted to save space. My
>only complaint is with his use of the words "seems plausible".

It actually would have been more accurate for me to have said, "seems
plausible at first glance".  I had thought that this would have been
obvious since I did, after all, go on to argue against the validity of the
position of terminating a viable fetus.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

The difference between the radical right and the radical left is that the
radical right is scary and the radical left is silly.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Mary Joe & Saddam (!)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:09:28 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Steve Adams):
>>> Earlier Forgach stupidity:

>>>You see, ck, every child has a purpose in the world, if you care to
>>>look close enough.

What a christian moonie.  Do you ever have an original thought, Forgach?

>> Including those who starve to death in Africa???  What purpose could they
>> possibly serve??

>Teaching _you_ a little compassion.

At the expense of the children's horrible lives?  Adams' compassion is
obvious.  Yours is invisible.  Possibly, like many words you use, you don't
know what it means?

Thanks for being pro-"life", Psycho Woman.  You're one of our best weapons.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.065305.119202@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>>>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>>> Please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
>>>>>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

>>>>> 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.

>>>> It is never necessary to kill a late term fetus during a purely
>>>> elective abortion in order to remove it from its mother. Try again.

>>> Why should I?  I answered your question.  

>> OK, then define "necessary". When is it "necessary" to kill a 
>> late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman? Would it
>> be "necessary" if the woman does not want to endure labor?   

> You asked for "a rational justification for killing a late-term 
> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant."
> I provided one - removing it from its genetic mother.

Yes, and you said it was "sometimes necessary" to kill a late term
fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman. When is it "necessary" 
to kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman?

Is killing the fetus necessary if the mother does not want to 
endure labor? That's a simple question to answer. Why can't you
answer it? (My answer is "no", what's yours?)

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: THE RELATIVE RISKS.
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 01:24:44 GMT


   The subject of the risks of childbirth as opposed to the risks
of abortion has been raised.  In America, a woman is twenty times
more likely to die in childbirth than in an abortn.  Childbirth
is, while a part of nature, always going to put a woman's life at
risk.  Men having children are never at risk.  For this reason, a
person opposed to abortion may attempt to persuade, but he or she
must NEVER compel.  In the amount of time that it has taken me to
type this post, it is probable that some woman in America died in
childbirth If the risks of childbirth are to play a role in the
sloution to this question, we must stand for choice.  It is not a
proper role for men, or government, to force women to give birt
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 05:36:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na


Casey can't run for governor in PA again.  They only get two terms
here.

One of the more bizarre things that Casey did was to suggest
Lee Ioccoca to take the seat of the deceased senator John
Heinz.  Mr. Iococca (there, I've tried two spellings) doesn't
really live in Pennsylvania, but Bob wanted him anyway.

Susan,
who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would support
his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice=Pro-Life
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:36:23 GMT


   You're full of shit.  A lame attempt to twist choice into some
sort of 'right to choose to kill a child.'  Who are you trying to
kid?  Is any of your post a lie?  Is ALL of it a lie?  Is it okay
in your religion to fabricate and express a position on something
when you don't believe it yourself?  Don't you fear the flames of
Eternal Damnation?  We are talking about a Commandment, you know.

Be careful.  You don't know what you're risking!
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Guttmacher - The Preferred Choice
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:43:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Originator: rpitts@emperor

Has anyone else heard the statistic that AG informations
points to the fact that 90% of those who have had
an abortion would have picked another option, if 'a good
alternative' was available or something like that?

Sounds like the great desire for The Choice (The Right) does 
not mean that the ones who are making the choice think that
abortion is the The Preferred Choice.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:30:54 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul30.165937.13974@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Answer this one, folks: 
> 
> Name one instance, even one, in which we can legally kill someone and
> then cut them up for body parts. 
> 
> Or better yet, name one instance in which we can kill somoene for the
> express purpose of cutting them up for body parts. 
> 
> I say that it shouldn't be done to anyone who doesn't have a donor
> card that they voluntarily signed. That way, no one can be told,
> "Well, you have to die because someone wants your body parts," and
> then killed. 
> 
> Simple, isn't it? 

