HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:49:54 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <1992Aug25.195513.12494@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>Ummm, perhaps because if they called themselves
>"pro-illegal-and-septic-abortion," people like Suzanne and Wes wouldn't
>be fooled?
>
Why is it that Suzanne and I are fooled?  Are you going to go off on
the argument that Suzanne really doesn't have a brain of her own and
accepts what other men are saying.  Am I fooled because I take a 
moderate position to abortion based upon logical beliefs.  Are you 
going to ask me if my opinion would be different if I were a woman
(BTW, my answer is no).  I have never said that it would be wonderful
to be pregnant while not wanting to be.  I have always stressed the   
importance of recognizing that with abortion we are killing other 
human beings.  The dilemma comes in when the development of the unborn
is pitted against a mother who has no desire to bring it to term.
The dilemma continues when the unborn attains fetushood.  It would 
seem evident that when we kill a fetus we are killing a human
child.  Its characteristics are inargueable (except when presenting 
the extreme).

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
From: dlester@cs.man.ac.uk (David Lester)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rocker, Tell that to My ProblemOlderWoman
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:15:43 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1992Sep2.130328.3186@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
|> ] dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> ] 
|> ] >Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
|> [...]
|> 
|> 3. Also would You PLEASE esplain to my problem older woman that
|> merely as she has not had 'sex' in a week is NO excuse for her
|> to Flaunt Herself at me in her Vain Efforts to Force an Orgasm on me.

Dear Mr Hampe,

I believe that Mr Rasmussen might have a point here. I distinctly remember
some posts of yours in which you claimed that the POW was - how shall we say -
quite demanding?

... And I always wondered about your campaign for the GodGivenRight to be
owned as a slave.

Are you sure that you know what you're doing?

---
David Lester, Manchester University, UK.

ps Which counter-interogation technique do you find works best against
   problem (3) above?
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Question for Larry Margolis
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:39:22 GMT

Why should anyone accept your pro-abortion sources, like the Alan
Guttmacher Institute and the National Abortion Federation, if
you're unwilling to accept unbiased sources from anyone who
disagrees with you?  

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34698 misc.legal:16871
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:50:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

According to Chuck, whose honesty I have no evidence to impugn, someone
named Jim Ault writes:

>>
>>Were you in Buffalo in April? 

Yes. Were you?

		 >>Which side was chanting and shouting
>>and blocking the doors?

Oh dear. Jim seems to think the clinic defenders were blocking the
doors. He also failed to notice the pro-life men shouting out Bible
verses, "baby killer," and "Hey, baby, I love you" to my rather
attractive friend. He also apparently missed the pseudo-aborted fetus
the Schencks were shoving in our faces.


 The pro-abortion side. 

Funny__ I didn't see ANY of those.

>> Which side was
>>peacefully walking up and down on the other side of the street?
>
(On the other side of the street because they were physically restrained
by the police, Jimmy.) And it looks like you also missed the black
student being sprayed in the eyes with Mace by those loving, peaceful,
prolifers. You must also have missed them calling her "nigger bitch" as
they attacked her.
>
>>Which side was closer to harassment?

     The answer is rather obvious.

>>Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><

                                                             MP



>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 27 Aug 1992 07:53:07 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug27.130803.17474@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>  Then I suppose there is little point in my discussing things with you, if
>you intend to argue with the rest of the world and not the person who's
>addressing you.

Ah, Jim discovers that talk.abortion isn't e-mail.  Finally.

Jim, I intend to argue what *I* think is important.  It's really a very
basic notion.  Just take your fingers off the keys for a moment and read
the sentence again.  "I intend to argue what *I* think is important."
OK., got it?  Good.

Adrienne Regard
From: dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NYTimes article on Robertson letter
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:15:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
: 
: > Mark Kaufman writes
: >>      I am continually amazed by the effortlessness with which those
: >> self-proclaimed Christians, such as Pat Robertson lie. 
: 
: >    I don't mean to flame Mr. Kaufman, but after 2000 years of habitual
: > dishonesty and hatred by the advocates of christainity, it is amazing
: > that those not in faith should have to keep making this discovery.
: 
: . . .
: >    I would also suggest that the dishonesty of people like Pat Robertson
: > or Jerry Falwall is not their worst trait.
: . . . Their worst trait
: > is how they use hate to achieve power and money.
: 

I'm convinced that you disagree with people like Robertson and Falwell, but
that's all.  I don't necessarily agree with *everything* they say either, but
I'm not convinced that they are liars.  Are they "liars" in that they do not
agree with you, or are they "liars" because there is something concrete to
show that they have told something that they know not to be true for some form
of selfish gain?  Are they "liars" because you hate them, or are they "liars"
because they truely lie?