What on earth are you blathering about here, Dennis?  What possible
relevance does this little outburst have to anything at all?

Whatever you've been taking, you need to cut the dosage back a tad.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:25:58 GMT

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
>>># = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:

>>>#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>>>#abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
[...]
>>>#Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.

>>>Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
>>>
>>>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.

>>Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
>>Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).

>Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
>gave it to you guys on the chin. 

Sure, "Dennis".  

>That and now, Susan Garvin has herself called Planned Parenthood a
>bold-faced liar. 

That's funny - she called you a bald-faced liar.  Maybe you're confused
again?

>That's a punch that ought to kill her, much less score a KO. 

VIOLENT today, aren't we Propellor Pud?

>>Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
>>of your ass like Holtsinger does?

>Well, we would first have to learn the skill from you and Garvin, undoubtedly
>masters at the art. The art of blowing smoke out of your ass...  

What a WITTY comeback.  <*snort*>

You still haven't mentioned Sanger.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
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: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:17:32 GMT

<adams.710692270@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.710256326@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
>>> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>>> >Perhaps so.  But now, who created God??
>>> 
>>> God is uncreated.  God just is.  Always was, is, and always will be....
>
>>... which implies that there are things God has not created. And
>>that it is futile to use the concept of creation as a mark for 
>>a possible creator. Sorry, a lot of the Christian building blocks 
>>are falling down :-).
>
>Not at all...God created everything...whether or not it's literally as
>Genesis says, or simply over the course of time is immaterial to the
>concept...

I hate to think this has to be pointed out, but...

If your god is 'uncreated' meaning he wasn't created, then that means the
your god didn't create himself.  Therefore he didn't create everything.
Now if you are claiming that he did create himself then what was he before
he created himself.

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: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:25:50 GMT

In <1992Jul23.172539.13189@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
   (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes: >

>   Suzanne Forgach, along with several other forced-birth freaks,
>insist on refering to a fetus as a person, as if their continuous
>mislabling will change what isn't into their vision of existence.
>Constantly calling a fetus a baby will not make it a baby.  There
>is only one way to make that fetus a baby.  And that is to wait a
>required period of time for that fetus to BECOME a baby.  I can't
>understand why they still believe that this word shifting somehow
>will change the fetus into a person.  
>   Furthermore, this obsession with the period of time between an
>egg being fertilized and birth is just a bit sick.  
>
> The disregard these creeps show for a REAL child(one that is BORN!) 
> is the most sickening aspect of their whole phony pro-life trip!  
> If they put some of their energy into taking care of those children 
> that have no homes, that are born with horrendous birth defects,  
> that live with abusive families, and any number of other terrible 
> fates, we might believe the pro-life posture.  

With the exception of working with physically handicapped kids (I
have in the past) I'm involved in the rest of your prerequisites.
Does that help you "believe"?

[trees and cakes deleted]

>   Why don't you fanatics get real, and understand that there are
> children in this world that are ALIVE!  They have been born!  And
> they need our help.  Can you imagine what these children probably
> feel when they see you anti-abortion freaks obsessing the way you
> all do, while disregarding their plights?  They most likley think
> that you are crazy, or at least indifferent to REAL children!  

In my experience, Mark, abortion scares and repulses children, as 
most don't seem too comfortable with the idea that it's ok to destroy
the contents of Mom's "tummy" if Mom wants to.

> If you are REALLY pro-life, then get off this anti-abortion nonsense
> and do something for the children that are HERE NOW!  They need a
> hand NOW!  

Indeed they do.  I hope you're helping, also.

> Why don't you stop pretending you are pro-life?  It is a sham!