Furthermore, is it true that they use hate to achieve power and money?  Or
is it that you do not like what they say when they say certain behavior is
wrong?  Are they promoting hate in your mind simply because you do not agree
with what they promote concerning behavioral standards, or are they promoting
hate in such a way that you can find a clear quote from them saying that
such-and-such type of people are to be hated and destroyed if possible?

I don't regard a moslem as hateful or as a liar if they tell me I'm going to
hell because I am not a good moslem.  I appreciate their concern and desire
to convert me to a way that they feel is better than mine.

My question to you is that in your criticism of those who fall into the class
of people called "intollerant", are you being honest yourself and tollerant
and unbiggoted?  By even classifying all of a certain class as such without
getting their word on it, are you not ascribing false images for the sake
of expediency rather than addressing the arguement as an honest person?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Plop, plop, fizz fizz...
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:42:23 GMT

In article <BtADpr.A24@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>/csus.edu>$/h:j			ChaHallney goes into the bit-bucket.
>/ncsu.edu>$/h:j			Holtsinger does the same, and all replies.
>/alt.politics.bush/h:j		About 200 articles of bickering, gone.

/wreck@msr17.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)/h:j  	Wreck Cage goes bye-bye.  
/humphrey@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)/h:j    	Bye-bye PatricKKK
/roby@brahma.udel.edu (Scott W. Roby)/h:j 	And the Scotty Dog 
						goes to the Dog House
						forever. 

...
The list goes on. 

>Amazing what 3 little lines can do for your life.

And the next three lines delete an asshole, a liar, another liar, and
a closet Klansman.  

>	Arrogant?  Of course I'm arrogant; the best usually are.

Then you must be dejected. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
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
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:19:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.210023.11560@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>You loose.  Just by not using your head.


MissBitch, of course, is an expert at not using her head.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion-adult/child sex link.
Summary: So much for higher education in South Carolina...
Organization: Just Patrick.  (Rice can speak for themselves.)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:53:09 GMT

In article <nyikos.714858926@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <BtJxEw.D6z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>
>>In article <seaQLiG00WBKM7rFZY@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
>>>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote
>>> >	Steve Chaney has been pursuing the subject of how the right to
>>> >privacy, explicitly written into the Florida State Constitution, gives
>>> >rise to both abortion and adult/child sex.  I have not had the time to
>>> >look over his contributions in detail, so I'm posting this in the hope
>>> >that he can see where it fits into the big picture.  
>>> >	It's from Mississippi rather than Florida, but note the "shipping
>>> >the movies across state lines" clause.  Query: how much of the case 
>>> >would be thrown out of a Florida court as being unconstitutional?
>>> > 
>>> >	This item, for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong, appeared
>>> >in the _Jackson Herald_, September 30, 1989.  It appears between the 
>>> >two rows of asterisks.
>>> 
>>> There followed an article about a gynocologist who was interested in
>>> kiddie porn followed by these statements
>
>Look at the original article before accepting Loomis's completely 
>misleading description of it.
>
>>> >QUOTE OF THE DAY:
>>>  
>>> >   	Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this?
>>> >				--Stephen A Chaney
>>> 
>
>>Here's my proposed response to the statutory rape problem. You can't
>>have an abortion until you can get pregnant (duh!),
>
>Alas, this is incorrect.  I can give you the name of at least one
>woman who "had an abortion" when not pregnant, and reports of lots more.

Now I *have* seen everything.  You can give us the name of a woman who "had
an abortion" -- and you put that phrase in quotes to indicate that it wasn't
actually an abortion she had -- but then you can seriously argue she *had*
an abortion even though she wasn't pregnant?  All I can say is, if you
really believe what you just said, you're one terminally clueless puppy.
(Apparently Jenni overestimated the abilities of who she was responding
to...)

-- 
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. 
                  COUGARS     TIGERS     RAVENS     HUSKIES
  OILERS     OWLS             *Any questions?*              ROCKETS     ASTROS
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: THE JEWISH VIEW
Date: 2 Sep 1992 04:44:45 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   Although this has been explained before, clarification appears
to be necessary.
   Judaism does NOT recognize the fetus as a person, until birth.
Prior to this point, the woman's welfare takes precedent over the
welfare of the fetus.  Under Jewish law, there is no limit to the
means allowed to preserve the life of the mother.  This is not to
suggest that the fetus has no status until birth.  But if the law
of the land is to regulate abortion, it cannot be be done fairly,
if it is even slightly based on some notion of personhood for the
fetus.  For this notion is entirely religious in nature.  In this
country, many religions differ widely on this concept.  Therefore
any abortion law that evokes the "personhood" of the fetus is, by
logical extention, likely to to step on freedom of religion.  Or,
to be more precise, such a law would clearly constitute a sort of
establishment of a state religion, because one religion's beliefs
would be imposed on everyone, by the force of law.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 04:46:38 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug31.220002.17193@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.210212.5803@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> > If they said that there were only X number of doctors who specialized
> > in heart transplants, I wouldn't assume that there were a number of
> > additional doctors who specialized in, say, podiatry, but performed an
> > occasional heart transplant on the side.
>
> What does this have to do with the subject?

They said that there were only three doctors who specialize in third-
trimester abortions.  You assumed that there were others who performed
them as well.  I gave an example to show that this assumption does not
necessarily follow.

> >> > I note that you deleted the following, as you have every time you've
> >> > been challenged.
> >>
> >> I'm just trying to delete extraneous material.
> >>
> >> >  If you can list more doctors that perform third tri abortions,
> >> >  or you can document for me cases of women getting third-
> >> >  trimester abortions for "frivolous" reasons, I would of course
> >> >  change my tune.  Unlike some, I don't knowingly pass on lies.

(Well, you've stopped deleting it, but you still haven't responded.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34761 misc.legal:16874
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:01:24 CST
 <1992Aug30.153208.20600@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca> <1992Sep1.135044.13882@eff.org>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep1.135044.13882@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

[thanks for the clarification]
 
> As you can see, this law doesn't create a defense for you if you decide
> to shoot someone who's walking away from your house and "might" have
> taken something. Use of force has its legal limits, and use of deadly force
> has very strict limitations.

Sure this looks all very well, butcha better watch out because I know
people who think it's legal to kill a man for a burglary he might
have committed!  Better not mess with them Texans!
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Not just for doctors anymore... (was: Re: STOP THE TERRORISTS!!!)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:04:49 GMT

In article <BtH9tr.F1r@chinet.chi.il.us> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>
>It's disgusting. My fear is that these terrorist tactics will be taken
>up by other groups as they see how successful they are for the PFZs.
>
>An example that might piss some people off is animal-rights activists.
>I like animals too, and I do support animal rights. But I am pro-animal
>research, as long as humane procedures are observed and that they aren't
>used for stupid things such as makeup. I've *known* some animal rights
>activists that are as scary as these PFZs. I fear that someday I'll open
>the paper and read that a radical offshoot of PETA are harassing and
>terrorizing researchers/doctors/workers at their homes, after having 
>gotten a clue from the abortion terrorists. Maybe that's not fair, but
>I have talked to animal rights activists who believe that *any* animal
>is *always* more important than human beings no matter *what* the 
>circumstances. As much as I love animals, that attitude is as sick as
>the attitude of people who mis-treat animals.

Yeah, but as you know, animal rights activists never get the same
level of punitive action leveled against them, as Operation Rescue. 

Let it be pointed out that you are safer and more popular among the
People AND the Media, if you destroy animal research facilities, or
block their doors, than if you blocked an abortion clinic. 

Care to try and change that, Chris or Vickie? 

I'd like to see you try. You'll be stomped underfoot by animal loving
pro-aborts, the media, the cops, the courts, the lawmakers, the
feminists, the liberals, the Democrats... 

Does the word Pancake mean anything, boys and girls?  

=============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
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.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice and post-viability abortions?
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:49:11 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Feh. I've never been much enamored with assigning
-> "status" to human beings.  
[...]

sure you do. in fact, you do it in this very post.

[...]
-> However, the fact that the pregnancy has been
-> acquiesced-to all the way to the third trimester
-> does certainly take the wind out of the obligatory
-> "it's cold, cruel, inhuman, [etc.]" whines of the
-> pro-choice extremists. 

see? you do it right here when you assign the status
"extreme" to those who believe in and support a woman's
right to terminate a pregnancy.

-> Two-trimesters is a fairly long time to make a
-> choice, even such a major one as this. 

are you willing to make that decision for all women?


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:31:18 GMT
   a.edu> <23872@oasys.dt.navy.mil><1992Aug21.121610.2140@brandonu.ca> <92238.224407ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.121610.2140@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca says:
>>
>>In article <23872@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Ron Bense writes:
>>> In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <92225.110850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:

>>>>>Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage.
>>>
>>>>So does every vaccination.  The question is, do the benefits
>>>>outweigh the damages?

>Missed this.  It is not for you to decide.  Parents
>have the right not to vaccinate their children.

Try to get them into public school or college.  In Illinois, ALL college
students under 35 are required to get vaccinations (or prove immunity), and 
there are no exceptions written into the law. 

I have been enrolled part-time at a local private college.  I happened to
have received my first measles vaccine dose before age 1 back in 1963.
Since there is a reasonable chance that this didn't take, based on age and
the type of vaccine, I was required to prove immunity or take the vaccine.
After consulting my best friend, who's an attorney, about the only exception 
he could see would be a Christian Scientist (or similar believers) suing on 
religious freedom grounds.  Noone else could possibly be exempt.  Fortunately, 
I was show to be immune.

The state makes no exceptions for people who do not want to risk the
vaccine.
 
 -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