I'm curious, how old are you?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina)
Subject: Re: Allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest.
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:53:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234908.24681@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com  
(James G Keegan Jr) writes:
> as i said, rape has nothing to do with abortion, nor does abortion
> have anything to do with rape, unless, of course, you're one of
> that minority who wants to dictate what women can do with the
> contents of their bodies.
> 
> -- 
> ----
> charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

Keegan, have you ever bothered to read the name of this thread? It's  
Allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest. That sounds like rape  
should be involved in the discussion. As you so kindly pointed out to me,  
I have no power to constrain what you talk about, but any discussion  
becomes pretty meaningless when one party won't stay on the subject.
---
Vincent
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:20:03 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul23.050807.9619@watson.ibm.com> Larry writes:

> In  <1992Jul20.180232.18740@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >
> > Unfortunately, I didn't think to look up deaths due to illegal drug use.
> 
> References:  U.S. Surgeon General's Actuarial info, 1990
> 
>    Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000          [legal]
>    Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000          [legal]
>    Prescribed drugs  . . . . . . .  18,675          [legal]
>    Caffeine  . . . . . . . . . . .   5,800          [legal]
>    Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,390          [illegal]
>    Heroin  . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,147          [illegal]
>    Aspirin . . . . . . . . . . . .     986          [legal]
>    Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . .       0          [illegal]
> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

  Thanks.  A little math on the illegal substances brings that death rate
to about 1.1 per 100,000 population, assuming somwehat less than 250 million
population for the US.  It's only approximate, but I don't have a calculator
handy.  Since not all 200+ million people in the US use illegal drugs, I reckon
it's safe to assume that the rate for users in considerably higher.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:05:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Jul20.185900.13472@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>   Even with a vivid imagination, the pro-abortion movement will
>lose this battle.  The reason is that they are fighting something
>that ultimately cannot win in the land of life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness.  

   Even with a vivid imagination, the anti-choice movement will
lose this battle.  The reason is that they are fighting something
that ultimately cannot win in the land of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.  

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:14:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.234355.18353@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <2216@unet.UUCP> jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.120150.17424@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>-> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
>>>-> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
>>>-> abortion
>>>
>>>wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
>>
>>Quayle said he would not support her having an abortion as 
>>a minor, but would leave the decision to her as an adult.
>
>Dan Quayle can really do damage to pro-lifers when he doesn't want to, 
>can't he?  

He can, but you're so much better at it...

>I wish we had _anyone_ but Quayle for a Vice President. The man is
>phenomenally blunder-prone. 

Translation:  he said something that disagrees with your lie.  Gee, I wonder
what happens if Bush does a flip-flop as well -- after all, he'll do
*anything* to get elected.  (Kinda like a certain Airplane Boy we know who'd
do anything to push his little cause on the rest of us, eh?)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
 +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. (The other number's in the works.)
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
            (They'll pull a Chaney and lie about it, of course.)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:06:39 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Doug Holtsinger):

>>   "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do so."
>> 
>>    -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

>You noticed that too, did you.  

No, Holtsinger thought it had to do with abortion.  He "noticed" out
of context.

>I guess whatever's _convenient_ to his campaign.

Yeah, boy - that Education president and that Environmental president and
that "No new taxes" president (all, of course, Bush) sure never do anything
"convenient" for a campaign, do they?

>My mom saw the incident on the news, of the pro-lifers who approached
>Bill Clinton in New York to show him the body of the dead fetus.  She 
>said that such a dark cloud suddenly passed over his face, that she was
>immediately struck with the question of how many abortions Jennifer
>Flowers has had.

You know, your mom must need medication.  She was full of crap about
"loving" messages actually sent to that pregnant woman depicted by Sissy
Spacek, and she's hallucinating about this one, too.

I saw it too, and there's a fine picture in the latest TIME: Clinton looks
bemused, staring calmly at the idiot trying to hand him a fetus.

Where does your mom get this stuff?  Sure explains your same ability to be
so out of touch with reality, and to lie pathologically:  Mom taught you well.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: litow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (bruce e litow)
Subject: What an idiot ! (was what is homophobia,...)
Originator: litow@proclus.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
 gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:18:41 GMT


> If the condom passes the electricity test (insulation) then
> electrons (which are smaller than viruses) cannot pass through it.

> Logic isn't one of your better subjects is it ?


Utter nonsense, crumpled paper is an excellent electrical insulator,
but it is also highly POROUS. Misinformation of the above type is
dangerous. Condoms offer some protection, but a risk of transmission
still exists when they are used.

Bruce Litow
Computing Services Division
P.O. Box 413
Univ. Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, 53201
litow@proclus.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion